alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Maierle, Respondent, vs. Boynton Cab Company, Appellant: Hayes, Defendant.

For the appellant: *Dougherty, Arnold & Kivett*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Gerald H. Kops*and *Rubin, Zabel & Ruppa,*attorneys, and *Wm. B. Rubin*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the defendant E. K. Hayes: *Robert I. Hayes,*attorney, and *William A. Hayes*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffNuclear Regulatory Legislation: 113th Congress (NUREG-0980)

# Nuclear Regulatory Legislation: 113th Congress; 2nd Session (Volume 2, Number 11)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Foreword

Download complete document
        - NUREG-0980, Volume 2, Number 11 (5.73 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published**: December 2015

Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Foreword

This compilation of statutes and materials pertaining to nuclear regulatory legislation through the 113th Congress, 2nd Session, has been prepared by the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with the assistance of staff, for use as an internal resource document. The compilation is not to be used as an authoritative citation in lieu of the primary legislative sources. Furthermore, while every effort has been made to ensure the completeness and accuracy of this material, neither the United States Government, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, nor any of their employees makes any expressed or implied warranty or assumes liability for the accuracy or completeness of the material presented in this compilation.

This compilation includes all provisions signed into law through December 31, 2014 and can also be found on-line.

If you have any questions concerning this compilation, please contact:

Anne A. Frost Legislative Specialist Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001Anne.Frost@nrc.gov

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         341
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,295
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,358
<PP&E>                                         623
<DEPRECIATION>                                 183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,807
<BONDS>                                        2,601
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       295
<OTHER-SE>                                     139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,842
<SALES>                                        4,046
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,046
<CGS>                                          2,029
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,029
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             87
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,379)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,379)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,379)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)


</TABLE>
# C_2004225EN.01000101.xml

| 9.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 September 2004

(2004/C 225/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2039 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,01 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4361 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6788 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,101 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5379 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,41 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3335 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5771 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,746 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 248,55 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6555 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4268 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3853 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 900 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,99 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,16 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 809 200 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7447 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5562 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3899 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8765 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0448 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 384,06 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0567 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2039

JPY

Japanese yen

132,01

DKK

Danish krone

7,4361

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6788

SEK

Swedish krona

9,101

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5379

ISK

Iceland króna

87,41

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3335

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5771

CZK

Czech koruna

31,746

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

248,55

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6555

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4268

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3853

ROL

Romanian leu

40 900

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,99

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,16

TRL

Turkish lira

1 809 200

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7447

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5562

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3899

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8765

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0448

KRW

South Korean won

1 384,06

ZAR

South African rand

8,0567

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
exv10w1








Exhibit 10.1




February 7, 2011




Dr. John H. Short

RehabCare Group, Inc.

7733 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 2300

St. Louis, MO 63105




     Re: Termination Compensation Agreement Clarification



Dear John:




     Reference is made to that certain Termination Compensation Agreement (“Agreement”) entered
into December 11, 2007 (as amended effective December 8, 2008) between you and RehabCare Group,
Inc. (the “Company”). As has been discussed, in order to clarify the intent of both you and the
Company with respect to certain gross-up payments in Section 4.2(f) of the Agreement, the Agreement
is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence of Section 4.2(b). Section 4.2(f) shall remain and
be a part of the Agreement.



     Please contact me with any questions.



     Sincerely,



	 	 	 	 	 

	 

	 	/s/ Harry E. Rich
 

Harry E. Rich, Chairman
	 	 






ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:




	 	 	 

	/s/ John H. Short
 

John H. Short, PhD

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Date: 2-7-11
# Alfisols

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Conservation Basics 
-  Natural Resource Concerns 
-  Alfisols 

Alfisols are in semiarid to moist areas.

The central concept of Alfisols is that of soils that have an argillic, a kandic, or a natric horizon and a base saturation of 35% or greater. They typically have an ochric epipedon, but may have an umbric epipedon. They may also have a petrocalcic horizon, a fragipan or a duripan.

## Dominant Suborders

### Aqualfs

Aqualfs, which have warm and aquic conditions, primarily are found in an area bordering the southern part of the Mississippi River, in southern Illinois, and in Indiana and Ohio. Most Aqualfs have some artificial drainage or other water control and are used as cropland for corn, soybeans, and rice. Nearly all Aqualfs are believed to have supported forest vegetation in the past.

### Cryalfs

Cryalfs, which are the cold Alfisols, occur mostly at high elevations, mainly in the Rocky Mountains in the Western United States. Most of the Cryalfs in the United States are used as forest because of their short, cool growing season.

### Udalfs

Udalfs, which have a udic moisture regime, are of large extent in the United States. They form a belt extending from Minnesota through Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio and ending in New York State. Another large area of Udalfs begins in southern Iowa and extends through Missouri, Illinois, and the States to the south bordering the Mississippi River. All Udalfs are believed to have supported forest vegetation at some time during development.

### Ustalfs

Ustalfs, which have an ustic soil moisture regime, occur on the southern Great Plains, mostly in Texas and Oklahoma. They also occur throughout the Rocky Mountain States from Montana to Arizona and New Mexico and in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The dry season is pronounced. Many Ustalfs support savanna vegetation, and some supported grassland vegetation. Most are used as cropland or grazing land.

### Xeralfs

Xeralfs, which have a xeric soil moisture regime, are mostly in California, but small areas are in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Utah. The natural vegetation was a mixture of annual grasses, forbs, and woody shrubs on the warmest and driest Xeralfs and coniferous forest on the coolest and most moist Xeralfs. Xeralfs are used mostly as cropland, forest, or grazing land. Small grains, mostly winter wheat, are the most common crops.

Alfisols are extensive in the United States. They make up about 13.9 percent of the surface area. In normal years they are dry when the soils are warm enough for plants to grow.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,645
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,876
<INVENTORY>                                     40,169
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,786
<PP&E>                                          19,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,711
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,751
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,810
<SALES>                                        490,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               490,025
<CGS>                                          431,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  431,905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                64,528
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,408)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (965)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,443)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,443)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)
        

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsResearch Information Letters

# Research Information Letters – 1974

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984
          - 1983
          - 1982
          - 1981
          - 1980
          - 1979
          - 1978
          - 1977
          - 1976
          - 1974
          - Contact Us About Research Information Letters

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 31, 2021
----

Action brought on 27 May 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-221/04)

(2004/C 179/19)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. van Beek and G. Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The permits for fox hunting with snares granted by the authorities of Castilla y León are contrary to Article 12(1) and Annex VI of Directive 92/43/EEC for two reasons.

First, the use of snares has been authorised in the regions of Aldeanueva de la Sierra and Mediana de Voltoya, which involves the hunting or deliberate disturbance of an animal species, Lutra lutra (Otter), included in Annex IV of the Directive, which is a species of Community interest that requires special protection. The authorities of Castilla y León have recognised the presence of otters in those regions.

Second, the snare is a non-selective method of hunting, since any animal may be trapped, regardless of whether or not its capture is desired (in this case the fox). The Spanish authorities' argument that the permits contain a clause requiring other species to be freed does not mean the traps are selective, since the animals captured usually suffer injury, including the loss of limbs, by attempting to free themselves from the snares.

----

(1)OJ L 206 of 22. 7. 1992, p. 7.

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:

(1) The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

Date: August 14, 2007



/s/ James G. StewartName:

James G. StewartTitle:

Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as a part of this report or on a separate disclosure document.
#### DELK INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17717.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

April 29, 1965.

*697John Lewis Kelly, Washington, D. C., James F. McCarthy, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Jonathan S. Cohen, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Div., Washington, D. C., Lee A. Jackson and I. Henry Kutz, Attys., Tax Div., Washington, D. C., and Richard D. Fitz-Gibbon, Jr., U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before VOGEL, MATTHES and RIDGE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought by Delk Investment Corporation against the United States to recover paid deficiencies assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the years 1955, 1956 and 1957, plus interest thereon. Delk, a personal holding company, challenged the Commissioner’s interpretation of the statutory direction in 26 U.S.C.A. § 545 (b) (5) for computing how much tax was “attributable” to Delk’s capital gains for the years in question. In a carefully considered opinion, Delk Investment Corp. v. United States, D.C.E.D.Mo., 1964, 228 F. Supp. 545, Judge Regan held as did the Commissioner and denied recovery. We would be able to affirm on the basis of Judge Regan’s opinion alone. Nevertheless, in the only other reported case involving the identical question, the Second Circuit in Litchfield Securities Corp. v. United States, 2 Cir., 1963, 325 F.2d 667, certiorari denied, 377 U.S. 931, 84 S.Ct. 1333, 12 L.Ed.2d 295, held as did the District Court here. The policy of this court with regard to uniformity in tax holdings has been stated by us in C. I. R. v. Moran, 8 Cir., 1956, 236 F.2d 595, 596:

> “ * * * This court has repeatedly held, particularly in tax matters, that the decision of another Court of Appeals should be followed unless demonstrably erroneous or there appear cogent reasons for its rejection. Birmingham v. Geer, 8 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 82, 85, cer-tiorari denied 1951, 340 U.S. 951, 71 S.Ct. 571, 95 L.Ed. 686.”

As we are in complete accord with Judge Regan’s opinion and with Litchfield, this case is affirmed.
No. 82-5954.

#### Byrd *v.*Civil Service Commission of the City and County of San Francisco et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (Ac.) (548) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (Ac.) (548) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (Ac.) (548).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (Ac.) (548) (7/2022) Standard Document(756.22 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (Ac.) (548) Overview(469.5 KB)

Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (Ac.) (548) CPPE(25.14 KB)

Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (Ac.) (548) Network Diagram(79.45 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
#### THOMAS J. JONES v. GEORGE *W.*SWEPSON.

*Motion to Vaeate Judgment*— Practice.

Upon a motion to vacate a judgment, it is the duty of the Court below to find the facts upon which its judgment is grounded, and on appeal to this Court to set them forth upon the record.

*(Clegg*v. *White,*S. S. Co., 66 N. C. 391; *Powell*v. *Weith,*Ib. 423; *Hudgins*v. *White,*66 N. C. 393, cited and approved.)

Motion by defendant to vacate a judgment under C. C.P. § 133, heard at Spring Term, 1878, of Cumberland Superior Court, before Moore, *J.*

The motion was allowed and the plaintiff appealed.

*Mr. J. W. Hinsdale,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller Ashe,*for defendant.

Bynum, J.

This is an application to the Judge below to vacate a judgment under C. C. P. § 133 for excusable neglect. As the affidavit of the defendant is contradicted in some material particulars by the affidavit of the plaintiff, it was the duty of the Judge to find and set forth upon the record the facts upon which he grounded his judgment. "Whether a given state of facts constitutes excusable neglect is a question of law. This Court has no jurisdiction to find *511the facts from the testimony contained in the affidavits when they are conflicting. That is the peculiar province of the Court below. This is as well settled as any proposition can be, by many concurring decisions of this Court. *Clegg*v. *White Soap Stone Co.,*66 N. C., 391; *Hudgins*v. *White,*65 N. C. 393; *Powell*v. *Weith,*66 N. C. 423.

Error. Reversed.