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

**Privacy Act Requests**

To request a record pursuant to OSHRC’s Privacy Act regulations, you must submit a written request to:

Occupational Safety and Health Review CommissionPrivacy Officer1120 20th Street, NW, Ninth FloorWashington, DC 20036-3457

Email: OSHRC_Privacy@oshrc.gov

Your request should describe the nature of the record sought, the approximate dates covered by the record, and the system in which you think the record is located, as described in OSHRC’s system-of-records notices (see list below).

If you are submitting a request for a record under both the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (or if you are unsure which one applies to your situation), you must use the FOIA request procedures specified in the FOIA section of this website. If you are seeking records about yourself, your request will first be processed under the Privacy Act and then under the FOIA to ensure the greatest possible access to the requested records.

To request the amendment of a record covered by the Privacy Act, you must submit a written statement to the Privacy Officer at the above address that (1) specifically identifies the record you would like amended, (2) states what amendment to the record is requested, and (3) explains the reasons for such an amendment (such as relevance, accuracy, or completeness of the record).

Other Privacy-Related Inquiries:

If you have any other questions or concerns related to privacy matters at the Review Commission, please email the Privacy Officer at OSHRC_Privacy@oshrc.gov. You will be notified when the Privacy Officer has received your email, and you will receive a response, as appropriate, to your inquiry as soon as possible, typically within two weeks. The response period for an inquiry received through Postal Mail may be longer.

Contact Information for the Senior Agency Official for Privacy:

Occupational Safety and Health Review CommissionNadine N. Mancini, Senior Agency Official for Privacy1120 20th Street, NW, Ninth FloorWashington, DC 20036-3457

OSHRC’s Regulations Implementing the Privacy Act

OSHRC's current Privacy Act Regulations

85 Fed. Reg. 65,221 (Oct. 15, 2020) (final rule) 

OSHRC’s System-of-Records Notices

Compilation of Notices (OSHRC-1 through OSHRC-9)

OSHRC-1: 83 Fed. Reg. 47,942 (Sept. 21, 2018)

OSHRC-2: 84 Fed. Reg. 7408 (Mar. 4, 2019)

OSHRC-3: 85 Fed. Reg. 53,863 (Aug. 31, 2020)

OSHRC-4: 84 Fed. Reg. 7406 (Mar. 4, 2019)

OSHRC-5: 83 Fed. Reg. 54,789 (Oct. 31, 2018)

OSHRC-6:  86 Fed. Reg. 51,199 (Sept. 14, 2021)

OSHRC-7:  86 Fed. Reg. 56,734 (Oct. 12, 2021)

OSHRC-8: 83 Fed. Reg. 62,627 (Dec. 4, 2018)

OSHRC-9: 86 Fed. Reg. 64,532 (Nov. 18, 2021)

Privacy Impact Assessments

Privacy Impact Assessment OSHRC website (Oct. 1, 2021)

Privacy Impact Assessment OSHRC LAN/WAN (July 25, 2022)

Privacy Impact Assessment Office 365 (July 25, 2022)

Privacy Impact Assessment OSHRC E-Filing System (Sept. 30, 2021)

 

 

Page Last Update December 21, 2021
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 27, 2019.

________________

No. 3D18-2487

Lower Tribunal No. 17-10511 A

________________



### Beanco Thomas

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch

, Judge.

Beanco Thomas

, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and G. Raemy Charest-Turken, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and HENDON, JJ.

EMAS, J.ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

Beanco Alexander Thomas appeals from the trial court’s order summarily

denying, with prejudice, his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Before the trial court rendered the order on appeal, however, Thomas filed a

motion to voluntarily dismiss his motion for postconviction relief, advising the trial

court that he was seeking voluntary dismissal of the motion for postconviction

relief because as pleaded it was “facially and legally insufficient.” Although the

trial court acknowledged Thomas’s motion for voluntary dismissal “was filed one

day prior to entry of the order on his motion for postconviction relief,” it

nevertheless entered the order denying with prejudice Thomas’ motion for

postconviction relief, and denied “as moot” Thomas’ motion for voluntary

dismissal.

The State properly and commendably confesses error, acknowledging that

Thomas was entitled to voluntarily dismiss his motion under the circumstances.

See Simon v. State

, 768 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding defendant was

entitled to voluntarily dismiss his 3.850 motion, where the voluntary dismissal

motion was filed before the court rendered an order on the 3.850 motion, and there

would be no prejudice to the State) (citing Clark v. State

, 491 So. 2d 545 (Fla.

1986)). See also Hampton v. State

, 949 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

2We therefore reverse the order on appeal, and remand with directions to

grant Thomas’ motion for voluntary dismissal of his September 11, 2018 motion

for postconviction relief, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

3
#### James H. Martin v. Daniel Gould, *et al.*

Ia a gift by will to a child and grandchildren *“*equally *to*be divided,” each of the latter take equally with the former, unless a different intention is inferred from other parts of the will.

This bill was filed by the executor of *Daniel Gould,*sen. to have a construction put upon the will of his testator. The will after giving all his estate to his wife -for life, proceeded thus : *“*after her death it is my desire *306“ that all my estate both real and personal shall be sold “ at twelve months credit, and when the money is cól- “ lected for the land, the average value of one hundred “acres to he given to my son *Daniel*in order to make “ him compensation for one hundred acres of land “ which I gave to my son *Malachi Gould.*All the rest “of the money that is left, to be equally divided between “ my son *Daniel*and my three grandsons to wit, Ac. (na~ “ ming them,) to them and their heirs forever.” The defendants were the testator’s son *Daniel*and his grandsons mentioned in the will who were the sons of *Malachi.*The only question was whether the residue should be divided between them equally, or whether one half should be given to *Daniel*and the other to the sons of *Malachi.*

*Mendenhall*for the plaintiff.

No counsel appeared for the defendants.

EufitN, Judge.

Probably upon the authorities the construction of the residuary clause, standing by itself is, that the grand sons do not take as a class, but each of the three named take an equal share with the uncle. But what is doubtful here, is cleared up by the clause immediately preceding, which gives out of the aggregate fund' before the division, when the money for the land shall be collected, the average price of 100 acres to *Daniel*the son, “ in order to make him compensation for 100 acres which I gave to my son *Malachi.>>*This shows that the testator meant to deal equally between his two sons *;*and to make the children of his deceased one stand in their father’s stead, and that the grand sons take their share as grandsons. Upon the whole will therefore it must be declared, that *Daniel*the son of the testator is entitled to one half the residue, and the three grand sons to the other half, to be equally divided between them, as they shall come of age. And the costs of this suit must be paid out of the fund in the hands of the executor.

Per Curiam.- — Decree accordiNgey.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1333 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to allow States more flexibility 

with respect to using contractors to make eligibility determinations on 

behalf of the State Medicaid plan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2017 

Mr. CARTER of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to allow 

States more flexibility with respect to using contractors 

to make eligibility determinations on behalf of the State 

Medicaid plan. 

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 ‘‘Freedom to Use Con5 tracted Entities Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1333 IH

1 SEC. 2. STATE FLEXIBILITY TO USE CONTRACTORS TO 

2 MAKE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ON BE3 HALF OF STATE. 

4 Section 1902(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(5)) is amended by inserting before the 

6 semicolon at the end the following: ‘‘, but such determina7 tions of eligibility may be made, at the option of a State, 

8 under a contract with another State or local agency or 

9 a contractor so long as the contract does not provide in10 centives for the agency or contractor to delay eligibility 

11 determinations or to deny eligibility for individuals other12 wise eligible for medical assistance’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 128 

To amend section 416 of title 39, United States Code, to remove the authority 

of the United States Postal Service to issue semipostals except as provided for by an Act of Congress, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend section 416 of title 39, United States Code, to 

remove the authority of the United States Postal Service 

to issue semipostals except as provided for by an Act 

of Congress, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Semipostal Stamp 

5 Clarification Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 128 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 

2 SEMIPOSTAL STAMP AUTHORITY. 

3 Section 416 of title 39, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(b) LIMITED AUTHORITY.—The Postal Service may 

8 issue and sell semipostals under this section only for such 

9 purposes or causes as provided for by an Act of Con10 gress.’’; 

11 (2) in subsection (d)— 

12 (A) in paragraph (1)— 

13 (i) by striking ‘‘appropriate agency or 

14 agencies’’ and inserting ‘‘appropriate agen15 cy or entity, as provided for by an Act of 

16 Congress pursuant to subsection (b),’’; and 

17 (ii) by striking ‘‘such agency’’ and in18 serting ‘‘such agency or entity’’; 

19 (B) by striking paragraph (2); and 

20 (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as 

21 paragraph (2); 

22 (3) by striking subsection (e); and 

23 (4) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as 

24 subsections (e) and (f), respectively. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27535]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings 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 material, 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Member Conflict: Special Topics in Imaging and Bioengineering 
Technology for Visual Systems.
    Date: December 12, 2024.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Rachel Anne Kane, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-0221, 
[email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Therapeutics Development.
    Date: December 16, 2024.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Lystranne Alysia Maynard Smith, Ph.D., 
Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
402-4809, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 19, 2024.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-27535 Filed 11-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
S· DEPARTMENT OF THE 

1. Purpose. of notices of 

to assure that CO's for 

after proper service of 

2. Definitions. None. 

3- Policy/Procedures. 

JNE-8 

SYSTEM 5/19/83 

guidance concerning service 

and cessation orders (CO's) and 

are issued and served only 

the underlying NOV's. 

a. An NOV or CO must be served in order to 

be (47 FR 35620, August 16, 1982) states 

that the inspector must give to the agent of the permittee at the 

coal mining operation a copy of the NOV or CO. If no such agent 

is available, the copy must be given to the individual who appears 

to be 1n charge or to an employee. If no one is present at the 

minesite, the NOV or CO must be sent by certified mail or must be 

delivered by hand to the person to whom 1t 1s issued or his designated 

agent. Service is complete upon tender of the notice or order and 

is not incomplete because of refusal to accept. 

b. Lack of Service of NOV, A CO for non-abatement may not 

be issued for failure to abate an NOV if the NOV has not been properly 

served. 

undelivered 

attempt must be made to 

and to resend the NOV or 

make repeated efforts to 

A record of each attempt 

her supervisor must make 

e.g., secretary, 

circumstances the 

unclaimed, an 

of the permittee 

may necessary to 

address of the permittee. 

inspector or hie or 

:-.: cease further attempts. 
2 

3. d. 

has conce~ning rerusal. The Inspector should explain why the mail 

was refused if the circumstances surrounding the case are known. A 

copy of the refused NOV or GO must be sent to the permittee by regular 

mail. The transmittal must be documented in the file in order to 

prove service in any later proceedings, 

e. Lack of Service of' CO. If there has been proper service 

on the underlying NOV, but the CO for failure to abate cannot be 

properly served, the CO is not effective and must be vacated but 

only after reasonable attempts to serve !t have failed. 

f, Inspectors must take advantage of opportunities when an operator has been located 

f'ollowing or co for which service was incomplete. 

It will be necessary to a~just the abatement date. 

', 

[ ~· ::·::'::·:~; . " 

correct 

When an NOV or CO cannot be served to s 

that the Secretary of State, Corporation 

office can provide information concerning 

of the permittee. 

4. Reporting Requirement. None. 

5. Reference. 30 CFR 843.14 (ll7 FR 35620, August 16, 1982). 

6. Directive, "Service or 

Crders {CC's)," INE-8, 

7, Contact. Chier, Branch of Inspection (F'l'S 343-5384). 

-

-
Back to Contents



EXHIBIT 23.0


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-61809, 333-64090, 333-52369, 333-52369-01, 333-52369-02, 333-130720) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-34694, 333-52468, 333-25945, 333-25945-99, 002-
91384-99, 033-59739, 033-59739-99, 333-77125, 333-88912, 333-101524, 333-119308, 333-129078, 333-129815) of Foster Wheeler Ltd. of our report dated March 3, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule, managements
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading Experts in such Registration Statements.


We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the above Registration Statements of our reports dated March 3, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements of:


| |  | Foster Wheeler Holdings Ltd. and Subsidiaries;
| | - | ----------------------------------------------

| |   |                                     
| | - | ------------------------------------
| |  | Foster Wheeler LLC and Subsidiaries,

| |   |                                                              
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Foster Wheeler International Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries;

| |   |                                                           
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Foster Wheeler International Corporation and Subsidiaries;

| |   |                                                
| | - | -----------------------------------------------
| |  | Foster Wheeler Europe Limited and Subsidiaries;

| |   |                                            
| | - | -------------------------------------------
| |  | Financial Services S.a.r.l. and Subsidiary;

| |   |                                      
| | - | -------------------------------------
| |  | FW Netherlands C.V. and Subsidiaries;

| |   |                                                
| | - | -----------------------------------------------
| |  | FW Hungary Licensing Limited Liability Company,

which also appear in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Florham Park, New Jersey
March 3, 2006

---
Cost Effectiveness of the Removing Toxic Pollutants for Direct Dischargers at a Wastestream/Technology Level

Wastestream Technology Option

Fly Ash Transport Water Dry Handling/Closed Loop

FGD Wastewater Chemical Precipitation

FGD Wastewater Chemical Precipitation and Biological Treatment

Bottom Ash Transport Water Dry Handling/Closed Loop (50 MW threshold)

Bottom Ash Transport Water Dry Handling/Closed Loop (400 MW threshold)
 Wastestream/Technology Level

Annual Pre-Tax Compliance Costs for Direct 

Dischargers

(1981$)

Total TWPE Removals for Direct 

Dischargers

(TWPE/yr)

Cost Effectiveness

(1981$/TWPE)

67,500,000 2,488,470 27

105,600,000 1,530,719 69

156,000,000 2,603,628 60

287,500,000 2,701,306 106

155,200,000 1,572,595 99
#### Abraham Gammell, plaintiff in error, *vs.*R. B. Gunby & Company, defendants in error.

■Where a merchant, whose business was to buy and sell to meet the wants of customers, sold guano to a farmer as a fertilizer, he impliedly warranted that the article was merchantable and reasonably suited to the use designed.

Warranty. Before Judge James Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. November Term, 1873.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

M. H. Blandeord, by H. L. Benning, for plaintiff in error.

L. F. Garrard, by J. M. Russell, for defendants.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant on a promissory note for $143 37, dated 1st June, 1870, due five months after date. The defendant pleaded that the note was given to the plaintiffs for guano, or a fertilizer known as “ Wilcox’s Superphosphate,” which was worthless as a fertilizer, and not merchantable, nor reasonably suited for the purposes intended, etc. The evidence on the trial as to the quality of the article sold as a fertilizer, was *conflicting.*The jury, under the charge of the court, found a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount of the note with interest. The ■court, after charging the jury substantially the law as embodied in the 2651st section of the Code, in regard to the implied warranty of vendors, that the article sold was merchantable, and reasonably suited to the use intended, further charged the jury, “that if the transaction (to-wit,) th£ sale of the guano, was made by a merchant whose business it was to buy and sell to meet the wants of purchasers, and if the purchaser was a farmer, and it was bought by him as a fertilizer, such a transaction, the parties standing in such relation to each other, ex-*505eludes the idea that the vendor by the sale warranted the article to be merchantable and reasonably suited to the uses designed. This latter part of the charge was error, because it neutralized and destroyed the legal effect of the charge already given to the jury as to the implied warranty of the vendors of the guano. The law does not contemplate any such qualiScation to the vendors’ implied warranty as to the ■quality of the article sold, as stated by the court in its charge. Nor does the fact that the purchaser of the guano was a farmer exclude the idea that the vendors, by the sale of the guano to him, did not impliedly, as the law declares, warrant it to be merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended. As *&*general rule, it is farmers who purchase fertilizers, and it is that class of purchasers who especially need the protection of the law.

Let the judgment of the court below be reversed.