alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COVID-19 Guidance for Construction Workers

OSHA is committed to protecting the health and safety of America’s workers and workplaces during 

the COVID-19 pandemic. The agency is issuing a series of industry-specific alerts designed to help 

employers keep workers safe.

Take the following steps to reduce risk of exposure to the coronavirus for construction workers:

 Instruct sick workers to stay home.

 Implement physical distancing practices to maintain at least six feet between coworkers/contractors/visitors, including while inside work trailers.

 Keep in-person meetings (including toolbox talks and safety meetings) as short as possible, and 

limit the number of workers in attendance.

 Provide and have all workers wear face coverings (i.e., cloth face coverings or surgical masks) that 

have at least two layers of tightly woven breathable fabric, unless their work task requires a 

respirator. Face coverings should be provided at no cost to workers.

 Continue to use other normal control measures, including personal protective equipment (PPE), 

necessary to protect workers from other job hazards associated with construction activities.

 Provide and ensure workers use the supplies necessary for good hygiene practices. If workers do 

not have immediate access to soap and water, use alcohol-based hand sanitizers that contain at 

least 60 percent ethanol or 70% isopropanol.

 Do not allow workers to share tools and equipment. If sharing cannot be eliminated, clean and 

disinfect between each use.

 Clean and disinfect portable jobsite toilets and fill hand sanitizer dispensers regularly. 

 Train workers on COVID-19 policies and procedures in a language they understand.

 Ensure policies encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns.

For the latest guidance and other resources on protecting workers from coronavirus, visit OSHA’s 

Protecting Workers Guidance.

OSHA issues alerts to draw attention to 

worker safety and health issues and solutions.

 • osha.gov/coronavirus • 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) • @OSHA_DOL

OSHA 4000-03R 2021
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.55

                              AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
                             EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                             --------------------

     This is an Amendment, dated September 17, 2001 (the "Amendment") to the
Employment Agreement made as of the 1st day of March, 2000 by and between SELECT
MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the "Employer"), and ROCCO A.
ORTENZIO, an individual (the "Employee").

                                  Background
                                  ----------

     A. The Employer and the Employee executed and delivered that certain
Employment Agreement dated as of March 1, 2000, that certain Amendment No. 1 to
Employment Agreement dated as of August 8, 2000, that certain Amendment No. 2 to
Employment Agreement dated as of February 23, 2001, and that certain Amendment
No. 3 to Employment Agreement dated as of April 24, 2001 (as amended, the
"Employment Agreement"). The Employer and the Employee now desire to further
amend the Employment Agreement as hereinafter provided.

     B. Accordingly, and intended to be legally bound hereby, the Employer and
the Employee agree as follows:

                                   Agreement
                                   ---------

     1. Section 1.02 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated
as follows:

        "1.02 Capacity. The Employee shall serve as Chairman of the Board of
              --------
        Directors of the Employer. The Employee shall also serve as Chief
        Executive Officer of the Employer until September 17, 2001. From and
        after September 17, 2001, the Employee shall serve as Executive Chairman
        of the Employer."

     2. Except as amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall continue in
effect in accordance with its terms.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date
first above written.

                                  SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION


                                  By:  _____________________________
                                          Michael E. Tarvin,
                                          Senior Vice President


                                  __________________________________
                                          Rocco A. Ortenzio
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 165 (Tuesday, October 14, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
  No committee meetings were held.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 (Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
                                      Code)

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Alexander's, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to
such officer's knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

March 2, 2004                     /s/ Joseph Macnow
                                  -------------------------------------------
                                  Name: Joseph Macnow
                                  Title: Executive Vice President and Chief
                                         Financial Officer
#### The State *v*. Isaac Dickenson.

From Edgecombe.

A. being' recognized in 800b to appeal’, failed, and his recognizance was forfeited. Scire Facias issued against him to shew cause, “ why exe- *“*cution should not issue for 800b for a *fine*on a forfeited recognizance, *“*in failing to appear, &c. — Defendant pleaded “ *nul tiel record*plea negatived and judgment for the State.

The defendant was recognized in the sum of eight hundred pounds to appear at the Superior Court of Law for Edgecombe County $ and failing to appeal’, his recognizance was forfeited, and judgment *nisi*was entered against him. A *scire facias*was sued out, directed to the Sheriff of Wayne, commanding him *“*to make known to the de- *“*fendant that he be and appear, &c. to shew cause why *“*execution should not issue against him for the sum of ei eight hundred pounds *for a fine*on a forfeited recogni- *“*zance in failing to make his personal appearance at *“*March Term, &c. as he was bound to do.” To this *scire facias,*the defendant pleaded, *nul tiel record.*And it was submitted to this Court, whether the record supports the *scire facias.*

Tavxor, Chief-Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The word *fine*might well be left out, if it obscured or confounded the sense of the *scire fiadas ;*and it would then *11read *“*eight hundred pounds on a forfeited recognizance.” But if the word be retained, it is not possible for the defendant to misapprehend the purport of the *scire faáas,*because the meaning intended to be affixed to the woi>d, is explained by what follows. When the state exhibits the record shewing that the defendants recognizance was forfeited, the fact affirmed in the *sáre faáas*is substantially proved, and the plea of *mil iiel record,*negatived — Let judgment be entered for the State.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 449

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the personal representative of the estate of Fred Steffens of Big Horn County, Wyoming,

certain land comprising the Steffens family property.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the

personal representative of the estate of Fred Steffens

of Big Horn County, Wyoming, certain land comprising

the Steffens family property.

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF STEFFENS FAMILY PROPERTY.

4 (a) CONVEYANCE.—Subject to subsection (b) and

5 valid existing rights, the Secretary of the Interior shall

6 issue, without consideration, a quitclaim deed to Marie

7 Wambeke of Big Horn County, Wyoming, the personal
2

•S 449 IS

1 representative of the estate of Fred Steffens, to the land

2 described in subsection (c).

3 (b) RESERVATION OF MINERALS.—All minerals un4 derlying the land described in subsection (c) are reserved

5 to the United States.

6 (c) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land described in this

7 subsection is the parcel comprising approximately 80 acres

and known as ‘‘Farm Unit C’’ in the E1⁄2NW1 8 ⁄4 of Section

9 27 in Township 57 North, Range 97 West, 6th Principal

10 Meridian, Wyoming.

11 (d) REVOCATION OF WITHDRAWAL.—The withdrawal

12 for the Shoshone Reclamation Project made by the Bu13 reau of Reclamation under Secretarial Order dated Octo14 ber 21, 1913, is revoked with respect to the land described

15 in subsection (c).

Æ
Net Shares Election Notice - Comverse and Avi T. Aronovitz



 Exhibit 10.53 

ELECTION NOTICE 

April 23, 2008 

Comverse Technology, Inc. 

810 Seventh Avenue,
35th Floor 

New York, NY 10019 
 Attention: Andre Dahan,
President and Chief Executive Officer 
  

	 	Re:	Deferred Stock Award Agreement (the “Agreement”) between Comverse Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) and Avi Aronovitz


 Dear Mr. Dahan: 

This letter serves as the undersigned’s irrevocable election to satisfy the aggregate withholding obligation of $49,227.74 (the
“Withholding Tax”) in connection with the vesting of 8,618 deferred stock units (the “Award”) on April 20, 2008 (the “Vesting Date”) by directing the Company to retain 2,913 shares of the
Company’s common stock issuable upon vesting of the Award sufficient to cover the Withholding Tax valuing each share at $16.90, the closing price of the shares of the Company’s common stock on Friday, April 18, 2008, the last business
day before the Vesting Date. 
 Upon your acknowledgement of the election, I understand that, as soon as practicable following
the Vesting Date, the Company will deliver 5,705 shares of the Company’s common stock, to my attention, representing to balance of the shares of the Company’s common stock vesting under the Award. 

 

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Avi Aronovitz
	Avi Aronovitz


  

			
	AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
	
	COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Andre Dahan
	Name:	 	Andre Dahan
	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 23, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS FOUND ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          77,994
<SECURITIES>                                 1,246,452
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,739,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,000
<INVENTORY>                                 33,271,646
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,230,289
<PP&E>                                       5,899,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,130,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,999,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,783,561
<BONDS>                                      2,216,770
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,865
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,902,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,999,941
<SALES>                                     26,308,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,308,077
<CGS>                                       20,066,378
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,066,378
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,166,219
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             188,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,083,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                   725,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,358,540
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,358,540
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14


</TABLE>
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00173-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.M., A CHILD 

 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

Moore County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CL200-18, Honorable Delwin T. McGee, Presiding 

 

July 31, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

The suit underlying this appeal was initiated by the Texas Department of Family 

and Protective Services. The latter sought to terminate the parental relationship between 

M.A.M. and the child’s biological parents, among other things. The trial court eventually 

issued its order dismissing the Department as the child’s temporary managing 

conservator and returned the child to the child’s mother. Nothing was said within the 

order about the cause of action for termination in general. Nor did the order mention 

appellant, A.M., father of M.A.M. of the termination suit against him. A.M. appealed. 

Generally, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over final judgments. See 

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for 
2

purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. We have 

jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly 

provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998). 

Questioning whether we had jurisdiction over the appeal, we notified A.M. and the 

Department. of our concern and directed them to explain in writing why jurisdiction exists. 

They were to file their replies no later than July 26, 2019. To date, neither has replied or 

otherwise attempted to explain how we have jurisdiction over this appeal, given that the 

order of dismissal encompassed only one of multiple aspects or causes of action and only 

one of multiple parties. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam
#### *Byrne v. Lyle.

Tuesday, September 23, 1806.

*-Hot:on*to Dissolve — 3-inal Hearing*.-— When no motion is made to dissolve an injunction, nntil the canse is regularly set tor hearing, on the Court docket, the hearing shall then be final.

*

See generally, monographic win on “Injunctions’' appended to Claytor y. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518.

Several issues were, by a former order in this cause, directed to be tried at law, and the cause, regularly, as was supposed, *14brought on the Court-docket, after a motion to dissolve the injunction had been overruled ; and now, a motion to set aside the order directing those issues, upon the ground that they should not originally have been directed, and to dissolve the injunction, (as the Court had done in the case of Vass v. Magee,) being made ; the Court, upon mature consideration, directed the order to be set aside and the injunction dissolved : upon which the plaintiff’s counsel said, it was the course of the Court, in all cases, where a motion was made to dissolve an injunction, and the cause stood on the Court-docket, to consider it as a final hearing, and therefore hoped in this case the decree would be final. The bill was accordingly dismissed, from ■ which decree an appeal was asked and granted. But, some doubts being stated as to the practice, the Court declared the rule to be, that in all cases where an injunction has been granted, and no motion made to dissolve, until the cause is regularly set for hearing on the Court-docket, the hearing shall then be final. Upon this being stated by the Court, as the rule of practice in future, the counsel for the defendant shewed, to the satisfaction of the Court, that this cause had been irregularly brought on. the Court-docket, which the clerk said was the fact. The order for dismissing the bill was, therefore, set aside, and the injunction only dissolved. The plaintiff’s counsel then prayed an appeal, which was denied.
#### Blanton *v.*Miller. Ejectment.

Ruled per

Williams,

that the Court have never departed from this rule — where the party hath lost his deed, or is out of possession thereof, he himself, and no other person for him, must make oath of the loss, before he shall be permitted to read a copy, because no other can safely swear of his want of possession : and so the Plaintiff was called, though it was urged to the Court he was in a foreign country.

Note. — Vide *Wright & wife*v. *Bogan,*in note *post*178. *Park*v. *Cochran*& *others, post*410. *Nicholson*v. *Hilliard,*1 *Car. Law Pep.*355.
##### 



Certification of CEO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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.
 /s/ Terry ConsidineTerry ConsidineChairman and Chief Executive Officer
(equivalent of the chief executive officer of AIMCO Properties, L.P.)May 5, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 832 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 253
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 832

                          [Report No. 106-135]

To extend the commercial space launch damage indemnification provisions 
           of section 70113 of title 49, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 20, 1999

 Mr. McCain (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Burns, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Lott, 
and Mr. Gorton) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                             August 4, 1999

               Reported by Mr. McCain, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the commercial space launch damage indemnification provisions 
           of section 70113 of title 49, United States Code.

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

SECTION. 1. COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH INDUSTRY INDEMNIFICATION EXTENSION.

    Section 70113(f) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 1999.'' and inserting ``December 31, 2009''.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 253

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 832

                          [Report No. 106-135]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To extend the commercial space launch damage indemnification provisions 
           of section 70113 of title 49, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 4, 1999

                       Reported without amendment
```
3-1

CHAPTER 3: SCREENING OF DESIGN OPTIONS

The Process Rule requires that the Department screen design options before beginning the

Engineering Analysis. To be considered as the basis for the rulemaking, design options must satisfy four

screening criteria:

C Must be technically feasible

C Must be practical to mass manufacture, install, and service

C Must not substantially reduce consumer utility

C Must not raise significant safety concerns

We assume that design options available in products currently offered to the mass market meet

those screening criteria. The most widespread of these efficiency-related enhancements are:

C Increased coil face area and depth

C Multiple speed fan motor or blower motor

C Variable (or multiple) speed or capacity compressor or dual compressor

C Thermostatic or electronic expansion valve

C Improved air flow and fan design

C Increased efficiency compressor (scroll, advanced reciprocating)

Several recent and ongoing developments may soon change the cost impact of some of these

enhancements and make themmore attractive tomanufacturers.Eachoftheseemerging technologies also

meets the screening criteria:

C Advanced variable speed motor control (e.g. DC controllers and AC inverters)

C Advanced modulating compressors (e.g. Bristol TS®, Copeland Modulated Scroll®)

C Microchannel heat exchangers

We considered the impacts of these emerging technologies separately from our ARI validation

effort.

Finally, the industry currently faces a federally mandated phase out of refrigerant HCFC-22 by

2010. Although researchers continue to investigate severalalternative refrigerants, only two seem likely to

achieve significant penetration: 410Aand 407C. For new products, 410A is favored. Its higher operating

pressure and thermodynamic properties enable some reductions in component size that partially offset

higher lubricant and refrigerant costs. 407C operates at similar pressures as HCFC-22 but at a lower

efficiency. Both refrigerants pass the screening criteria. Again, we did not consider either of these within

our ARI validation effort since ARI considered equipment limited to HCFC-22.

 EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 311