alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FROM: Eastern Research Group, Inc.

DATE: November 21, 2011

SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis: Reconsideration Proposal Inputs Comparison

An economic impact analysis for existing CISWI units was conducted at promulgation, 

using inputs presented previously in a separate memorandum.

1 During the 

reconsideration process, changes were made to the CISWI inventory, emission limits, and 

control cost calculations. Almost all of these changes occurred within the energy

recovery unit and waste-burning kiln subcategories of CISWI units. Consequently, the 

inputs used for analyzing economic impacts have changed as well. This memorandum 

compares the economic impact inputs used at promulgation to the inputs used for the 

reconsideration analyses.

CHANGES IN ECONOMIC INPUTS

Table 1 shows the list of facilities in the CISWI inventory and their corresponding lowest 

cost compliance options at the final rule (February 2011), reconsideration proposal, and 

the difference between both estimates. For reconsideration, five facilities (14 units) were 

added to the inventory (these are indicated in red text), and five facilities (7 units) were 

removed from the inventory (these are indicated in gray). Three of the facilities removed 

from the inventory were small entities.

Over all existing units, the total cost of the lowest cost option increased by $268 million 

in capital costs and $53 million in annual costs. As shown in Table 1, much of this 

increase can be attributed to the compliance costs for the 14 units that were added to the

inventory (none of which belong to small entities).

For small entities that remain in the CISWI inventory, costs are the same at 

reconsideration as they were at promulgation. The three small entities that were removed 

from the inventory decreased the overall small entity costs by $43 million in capital costs 

and $20 million in annual costs.

REFERENCES

1. “Revised Economic Impact Analysis Inputs for Existing CISWI Units” Memorandum from 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 12, 

2011.
#### Sinclair, Appellant, *v.*Sinclair.

Argued November 14, 1961.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, aud Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent).

Before Marshall, J.

*Louis G. Glasso,*for appellant.

*Norman Paul Wolken,*with him *Wolken & Landy,*for appellee.

December 14, 1961:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Robert van der Voort for the court below, reported at 25 Pa. D. & C. 2d 475.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20

- 208 V

UNPUBLISHED

DAVID CARPENTER, JR.

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: April 15, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA)

Leigh Finfer , Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for petitioner.

Voris Edward Johnson , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On February 26, 2020

, David Carpenter filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza vaccine administered

( “ SIRVA ” ) on November 3, 2018 he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine

administration . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the

Office of Special Masters.

On April 13, 20 21

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that

P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.

Specifically, R espondent concluded that Petitioner suffered a Table injury of left SIRVA

.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

(2012 ).2 Id. at 4 . Respondent further agrees that that Petitioner satisfied all legal prerequisites for

compensation under the Vaccine Act

. Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
#### In the Matter of Data-Guide Inc., et al., Petitioners, against Solomon B. Marcus et al., as Inspectors of Election at the Election of the Board of Directors of Data-Guide Inc., Respondents.

Supreme 'Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 9, 1958.

*Halpern & Rothman*for petitioners.

*Jack Tenser*for Solomon Marcus, respondent.

*Janice Spivak,*respondent in person.

*Melain Zeller,*respondent in person.

Irving H. Saypol, J.

The corporate petitioner and its president and majority stockholder, seek an order directing respondents as inspectors and tellers of election to certify that certain persons were duly elected directors. Respondent Marcus demands removal of the proceeding to Queens County. Petitioner moves to strike separate and distinct defenses in the answer and the answer itself.

The substance of this dispute is that the respondent, Marcus, who asserts that he was the only inspector of the election, refused to count petitioner’s ballot and refused to certify *542the election of directors. A stockholder had challenged the ballot, asserting an agreement with the individual petitioner to vote his stock for the challenger as a director in perpetuity. It is apparent from the papers that respondent Marcus is not controlled by the individual petitioner as are the two other inspectors.

The respondent Marcus had no right to take the position that he would refuse to count the votes challenged on the ground that he had no power or authority to determine the question of the challenge and dispute. In so doing he was in fact deciding the matter against the majority stockholder. An inspector of elections is a ministerial officer; he has no power to determine any disputed question (Stock Corporation Law, § 46; *Prigerson*v. *White Cap Sea Foods,*100 N. Y. S. 2d 881 and cases cited therein). When a vote is challenged the inspectors shad require the production of corporate books as evidence of the right to vote. If it appears therefrom that he has the right, the vote must be counted and the election certified. The disputed question, unrelated to the qualification of voters, pursuant to section 47 of the Stock Corporation Law, may be determined by the court after the election, if a person is aggrieved. The fact that the inspectors were first designated as tellers is of no consequence, as the intent was to have them act as inspectors and their duties were identical. The jurisdiction is properly here, absent any denial of the sworn statement that this is its residence *(Western Transp. Co.*v. *Scheu,*19 N. Y. 408; *Matter of Norma Footwear [Leather Bd.],*2 AD 2d 24, 26). Marcus is without standing, and there is no issue of fact. Accordingly, the application is granted.

Settle order.
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

In connection with the quarterly report of QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Don Early, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 8, 2010



/s/ Don EarlyDon EarlyChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

128 KA 10-00386 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY FUDGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (CHRISTINE M. COOK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

ANTHONY FUDGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered July 14, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, resisting arrest, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and reckless driving.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]), defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We reject that contention. While defense counsel need not support a defendant’s pro se motion for the assignment of new counsel, a defendant is denied the right to counsel when defense counsel becomes a witness against the defendant by taking a position adverse to the defendant in the context of such a motion ( see e.g. People v Kirkland , 68 AD3d 1794, 1795; People v Okolo , 35 AD3d 1272, 1283, lv denied 8 NY3d 925). Here, however, the brief defense of her own performance by defendant’s attorney did not create a prejudicial conflict ( see Okolo , 35 AD3d at 1283; People v Walton , 14 AD3d 419, 420, lv denied 5 NY3d 796). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial because the court improperly denigrated defense counsel in the presence of the jury ( see People v Charleston , 56 NY2d 886, 887-888). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention is without merit ( cf. People v Lynch , 60 AD3d 1479, 1481, lv denied 12 NY3d 926).-2- 128 KA 10-00386
With respect to defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence, we note that, to the extent defendant contends that he was improperly penalized for asserting his right to a trial, that contention is not preserved for our review ( see People v Griffin , 48 AD3d 1233, 1236-1237, lv denied 10 NY3d 840; People v Irrizarry , 37 AD3d 1082, 1083, lv denied 8 NY3d 946; People v Green , 35 AD3d 1211, 1211, lv denied 8 NY3d 985) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit ( see Griffin , 48 AD3d at 1236-1237). Moreover, the sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe.
Finally, we have reviewed defendant’s contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are unpreserved for our review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]), and in any event are without merit.

Entered: March 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNITE D STATES COURT OF A PPEALS FO R VETE RANS C LAI MS

N O . 97- 303 M A R I L YN H O B IN , A P P E L L

A NT , V . A NTHO NY J. P RI NC I PI , S EC RET AR

Y O F V ETERA NS A FF AI RS , A PPELLEE . B e fo re H O L D A W A Y , I V E R S , a n d G R E E N E , Ju dge s .

O R D E R O n M ay1 4 , 2 0 0 1 , th e p a rti e s in th is c a s e fi le d a jo in t m o tio n to d is m is s th e a p p e ll a n t's appl i cati on f

or at t or ney f ees pur suant t o the E qual A cce ss t o J usti ce A ct ( E AJ A )
. Th e par t i es have ent er ed i nt o a st ipu lated agr eem ent w her ebythe appel l ant

r el eas es t

he Secr et ar

y f r om liab ilit y for an y furth er c laim s for a tt o rn ey fees an d ex pe n se s in th is ca se . U pon con sideration of t h e f oregoin g, it

is O RD ER ED tha t

the j oi nt m oti on t o di s m i s s the ap pe l l ant ' s EA J A ap pl i c ati on i s gr anted
. DA T E D: J u l y1 0 , 2 0 0 1 P E R C U R I A M.
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | November 14, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ Andrew Limpert                           |   |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |              |   |   | Andrew Limpert                               |   |
|   |              |   |   | Chief Financial Officer                      |   |
|   |              |   |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19024-19025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7586]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Diversity Research Education in 
Neuroscience.
    Date: April 18, 2012.
    Time: 1:15 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/
NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 
9529, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-5388, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7c0ded2c3dfd8c5c7f7d9ded9d3c499d9dedf99d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92e5fbf7e6fafde0e2d2fcfbfcf6e1bcfcfbfabcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)


[[Page 19025]]


    Dated: March 23, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-7586 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Attendee Name Company 

Location 

(City, State) Title Phone # E-Mail

Angus Crane NAIMA Alexandria, VA Vice President, Gen. Counsel 703-684-0084 acrane@naima.org

Granta Nakayama Kirkland & Ellis LLP Washington, DC Partner 202-879-5074 granta.nakayama@kirkland.com

Lee Houlditch Amerrock Products LP Nolanville, TX Owner/ CEO 205-516-9164 lhoulditch@amerrock.com

Ricardo Gamboa Ind. Insulation Group Denver, CO Technical Director 720-922-9326 gamboar@IIG-LLC.com

Tom Lund Isolatek International Huntington, IN Operations Manager 260-356-2040 tlund@isolatek.com

Christopher Bullock Rock Wool Mfg Co. Leeds, AL President 205-699-6121 christoph.bullock@gmail.com

Leslie McLaren Roxul, Inc. Milton, Canada Mgr - Gov't Relations 905-875-9307 leslie.maclaren@roxul.com

Steve Edris Thermafiber, Inc. Wabash, IN President & CEO 260-563-2111 sedris@Thermofiber.com

John Bolden USG Interiors Chicago, IL Env. Service Manager 312-823-6702 jbolden@usg.com

Jeff Telander EPA - OAQPS - MMG RTP, NC Project Lead 919-541-5427 telander.jeff@epa.gov

Winifred Okoye (via phone) EPA - OGC Washington, DC Attorney 202-564-5446 okoye.winifred@epa.gov

Paula Hirtz EPA - OAQPS - CCG RTP, NC RTR Project Lead 919-541-2618 hirtz.paula@epa.gov

Dave Reeves RTI RTP, NC EPA Contractor 919-316-3739 dwreeves@rti.org

Mike Laney RTI RTP, NC EPA Contractor 919-316-3415 mnl@rti.org

EPA Meeting with NAIMA - Mineral Wool Manufacturers (January 28, 2010)
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Danny WILLIAMS.

No. 87-K-2544.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Williams, Danny; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18935-KA; Parish of West Carroll, 5th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 13254.

Prior report: La.App., 514 So.2d 291.

Denied.
#### Thomas R. KIMBRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 7591.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

July 8, 1983.

*455Kevin F. McCoy, Asst. Public Defender, Kenai, and Dana Fabe, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

Shannon D. Turner, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thomas M. Wardell, Dist. Atty., Kenai, and Norman C. Gorsuch, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

OPINION *

SINGLETON, Judge.

Thomas R. Kimbrell was convicted on a plea of *nolo contendere*to a charge of third-degree assault, AS 11.41.220(a)(1). This plea was entered pursuant to an agreement with the district attorney that a separate charge would be dismissed, but could be considered at sentencing. At sentencing, Judge Cranston imposed a two-year suspended sentence and, as a special condition of probation, required Kimbrell to pay restitution of $375 in connection with the dismissed charge.

Kimbrell appeals the requirement to pay restitution as a violation of AS 12.55.-100(a)(2) because no compensable loss was sustained from the offense for which Kimb-rell was convicted.

From the statute and from *Schwing v. State,*633 P.2d 311 (Alaska App.1981), it is clear that restitution cannot be required in an amount greater than the loss or damage caused by the offense for which a defendant is convicted. However, the specific situation here was not addressed by the court in *Schwing.*

Alaska Statute 12.55.100 was derived from federal law. *Gonzales v. State,*608 P.2d 23, 26 n. 6 (Alaska 1980); *see*18 U.S.C. § 3651 (1976). In construing the federal act, a Maryland district court reviewed several cases similar to the present case in which there was an agreement concerning dismissed charges and restitution as part of the sentence. *United States v. McLaughlin,*512 F.Supp. 907 (D.Md.1981). We find the analysis in that case to be persuasive and therefore hold that it is permissible in sentencing a defendant on one charge to impose restitution for a separate dismissed charge if there are specific findings that:

> (1) the amount of loss suffered by an identifiable aggrieved party is certain; (2) the defendant admits, and there is no factual question as to whether, the defendant caused or was responsible for the aggrieved party’s loss; and (3) the defendant consents, freely and voluntarily, to make full restitution.. ..

*Id.*at 908. However, Judge Cranston made no findings regarding the agreement between Kimbrell and the district attorney. Unless the court finds that Kimbrell entered into an express agreement to pay restitution for the dismissed charge, the restitution requirement should be deleted.

Special Condition of Probation # 4 is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

*

 Originally filed June 8, 1983, as a memorandum opinion and judgment pursuant to Appellate Rule 214. Publication directed by the court July 8, 1983.
Exhibit 23



                         Independent Auditors' Consent
                         -----------------------------


The Board of Directors
NYMAGIC, INC.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statements (No.
33-10780, 2-94924, 33-88342, and 333-103018) on Form S-8 of NYMAGIC, INC, of
our report dated February 18, 2003 relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of NYMAGIC, INC. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the
related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, and
related financial statement schedules, which report appears in the December
31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NYMAGIC, INC.

/s/ KPMG LLP


New York, New York
March 31, 2003
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



In connection with the Annual Report of Cord Blood America, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew L. Schissler, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                |                                                  
|--------------- | -------------------------------------------------
|August 14, 2007 | /s/ Matthew L. Schissler                         
|                | Matthew L. Schissler                             
|                | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|                |