alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Short Term Storage of Animal Waste and Byproducts (Cubic Yards) (318) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Short Term Storage of Animal Waste and Byproducts (Cubic Yards) (318) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Short Term Storage of Animal Waste and Byproducts (Cubic Yards) (318).

## 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)

Short Term Storage of Animal Waste and Byproducts (Cubic Yards) (318) (9/2020) Standard Document(75.46 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Short Term Storage of Animal Waste and Byproducts (Cubic Yards) (318) Overview(252.22 KB)

Short Term Storage of Animal Waste and Byproducts (Cubic Yards) (318) Network Effects Diagram(82.32 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
#### Jerry J. Pulsifer et al., Respondents, v Eastman Kodak Company, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 948]

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff Jerry Pulsifer was injured as he descended a ladder from one level of scaffolding to another, an activity covered by the statute *(see, Brown v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*188 AD2d 1014). Unlike the plaintiff in *Bonaparte v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.*(188 AD2d 853), Pulsifer did not fall at the same level at which he had been working.

The court erred, however, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (2). Although it is uncontroverted that the scaffolding lacked guardrails in contravention of the statute, plaintiffs did not show that the violation of the statute was a proximate cause of Pulsifer’s injuries, inasmuch as Pulsifer was descending a ladder when he fell *(see, Duda v Rouse Constr. Corp.,*32 NY2d 405, 410; *Knight v Conopco,*216 AD2d 893; *Rossi v Main-South Hotel Assocs.,*168 AD2d 964). We modify the order on appeal by denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (2). (Appeal from Order of *881Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Labor Law.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
November 2022

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Firebreak (Code 394) 

A permanent or temporary strip of ground cleared to bare

soil or planted with fire-resistant vegetation meant to stop

the spread of fire. 

Practice Information 

Firebreak is applied on any lands where protection from

wildfire or facilitation of prescribed burning is needed. The

vegetation in the firebreak should be fire-resistant and

noninvasive. An alternative is to maintain the firebreak as

bare ground. The firebreak must be of sufficient length and width to contain a possible fire. 

Erosion control measures are incorporated into the design where firebreaks will be installed on sloping

ground. Vehicle access is limited as much as possible to prevent damage to the firebreak. 

Common Associated Practices 

Firebreak (394) is commonly applied with Prescribed Burning (338) and with any conservation

practice that may be treated with prescribed burning. Fuel Breaks (383) increase overall efficacy in

stopping the spread of fire. Graze livestock using Prescribed Grazing (528) to manage fuels in areas

not conducive to mechanical treatments. 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
#### John C. WARD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 7854.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

April 14, 1965.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1965.

John C. Ward, pro se.

Elmer Hoge, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., District of Kansas, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Ward, a Kansas farmer, was charged in a 3-count information with failure to file federal income tax returns for the years 1957, 1959, and 1961 during which he allegedly had a gross income ranging from over $14,000 to over $26,-000. Throughout the proceedings in the trial court and in this court he has insisted on representing himself and has rejected all suggestions that he employ an attorney. At the trial he admitted that he did not file the returns and that his gross income for each of the years in question exceeded $600. Appellant was under the age of 65 and by the terms of *31726 U.S.C. § 6012(a) (1) was required to file a return.

We commend the trial judge for the patience and restraint which he displayed in handling the difficult and trying situation presented by this case. Appellant used the proceedings to make a bitter and intemperate attack on the federal government because of its failure to prosecute certain fortune tellers and oil promoters who allegedly defrauded him and his mother sometime before 1940. In substance he does not like the way the federal government is operated and the ways in which the money raised by income taxes is spent. Objections of this type are sufficiently disposed of by our opinion in Swallow v. United States, 10 Cir., 325 F.2d 97, certiorari denied 377 U.S. 951, 84 S.Ct. 1630, 12 L.Ed.2d 497. Nothing more need be said in this regard.

Appellant urges that he was denied due process of law because his “trial was updated from March 16th of 1964 to March 11th of 1964” and because of this updating he did not have time to get his witnesses. The information was filed May 29, 1963. At his arraignment on July 10, 1963, he pleaded not guilty. At some undisclosed date the clerk of the court sent out a notice of a call of the calendar for March 16, 1964, at Topeka, Kansas. Appellant, as attorney pro se, apparently received a notice of this calendar call. Later the clerk notified appellant that his case would be tried on March 11. Appellant admits receiving this notice on March 6. When the case was called on March 11 appellant announced that he was ready; that he could employ counsel if he wished; and that he desired to proceed without the aid of counsel. He did not request a continuance. He did not attempt to subpoena any witnesses. He did not complain about the updating or his inability to get witnesses until the argument of his motion for a new trial. At no time either in the trial court or in this court did appellant say what witnesses he would have called or what their testimony would have been. In the circumstances there is no denial of due process. See Leino v. United States, 10 Cir., 338 F.2d 154, 156.

Affirmed.
# C_2004262EN.01002203.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/22

---

Action brought on 1 September 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-375/04)

(2004/C 262/39)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Shotter, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive.

1

| — | Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 31 October 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 201 of 31.7.2002, p. 37.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2196 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2196

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend title 5, United States Code, to allow whistleblowers to 
              disclose information to certain recipients.

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

SECTION 1. RECIPIENTS OF WHISTLEBLOWER DISCLOSURES.

    Section 2302(b)(8)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``or to the Inspector'' and all that follows through ``such 
disclosures'' and inserting ``the Inspector General of an agency, a 
supervisor in the employee's direct chain of command up to and 
including the head of the employing agency, or to an employee 
designated by any of the aforementioned individuals for the purpose of 
receiving such disclosures''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 11, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2196

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend title 5, United States Code, to allow whistleblowers to 
              disclose information to certain recipients.
```
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman Basic REYNA R. LOPEZTEGUI

United States Air Force

ACM S32209 (rem)

9 June 2016

Sentence adjudged 19 November 2013 by SPCM convened at Wright

- Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Military Judge: Ronald A. Gregory.

Approved Sentence: Confinement for 30 days.

Appellate Counsel for Appellant: Major Jeffrey A. Davis.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Lieutenant Colonel Steven J. Grocki; Major Daniel J. Breen; Captain C ollin F. Delaney; and Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

MITCHELL, DUBRISKE, and ZIMMERMAN *

Appellate Military Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

UPON REMAND

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4

.

MITCHELL, Senior Judge:

Appellant pled guilty at a special court

- martial to one specification of absence without leave, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 886. A panel of officer

members convicted her of t he greater offense of desertion, in violation of Article 85,

* Judge Zimmerman participated i n this decision prior to her retirement.2 ACM S32209 (rem)

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 885. The members sentenced her to a bad

- conduct discharge and confinement for 30 days. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

Appellant asserted the foll owing errors before our court: (1) her sentence was legally and factually insufficient because it was based on the members’ mistake of law, and (2) a post

- trial processing error occurred because the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR) and its add endum fail ed to accurately address the alleged error in the members’ sentencing decision. The majority of the panel found no materially prejudicial error and affirmed the findings and sentence. United States v. Lopeztegui , ACM S32209 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 11 May 2015) (unpub. op.).

Our superior court granted review on the issue of whether the SJAR and its addendum were erroneous because they did not provide accurate information to the convening authority. The court reversed our decision, set aside the c onvening authority ’ s action and remanded for a new post

- trial recommendation and associated post

- trial processing. United States v. Lopeztegui , 75 M.J. 49 (C.A.A.F. 2015).

On remand, the convening authority approved the 30 days of confinement. Appellant does not raise new issues before this court and her prior assignments of error are mooted by the new post

- trial processing and action.

Conclusion

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and

sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of
Endocare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Craig T. Davenport, Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) the Report fully complies with the
    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates
    and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.



| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ CRAIG T. DAVENPORT                               
| |                                                      
| | Craig T. Davenport                                   
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
    Board

Date: June 28, 2004

1
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffStrategic Plan (NUREG-1614)

# Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022-2026 (NUREG-1614, Volume 8)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1614, Volume 8 (PDF – 3.51 MB)            - FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix (PDF – 211.66 KB)
          - Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2022-2026 At-A-Glance (PDF – 1.17 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**April 2022

Office of the Executive Director for OperationsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the agency) is an independent agency established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which began operations in 1975 as a successor to the Atomic Energy Commission. The NRC’s mission is to license and regulate the Nation’s civilian use of radioactive materials, to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment. This strategic plan, covering Fiscal Years 2022–2026, provides the blueprint for the agency to plan, implement, and monitor the work needed to achieve its three strategic goals: (1) ensure the safe and secure use of radioactive materials, (2) continue to foster a healthy organization, and (3) inspire stakeholder confidence in the NRC. The strategic plan also provides an overview of the NRC’s responsibilities and lays out how the agency uses data and evidence to inform decision making to accomplish objectives and strategies to achieve the agency’s strategic goals.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, April 04, 2022
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-2865-183-CV

IN RE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY	RELATOR

AND PROTECTIVE SERVICESInN rReE BoOtTtTlLiInNgG GrRoOuUpP, L.L.C. d	RELATORS

D/bB/aA PeEpPsSiI BoOtTtTlLiInNgG GrRoOuUpP oOrR 

PeEpPsSiI-CoOlLaA BoOtTtTlLiInNgG GrRoOuUpP aAnNdD 

NeEwW BeErRnN TrRaAnNsSpPoOrRtT CoOrRpP, f

F/kK/aA NB TrRaAnNsSpPoOrRtT, InNcC.

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's’  petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency STAstay relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's’ petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay relief are denied.

	Relators shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A:	SDAUPHINOTGARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOYWALKER, J.

WALKER, J. would request a response.

DELIVERED: August 25, 2006May 24, 2005
|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 17, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Mark E. Schwarz                                                           |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | Name:  | Mark E. Schwarz                                                               |
|                 | Title: | Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board(Principal Executive Officer) |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the audited
consolidated  financial  statements  at August 31, 1997 and for the twelve month
period  ended  August 31, 1997 and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.  Earnings per  share information has been restated to
conform with the requirements of SFAS No. 128, Earnings Per Share.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001003934
<NAME>                        Unidigital Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                           3,202,766
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,018,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (266,000)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,714,928
<PP&E>                                          16,160,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,261,361)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,033,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,904,285
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            32,432
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,440,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,033,290
<SALES>                                         27,261,856
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,289,443
<CGS>                                           14,449,663
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,449,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,570,659
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   102,412
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,094,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,934,012
<INCOME-TAX>                                       593,280
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,340,732
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,340,732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.42<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.41<F2>
<FN>
<F1> Represents  basic  earnings  per share in  accordance  with SAFAS No.  128,
     Earnings Per Share.
<F2> Represents  diluted  earnigns  per share in  accordance  with SFAS No. 128,
     Earnings Per Share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
“

”

ਿਨਰਪੱ ਖਤਾ

ਲਈ ਸਾਡੀ

ਵਚਨਬੱ ਧਤਾ 

NRCS, ਏਜੰ ਸੀ ਦੀਆਂਪਾੱਿਲਸੀਆਂ

ਅਤੇਢੰ ਗ-ਤਰੀਿਕਆਂਦੇਅੰ ਦਰ ਆਪਣੇ

ਪ�ੋਗਰਾਮ�, ਸੇਵਾਵ� ਅਤੇਤਕਨੀਕੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ

ਕਰਨ ਦੇਤਰੀਕੇਿਵੱ ਚ ਬਰਾਬਰੀ ਬਹਾਲ

ਰੱ ਖਿਦਆਂਿਨਰਪੱ ਖਤਾ ਅਤੇਿਨਆਂਨੂੰ ਅੱ ਗੇ

ਵਧਾ�ਦੀ ਹੈ।

—NRCS ਮੁਖੀ ਟੈਰੀ ਜੇ. ਕੌਸਬੀ

ਿਨਰਪੱਖਤਾ ਅਤੇਿਨਆ ਨੂੰ ਿਧਆਨ ਿਵੱਚਰੱਖਣਵਾਲ਼ਾ ਕਾਰਕ ਭਾਈਚਾਰੇਅਧਾਰਤ ਸੰਸਥਾਵ�, ਇਿਤਹਾਸਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇਅਿਤ-ਪੱਛੜੇਲੋਕ�ਅਤੇ

ਭਾਈਵਾਲ਼� ਦੀ ਿਹਮਾਇਤ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਇਸ ਸਾਧਨ ਨ�ਲੋਕ�ਦੀ ਵਸ�ਤੱਕਸੇਵਾਵ� ਅਤੇਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਪਹੰਚਾਕੇ ੁ NRCS ਦੀ ਤਰਫ਼�

ਭਾਈਚਾਿਰਆਂਦੇਿਵਕਾਸ ਿਵੱਚਅਿਹਮ ਭੂਿਮਕਾ ਿਨਭਾਈ ਹੈ।

ਿਨਰਪੱਖਤਾ ਅਤੇਿਨਆ ਦੀ ਲੰਮੀ-ਿਮਆਦ ਦੀ ਿਵਹਾਰਕਤਾ, ਉਹਨ� ਭਾਈਚਾਿਰਆਂਰਾਹ� ਸ�ੋਤ� ਦੀ ਿਬਹਤਰੀਨ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ, ਕੰਟਰੋਲ,

ਵਰਤ�ਅਤੇਪਹੁੰਚ 'ਤੇਿਨਰਭਰ ਹੋਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ, ਜੋਨਸਲੀ-ਮੂਲ ਨੂੰ ਿਧਆਨ ਿਵੱਚਰੱਖੇਿਬਨਾ ਸਭ ਤ�ਵੱਧਪ�ਭਾਿਵਤ ਹਨ।

ਿਨਰਪੱ ਖਤਾ ਬਾਰੇਸੁਆਲ� ਜ� ਿਚੰ ਤਾਵ� ਬਾਰੇ, ਿਕਰਪਾ ਕਰਕੇ

ਿਨਰਪੱ ਖਤਾ ਬਾਰੇNRCS ਦੇਡਾਇਰੈਕਟਰ, ਿਵਵੀਅਨ

ਿਡਕਸਨ (Vivian Dickson) ਨਾਲ ਸੰ ਪਰਕ ਕਰੋ:

vivian.dickson@usda.gov.

ਪ�ੋਗਰਾਮ ਿਵੱ ਚ ਪੱ ਖਪਾਤ ਬਾਰੇਿਸ਼ਕਾਇਤ�

www.usda.gov/oascr 'ਤੇਜ� oac@ascr.usda.gov 'ਤੇ

ਈਮੇਲ ਭੇਜਕੇਦਾਇਰ ਕੀਤੀਆਂਜਾ ਸਕਦੀਆਂਹਨ।

USDA ਬਰਾਬਰੀ ਦੇਮੌਕੇਦੇਣ ਵਾਲ਼ਾ ਪ�ੋਵਾਈਡਰ, ਨੌਕਰੀਦਾਤਾ ਅਤੇਿਰਣਦਾਤਾ ਹੈ। nrcs.usda.gov

Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

“

”