alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

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

Conservation Practice Overview

Forage Harvest Management (Code 511) 

Forage harvest management includes timely cutting and

removal of forages as hay, green-chop, or ensilage. 

Practice Information 

This practice applies to all land uses where forage is

machine harvested. 

Forage is harvested at a frequency and height that

optimizes the desired forage stand, plant community, and

stand life. 

When harvesting for feed, health considerations for specific plant and animal species must be

considered. Depending on the plant material, drought conditions may increase nitrate levels in forages

to the point of possible toxicity, while prussic acid poisoning may be an issue with frosted material. 

In conjunction with harvest options, storage and feeding options may be needed that will retain

acceptable forage quality and minimize digestible dry matter loss. 

Where weather conditions make it difficult to harvest the desired quality of forage, use of mechanical

or chemical conditioners, and/or ensiling may be required. 

Harvest may be delayed if prolonged or heavy precipitation is forecast that would reduce forage

quality. 

Green-chopping or ensiling the forage to reduce or eliminate field-drying time may be necessary in

regions where rainfall and/or humidity levels cause unacceptable forage quality losses. Other options

include the use of desiccants, preservatives, or macerating implements to reduce field-drying time. 

Common Associated Practices 

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Forage Harvest Management (Code 511) is commonly

applied with other conservation practices, such as NRCS CPSs Pasture and Hay Planting (Code 512),

Herbaceous Weed Treatment (Code 315), Nutrient Management (Code 590), Pest Management

Conservation System (Code 595), and Waste Utilization (Code 633). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
January 17, 2013 FRRCC Webinar

Attendance/Participant List

EPA HQ 

1.John Reeder, Deputy Chief of Staff

2.Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Act’g Director 

OFACMO

3.Mark Joyce, Associate Director for 

CMO/OFACMO

FRRCC Members (31)

Steve Balling

David Petty

Peggy Beltrone

Lori Berger

George Boggs

Richard Bonanno

Dan Botts

Charles (Chip) Bowling

Sen. Mike Brubaker

Robert Burns

Robert Carlson

Lawrence Clark

James Ford

Suzy Friedman

Omar Garza

Archie Hart

Patrick Johnson

Philip Korson

Paul Martin

Tom McDonald

Janis McFarland

Steve McNinch

FRRCC Members (cont)

Sec. Bill Northey

Jennie Popp

Anusuya Rangarajan

Robert Rynning

Larry Sanders

Cheryl Shippentower

Ann Sorensen

Don Teske

Dennis Treacy

EPA Regional Agricultural Advisors (19)

Andrea Szylvian/R1/USEPA/US

Robert Koethe/R1/USEPA/US

Kristina Heinemann/R2/USEPA/US

Kelly Shenk/CBP/USEPA/US

Duane Robertson/R4/USEPA/US

Thomas Davenport/R5/USEPA/US

Gerald Winn/R5/USEPA/US

Eugene Thilsted/R6/USEPA/US

Damon Frizzell/R7/USEPA/US

Rebecca Perrin/R8/USEPA/US

Kerry Drake/R9/USEPA/US

Don Hodge/R9/USEPA/US

Karma Anderson/R10/USEPA/US

James Werntz/R10/USEPA/US

Nicholas Peak/R10/USEPA/US

Robin Dunkins – EPA RTP
January 17, 2013 FRRCC Webinar

Attendance/Participant List

Presenters

Tom Christensen - Regional Conservationist

– Central Region

USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service,

Lynda Hall –Chief

Nonpoint Source Control Branch

EPA Office of Water

Otto Doering – Agricultural Economist, 

Purdue University

Public Participants

1. Brandon Harder – U.S. Senator Jerry 

Moran, Kansas

Agriculture and Energy Policy

2. Nephi Cole - Policy Office of 

Governor Matt Mead, Cheyenne WY

3. Phil Walsack - Missouri Public Utility 

Alliance (MPUA)

4. Jennifer Sackett Pohlenz – Clark 

Hill, PLC

5. Justin Bieri the Central Colorado 

Water Conservancy District

6. David LaRoss

Inside EPA

Other EPA 

Carol Galloway – EPA R7

Ginah Mortensen EPA R7

Jana Compton EPA-Cincinnati
# C_2005060EN.01000602.xml

| 10.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3712 — LGB/Klöckner)

(2005/C 60/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 February 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3712. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3712. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50239 USDC No. W-93-CA-37

__________________ SYNNACHIA McQUEEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RAUL MATA, Captain; BRYANT L. EPPS; JACK M. GARNER, Warden; FREDERICK LANGEHENNIG, Subst. Counselor, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - - November 7, 1995 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This is the appeal of the judgment for Bryant Epps following a jury trial. The appellant's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. The appellant contends that the district court erred by denying his motion in limine to prohibit any reference to the conviction for which he is incarcerated; erred by instructing the jury to consider whether Epps acted in good faith if it foundNo. 95-50239 -2- that Epps had violated his right to due process; erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding his claim that Epps deprived him of his right to present documentary evidence at a prison disciplinary hearing; and erred by declining to admit a prison activity log into evidence. The appellant also contends that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. We have reviewed the trial transcript and conclude that the appeal is frivolous. We admonished the appellant on October 11, 1995, to examine his pending appeals and to withdraw any frivolous appeals. We reiterate that admonishment and further warn the appellant that any future frivolous appeals will result in sanctions against him.
APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
*November 10, 1936.*

#### Will of Nelson: Nelson, Proponent, Respondent, vs. Nord, Objector, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Irwin E. Magee*of Ellsworth, and *Milton I. Holst*of Red Wing, Minnesota, attorneys, and *Harold M. Wilkie*of Madison of counsel.

For the respondent: *White & White*of River Falls.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
*February 7, 1933.*

#### Fillafer, Appellant, vs. Schulz, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Thos. H. Dorr*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Wolfe & Hart*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1I, Richard K. Crump, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:April 10, 2008       /s/ RICHARD K. CRUMP         Richard K. Crump    President and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE *v.*C. W. BULLARD.

In an indictment under section 116, Chapter 32, Battle's Revisal, for entering on the land of another and taking therefrom turpentine, &c., it is necessary that a “ license so to enter,” should be distinctly negatived as an essential part of the description of the offence.

Thdictment for entering on the land of the prosecutor and taking therefrom turpentine, tried before Buxton, *J.,*at the Spring Term, 1874, of RiohmoND Superior Court.

Upon the trial in the Superior Court, exceptions were taken to the admission of certain evidence, and to the charge of his Honor on certain points, not necessary to set out in this report, as the case was decided in this Court upon the refusal of the Court below to arrest the judgment.

*446The substantial facts pertinent to the decision in this Court are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Chief Justice.

The jury found the defendant guilty. Motion in arrest of judgment; motion overruled, and appeal by the defendant.

*Steele <$s*Walker, for the defendant.

*Attorney General Haryrove*for the State.

PeaesoN, C. J.

The indictment is fatally defective in this: It does not allege that the defendant entered upon the land “ *without a license therefore*

The rule is, an indictment must set out every matter which is necessary in ord,er to give a description of the offence charged. The offence created by the act of 1866, chapter 61, to be found in Battle’s Revisal, chapter 32, section 116, is “an entry upon the land of another,” after being forbidden to do so, and “ *without a license therefor."*

So the fact of an entry, without a license therefor, is just as an essential a part of the description as “ after being forbidden to do so.”

When the offence is complete without reference to a license, and the fact of a license constitutes merely an excuse or justification, the bill of indictment need not negative the license; but by this statute, in the *enacting*clause, it is made a part of the description of the offence — all of the authorities are in accord upon this point, and it is'not our duty to take the trouble to cite cases for the edification of those whose duty it is to draw indictments.

The suggestion of the Attorney General, that “ the license” referred to in the enacting clause, is the license of the owner, and is sufficiently negatived by the averment, “ after being forbidden to do so,” is clearly a misapprehension. The reference is to the license, set out in the proviso, to be obtained from a Justice of the Peace, to search for stray cattle, &c.

Error.

Pee Curiam. Judgment arrested.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# NRC Staff Guidance for Activities Related to U.S. Department of Energy Waste Determinations - Draft Report For Interim Use (NUREG-1854)

This NUREG publication was issued for public comment, and the comment period closed July 31, 2006.

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1854, Draft Report for Interim Use (PDF - 14.9 MB)

For information about how the NRC handles your comments, see our Privacy Policy.

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**August 2007**Date Published:**August 2007

**Prepared by:**H. Arlt, A. Bradford, N. Devaser, D. Esh, M. Fuller, A. Ridge (NRC)B. Brient, P. LaPlante, P. Mackin, E. Pearcy, D. Turner, J. Winterle (CNWRA)

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory AnalysesSouthwest Research Institute6220 Culebra RoadSan Antonio, TX 78238-5166

Division of Waste Management and Environmental ProtectionOffice of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management ProgramsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document provides U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff guidance for conducting activities related to waste determinations. Waste determinations are evaluations performed by the U.S. Department of Energy and are used to assess whether certain wastes resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel can be considered low-level waste and managed accordingly. This guidance document applies to NRC activities that may be conducted for the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Idaho pursuant to the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA), as well as the Hanford site in Washington and the West Valley site in New York. The guidance document discusses the background and history of waste determinations, the different applicable criteria and how they are applied and evaluated, the review of associated performance assessments and inadvertent intruder analyses, the removal of highly radioactive radionuclides, and NRC's monitoring activities that will be performed at SRS and INL in accordance with the NDAA.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, August 10, 2021
# C_2005093EN.01000601.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Forlì by order of that court of 14 December 2004 in the criminal proceedings against K.J.W. Schwibbert

(Case C-20/05)

(2005/C 93/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Forlì (Italy) of 14 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 21 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending against K.J.W. Schwibbert on the following questions:

| — | whether the affixing of the distinctive sign SIAE [società italiana degli autori ed editori] is compatible with Council Directive 92/100/EEC (1) on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, and Articles 3 EC and 23 EC to 27 EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the affixing of the distinctive sign SIAE [società italiana degli autori ed editori] is compatible with Council Directive 92/100/EEC (1) on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, and Articles 3 EC and 23 EC to 27 EC;

1

| — | whether it is further compatible with Council Directive 83/189/EEC (2) and Council Directive 88/182/EEC (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is further compatible with Council Directive 83/189/EEC (2) and Council Directive 88/182/EEC (3).

2

3

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.

1

(2)  OJ 1983 L 109 of 26.04.1983, p. 8.

2

(3)  OJ 1988 L 81 of 26.03.1988, p. 75.

3

---
# C_2004308EN.01000501.xml

| 14.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

13 December 2004

(2004/C 308/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3268 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,01 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4303 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69225 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9675 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5348 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 83,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2040 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5788 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,610 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,21 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6869 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4319 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2021 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 39 294 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,84 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,945 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 898 600 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7505 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6271 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3166 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8674 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1869 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 408,80 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,6297 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3268

JPY

Japanese yen

139,01

DKK

Danish krone

7,4303

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69225

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9675

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5348

ISK

Iceland króna

83,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2040

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5788

CZK

Czech koruna

30,610

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,21

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6869

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4319

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2021

ROL

Romanian leu

39 294

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,84

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,945

TRL

Turkish lira

1 898 600

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7505

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6271

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3166

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8674

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1869

KRW

South Korean won

1 408,80

ZAR

South African rand

7,6297

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2164 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to liability 

under State and local requirements respecting devices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2017 

Mr. FITZPATRICK (for himself, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Ms. DELAURO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

respect to liability under State and local requirements 

respecting devices. 

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 ‘‘Medical Device Safety 

5 Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2164 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIABILITY UNDER STATE AND LOCAL REQUIRE2 MENTS RESPECTING DEVICES. 

3 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 521 of the Federal Food, 

4 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360k) is amended by 

5 adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(c) NO EFFECT ON LIABILITY UNDER STATE

7 LAW.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to mod8 ify or otherwise affect any action for damages or the liabil9 ity of any person under the law of any State.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.—The amend11 ment made by subsection (a) shall— 

12 (1) take effect as if included in the enactment 

13 of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (Public 

14 Law 94–295); and 

15 (2) apply to any civil action pending or filed on 

16 or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11417

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

RONALD CONNER, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CV-752

Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This appeal concerns the district court’s order holding Conner in 

contempt. On February 4, 2019, we directed both parties to address whether 

this case is moot in the light of the district court’s order vacating the contempt 

order. In their responses to the court’s directive, both parties acknowledge that 

the case is now moot. We agree. The district court vacated the contempt order 

 

* 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

March 13, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11417 Document: 00514870982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2019
No. 17-11417

2

and released Conner from custody—he is no longer suffering any injury or 

limitation as a result of the contempt order, rendering the sole issue on appeal 

moot. See Fontenot v. McCraw, 777 F.3d 741, 747 (5th Cir. 2015). 

DISMISSED AS MOOT.

 Case: 17-11417 Document: 00514870982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2019