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

Toolbox Talk

Crane Safety:

Stability and Tipping 

Cranes are used to lift and move heavy materials on 

construction sites. When a crane lifts and moves a load, 

the distance from the load’s center of gravity to the 

crane’s tipping axis changes. If the crane’s lift capacity is 

exceeded, the distance exceeds the safe operating range 

listed in the crane’s load chart, or the crane is not set up 

properly, it can tip over, resulting in injuries, many fatal, 

to the operator and workers nearby.

Ed’s Story

Ed was in charge of receiving materials and having 

them safely unloaded at the construction site. The 

outriggers on the delivery truck’s crane were not fully 

extended. As a result, the weight of the load caused 

the crane to tip over. The falling materials nearly 

crushed two other workers, and Ed was injured when 

the crane tipped. He was hospitalized for 3 days and 

missed 2 weeks of work while recovering.

# What caused this incident? 

# How could this have been prevented?

# Have you ever been injured by a crane collapsing 

or tipping, or do you know someone who has? If 

so, what happened? 

Remember This

• Know or calculate the weight of each load.

• Always use the manufacturer’s load chart provided for 

each crane. Do not exceed the safe operating range 

listed on the chart.

• Always observe information provided by installed 

load sensors in newer cranes.

• Check the manufacturer’s maximum wind speed for 

the crane to make sure that it can lift the load in 

windy weather.

• Before beginning a lift, follow the manufacturer’s 

procedures for outrigger deployment. Make sure the 

outrigger pads are supported on a firm, stable surface 

so the crane is properly set up and level. Use crane 

mats or pads if necessary.

• Check the hoist brakes when multiple heavy lifts are 

made from one location, such as during duty cycle 

operations.

• Always warn others of moving and approaching 

overhead loads; avoid moving loads over people or 

letting people pass under them. 

• Never use visual signs of tipping as an indicator of lift 

capacity.

How can we stay safe today?

What will we do at the worksite to prevent injuries while working with cranes?

OSHA Standards: 1926.1402 and 1926.1417
Construction

Toolbox Talk

Crane Safety:

Stability and Tipping 

LOAD CHART

; Always use the manufacturer’s load chart provided for each crane. Do not exceed the safe operating range listed.

; Never use visual signs of tipping as an indicator of lift capacity.

; Always warn others of moving and approaching overhead loads.

GET 

INFORMATION 

CDC/NIOSH INFO: 1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636) | TTY: 1-800-232-6348 | cdc.gov/info | cdc.gov/niosh

CPWR: Contact 301-578-8500 | cpwr-r2p@cpwr.com | www.cpwr.com/toolbox-talks

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2022-133 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2022133 | August 2022
#### STATE v. FAIRE

No. 62 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 573.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 November 1974. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 8 November 1974.
#### STATE v. HAMMOCK

No. 69 PC.

Case below: 25 N.C. App. 97.

Petition for writ- of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 May 1975.
#### ROBESON FURNITURE v. McKAY

No. 179 PC.

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 122.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 June 1980.
#### REICH v. REICH

No. 37 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 613.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 567 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in certain 

water projects in California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2009 

Mr. CALVERT (for himself and Mr. LEWIS of California) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in certain water projects in 

California. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

5 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102– 

6 575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 567 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 163l. YUCAIPA VALLEY REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY 

2 RENEWAL PROJECT. 

3 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera4 tion with the Yucaipa Valley Water District, may partici5 pate in the design, planning, and construction of projects 

6 to treat impaired surface water, reclaim and reuse im7 paired groundwater, and provide brine disposal within the 

8 Santa Ana Watershed as described in the report submitted 

9 under section 1606. 

10 ‘‘(b) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of the cost 

11 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

12 25 percent of the total cost of the project. 

13 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Funds provided by the Secretary 

14 shall not be used for operation or maintenance of the 

15 project described in subsection (a). 

16 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

17 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

18 $20,000,000. 

19 ‘‘SEC. 163l. CITY OF CORONA WATER UTILITY, CALI20 FORNIA, WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE 

21 PROJECT. 

22 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera23 tion with the City of Corona Water Utility, California, is 

24 authorized to participate in the design, planning, and con25 struction of, and land acquisition for, a project to reclaim 

26 and reuse wastewater, including degraded groundwaters, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•HR 567 IH

1 within and outside of the service area of the City of Co2 rona Water Utility, California. 

3 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost 

4 of the project authorized by this section shall not exceed 

5 25 percent of the total cost of the project. 

6 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

7 funds for the operation and maintenance of the project 

8 authorized by this section.’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The table of sec10 tions in section 2 of Public Law 102–575 is amended by 

11 inserting after the item relating to section 163l the fol12 lowing: 

‘‘Sec. 163l. Yucaipa Valley Regional Water Supply Renewal Project. 

‘‘Sec. 163l. City of Corona Water Utility, California, water recycling and 

reuse project.’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Marine Accounted for from World War II (Morris, J.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
#### EDWARDS v. MEANS

No. 123 PC.

Case below: 36 N.C. App. 122.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 June 1978.
#### THARPE v. BREWER

No. 47 PC.

Case below: 7 N.C. App. 432.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 May 1970.
#### JOYNER v. INSURANCE

No. 280 PC

Case below: 46 NC App 807

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 August 1980.
#### SAM WILLIAMS v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.

(Filed 20 January, 1967.)

1. Criminal Law § 131—

Where, upon the second trial, granted upon post-conviction hearing, defendant is sentenced to serve the maximum term, he must be allowed credit for the time actually served plus gained time, if any, under the first conviction.

2. Same—

Defendant is not entitled to credit for time spent while in custody in default of bond awaiting a second trial granted on a post-conviction hearing.

3. Criminal Law §§ 26, 173—

The record *held*not to support defendant’s contention that a new trial was ordered over his objection upon his post-conviction hearing.

*302ON *Certiorari*to review the denial of a writ of *habeas corpus*by *Campbell, J.,*at the 7 November, 1966 Conflict *“C”*Criminal Session of MeCKleNBueg Superior Court.

The defendant was convicted of larceny from the person of $200 at the February Term, 1963, and was sentenced to serve two years. He gave notice of appeal but did not perfect it, and entered upon the service of the prison sentence. He was later awarded a new trial because he had not been represented by counsel.

Upon the re-trial at the July 1963 Term he was again convicted and was then sentenced to serve a ten-year prison term. Upon appeal to this Court the latter trial was upheld. *(S. v. Williams,*261 N.C. 172, 134 S.E. 2d 163.) He has since sought relief in various applications for post conviction hearings and *habeas corpus.*His last hearing was in *habeas corpus*proceedings in which he seeks credit for the time served on the first sentence and the time spent in jail awaiting his second trial. He further complains that his second sentence far exceeded that first imposed. Upon failure to obtain any relief in the Superior Court he sought *certiorari*to this Court and it was allowed.

*George S. Daly, Jr., counsel for petitioner.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant here seeks credit for the time served on the first judgment to apply on his present sentence. Sinee the maximum sentence permissible is ten years, he is entitled to this and the prison authorities are directed to allow him proper credit for time actually served plus gained time, if any, for good behavior. *S. v. Weaver,*264 N.C. 681, 142 S.E. 2d 633.

The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall forward a certified copy of this opinion to each of the following: (1) Clerk of Superior Court of Mecklenburg County (2) North Carolina Prison Department, and (3) Williams.

The petitioner further claims that he is entitled to credit for the time spent while in custody in default of bond awaiting his second trial. This claim is denied under the authority of *S. v. Weaver, supra.*

The defendant now claims that he did not seek a second trial, but the record does not support him. This claim was not urged in his previous case on appeal. Also, the order resulting in his second trial recited that “he sought a new trial” and orders that he “be granted a new trial”. No objection was taken at the time and his present position appears to be an afterthought.

The previous appeal disposed of the other matters sought to be presented.

Modified and affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4222

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LARRY RODNEY GREEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief

District Judge. (CR-03-00292)

Submitted: January 25, 2006 Decided: February 15, 2006

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley I. Selden, SELDEN LAW OFFICES, L.C., Beckley, West

Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States

Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley,

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry Rodney Green pled guilty to conspiracy to

manufacture methamphetamine. He was sentenced following the

Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). The district court sentenced Green to seventy-two months

of imprisonment relying on Booker, and our decision in United

States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). Green

appeals, alleging he was improperly sentenced under Booker. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

Green contends that his due process rights, as informed

by ex post facto principles, were violated by the imposition of a

sentence under the Supreme Court’s remedial decision in Booker

(referring to the Court’s opinion expressed through Justice Breyer

making the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than

mandatory) rather than under the mandatory Guidelines applicable at

the time of his offense. We find that this claim is without merit.

See United States v. Dupas, 419 F.3d 916, 919-21 (9th Cir. 2005)

(rejecting ex post facto claim) United States v. Jamison, 416 F.3d

538, 539-40 (7th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Lata, 415 F.3d

107, 110-11 (1st Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Scroggins, 411

F.3d 572, 575-77 (5th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Duncan,

400 F.3d 1297, 1306-08 (11th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, ___ U.S.

___, 126 S. Ct. 432 (2005).
- 3 -

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE     Document 39      Filed 11/29/2007     Page 1 of 1
#### Devinder Pal KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73626.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*855Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 7, 2005.

Garish Sarin, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wernery, Esq., William C. Minick, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Devinder Pal Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence and will uphold the decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *See Singh v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision. Kaur’s testimony conflicted with documentary evidence indicating she entered the United States on a previous occasion, before her arrests and beatings in India allegedly occurred. *See Pal v. INS,*204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Kaur gave false testimony and filed a frivolous asylum application. *Cf. Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2003) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) and 8 C.F.R. § 208.20).

Because Kaur failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

As Kaur “points to no other evidence that [s]he could claim the BIA should have considered in making its determination under the Convention Against Torture,” her *856CAT claim must fail along with her asylum claim. *See Farah,*348 F.3d at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 1:06-cv-15027-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,795
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  202,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               324,664
<PP&E>                                       1,698,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                 523,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,659,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          521,840
<BONDS>                                        414,689
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,000
<COMMON>                                       153,296
<OTHER-SE>                                     380,784
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,659,844
<SALES>                                        490,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               490,013
<CGS>                                          380,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  450,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,060
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,702
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,358
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit Page 213

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent publicaccountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our reportincluded in this Form 10-K, into the Riggs National Corporation’spreviously filed registration statements, listed as follows: 

          Form                                                            Registration Statement Number

          S-8                                                                      333-76281
#### STATE v. RICH

No. 401 PC

Case below: 47 NC App 767

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 September 1980.
#### STATE v. SHARRATT

No. 184 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 199.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 14 July 1976.
#### KAHAN v. LONGIOTTI

No. 149 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 367.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 June 1980.
#### STATE v. MOORE

No. 144 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 555.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 July 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 15 July 1980.
Case 1:07-cr-00357-CM     Document 29      Filed 12/21/2007     Page 1 of 1
#### NEWMAN MACHINE COMPANY v. NEWMAN

No. 691

Case below: 2 N.C. App. 491.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 26 November 1968.