alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Patricia Stanton, Appellant, v Town of Oyster Bay et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 383]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), entered June 13, 2002, which granted the defendants’ separate motions, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she slipped and fell while descending a ramp leading from a sidewalk to a body of water located in the Village of Sea Cliff and the Town of *836Oyster Bay. At her deposition, the plaintiff acknowledged that she knew that the lower portion of the ramp was regularly submerged in sea water during high tide. Moreover, photographs submitted to the Supreme Court illustrated that the lower portion of the ramp was visibly water-stained, and was covered with patches of a bright green, moss-like substance. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ separate motions, inter alia, for summary judgment. We affirm.

It is well established that landowners are not obligated to warn against conditions on the land that could be readily observed by the use of one’s senses *(see Cupo v Karfunkel,*2 AD3d 48 [2003]; *DeLaurentis v Marx Realty & Improvement,*300 AD2d 343 [2002]; *Moriello v Stormville Airport Antique Show & Flea Mkt.,*271 AD2d 664 [2000]). Moreover, landowners will not be held liable for injuries arising from a condition on the property that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it *(see Csukardi v Bishop McDonnell Camp,*148 AD2d 657 [1989]; *see also Nardi v Crowley Mar. Assoc.,*292 AD2d 577 [2002]). Here, the slippery state of the ramp was such a condition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions, inter alia, for summary judgment. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.
No. 10-7069.

#### In re Henry Jones, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1043, 131 S. Ct. 621,

178 L. Ed. 2d 455,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8918.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of prohibition denied.
EPA-420-R-10-007

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared for EPA by

ICF International

and

T&B Systems

EPA Contract No. EP-C-06-094

Work Assignment No. 3-6

Development and Evaluation of an Air 

Quality Modeling Approach for Lead 

Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft 

Operating on Leaded Aviation Gasoline

Appendix F

Sensitivity Analysis Figures

NOTICE

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or 

positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data 

that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to 

facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of 

technical developments.
ii 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Figure F-1. Low twin engine percent sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-1 
Figure F-2. High twin engine percent sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-2 
Figure F-3. Low run-up time sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-3 
Figure F-4. High runup time sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-4 
Figure F-5. Low taxi time sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-5 
Figure F-6. High taxi time sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-6 
Figure F-7. Low lead baseline sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-7 
Figure F-8. High lead sensitivity test – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-8 
Figure F-9. Low twin sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-9 
Figure F-10. High twin sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-10 
Figure F-11. Low runup sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-11 
Figure F-13. High runup sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-12 
Figure F-14. High taxi sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-13 
Figure F-15. Low lead baseline sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-14 
Figure F-16. High lead sensitivity test average – June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 

F-15 
F-16 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
# C_2016016EN.01002801.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Commission v D’Agostino

(Case T-670/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Decision not to renew the contract - Duty of care - Infringement of Article 12a(2) of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the file))

(2016/C 016/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Luigi D’Agostino (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:155), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

D’Agostino

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12) in so far the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly applied the duty of care; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12) in so far the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly applied the duty of care;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the main appeal;

| 3. | Sets aside the judgment in D’Agostino v Commission in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to adjudicate on the first part of the second ground of appeal and distorted it; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Sets aside the judgment in D’Agostino v Commission in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to adjudicate on the first part of the second ground of appeal and distorted it;

| 4. | Dismisses the cross-appeal for the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the cross-appeal for the remainder;

| 5. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| 6. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21
                                                                      ----------

                      Subsidiaries of Acterna Corporation

Name of Parent or Subsidiary Organization*           State or Other Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------           ---------------------------

Acterna Corporation (Parent).......................  Delaware
Acterna LLC........................................  Delaware
Airshow, Incorporated..............................  Delaware
daVinci Systems, Inc...............................  Delaware
ICS Advent Corporation.............................  Delaware
Itronix Corporation................................  Delaware
Tele-Path Instruments, Inc.........................  Delaware
TTC International Holdings, Inc....................  Delaware
Wavetek Wandel Goltermann LLC......................  Delaware
Wavetek U.S., Inc..................................  Delaware
Applied Digital Access.............................  Delaware
TTC Federal Systems, Inc...........................  Delaware
Wandel & Goltermann Technologies, Inc..............  North Carolina
Acterna Argentina SA...............................  Argentina
Acterna Asia Pacific Pty...........................  Australia
Acterna Export Incorporated........................  Barbados, West Indies
TTC Belgium B.V.B.A................................  Belgium
Acterna Do Brasil Ltda.............................  Brazil
Acterna Canada Ltd.................................  Canada
Acterna Corporation Ltd............................  England
Acterna Plymouth Ltd...............................  England
ICS Advent Europe..................................  France
TTC Telecommunications France SARL.................  France
Wavetek France S.A.................................  France
Acterna Gesellschaft Fur Datenveravbeitung, Gmbh...  Germany
Acterna Munchen GmbH...............................  Germany
Acterna International GmbH.........................  Germany
Acterna Holdings, Ltd..............................  Guernsey, Channel
                                                         Islands
Acterna Investments, Ltd...........................  Guernsey, Channel
                                                         Islands
TTC Asia Pacific Limited...........................  Hong Kong
Acterna Italia SRL.................................  Italy
Acterna Japan k.k..................................  Japan
Acterna de Mexico SA de CV.........................  Mexico
Wandel & Goltermann Telektronik BV.................  Netherlands
Acterna Espana S.A.................................  Spain
Acterna Nordic AB..................................  Sweden
Acterna Schweiz AG.................................  Switzerland





*Excludes nonmaterial subsidiaries.

                                       1
#### In the Matter of Charlene Thompson, Appellant, v Board of Directors et al., Respondents.

[64 NYS3d 513]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2015, which denied petitioner’s motion for, in effect, reargument of her ex parte application for an order to show cause seeking, in effect, reargument of respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, and denied her motion for reargument of respondents’ motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

No appeal lies from an order denying reargument *(D’Andrea v Hutchins,*69 AD3d 541 [1st Dept 2010]).

We note that, since petitioner did not appeal from the order granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, her arguments addressed to that determination are not properly before us *(id.).*

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
No. 10-482.

#### Daniel Sherman, Petitioner v. William LaMothe, et al.

562 U.S. 1109, 131 S. Ct. 826,

178 L. Ed. 2d 557,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9756.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 608 F.3d 212.
# C_2016371EN.01003402.xml

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/34

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — McMichael v Commission

(Case F-18/13) (1)

1

(2016/C 371/41)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 20/4/2013, p. 47.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16289]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Region I Advisory Council Meeting; Public Meeting

    The U. S. Small Business Administration Region I Advisory Council, 
located in the geographical area of Boston, will hold a public meeting 
at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 16, 1998, at the Boston District Office, 
Room 265, to discuss such matters as may be presented by members and 
staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others present.
    For Further Information, please write or call Ms. Mary E. McAleney, 
District, U. S. Small Business Administration, 10 Causeway Street, Room 
265, Boston, Massachusetts 02222-1093, telephone (617) 566-5560.

    Dated: June 15, 1998.
Shirl Thomas,
Director, Office of External Affairs.
[FR Doc. 98-16289 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2015016EN.01003702.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/37

---

Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-64/13) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Contract concerning the Doc@Hand project - Repayment of the sums advanced - Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2015/C 016/59)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Cordewener, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Drakakakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration by the General Court first, that the applicant is not obliged to repay the whole sum paid to it by the Commission in relation to the Doc@Hand project, concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006), secondly, that the applicant is not required to pay flat-rate compensation in relation to that project and, thirdly, that the Commission is not entitled to set off the sums it owes the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

---
No. D-2542.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Guy Burdette Bailey, Jr.

562 U.S. 814, 131 S. Ct. 405,

178 L. Ed. 2d 270,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7511.

October 4, 2010.

Guy Burdette Bailey, Jr., of Miami, Florida, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
2017-0281.

#### Hester v. Case W. Res. Univ.

Cuyahoga App. No. 104415, 2017-Ohio-103.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2681 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2681

  To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a 
report on the availability of prosthetic items for women veterans from 
                  the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2019

  Mr. Pappas (for himself and Ms. Stefanik) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a 
report on the availability of prosthetic items for women veterans from 
                  the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. REPORT ON AVAILABILITY OF PROSTHETIC ITEMS FOR WOMEN 
              VETERANS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
of the House of Representatives a report on the availability from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs of prosthetic items made for women 
veterans, including an assessment of the availability of such 
prosthetic items at each medical facility of the Department.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016027EN.01003601.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission

(Case T-462/13) (1)

1

((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - New aid))

(2016/C 027/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) and Itelazpi, SA (Zamudio, Spain) (represented by: initially N. Ruiz García, J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and M. Muñoz de Juan, then J. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: SES Astra (Betzdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno, V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 [(C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009)] implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) and Itelazpi, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra in the main proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) and Itelazpi, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra in the main proceedings;

| 3) | Orders Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi to bear their own costs relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi to bear their own costs relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.

1

---
No. 10-6876.

#### Billy Ray Ross, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1036, 131 S. Ct. 583,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8768.

178 L. Ed. 2d 425,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 364.
No. 10-502.

#### Joseph Dixon, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.

562 U.S. 1136, 131 S. Ct. 909,

178 L. Ed. 2d 750,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 106,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 360 Fed. Appx. 703.
No. 10-7422.

#### Kevin T. Ortega, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1116, 131 S. Ct. 839,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9758.

178 L. Ed. 2d 570,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 211.
11

- i CHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 11-111

- 1 CHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 METHODOLOGY

The consumer subgroup analysis evaluates impacts on any identifiable groups or

consumer s who may be disproportionately affected by any national energy conservation

standard. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will conduct this analysis as one of the analyses

for the notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE will accomplish this, in part, by analyzing the LCC and payback periods (PBPs) for those consumer s that fall into any identifiable groups. DOE plans to evaluate variations in regional energy prices and variations in energ y use that might affect the net present value of a standard to consumer subpopulations. To the extent possible, DOE will obtain estimates of each input parameter’s variability and will consider this variability

in its calculation of consumer impacts.

DOE will determine the impact on consumer subgroups using the LCC Spreadsheet Model, which allows for different data inputs. The standard LCC analysis (described in c hapter 8) focuses on the households that use furnace fans

. DOE can use the LCC Spreadsheet Mod el to analyze the LCC for any subgroup by sampling only that subgroup. (Chapter 8 explains in detail the inputs to the model used in determining LCC and PBPs.) In the case of furnace fans

, possible subgroups DOE may choose to consider are: (1) low

- income h ouseholds, and (2) senior citizens.

DOE will be especially sensitive to increases in the purchase price of the product due to new standards, to avoid negative impact s on identifiable population groups that may not be able to afford significant increases i n product price.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-108416, 333-103515, 333-81940, 333-85486 and 333-115216 of Duke Energy Corporationon Form S-3, Registration Statement Nos. 333-123419, 333-29563, 333-12093, 333-50317, and 333-84222 of Duke Energy Corporation on Form S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-126318 of Duke Energy Holding Corp. on Form S-4, of our report dated March10, 2006 (March 31, 2006 as to the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15), relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Duke Energy Field Services, LLC as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Duke Energy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Denver, Colorado 

March 31, 2006
No. 10M44.

#### K. F. Moseley, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, et al.

562 U.S. 1028, 131 S. Ct. 587,

178 L. Ed. 2d 412,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8734.

November 8, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.