alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### f~( 

# 11", " )o/D


# D-f' 6' ( 

## j'Vl-' 

# b..Q 11"1' VI 

# I

I,

h 

# l \ 

# 1 L. 

## t" 

# t ail 

## w.e 

## {(/I v{'

# ~tl t- "" 

## tA

o.Q.rv 

### c-tA 

# c:.o ( 

# ,q

V\ 0 

## t '" 

# I,' tAR I (0 v cQ 

### ,5

### Ol~**~** L,1,> 

# ,z I.N? LJ


### I 0'1-1

### ~**'k,~ (9~**  

# + l..e

### ,oc~ JJ...o 

## 7 : s**(ok~** 177)'1' I

### ~ " ) "

, , 1**"~P ~1icJt·**  

### l[ /O"IA 

### voie Ct (50, v**~;-;kP** 

## t (a c, 

# vi-4

.**OC<2rO~** (1',y-

### ~~**(5)t(f~1** I

. 

# \ .**~"k** 

# I Q( 

### k

### ~ J2 {J--t::-Q u wh'(/Vl 

### ($6 

### (p ( 3'Ct.1,1

### ~-~**.Q..lt·~** 

# r J\

### i~"**~-.' (~~.~**  

## +"**'~vA'~** 

## ('1', LVf 

### /ft..;. (p,\ 

# C i-Q,": & 0 tvi -tD**~o** 

## Il+e (,u2""**~)** 

### M (;**~** 

### -**(Nj(,~ ~**  lj·"\ ; C 

## .+U yo (j 

## '-I .fG.-p I \ V 

# V ; \ o+J W \r 

## 1 t+ 

## tf, nf)**~** 

## 1-"y-a (I/) l#\ J2 u 0 LA ')

## ~ ( Co 00 

## "t
v lAL'S:

## ~) ;
o...-! c; fA t> w' 

### -li-e M +t, 

# po J 

### N l'r H 

# rod"**(1~:;** 'r, 

# v'\**L/~** 

# r IS 

## 5:**\~V** 

## PVO,?)OU1.) 

# c.

.**f~..e** 

# (}

,.**~ {u~**  d.{)

### (~() 

## 1 (}o 

## cP j .8' I (" 

## S 

## v c,·.(- 

### 11.)

## h~""p ..(!

## u,~lu cvf-;. 

### l'n G.-v / U 

### kL 

### '¥ 

# Co (**ir~7** (;', 

# -t Ck''';

, I

.......... ____ _

.. . Q&;

..

### ,.,'~ ..

### I--:~ !<:\:::r 

# tvt-t·· JI I_A .:Ll... /'

.. f."L· \/1 ' J .' T,. v. C \\- 'TO 0... l 

### rr c IU'<]- Y" V I L-f d U q p 

## dP 'f • "'"") -b N q ,. W! '" 

## v-..u.J 

## +wv 

# -'/.1'"",- t>&:(t IN, 

### d,

# ~("~ I


### (h v

### ~ ( 

### 1\1\ 0 fA v -e..p '" 

## /1.A 0 ( 

# I 

# Pi**dt~b~** I 

### J1.- 

# 1lI7
*OPINION ISSUED SEPTEMBER 4, 2007*

#### Callahan W. Mabry

(CV-06-357-Y)

ORDER

By Order issued August 2,2007, the Claim Investigator was directed to prepare an economic loss analysis of the claimant’s unreimbursed allowable expenses resulting from injuries sustained as the result of criminal conduct which occurred on September 17, 2005.

Inasmuch as the Court has received documentation of unreimbursed allowable expenses of $2,977.09 which are related to the original injury, an award in that sum is hereby granted pursuant to the Investigator’s memorandum of August 6, 2007. Any additional expenses relating to this incident may be reviewed by the Court as they are submitted.
#### Ex parte JOHNSON (two cases).

Nos. 20602, 20647.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 11, 1939.

Smith & Dowdy, of McKinney, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*972GRAVES, Judge.

These two above styled cases, relating to the same' subject matter, are consolidated, and will be treated together.

It appears from the record in cause No. 20647 that one Melvin Johnson was held by complaint in the justice court of Precinct No. 1 of Collin County, Texas, charged with murder. It also appears that the appellant, Glen Johnson, was also held by complaint in the same court, charged as accessory to the murder of the same person. On the occasion of the examining trial of Melvin Johnson, the appellant herein, Glen Johnson was called to the witness stand by the State, and by the State interrogated. He was asked but one question, and he refused to answer such question, giving as his reason for such refusal that an answer thereto might incriminate him in the charge then being inquired 'into by the court. Whereupon the court entered its finding and judgment that such action upo'n the part of the appellant constituted a contempt of court, and he was committed to jail until he saw fit to purge himself of such contempt, this above order having been entered on June 27, 1939. There-afterwards, in cause No. 20602, this court granted Glen Johnson’s request for the issuance of its writ of habeas corpus, and issued its order granting bail to this appellant, and setting the hearing for such cause at its first meeting in October, 1939, at which time both of such causes were submitted.

It now appears that the matter under inquiry in cause No. 20647, wherein this relator was held in contempt, has now passed from the jurisdiction of the examining court in that upon the conclusion of the testimony therein on June 27, 1939, the defendant Melvin Johnson was held to answer the charge filed therein, and was bound over to await the action of the grand jury at the September Term, 1939, of the district court of Collin County, Texas, and that at said term the grand jury indicted said Melvin Johnson, charging him with the murder, which was the subject of the investigation in which this relator was held in contempt; that the justice court of precinct No. 1 of Collin County has now lost its jurisdiction in such examining trial by virtue of its function having therein terminated. It now appears that there are no proceedings pending wherein the -relator could purge himself, if he desired to do so, of his alleged contempt. The law does not demand of a person that he do an impossible thing. There being no cause pending in which the applicant could purge himself of his alleged contempt, he should not be further held in custody, nor under bond on account of such order.

We are therefore of the opinion that the relator, Glen Johnson, should be discharged under both causes herein, and it is accordingly so ordered.
# C_2023226EN.01000201.xml

| 28.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10970 – FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP / AIR INVESTMENT VALENCIA / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 226/02)

On 1 March 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M10970. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M10970. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 1078 V

UNPUBLISHED

MICHAL AARONSON

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: December 27, 2019

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA)

Shealene Priscilla Mancuso, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for petitioner.

Colleen Clemons Hartley , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On July 24, 201 8

, Micha l Aaronson 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 s he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine

administration ( “S IRVA ”) as a result of an influenza ( “flu ”) vaccine administered on

October 6, 2016 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit

of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 23, 2019

, 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 concludes that “ petitioner’s medical course is

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 Managemen t 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 19 86, 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

consistent with a [ SIRVA] as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. ” Id. at 4 . Respondent

further agrees that “ pet itioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation

under the 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
# C_2023212EN.01001101.xml

| 16.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/11

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.106512

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 212/10)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 5.5.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.106512 |
| Member State | Sweden |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Liquidity support due to increased costs of electricity |
| Legal basis | Förordning om elstöd till företag |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: 29 000 000 000 SEK
  Annual budget: 29 000 000 000 SEK |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | All economic sectors eligible to receive aid |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Skatteverket |
| 205 30 Malmö, Sweden |

Date of adoption of the decision

5.5.2023

Aid number

SA.106512

Member State

Sweden

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Liquidity support due to increased costs of electricity

Legal basis

Förordning om elstöd till företag

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 29 000 000 000 SEK

Annual budget: 29 000 000 000 SEK

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Name and address of the granting authority

Skatteverket

205 30 Malmö, Sweden

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20065

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEOPOLDO DUARTE-GANDARILLA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-122-5

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Leopoldo DuarteGandarilla has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Duarte-Gandarilla has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20065 Document: 00514208496 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
No. 17-20065

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-20065 Document: 00514208496 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
NJDEP HZSAMPLE Error Report

File: C:\Datamgt\NJ EDD\cwk\DGW 2H10\HZSAMPLE Date: 03/21/2011 13:59 Errors#: (0)

No HZSAMPLE errors have been identified!
From: Mary Manibusan

To: Sharlene Matten

Cc: Laura Bailey

Subject: FIFRA SAP Prioritization of EDSP Universe of Chemicals Using Computational Toxicology Tools: Correction to

Table 8.1.1

Date: 01/15/2013 07:17 PM

Attachments: Corrected Table 8.1.1 bottom part_p. 124.docx

Dr. Matten,

Please be informed that there is an identified error in Table 8.1.1, on page 128 (document

p. 124) of the agency's document for the Scientific Advisory Panel's external peer

review. The last column of Table 8.1.1 was incorrectly shifted. The corrected table is

enclosed in this electronic transmission. We apologize for any inconvenience this error

may have caused.

Thank you.

Mary

Mary Ko Manibusan, Director

Exposure Assessment Coordination and Policy Division

Office of Science Coordination and Policy

(202) 564-2827Chem Class #chem % of

1704 HTP

%chems TC& T21

#chems T21 only

#chems No HTP

%chems No HTP

#chems

VII. Site "B": Contains "Specified" fragment

Mixed Organics

- Unknown Binding Potential 1368 80.3 43 175 414 57 779

2

- Alkylanilines 7 0.4 86 4 2 14 1

Mixed Acetanilides (LogKow>1.3) 7 0.4 29 0 2 71 5

Phenones cyclo

- substituted

- Unknown Binding Potential 6 0.4 67 0 4 33 2

Multi subst. Alkylanilines 5 0.3 100 1 4 0 0

Alkylcyclohexanols LogKow>4.4 or >2.6 & <3.5 4 0.2 50 1 1 50 2

3

- Alkylanilines 2 0.1 100 1 1 0 0

2

- ;4

- ; or2,4,6

- Benzoates Unknown Binding Potential 1 0.1 100 0 1 0 0

VII. Site "B" Subtotal= 1400 82.2 44 182 429 56 789

Unk Binding Potential Total= 1704 44 235 509 56 960
Letterhead of Price Waterhouse LLP

                        Report of Independent Accountants

January 28, 1998

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of
HAM-LET U.S.A., Inc.

In our opinion, the accompanying balance sheet and the related statements of
operations and accumulated deficit and of cash flows present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of HAM-LET U.S.A., Inc. (a wholly
owned subsidiary of HAM-LET (Israel/Canada) Ltd.) at December 31, 1997, and the
results of its operations and its cash flows for the year in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management; our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit
of these statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards
which require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance
about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for the opinion expressed above.

HAM-LET U.S.A., Inc. is a member of group of affiliated companies and,
as disclosed in Note 3 to the financial statements, has extensive transactions
and relationships with members of the group. Because of these relationships, it
is possible that the terms of these transactions are not the same as those that
would result from transactions among wholly unrelated parties.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature: Project No.: 0172 .09.005.412 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: 304m 2012 Annual Review 

### CBI?

Yes

No TELEPHONE CALL RECOR D

Incoming

Outgoing Date: 0 1/25 /1 2 Time: 8: 50 am

pm

Company Name: Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection ERG Staff Name: Elizabeth Sabol

Contact Name: Tom Randis Contact Phone Number: ( 570) 327

- 0530

General Subject: Meat and Poultry Facility Discharges



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I contacted Dave Gard of the PA DEP to discuss nitrate discharges from Cargill Meat Solutions Corp in

Wyalusing, PA (PA0111759). Mr. Gard suggested that I contact Tom Randis (570

- 327

- 0530) for further

information.

I called Mr. Randis on Monday, January 30, 2012 at 12:00 pm ES T and left a message. On Friday, February 3,

Mr. Randis returned my call and stated that the nitrogen permit limits for the Cargill Meat facility are currently

under revision. The limits are not based on the ELGs; however, the more stringent TMDLs for the Chesapeake

Bay. The old permit was monitoring only for nitrogen.

Mr. Randis stated that the facility is a butchering/meat packing facility. The facility operates an

anaerobic/aerobic wastewater treatment process; however, they did not make any treatment changes in response

to the ELGs, because the new permit limits (based on TMDLs for the Bay) would be more stringent. The

facility permit is currently under appeal. Mr. Randis stated that comments were due back by March 30, 2012.

He stated that he would get back to me at that time with the comments and limits. He also provided his e

- mail;

TRandis@pa.gov , so that I could follow up.
STATISTICAL APPROACHES USED TO ASSESS THE VARIABILITY OF DATA 

AUGUST 6, 2010
Approach Formula Interpretation Use/appli

UCL= Upper confidence limit of a 99% confidence interval for the mean 

( )

2

0.99, s UCL x t df

n

=+ ×

df n = −1

n= the top N sources 

df t = the 99th percentile of the tdistribution with df degrees of freedom 

2

s = variance 

x =mean 

• The upper confidence limit (UCL) 

represents the value which we can expect the true mean of the population to fall below 99% of the time in repeated sampling. 

• In other words, if we were to obtain another 

set of emission observations from the same sources, we can be 99% confident that the mean of the new sample will fall below the UCL 

• Assum

obserthe poshoul

99% UTL with 99% confidence = 99 percent upper tolerance limit with 99% confidence 

( )( ) s

a

abnptnpt xUTL × −−−+−− += 2 1,11,1

where 

x =mean 

( ) 12

)1,1( 1 2

−

−γ−

−=

n

nt

a

( )

n

nt nptb 2 2 )1,1( 1,1 −γ− −−−=

n=number of observations 

γ =99% (confidence level) 

p= proportion of population contained in interval (99%) s=standard deviation 

• We can conclude with 99% 

certainty (confidence) that at least 99% (population coverage) of the future population elements lie below the Upper Tolerance Limit (UTL 

• 

• 
Upper prediction 

limit (UPL) with 99 confidence UPL = ... 

1

1

i

N

T T

i

X x

N =

= ∑

XT = the average total emissions rate over 

the best performing sources 

1

1

i

N

T T

i

X x

N =

= ∑

Ti x = total emission rate of i-th source 

1

i

i

M

T ij

j

x x

=

= ∑

ij x = unit average of jth unit within the ith 

source 

1

1 ij n

ij ijk

ij k

x x

n =

= ∑

2

i s = variance of i-facility 

i n = number of elements in i-facility 

m = number of future runs 

df t = the 99th percentile of the t-distribution 

with df degrees of freedom 

1 1

( 1)

N Mi

ij

i j

df n

= =

= − ∑∑

2

1 1

1 11 N Mi

T df ij

i j ij

Xt s

N Nn m = =

⎛ ⎞

+ + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ∑∑

• A prediction interval for a future observation is an 

interval that will, with a specified degree of confidencontain the next (or some other pre-specified) randomselected observation from a population. 

• In other words, the prediction interval estimates what 

future values will be, based upon present or past background samples taken. 

• The UPL has a 99% probability of not being exceed b

the sample mean of m future observations 
99 

percentile 

The p-th percentile of N ordered values is obtained by first calculating the rank 

1 1

100

N

n

p

+ , rounding to the nearest integer, and then taking 

the value that corresponds to that rank (n) 

−

= ×

• 99% of the population values lie 

below the 99 percentile 

• C

s
From: thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com [mailto:thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com]

Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:33 PM

To: vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; eduardorob les@eaton.com; tballo@earthjustice.org;

gbf1@pge.com; Brian Coffey

Cc: chad.kennedy@schneider-electric.com

Subject: Data Center Transformer - Sub Team

Members:

Vijay Tendulkar, Onyx Power

Eduardo Robles, Eaton

Timothy Ballo, Earthjustice

Gary Fernstrom, PGE

Brian Coffey, Navigant

Thomas Patzner, Schneider Electric

Looking for 2 hours of your time to discuss - please let me know what time works for the discussion and

working meeting.

Suggested time - please reply which time slot works best.

Thursday Dec 8

Eastern 11:30 to 1:30

Central 10:30 to 12:30

Pacific 8:30 to 10:30

Thursday Dec 8

Eastern 1:30 to 3:30

Central 12:30 to 2:30

Pacific 10:30 to 12:30

Friday Dec 9

Eastern 1:30 to 3:30

Central 12:30 to 2:30

Pacific 10:30 to 12:30

Agenda for discussion

Cover how the statue states what needs to be done to be excluded by the Secretary:

any transformer not listed in clause (ii) that is excluded by the Secretary by rule because—‘‘

(I) the transformer is designed for a special application;

(II) the transformer is unlikely to be used in general purpose applications; and‘‘

(III) the application of standards to the tran sformer would not result in significant energy savings.

Data Center Transformers - what make them unique

CAN NOT BE DONE BECAUSE OF APPL ICATION - MUST BE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS -

from Richard Parker

example K-13 does not make the product different th an Distribution (K-12, Hospitals, commercial building

all use K-rated Devices)

Data Center Transformers

Can we define the product so t hat it will unlikely be us ed in general purpose

CAN NOT BE DONE VIA LABELING - from Richard ParkerData Center Transformers

would not result in significant energy savings - Loading point increasing from 40-50% to 80-100%

how do we show that ener gy savings by regulating at 35% is actually negative?

White Paper from Schneider Electric

Current Document from Onyx Power

Thomas Patzner | Low Voltage Transformers | Square D / Schneider Electric

1010 Airpark Center Drive | Nashville, TN 37217 |  Office: 615-844-8536 |  Five Digit Dialing: 48536

 e-mail: thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com |  Website: www.us.squared.com/EEXFMR

Low Voltage Transformer Technical Support  e-mail: lvgp-marketing@us.schneider-electric.com 

##  Please consider the environment before printing this email