alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 5.47 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.

If a stay of, or other relief from, the effect of the demand in response to a request made pursuant to § 5.46 is declined or not obtained, or if the court or other judicial or quasi-judicial authority declines to stay the effect of the demand in response to a request made pursuant to § 5.46, or if the court or other authority rules that the demand must be complied with irrespective of the Department's instructions not to produce the material or disclose the information sought, the employee upon whom the demand has been made shall respectfully decline to comply with the demand, citing this subpart and *United States ex rel. Touhy* v. *Ragen,* 340 U.S. 462 (1951).
| (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                      |   |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/      David Liu                        |   |   |   |   |
| David      Liu                            |   |   |        |   |
| Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |

----
-- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing






Exhibit 10.3.1


AMENDMENT NO. 1 

TO 2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

OF 

ALFACELL CORPORATION


          Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2004 Plan”) of Alfacell Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), the 2004 Plan is hereby amended by deleting paragraph (d) of Section 4 and replacing it with the following: 


          “Award Limitations Under the Plan. No Eligible Person may be granted any Award or Awards under the Plan, the value of which Award or Awards is based solely on an increase in the value of
the Shares after the date of grant of such Award or Awards, for more than 1,000,000 Shares (subject to adjustment as provided for in Section 4(c) of the Plan), in the aggregate in any tax year. The foregoing annual limitation specifically includes
the grant of any Award or Awards representing ‘qualified performance-based compensation’ within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing annual limitation, Ms. Kuslima Shogen may be granted Options to
purchase up to 1,250,000 Shares in the aggregate in the tax year 2008.” 


          This Amendment No. 1 to the 2004 Plan (this “Amendment”) constitutes an integral part of the 2004
Plan.


          For all purposes of this Amendment, capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meaning specified in the 2004 Plan.


          This Amendment was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company pursuant to Section 7(a) of the 2004 Plan and, unless otherwise expressly indicated herein, shall be construed, administered
and applied in accordance with all the terms and provisions of the 2004 Plan. Except as expressly amended or waived by the terms of this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the 2004 Plan shall remain unamended and unwaived. The amendment set
forth herein shall be limited precisely as provided for herein to the provision expressly amended herein and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of, amendment of, consent to or modification of any other term or provision of any other document or any
transaction or further action on the part of the Company.


          This Amendment shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Company and its respective successors and assigns. In the event of any conflict between any of the terms of any stock option
agreement with respect to Ms. Shogen’s Options granted under the 2004 Plan, the terms of the 2004 Plan, as amended hereby, shall control.


Adopted by the Board of Directors April 16, 2008
§ 110.13 Candidate debates. ( a ) *Staging organizations.* ( 1 ) Nonprofit organizations described in 26 U.S.C. 501 (c)(3) or (c)(4) and which do not endorse, support, or oppose political candidates or political parties may stage candidate debates in accordance with this section and 11 CFR 114.4(f).
( 2 ) Broadcasters (including a cable television operator, programmer or producer), *bona fide* newspapers, magazines and other periodical publications may stage candidate debates in accordance with this section and 11 CFR 114.4(f), provided that they are not owned or controlled by a political party, political committee or candidate. In addition, broadcasters (including a cable television operator, programmer or producer), *bona fide* newspapers, magazines and other periodical publications, acting as press entities, may also cover or carry candidate debates in accordance with 11 CFR part 100, subparts B and C and part 100, subparts D and E.
( b ) *Debate structure.* The structure of debates staged in accordance with this section and 11 CFR 114.4(f) is left to the discretion of the staging organizations(s), provided that: ( 1 ) Such debates include at least two candidates; and
( 2 ) The staging organization(s) does not structure the debates to promote or advance one candidate over another.
( c ) *Criteria for candidate selection.* For all debates, staging organization(s) must use pre-established objective criteria to determine which candidates may participate in a debate. For general election debates, staging organizations(s) shall not use nomination by a particular political party as the sole objective criterion to determine whether to include a candidate in a debate. For debates held prior to a primary election, caucus or convention, staging organizations may restrict candidate participation to candidates seeking the nomination of one party, and need not stage a debate for candidates seeking the nomination of any other political party or independent candidates.
[61 FR 18051, Apr. 24, 1996; 61 FR 24533, May 15, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 78681, Dec. 26, 2002]
#### In the Matter of “Baby Girl” W., Also Known as Jaclyn W. Jewish Child Care Association, Respondent; Jack W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of “Baby Girl” W., Also Known as Teyana W. Jewish Child Care Association, Respondent; Jack W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of “Baby Boy” W., Also Known as Kareem W. Jewish Child Care Association, Respondent; Jack W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)

[823 NYS2d 678]

In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of three orders of fact-finding and disposition (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), all entered August 25, 2005, as, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he was in violation of the terms and conditions of a suspended judgment of the same court dated April 29, 2004, terminated his parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner sustained its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the father failed to satisfy some of the terms and conditions of the suspended judgment, warranting its revocation (see *Matter of Aaron S.,*15 AD3d 585, 586 [2005]; *Matter of Jordan Amir B.,*15 AD3d 477, 478-479 [2005]). The evidence supports the further determination of the Family Court that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests (see *Matter of Aaron S., supra; Matter of Arnold M.,*12 AD3d 677, 678-679 [2004]; *Matter of Shawna DD.,*289 AD2d 892, 894 [2001]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.E, Krausman, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eugene B. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ EUGENE B. JOHNSONEugene B. Johnson Chief Executive OfficerMay 5, 2009


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

---



QuickLinks
#### § 700.67 Habitation.

The term habitation means the dwelling(s) of each household required to relocate under the term of the Act.
<PAGE>





                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SS.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2003 of ServiceWare Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott
Schwartzman, Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.





                                  /s/ SCOTT SCHWARTZMAN
                                  ------------------------------------------
                                  Scott Schwartzman, Chief Financial Officer


                                  May 15, 2003
CAP CANAL

CAP CANAL

Manville Rd.

Reservation Rd.

Mile Wide Rd.

Trico Rd.

Pump Station Rd.

El Tiro Rd.

Trico-Marana Rd.

Sasco Rd.

Anway Rd.

Avra Valley Rd.

Silverbell Rd.

Curtis Rd.

Picacho Hwy.

Baumgartner Rd.

Cripple Creek Rd. Coachway Rd.

Aries Dr.

Sunland Gin Rd.

Greene Reservoir Rd.

Sandario Rd.

Twin Peaks Rd.

Saguaro

National

Park

R6E R7E R8E R9E R10E

T11S T10S T9S T12S

T13S T14S

R11E

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION BOUNDARY

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION BOUNDARY

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION BOUNDARY

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION BOUNDARY

Pinal County

Pima County

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the use

of this map for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of the information shown. Spatial

information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

Universal Tranverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

Clark 1866 Spheroid

NAD27 Datum

P:\BLM\Ironwood\GIS\Plots\RMP_EIS\Chapter_2\VRI_AltC.pdf

Location in Arizona

0 1 2 4 Miles

0 2 4 8 Kilometers

Ironwood Forest National Monument

Draft RMP/EIS

Visual Resources

Management

Alternative C

Legend

Map 2-8

Data Source:

VRM Alternative: URS 2006

Base Information: BLM 2003

Quadrangle Image: U.S. Geological Survey 1977 Tucson

Planning Area

Ironwood Forest National Monument

Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal

River

General Reference

County Boundaries

Main public access routes to monument. County administered

roads connecting monument travel route system to public

highways.

Interstate 10

Visual Resource Management Class

Note:

 Land use allocations, designations, and management 

 prescriptions apply only to public lands administered

 by the BLM. If non-Federal lands are acquired, they

 would be managed according to the allocations

 depicted on the map.

Class II

Class III

Class IV
AFS-12-353-E 

May 25, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10544 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0507 

Mr. Hal W. Raber 

Director of Operations 

Executive Jet Management 

4556 Airport Road 

Cincinnati, OH 45226 

Dear Mr. Raber: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 2, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Executive Jet Management (EJM) for an exemption from § 135.299(a) and (b) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow EJM pilots to 

accomplish a line operational evaluation in a Level C or Level D flight simulator in lieu of a 

line check in an aircraft. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to EJM. 

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 6913 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that the range of activities evaluated during a line check extends beyond the capabilities 

of a simulator and encompasses an environment that cannot be replicated by a simulator. In 

addition, the FAA encouraged part 135 operators to maintain adequate numbers of line check 

airmen and found that maintaining line qualification gives the line check airmen irreplaceable 

experience essential to conducting an effective line check. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial 

of Exemption No. 6913; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 6913 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Executive Jet Management for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 135.299(a) and (b). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure
#### Scata Heating and Cooling Corporation *v.*John Tamburro

*Sebastian J. Russo,*in support of the petition.

*Valdis Vinkels,*in opposition.

Submitted March 4

decided March 20, 1974

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Court of Common Pleas is denied.
#### § 2.604 What will the next official in the decision-maker's chain of command do in response to my appeal?

An official who receives an appeal from the inaction of a decision-maker that complies with the requirements of this subpart will, within 15 days of receiving the appeal, formally direct the decision-maker to respond within 15 days of the decision-maker's receipt of the official direction. The official will send to all interested parties a copy of his or her instructions to the decision-maker.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 13, 2014 518608 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of

CARLINE CAMPBELL,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 16, 2014

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________

Carline Campbell, Sloan, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City

(Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board, filed May 24, 2013, which ruled that claimant was

disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits

because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Decision affirmed. No opinion.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ.,

concur.
-2- 518608 

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
### Central Bank
§ 30.117 What is the process for requesting technical assistance? ( a ) Requests for technical assistance must be in writing from a tribal governing body or school board to the Director of BIE and the Department of Education's Assistant Secretary of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
( b ) The Director, or designee, will acknowledge receipt of a request for technical assistance.
( c ) No later than thirty (30) days after receiving the original request, the Director will identify a point-of-contact and begin the process of providing technical assistance. The Director and requesting tribal governing body or school board will work together to identify the form, substance, and timeline for the assistance.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1019 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1019

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                For the relief of Regine Beatie Edwards.

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

SECTION 1. CLASSIFICATION AS A CHILD UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND 
              NATIONALITY ACT.

    (a) In General.--In the administration of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, Regine Beatie Edwards shall be classified as a child 
within the meaning of section 101(b)(1)(E) of such Act, upon approval 
of a petition filed on her behalf by Stan Edwards, a citizen of the 
United States, pursuant to section 204 of such Act.
    (b) Limitation.--No natural parent, brother, or sister, if any, of 
Regine Beatie Edwards shall, by virtue of such relationship, be 
accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.

            Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1019

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                For the relief of Regine Beatie Edwards.
```
### [§1076b. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title VII, §706(d), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2282]

Section, added Pub. L. 108–106, title I, §1115(a), Nov. 6, 2003, 117 Stat. 1216; amended Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title VII, §702, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1525; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title VII, §702(a)(1), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3340; Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title VII, §704(d), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2280, related to TRICARE Standard coverage for members of the Selected Reserve.

A prior section 1076b, added Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title VII, §705(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 372; amended Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title VII, §702(a), (b), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2588; Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title VII, §733(a), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1812, related to Selected Reserve dental insurance, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title VII, §711(a), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 685.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title VII, §706(d), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2282, provided that the repeal made by section 706(d) is effective Oct. 1, 2007.
#### Michael Doyle, Respondent, v. Nicholas Welsh, Appellant.

—Judgment, and order of the County Court of Orange county unanimously affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor,. Rich and Miller, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 616 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 11, 2000.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4205) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths 
for fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 11.1004 Detention and shelter care. ( a ) A minor alleged to be a juvenile offender may be detained, pending a court hearing, in the following places: ( 1 ) A foster care facility approved by the tribe;
( 2 ) A detention home approved by the tribe; or
( 3 ) A private family home approved by the tribe.
( b ) A minor who is 16 years of age or older may be detained in a jail facility used for the detention of adults only if: ( 1 ) A facility in paragraph (a) of this section is not available or would not assure adequate supervision of the minor;
( 2 ) The minor is housed in a separate room from the detained adults; and
( 3 ) Routine inspection of the room where the minor is housed is conducted every 30 minutes to assure his or her safety and welfare.
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 
-  Rulemaking 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

## Contact Us

Hazardous Materials Standards and Rulemaking
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**infocntr@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-8553****Alt Phone:**800-467-4922****Fax:**202-366-7435**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings

The following rules are from prior to 1995. If you are looking for rulemakings from 1995 to present, please use our rulemakings search that is connected with the Federal Register.

Please find below pipeline safety-related rulemakings broken out by year ranges.