alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

NIOSH gives notice of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the Superior Steel Company in Carnegie, Pennsylvania, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to                         *DCAS@CDC.GOV.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority:42 CFR 83.9-83.12.

Pursuant to 42 CFR 83.12, the initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

*Facility:*                     Superior Steel Company.                

*Location:*                     Carnegie, Pennsylvania.                

*Job Titles and/or Job Duties:*                     All workers who worked at all locations at the Superior Steel Co. in Carnegie, PA from January 1, 1952 through December 31, 1957.                

*Period of Employment:*                     January 1, 1952 through December 31, 1957.                

John J. Howard,

Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 2018-16761 Filed 8-3-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
259 La. 998

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert Moore SCOGGINS.

No. 51895.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 16, 1971.

In re: Robert Moore Scoggins applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writs refused. Relator has not been prejudiced by the adverse ruling. This Court will not interfere with proceedings in the trial court in the absence of a showing of irreparable injury. Relator has an adequate remedy in the event he is refused a jury trial.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report of THE SAINT  JAMES  COMPANY  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Bruce  Cosgrove,  President & CEO of the  company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of
                operations of the Company.


                                         /s/ Bruce Cosgrove
                                         ---------------
                                             Bruce Cosgrove, President & CEO

Dated:  February 6, 2008
No. 11106.

#### Becker et al. *v.*Shoemaker et al.

Decided December 14, 1909.

Error to Superior Court of Cincinnati.

*Mr. Albert Bettinger,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Charles B. Wilby,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Bobby Ray COLEMAN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53562.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 11, 1973.

In re; Bobby Ray Coleman applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The ruling of the trial judge will not be disturbed as the showing is insufficient.

TATE, J.,

concurs on the basis of the full evidence taken. See our docket No. 53,391.
#### HAMILTON ELECTRIC CO. v. POLK COUNTY ABSTRACT CO.

No. 39282.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 227 So.2d 703.
#### Gail ELLIOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-392.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 3 1971.

*922Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and John W. Watson, III, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of willfully leaving the scene of an accident without stopping to render aid to the person injured by him or making known to the persons present his full and correct name and address. The sole point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment.

An examination of the record on appeal affirmatively establishes, and it is not denied, that appellant failed at any time to make a motion for new trial in which the sufficiency of the evidence could have been challenged at the trial court level. In the cases of Jones v. State1 and Smith v. State 2 this court held that the making and denial of a motion for new trial by the defendant based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict was a necessary prerequisite to a consideration of that question on appeal. This court’s decisions were approved and adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of State v. Wright 3 in which it held that the filing of a motion for new trial based on an alleged insufficiency of the evidence is a prerequisite to any questioning of the sufficiency of the evidence upon appeal. The ruling in Wright was adhered to by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decisions rendered by it in the cases of State v. Contreras4 and State v. Owens.5

Because of this court’s inability to consider the only question raised by appellant on this appeal because of his failure to timely file a motion for new trial following rendition of the verdict against him, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.

1

. Jones v. State (Fla.App.1968) 212 So.2d 804.

2

. Smith v. State, (Fla.App.1966) 194 So.2d 310.

3

.State V. Wright, (Fla.1969) 224 So.2d 300.

4

. State v. Contreras, (Fla.1969) 227 So.2d 306.

5

. State v. Owens, (Fla.1970) 233 So.2d 389.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1561 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to improve provisions relating to 

the sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 

Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to improve provisions relating to the sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘CHIMP Act Amend5 ments of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SANCTUARY SYSTEM FOR SURPLUS CHIMPANZEES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 404K(g) of the Public 

8 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 283m(g)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1561 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘and each subsequent fiscal 

2 year’’ and inserting ‘‘through fiscal year 2023’’; 

3 (B) by inserting after ‘‘$30,000,000’’ the 

4 following: ‘‘, unless the Secretary determines 

5 that reserving additional funds would enable the 

6 National Institutes of Health to operate more 

7 efficiently and economically by decreasing the 

8 overall Federal cost of supporting and main9 taining chimpanzees from fiscal year 2014 

10 through fiscal year 2023. Such a determination 

11 shall be reported to Congress by the Secretary 

12 and shall include a report, to be updated bienni13 ally, regarding the care and maintenance of the 

14 chimpanzees and costs related to such care and 

15 maintenance’’; and 

16 (C) by striking the last sentence; and 

17 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘board of di18 rectors’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary, in consultation 

19 with the board of directors’’. 

20 (b) GAO STUDY.—Not later than 2 years after the 

21 date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 

22 of the United States shall conduct an independent evalua23 tion, and submit to the appropriate committees of Con24 gress a report, regarding chimpanzees owned or supported 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1561 IS

1 by the National Institutes of Health. Such report shall re2 view and assess— 

3 (1) the research status of National Institutes of 

4 Health-owned or supported chimpanzees; 

5 (2) the cost for the care and maintenance of 

6 such chimpanzees, including the cost broken down 

7 by research or retirement status, location and for 

8 transportation, as appropriate; 

9 (3) the extent to which matching requirements 

10 have been met pursuant to section 404K(e)(4) of the 

11 Public Health Service Act; and 

12 (4) any options for cost-savings for the support 

13 and maintenance of such chimpanzees that may be 

14 identified. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVIN WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00251-H-1; 5:08-cv-00371-H)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Washington has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Washington’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Washington’s 

motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### John Franklin COATS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. H-295.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Feb. 9, 1967.

Joseph A. Scarlett, Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Channell v. State (Fla.App.1958), 107 So.2d 284; Green v. State, 113 Fla. 237, 151 So. 898; Jones v. State (Fla.App. 1966), 192 So.2d 285.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
#### Roy RICCIO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 22, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


In connection  with the Annual Report of MEMS USA, Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  Lawrence  Weisdorn and
Richard W. York,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company,  respectively,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as  adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  AcT of  2002,  that to  their
knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


January __, 2005                         /s/  Lawrence Weisdorn
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Lawrence Weisdorn,
                                         Chief Executive Officer


January __, 2005                         /s/  Richard W.  York
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Richard W. York,
                                         Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             826
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      726
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,559
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,426
<PP&E>                                          20,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,468
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            54
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,695
<SALES>                                         25,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,147
<CGS>                                            6,980
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,804
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,039
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,765
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,765
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-14-0502 SAT Date: 4/29/2014 Print Date: 7/7/2015

Related cases : Yes Health related cases: Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: Yes
Routes of exposure : Health: Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: LUNG
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-14-0502 FATE: Estimations for low weight butyl octyl ester MW 304 C12H26O4PK Solid with MP = 90 C (E) log Kow = 1.06 (E) S = Dispersible / 1.43 g/L at 25 C (ICB / E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) log Koc = 3.34 (E) log Fish BCF = 0.27 (E)log Fish BAF = 2.36 (E) POTW removal (%) = 0-25 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = moderate

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is poor through the skin and GI tract, and good through the lung, based on physical/chemical properties. There is concern for surfactant effects on the lung.

Ecotox :

Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.30 daphnid 48-h LC50 0.23 green algal 96-h EC50 0.59 fish

_ chronic value 0.042
daphnid

_ chronic value 0.052

algal

_ chronic value 0.30
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge _ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for neutral organic chemicals; SAR chemical class = organophosphate; MW 294 (representative structure); log Kow = 5.24 (EPI); S = 1.6 mg/L at 20 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Acute Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Chronic 4

SARs neutral organic chemicals SAR Class organophosphateTSCA New Chemcial Category N eutral Organics

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: Fate assessor: Ecotox assessor: Health assessor:
#### John M. LAVAZZOLI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1973.

Max P. Engel, David B. Javits, and Louis Stoskopf, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Peter F. LaPorte, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

' PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and was sentenced thereon to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of two years. He filed this appeal therefrom.

Upon stopping the appellant for a driving traffic violation, the police learned a bench warrant was outstanding against him, for which he was then arrested. On a search following such arrest, of the automobile which the appellant had been driving, the police found and seized a .357 magnum caliber revolver. The weapon was in the glove compartment type console located between the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat. The top of the compartment was raised and the grip or butt of the gun was protruding therefrom, and thus was exposed to view so that it was observable to the police upon looking into the car.

The appellant moved to suppress the (gun) evidence, contending the search and seizure were unlawful. Denial of the motion by the trial court was on the ground that the defendant was without standing to so move to suppress the evidence because he was on probation. In Echols v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 89, 93-94, it was held that a defendant who was on *parole*was without standing to suppress contraband found on his person.

In the decision of this case we need not, and do not express an opinion on whether the trial court was correct in holding that because the defendant was on probation he was thereby without standing to move to suppress the evidence. This is so because the denial of the motion to suppress was correct and entitled to be upheld *520on two other grounds. Peerless Ins. Co. v. Sun Line Helicopters, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 364; State v. Alvarez, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 24. Having taken the driver into custody based on the previously issued and outstanding warrant, the search of the car he was driving was authorized and lawful. Chapman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 158 So.2d 578. Also, when the gun was visible in the car, the plain view rule authorized seizure thereof. State v. Clarke, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 791; State v. Gustafson, Fla.1972, 258 So.2d 1; United States v. Drew, 5 Cir.1971, 451 F.2d 230.

A second contention of the appellant was that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the position of the conviction of the appellant for possession. Upon consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs we hold the contention of insufficiency of the evidence is without merit.

Affirmed.
Table 7.  Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:  Third Quarter 2001 and 2000


                              Third      Third    Standard   Standard
Age of householder           Quarter    Quarter   error on   error on
                                 2001       2000  2001 rate difference

United States..............      68.1       67.7        0.2        0.2

    Under 25 years.........      22.9       22.4        0.7        0.9
    25 to 29 years.........      40.4       38.8        0.7        0.9
    30 to 34 years.........      54.1       54.6        0.6        0.8
    35 to 39 years.........      66.3       66.0        0.5        0.7
    40 to 44 years.........      70.8       70.7        0.5        0.7
    45 to 49 years.........      76.4       75.1        0.5        0.7
    50 to 54 years.........      77.9       78.7        0.5        0.7
    55 to 59 years.........      81.3       79.8        0.5        0.8
    60 to 64 years.........      81.9       80.4        0.6        0.8
    65 to 69 years.........      83.1       83.2        0.6        0.8
    70 to 74 years.........      81.3       82.0        0.6        0.9
    75 years and over......      78.2       78.6        0.5        0.7

      Under 35 years.......      41.6       41.1        0.4        0.5
      35 to 44 years.......      68.6       68.4        0.4        0.5
      45 to 54 years.......      77.1       76.8        0.4        0.5
      55 to 64 years.......      81.6       80.1        0.4        0.6
      65 years and over....      80.3       80.7        0.3        0.5