alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DOE F 9325.8 (6
-89) EFG (07-90) 

## United States Government 

# memorandum

DATE : August 29 

### , 1995

REPLY TO ATTN OF : Terry 

### Logee

S UBJEC T : 

### Meeting on Measurement Uncertainty at NIST

TO: Interim Final Lamp Docket 

## Department of Energy

There was a meeting at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on August 28, 1995 to discuss measurement uncertainty. The following persons attended: Ron Daubach - OSI Sylvania Al Rousseau - Philips Ed Yandek - GE Lighting 

### Ron Runckles - National Electrical Manufacturers Association Yoshi hi ro Ohno - NIST Steve Treado - NIST Terry Logee - DOE Steve Treado led the discussion and said that NIST acknowledges that there are uncertainties in lamp measurements of lumens, watts and color rendering index. However, NIST and DOE need some data from the manufacturers to verify their claims for 95% confidence limits and 0.95 derating factor. The manufacturers agreed to provide this data to DOE/NIST via the NEMA statistics section. There may be data for incandescent and fluorescent lamps if these two lamp types have di fferent uncertainties. Note that in the NEMA comments, there was only one confidence limit and derating factor for all lamps. Lamp manufacturers had also requested a derating factor of .98 for the sample mean due to the measurement uncertainty associated with transferring the standard lumen value from primary NIST standard lamps to working standard lamps. Yoshi Ohno agreed that the measurement uncertainty associated with working standards was indeed 2% but it woul d be randomly distributed, i . e. +/- 2%. The l amp manufacturers decl ared that the derati ng factor was al so needed to compensate for the 1 ab to 1 ab uncertainty of about 4% noted from the NVLAP proficiency tests. This entire issue was dropped because i t was too late i n the rul emaki ng process to verify the magnitude of the factor and to adequately defend it in the rule.
#### Toliver *v.*The State.

Submitted October 17,

Decided November 8, 1906.

Accusation of larceny from the house. Before Judge Smith. .City.court of Yaldosta. August 31, 1906.

*S. M. Varnedoe,*for plaintiff in error.

*James M. Johnson, solicitor,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

Larceny from the house of goods exceeding $50 in value is a felony, and the offense is not within the jurisdiction of a city court. The only evidence1 on the subject of value showing affirmatively that the watch, the subject of the alleged larceny from the house, was of the value of $65, the city court of Yaldosta was without jurisdiction, and the judgment of the court finding the defendant guilty should have been set aside.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 2555.210 Military and merchant marine educational institutions.

These Title IX regulations do not apply to an educational institution whose primary purpose is the training of individuals for a military service of the United States or for the merchant marine.
#### § 2516.810 What types of evaluations are grantees and subgrantees required to perform?

All grantees and subgrantees are required to perform internal evaluations which are ongoing efforts to assess performance and improve quality. Grantees and subgrantees may, but are not required to, arrange for independent evaluations which are assessments of program effectiveness by individuals who are not directly involved in the administration of the program. The cost of independent evaluations is allowable.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*John W. Clark, *Respondent, v.*The Board of Police Commissioners of the City of New York, *Appellant*.

Order reversed and motion denied, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
§ 1643.3 Prohibition. No recipient may use LSC funds to assist in, support, or fund any activity or service which has a purpose of assisting in, or to bring suit or provide any other form of legal assistance for the purpose of: ( a ) Securing or funding any item, benefit, program, or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual;
( b ) Compelling any person, institution, or governmental entity to provide or fund any item, benefit, program, or service for such purpose; or
( c ) Asserting or advocating a legal right to cause, or to assist in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual.
#### § 30.25 Further review of compromise offers.

If the Secretary is uncertain whether to accept a firm, written, substantive compromise offer on a debt that is within the Secretary's delegated compromise authority, the Secretary may refer the offer to the Civil Division or other appropriate litigating division in Justice, using a CCLR accompanied by supporting data and particulars concerning the debt. Justice may act upon such an offer or return it to the Secretary with instructions or advice.
§ 263.6 What kinds of expenditures do not count? The following kinds of expenditures do not count: ( a ) Expenditures of funds that originated with the Federal government;
( b ) State expenditures under the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Act;
( c ) Expenditures that a State makes as a condition of receiving Federal funds under another program that is not in Part IV-A of the Act, except as provided in § 263.3;
( d ) Expenditures that a State made in a prior fiscal year;
( e ) Expenditures that a State uses to match Federal Welfare-to-Work funds provided under section 403(a)(5) of the Act; and
( f ) Expenditures that a State makes in the TANF program to replace the reductions in the SFAG as a result of penalties, pursuant to § 264.50 of this chapter.
[71 FR 37481, June 29, 2006]
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-2467

Lower Tribunal No. CF16-000672-XX

_____________________________

LOUIS WILLOUGHBY,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

Sharon M. Franklin, Judge.

August 27, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and NARDELLA and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Louis Willoughby, Madison, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
#### Skinner *v.*Braswell.

Argued June 7,

Decided November 14, 1906.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Bawlings. Emanuel superior court. October 17, 1905.

The suit was fox the recovery of land conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant, and for the cancellation of the conveyance; the plaintiff alleging, that the conveyance was made at the demand of her husband and against her will, for the purpose of obtaining money to pay his debts; that the purchase-money thus obtained was used for that purpose (except one dollar, which was tendered back to the defendant); and that the defendant knew these facts. There was evidence that an agreement for the sale of the land in question (which was then the property of the plaintiff) was made between her husband and the defendant; that she was unwilling to sell, but her husband’s persuasion caused her to carry out the agreement and sign the conveyance to the defendant; that the purpose of the sale was to obtain money to pay the husband’s debts, and. the money was used as alleged; and that at the time of the transaction the defendant knew of this purpose. There was no evidence that the defendant knew of the plaintiff’s unwillingness to sell; on the contrary, there was evidence that the defendant was ignorant of that fact. The defendant was not a creditor of the husband. The court directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted.

Beck, J.

1. Where a husband, as agent, bargained for the sale of the property of his wife and she executed a deed thereto, a purchaser for value took a good title, although the money so obtained was used to pay the debts of the husband, provided the purchaser was not a creditor to be thus paid, and was not a party to any scheme or arrangement whereby the money paid for said property was to be used in any particular way. And the fact that the wife in signing the deed acted under the duress of the husband will not vitiate the contract, where it does not appear that the purchaser had any notice, or reason to apprehend, that the husband had coerced the wife into signing said deed. *Hughie*v. *Hammett,*105 *Ga.*368; *Rood*v. *Wright,*124 *Ga.*849.

2. “The mere fact that there are conflicts in the testimony does not render the direction of a verdict in favor of a party erroneous, when it appears that the conflicts are immaterial, and that, giving to the opposite party the benefit of the most favorable view of the evidence as a whole and of all legitimate inferences therefrom, the verdict against him is demanded.” *Sanders Mfg. Co.*v. *Dollar Savings Bank,*110 *Ga.*559.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*762*Herrington &*Mitchell, for plaintiff,

cited: *Ga. R. 85/200; 90/190;*100/503; 103/745; 83/441(2); Civil Code, § 5331.

*Saffold & Larsen,*for defendant,

cited: *Ga. R.*85/200; 92/327; 103/745; 111/889; 122/670; 58/276; 105/370(3); 77/606.
# EUR-Lex - 12005SA040 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12005SA040

**Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded - PART FOUR:TEMPORARY PROVISIONS - TITLE IV:OTHER PROVISIONS - Article 40 **

*
Official Journal L 157 , 21/06/2005 P. 0217 - 0217 *

Article 40

In order not to hamper the proper functioning of the internal market, the enforcement of Bulgaria's and Romania's national rules during the transitional periods referred to in Annexes VI and VII shall not lead to border controls between Member States.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 1637.1 Purpose.

This part is intended to ensure that recipients do not participate in any civil litigation on behalf of persons incarcerated in Federal, State or local prisons.
#### § 2540.640 When will the reviewing official make a decision on the proposed action?

The reviewing official will issue a decision within 45 days of receipt of your response.
# Euroopa Liidu L 73/2011

| | ISSN 1725-5082
  doi:10.3000/17255082.L_2011.073.est |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | L 73 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Õigusaktid | 54. köide18. märts 2011 |

ISSN 1725-5082

doi:10.3000/17255082.L_2011.073.est

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

L 73

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Õigusaktid

54. köide18. märts 2011

---

| Sisukord | | II   Muud kui seadusandlikud aktid | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | RAHVUSVAHELISED LEPINGUD |
| | * | Teave Euroopa Liidu ja Saalomoni Saarte vahelise kalandusalase partnerluslepingu jõustumise kuupäeva kohta | 1 |

Sisukord

II   Muud kui seadusandlikud aktid

Lehekülg

RAHVUSVAHELISED LEPINGUD

*

Teave Euroopa Liidu ja Saalomoni Saarte vahelise kalandusalase partnerluslepingu jõustumise kuupäeva kohta

1

| ET | Aktid, mille peakiri on trükitud harilikus trükikirjas, käsitlevad põllumajandusküsimuste igapäevast korraldust ning nende kehtivusaeg on üldjuhul piiratud.
  Kõigi ülejäänud aktide pealkirjad on trükitud poolpaksus kirjas ja nende ette on märgitud tärn. |
| --- | --- |

ET

Aktid, mille peakiri on trükitud harilikus trükikirjas, käsitlevad põllumajandusküsimuste igapäevast korraldust ning nende kehtivusaeg on üldjuhul piiratud.

Kõigi ülejäänud aktide pealkirjad on trükitud poolpaksus kirjas ja nende ette on märgitud tärn.

---

II Muud kui seadusandlikud aktid

RAHVUSVAHELISED LEPINGUD

| 18.3.2011 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | L 73/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

L 73/1

---

Teave Euroopa Liidu ja Saalomoni Saarte vahelise kalandusalase partnerluslepingu jõustumise kuupäeva kohta

Euroopa Liit tegi 7. detsembril 2010 Saalomoni Saartele teatavaks, et nõukogu on Euroopa Liidu nimel lõpule viinud eespool nimetatud ja Brüsselis 21. oktoobril 2010 allkirjastatud lepingu jõustumiseks vajalikud menetlused.

Saalomoni Saared tegi 9. märtsil 2011 Euroopa Liidule teatavaks lepingu sõlmimiseks vajalike menetluste lõpuleviimise.

Vastavalt lepingu artiklile 18 jõustus leping seega 9. märtsil 2011.

---
§ 1630.20 Closeout costs. ( a ) The recipient must submit to LSC a detailed budget and timeline for all closeout procedures described in the closeout plan. LSC must approve the budget, either as presented or after negotiations with the recipient, before the recipient may proceed with implementing the budget, timeline, and plan.
( b ) LSC will withhold funds for all closeout expenditures, including costs for the closing audit, all staff and consultant services needed to perform closeout activities, and file storage and retention.
( c ) LSC will release any funding installments that the recipient has not received as of the date it notified LSC of a merger, change in status, or voluntary termination or that LSC notified the recipient of an involuntary termination of funding only upon the recipient's satisfactory completion of all closeout obligations.
§ 2554.44 What happens if an initial decision is appealed? ( a ) An initial decision is stayed automatically pending disposition of a motion for reconsideration or of an appeal to the authority head.
( b ) No administrative stay is available following a final decision of the authority head.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Chao Ming Zhao, the Chief Executive Officer of
CHINA BIOLOGIC PRODUCTS, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement
this 31st day of March, 2011.

| | /s/
      Chao Ming Zhao     
| | -----------------------------
| | Chao Ming Zhao               
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to China Biologic Products, Inc. and will be retained by
China Biologic Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 19 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-176216) and Amendment No. 405 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08441), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2020, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company
      of New York and (b) April 15, 2020, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    June 5, 2020
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7216

LARRY LEE THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BARBARA K. HOWE, individually and in her official capacity as Circuit Court Administrative

Judge; EDWARD DEWATERS, individually and in

his official capacity as Chief Circuit Court

Judge; SUZANNE MENSH, individually and in her

official capacity as Chief Clerk; ALAN M. WILNER, individually and in his official capacity

as Chief Judge,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96-1821-

MJG)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Lee Thompson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Maryland state inmate, appeals the district

court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison

Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Thompson v. Howe,

No. CA-96-1821-MJG (D. Md. July 9, 1996). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 2554.30 Are protective orders available? ( a ) A party or a prospective witness or deponent may file a motion for a protective order with respect to discovery sought by an opposing party or with respect to the hearing, seeking to limit the availability or disclosure of evidence.
( b ) In issuing a protective order, the ALJ may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: ( 1 ) That the discovery not be had;
( 2 ) That the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
( 3 ) That the discovery may be had only through a method of discovery other than that requested;
( 4 ) That certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters;
( 5 ) That discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the ALJ;
( 6 ) That the contents of discovery or evidence be sealed;
( 7 ) That a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the ALJ;
( 8 ) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, commercial information, or facts pertaining to any criminal investigation, proceeding, or other administrative investigation not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; or
( 9 ) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the ALJ.
#### Blanchard *et al.*v. New Jersey Steamboat Company, appellant.

*Bmdenee—statement of fact—custom—expert testimony.*

In an action for damages for negligence in defendants’ steamboat running into plaintiff’s tugboat, a witness who was being examined as to the depth of water on each side of the -Vessels at the place of collision, was asked: "Could she (the steamboat) have passed east of the Telegraph (the tugboat) safely.” *Held,*admissible as a statement of fact, the witness having given distances in his previous answers.

A witness had testified that towing vessels did not all carry the same signal lights, and was asked: “ What differences are there ? ” The point being considered was whether the tug carried sufiflcient lights. *Held,*that the difference in lights carried by vessels was immaterial.

Evidence of a custom of pilots as to which side of the channel they took at flood tide *held*not objectionable.

A witness testified that he had been in the wrecking business twenty-two years, had raised vessels, and had endeavored to raise others where he found it impracticable, and had superintended a diver who examined the sunken tug and heard his testimony as to the condition of the tug, and had made soundings. *Held,*that questions to witness as to whether the tug could be raised as a whole, and its value when raised in comparison with the cost, were proper. *Filer*v. *H. 7. C. R. R. Co.,*49 N. Y. 43.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought by John L. Blanchard *772and Charles W. Farnham for negligence, whereby the defendants’ steamboat *Drew*ran into and sank plaintiffs’ steam tug *Telegraph,*upon the Hudson river, about thirty-five miles below Albany.

*Henry Smith,*for appellant.

*Esek Cowen,*for respondents.

Opinions by Bockes and Boardman, JJ.

The opinions are chiefly devoted to the consideration of the facts. The only points of law passed upon are fully noticed in the headnote.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 3.41 Admission to facilities or grounds.

The enclave is officially open to the public during normal working and visiting hours and for approved public events. The enclave is closed to the public at all other times, and the Director may also officially close all or part of the enclave, or any building, in emergency situations and at other times the Director deems necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Government business. When all or part of the enclave is closed to the public, admission is restricted to employees and other authorized persons who may be required to display Government credentials or other identification when requested by a police officer and may be required to sign a register. The living quarters and adjacent areas are not open to the public but are open at all times to occupants and their visitors and business invitees, unless otherwise closed by the Director.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF NANCY ERICKSON, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

By Michelle Haynes, Executive Clerk

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

FIRST SESSION {

SECOND SESSION {

Issue No. 12

CONVENED JANUARY 4, 2007

RESOLUTIONS

CALENDAR 

NO.

S. RES. 

NO.

SUBJECT REPORTED 

BY

1

 
TREATIES

CALENDAR 

NO.

TREATY

DOC. NO.

SUBJECT REPORTED 

BY

2

 
* Signifies nominee’s commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate 

NOMINATIONS

CALENDAR 

NO.

MESSAGE

NO.

NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR REPORTED 

BY

3

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

* 14 104 Carl Joseph Artman, of Colorado, to be an 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior, vice David 

Wayne Anderson. 

Feb 01, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Dorgan, Committee on Indian 

Affairs, without printed report. 

THE JUDICIARY 

24 183 Norman Randy Smith, of Idaho, to be United 

States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice 

Thomas G. Nelson, retired. 

Feb 08, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 

25 15 Nora Barry Fischer , of Pennsylvania, to be 

United States District Judge for the Western 

District of Pennsylvania, vice Robert J. 

Cindrich, resigned. 

Feb 08, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 

26 18 Marcia Morales Howard, of Florida, to be United 

States District Judge for the Middle District of 

Florida, vice Harvey E. Schlesinger, retired. 

Feb 08, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 

27 19 John Alfred Jarvey, of Iowa, to be United States 

District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, 

vice Ronald E. Longstaff, retired. 

Feb 08, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 

28 21 Sara Elizabeth Lioi, of Ohio, to be United States 

District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, 

vice Lesley Brooks Wells, retired. 

Feb 08, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 
NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY’S DESK

4