alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IN QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE IN SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,414
<SECURITIES>                                    62,922
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,530
<PP&E>                                          11,610
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,835)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,886
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,304
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,932
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  67
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,409)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,409)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,409)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 9009]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Staging the Ukrainian Avant-Garde of the 1910s and 1920s,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Ukrainian Museum, New York, NY, from on or about February 7, 2015, until on or about September 13, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including lists of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: January 14, 2015.

Kelly Keiderling,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2015-00899 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC StaffInstructions for Completing NRC's Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (NUREG/BR-0204)

# Instructions for Completing NRC's Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest – Final Report (NUREG/BR-0204, Revision 3)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0204, Revision 3 (PDF – 646.85 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** February 2020**Date Published:** June 2020

**Prepared by:**K. E. PinkstonD. B. LowmanC. S. BarrA. C. RidgeC. J. GrossmanL. T. Desotell

Robert Lee Gladney, NRC Project Manager

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

## Abstract

NUREG/BR-0204 contains guidance for completing the Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (NRC Forms 540, 541, and 542). The document includes an explanation or reference for each item to assist you in properly completing each form. Exhibits at the end of these instructions show sample NRC Forms 540, 541, and 542.

The changes between Revision 2 and Revision 3 of these instructions are (1) updated instructions to reflect changes to the Uniform Manifest Forms, (2) updated references to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations to reflect the current DOT regulations, (3) additional discussion on the reporting of inventories based on lower limit of detection values, the potential use of indirect methods to determine these inventories, and the use of indirect methods in waste classification calculations, (4) added clarification of the intent of the certification statement on Form 540, and (5) made overall improvements to the clarity of the document.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, July 16, 2021
#### Kneeland-McLurg Lumber Company, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and another, Respondents.

*May 12*

June *18, 1928.*

*404
      *W. K. Parkinson*of Phillips, for the appellant.

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer*Levitan> assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Levitan.*

Doerfler, J.

The contract was in writing. For the construction of each station, being one hundred feet of grade construction, the plaintiff agreed to pay the sum of $10.80. The claimant and others who co-operated with him in the construction work were by the terms of the contract obligated to furnish their own tools and material. Furthermore,' they were at liberty to pursue any means by them deemed proper and desirable in the construction of the specified grade. The details of the work were left to be performed in accordance with their own judgment, without any dictation on the part of the plaintiff.

All of the provisions of the contract are clearly and definitely persuasive that the parties thereto had in mind the creation of the relationship of independent contractor or contractors, and not that of employer and employee. In his testimony before the Commission the claimant repeatedly admitted that the company or its representatives had absolutely no control whatsoever over the details of the work, and that the manner of performance was entirely within the *405discretion and power of the claimant and those who cooperated with him in the work.

It is true.that the claimant testified that if the work was not properly performed plaintiff’s superintendent would exercise his power of discharge. It is clear that what the claimant intended by “discharge” merely signified that if the grade workers were incompetent or failed in any respect in the proper construction of the grade, the agreement with respect to those breaching the contract would be canceled. While the superintendent inspected the work on the grade .almost daily, he did so merely for the purpose of obtaining proper ultimate results, and whatever directions he gave to the workers on the grade were given solely with the view of accomplishing the proper ultimate results.

Counsel for the claimant and the Industrial Commission take the position that the alleged written contract constituted a mere camouflage for the purpose of hiding the actual relationship that existed between the parties, which they insist is that of employer and employee. Nothing contained in the record supports this contention. The work in all respects proceeded in accordance with the contract and with the specifications contained therein. The inspection from day to day by the superintendent was similar to that of an architect pursuant to a building contract.

The principles announced' in *Weyauwega v. Industrial Comm.*180 Wis. 168, 192 N. W. 452, when applied to this case, control the same, with the result that the judgment must be reversed.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions to enter judgment vacating the award of the Industrial Commission.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

BENNIE AARON JONES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 16-1223 

(D.C. No. 1:15-CR-00304-WYD-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This matter is before us on Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for Summary 

Affirmance. The United States moves for summary affirmance of the district court’s 

sentencing determination in this case in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles 

v. United States, __S. Ct.__, 2017 WL 855781 (March 6, 2017). Appellant Bennie Aaron 

Jones does not oppose the motion. 

Upon consideration, the motion is granted. The judgment of the district court is 

affirmed. 

 

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of 

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 8, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam
No. 91-5810.

#### Williams *v.*United States Postal Service et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 82-5886.

#### Moody *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied.
**Commodity 2007**  **Pounds Ap** **plied 2008** 

**Pounds Ap** **plied 2009** 

**Pounds Ap** **plied** ALFALFA (FORAGE - FODDER) (ALFALFA HAY) 8 ANIMAL HUSBANDRY PREMISES 0 ARRUGULA (ROQUETTE, ROCKET SALAD) 12 BOK CHOY (WONG BOK) 5 3 BROCCOLI 768 886 402 BRUSSELS SPROUTS 76 29 24 CABBAGE 162 133 34 CANTALOUPE 42 265 383 CAULIFLOWER 100 136 78 CELERY, GENERAL 152 126 14 CHINESE CABBAGE (NAPPA, WON BOK, CELERY CABBAGE) 2 14 31 CORN, HUMAN CONSUMPTION 20 COTTON, GENERAL 2141916 326 CUCUMBER (PICKLING, CHINESE, ETC.) 148 7 18 EGGPLANT (ORIENTAL EGGPLANT) 2 1 ENDIVE (ESCAROLE) 9 8 GRAPES 39561003 227 GRAPES, WINE 52635129 3683 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 29 32 43 LETTUCE, HEAD (ALL OR UNSPEC) 512 332 34 LETTUCE, LEAF (ALL OR UNSPEC) 456 212 64 MELONS 254 135 147 MUSTARD, GENERAL 1 N-GRNHS GRWN CUT FLWRS OR GREENS 74 42 116 N-GRNHS GRWN PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 485 436 530 N-GRNHS GRWN TRNSPLNT/PRPGTV MTRL 30 40 35 N-OUTDR CONTAINER/FLD GRWN PLANTS 312 237 247 N-OUTDR GRWN CUT FLWRS OR GREENS 16 19 76 N-OUTDR GRWN TRNSPLNT/PRPGTV MTRL 28 3 10 OLIVE (ALL OR UNSPEC) 0 PARSLEY (LEAFY VEGETABLE) 2 PEPPERS (CHILI TYPE) (FLAVORING AND SPICE CROP) 1 0 PEPPERS (FRUITING VEGETABLE), (BELL,CHILI, ETC.) 127 108 87 POTATO (WHITE, IRISH, RED, RUSSET) 7 PUMPKIN 40 16 27 RADICCHIO 10 REGULATORY PEST CONTROL 1 1 0 RESEARCH COMMODITY 2 1 RIGHTS OF WAY 0



### Dinotefuran (044312)**Cal. DPR Usage Data** Publicly available data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CADPR) was used to produce the following table outlining the pounds of Dinotefuranused in California over

the three most recent years available (2007 - 2009).SPINACH 1 1 8

SQUASH (ALL OR UNSPEC) 71 4 17 SQUASH (SUMMER) 0 1 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 1 10 SWISS CHARD (SPINACH BEET) 1 TOMATILLO 1 24 TOMATO 82 206 32 TOMATOES, FOR PROCESSING/CANNING 101476 1499 VERTEBRATE PEST CONTROL 3 0 WATERMELONS 159 130 135 Grand Total 1370112106 8389 Date Prepared: February 4, 2011 Cal DPR Data: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm Empty cells indicate no available usage.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,281,575
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8,859
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,019,933
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,426,593
<PP&E>                                          11,767,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,841,590
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,261,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,831,062
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           176,670
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,304,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,261,965
<SALES>                                             42,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    42,170
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,955,482
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13,102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,377,602)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,377,602)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,377,602)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.19)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01419]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and 
Education (#9487).
    Dates: March 11 & March 12, 2015; 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: Stafford I, Room 1235, National Science Foundation, 
4201Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Linda Deegan, National Science Foundation, Suite 
655, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5d9d1d0d0d2d4dbf5dbc6d39bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="18747c7d7d7f797658766b7e367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations, and 
oversight concerning support for environmental research and 
education.

Agenda

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Approval of minutes from past meetings
    <bullet> Updates on recent NSF and other agency environmental 
activities.
    <bullet> Discuss and refine draft of the Decadal Vision for 
Environmental Research and Education document.
    <bullet> Meet with NSF Assistant Directors.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Discuss and refine draft of the Decadal Vision for Environmental 
Research and Education document (Continued)
    <bullet> Meet with the NSF Director.
    <bullet> AC Business--Set date for next meeting.

    Dated: January 22, 2015.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Acting, Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-01419 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No: 19-058 November 21, 2019

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Issues Enforcement Actions for Discrimination

at Vogtle New Reactor Construction Site

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Notice of Violation to a former Southern 

Nuclear Company manager, as well as a Confirmatory Order to Southern Nuclear, for actions in 

prior years against contract employees who had previously raised safety concerns at the Vogtle 

Units 3 and 4 construction site, near Waynesboro, Ga.

The NRC concluded the former manager violated the agency’s employee protection regulations 

by removing a contract employee from the Vogtle site in December 2015, while knowing the 

employee had previously raised concerns about design and code compliance issues. The employee’s 

contract was terminated in 2016. The NRC identified apparent employee protection violations by 

Southern Nuclear in that case and one where a different contract employee was removed from the 

Vogtle site in 2017. The NRC also investigated Westinghouse, Southern Nuclear’s vendor for the 

Vogtle project, with regard to the case. The NRC concluded no enforcement action was warranted

for Westinghouse.

The NRC’s May 2019 letter to the former manager regarding the case followed normal practice 

in offering a mediated settlement through the agency’s Alternative Dispute Resolution process. 

When the NRC and the former manager could not reach an agreement, the agency held a 

predecisional enforcement conference with the manager in September before concluding the 

violation occurred. The manager has 30 days to respond to the notice of violation.

Southern Nuclear was also offered a mediated settlement, and the Confirmatory Order enforces 

the results. Southern Nuclear committed to several actions, including maintaining a review process 

to ensure protected activity is considered when an employee faces significant adverse actions (e.g., 

job termination). The company also committed to improve the nuclear safety culture and safety 

conscious work environment at the site.
# Appendix A sUAS Make and Model User Manual Downloads

DJI Phantom 3 Advance and DJI Phantom 3 Professional http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3/download

DJI Inspire 1 http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/download

# Appendix B

Forms

Pilot Master Log Flight Safety Preflight Check List Flight Request/Release Smart Battery Guidelines Maintenance Log
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10595

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHADWICK DARRIN HUNTER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-41

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chadwick Darrin Hunter appeals following the revocation of his 

supervised release. He argues that the district court erred in admitting and 

considering various state charging documents that related to conduct which 

also formed the basis of the Government’s motion to revoke his supervised 

release. 

“A district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it finds 

by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of release has been 

* 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

February 13, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10595 Document: 00512531938 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2014
No. 13-10595

Summary Calendar

violated.” United States v. Minnitt, 617 F.3d 327, 332 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). In revocation proceedings, we review 

an assertion of legal error in the admission of evidence de novo, but subject to 

a harmless error analysis. See id.; United States v. Brigham, 569 F.3d 220, 

231 (5th Cir. 2009). “An error is harmless when it does not affect the 

substantial rights of a party. The government has the burden of establishing 

harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Carrillo, 660 F.3d 

914, 926 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

We pretermit a determination whether the district court erred by 

admitting the charging documents in favor of a determination that the court’s 

error, if any, was harmless. See, e.g., id. at 929. The charging documents were 

cumulative evidence of testimony properly given at the revocation hearing. 

The erroneous introduction of cumulative evidence is harmless error. United 

States v. Hall, 500 F.3d 439, 444 (5th Cir. 2007). Hunter’s assertion of alleged 

contradictions between the charging information and the police officer’s 

testimony at the hearing may not be raised for the first time on appeal. See 

Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-10595 Document: 00512531938 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2014