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

# 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 

# PD-34(R): Common law tort claims concerning design and marking or labeling of DOT specification 39 compressed gas cylinders
<PAGE>

                  AMENDMENT TO COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT

     THIS AMENDMENT TO COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT (this "AMENDMENT") is dated
as of December 9, 1997, between SIENA CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P., a California
general partnership ("Siena") and BROTHERS GOURMET COFFEES, INC. (the
"COMPANY").

                                   RECITALS

     WHEREAS, the Company issued to Siena a common Stock Purchase Warrant dated
September 20, 1996 (as amended, the "WARRANT"), exercisable with respect to up
to 100,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock, subject to adjustment as set
forth in the Warrant.  All terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meaning given such terms in the Warrant; and

     WHEREAS, the Company and Siena desire to amend the Warrant as set forth
herein.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto hereby
agree as follows:

     1.   The Company and Siena hereby agree that the last sentence of the
          preamble of the Warrant shall be amended in its entirety to read as
          follows:

          
          "The exercise price per share of Common Stock for which this Warrant
          is exercisable shall be the lesser of (i) $1.5625 per share or (ii) t
          he average closing price of the Common Stock on the securities
          exchange or other inter-dealer quotation system on which the Common
          Stock is then listed over the thirty (30) trading day period
          immediately prior to the Initial Warrant Effective Date, as adjusted
          from time to time pursuant to the terms of this Warrant and the
          Warrant Agreement (the "EXERCISE PRICE")."
     2.   The Warrant shall remain in full force and effect as amended hereby
          and all parties hereto hereby ratify and affirm the Warrant as so
          amended.


                                       
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Siena have executed this Amendment as
of the date first written above.

                                    SIENA CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P.
                                    a California limited partnership
                                    
                                    By:  Aneis Advisors GP, Inc.
                                         a California corporation,
                                         its general partner
                                    
                                         By:  _______________________________
                                              Name:
                                              Title:


                                    BROTHERS GOURMET COFFEES, INC.
                                    
                                    By:  ____________________________________
                                         Name:
                                         Title:
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-QSB for the quarter
ended  December  31,  2003 (the  "Report")  of  Farnsworth  Bancorp,  Inc.  (the
"Company") as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission,  we, Gary N.
Pelehaty,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Charles  Alessi,  Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer,  Treasurer and Secretary,  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/ Gary N. Pelehaty                    /s/ Charles Alessi
-------------------------------------   ----------------------------------------
Gary N. Pelehaty                        Charles Alessi
President and Chief Executive Officer   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
                                        Treasurer and Secretary




February 3, 2004
#### Hargis v. All-States Realty Co.

April 28, 1939.

*83W. G. HARGIS for appellant.

J. R. McGARRY for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Fulton

Reversing.

Appellant, W. Gr. Hargis, on February 1, 1937, signed a written lease, the preamble of which is as follows:

> “I have this day rented of Echert *&*Company thru the All-States Realty Company, Inc., the apartment house No. 415 on Madison Street in Coving-, ton, Kentucky for one month ending at 12 o’clock midnight of March 1, 1937, for which I promise to pay the sum of ($22.50) Twenty-two and 50/100 dollars without demand, in advance, as rent or notice of possession.”

On April 3, 1937, on complaint of the All-States Realty Company through Clay H. Blackburn, agent, a forcible detainer warrant was issued against appellant from a justice’s court in Kenton County, charging him with forcibly detaining the premises covered by the lease from the All-States Realty Company. On trial in the justice’s court he was found guilty of the forcible detainer. A traverse was filed and on trial in the circuit court he was again found guilty and judgment of restitution was entered on that verdict, from which judgment appellant prosecutes this appeal, assigning numerous grounds for a reversal of the judgment, one of these being that the All-States Realty Company bad no_ authority to maintain the action. We will consider this ground only as it must be sustained.

Section 18 of the Civil Code of Practice provides that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as provided in Section 21. *84It is obvious that this action was not prosecuted by the real party in interest. The property is owned by Echert and Company, composed of the four Echert sisters, who are joint owners of the property. The action should have been prosecuted in their name, as the record discloses that the All-States Realty Company had no interest in the contract of tenancy whatsoever. It merely acted as agent of the Echert sisters in making the lease and does not come within the category of those, other than real parties in interest, authorized to bring action by Section 21 of the Civil Code of Practice.

Nor did the relation of landlord and tenant exist between appellant and the All-States Realty Company. It is established that 'the appellant did not make a forcible entry, but came into possession of the premises rightfully by lease from the owner; therefore, only the landlord could prosecute an action for forcible detainer against him. Civil Code of Practice, Section 452.

The statement is made in brief for the appellee that appellant has surrendered the premises since the rendering of the verdict' and' that, therefore, the question raised on this appeal has become moot. In the absence of any showing in the record, we are unable to accept a statement thus made in a brief.

For the reasons given, the judgment is reversed ' for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
EX-4.3 SPECIMEN CERTIFICATE, SERIES 2008D-V









Exhibit 4.3








	ORGANIZED UNDER THE CAWS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA




	THE SOUTH FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
10% MANDATORY CONVERTIBLE NON CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES 2008ND-V




	THIS CERTIFIES THAT Specimen
is the owner of *** One Hundred*** Shares




	Transferable only one the looks of the corporation by the holder hereof in persons
or by money upon surrender up this certificate properly endorsed




	IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the said corporation has caused this certificate to be sign by
ed duly authorized officers and its corporate to be on to affect this 8th day of May A D 2008





 









 












	THE SHARES EVIDENCE BY THE CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED
(THE “SECURITIES ACT”) OR THE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION. THE SHARES MAY NOT BE OFFERED,
SOLD, PLEDGED OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED EXCEPT (1) PURSUANT TO AND EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OR (2) PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT, IN EACH CASE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS AND THE SECURITIES LAWS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS,
AND IN THE CASE OF TRANSLATION EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION, UNLESS THE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED AN OPINION OF
COUNSEL REASONABLY SATISFACTORY TO IT THAT SUCH TRANSACTION DOES NOT REQUIRED REGISTRATION UNDER THE SECURITIES
ACT AND SUCH OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS.




	CERTIFICATE FOR 100 SHARES




	THE SOUTH FINANCIAL GROUP, INC




	Mandatory Convertible Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock Series 2008d-V




	ISSUED TO SAMPLE DATE MAY 8, 2008




	For value received hereby self assign and transfer under shares represented by the within certificate
and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said shares on the books of the
within named corporation with full power of substitution in the premises dated in presence of




	Notice the signature of this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the
certificate, in every particular, without alteration or enlargement, or any change whatever.
§ 100.88 Volunteer activity for candidates. ( a ) The payment by a candidate for any public office (including State or local office), or by such candidate's authorized committee, of the costs of that candidate's campaign materials that include information on or any reference to a candidate for Federal office and that are used in connection with volunteer activities (such as pins, bumper stickers, handbills, brochures, posters, and yard signs) is not a contribution to such candidate for Federal office, provided that the payment is not for the use of broadcasting, newspapers, magazines, billboards, direct mail or similar types of general public communication or political advertising.
( b ) The payment of the portion of the cost of such materials allocable to Federal candidates shall be made from contributions subject to the limitations and prohibitions of the Act. For purposes of this section, the term *direct mail* means any mailing(s) by commercial vendors or mailing(s) made from lists that were not developed by the candidate. *But see* 11 CFR 100.24, 104.17(a), and part 300, subparts D and E for exempt activities that also constitute Federal election activity.
# In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

DECEMBER 9, 2014

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED100414 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V DANIEL AUSTIN, APP

2. ED100521 DAVID RAY FUGATE, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

3. ED100554 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V JESSE BEASLEY, APP

4. ED100566 ARNOLD TAYLOR, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

5. ED100665 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V FRED SILVER, APP

6. ED100691 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V DONTAE CHARLES, APP

7. ED100875 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V TELISHA LIGGINS, APP

8. ED101026 RODNEY WRIGHT, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

9. ED101052 MARGARET E. BLYZES, RES V THURMAN M. BLYZES, APP

10. ED101108 IN THE INTEREST OF: D.M.E.

1 1. ED101414 TIMOTHY MEFFORD, RES V TRUE MANUFACTURING

CO, APP

WITHDRAWAL(S):

1. ED100593 DANIEL KRUSE, ET AL, APP V. SEVEN TRAILS ETAL, RES
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Alliance Laundry Systems LLC, Alliance Laundry Corporation and
Alliance Laundry Holdings LLC (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce P. Rounds, Vice President Chief
Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 Companies.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ BRUCE P. ROUNDS                   
|Vice President Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2009
#### § 381.181 Reports by consignees of allegedly adulterated or misbranded products; sale or transportation as violations.

Whenever the consignee of any poultry product which bears an official inspection legend refuses to accept delivery of such product on the grounds that it is adulterated or misbranded, the consignee shall notify the appropriate program supervisor, Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, of the kind, quantity, source and present location of the product and the respects in which it is alleged to be adulterated or misbranded, and it will be a violation of the Act for any person to sell or transport, or offer for sale or transportation or receive for transportation, in commerce, any such product which is capable of use as human food and is in fact adulterated or misbranded at the time of such sale, transportation, offer, or receipt: *Provided,* That any such allegedly adulterated or misbranded product may be transported to any official establishment for reinspection.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Bianchi, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 426]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Guidice, J), rendered July 10, 2003, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor violated the Supreme Court’s *Sandoval*ruling (see *People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371 [1974]). However, any perceived error was harmless in light of the court’s curative instructions (see *People v Lovacco,*59 NY2d 294, 299-300; *People v Ross,*262 AD2d 429, 429-430 [1999]) and the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Further, the replacement of the defendant’s assigned counsel with standby counsel on the ground that counsel’s health issues could have affected his ability to communicate with the jury was appropriate (see *People v Knowles,*88 NY2d 763, 766-767 [1996]; *People v Childs,*247 AD2d 319, 324-326 [1998]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Adams, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
§ 381.69 Maximum line speed rates under the New Poultry Inspection System. ( a ) The maximum line speed for young chicken slaughter establishments that operate under the New Poultry Inspection System is 140 birds per minute.
( b ) The maximum line speed for turkey slaughter establishments that operate under the New Poultry Inspection System is 55 birds per minute.
( c ) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, establishments that operate under the New Poultry Inspection System must reduce their line speed as directed by inspectors-in-charge. Inspectors-in-charge are authorized to direct establishments to operate at a reduced line speed when in their judgment a carcass-by-carcass inspection cannot be adequately performed within the time available due to the manner in which the birds are presented to the online carcass inspector, the health conditions of a particular flock, or factors that may indicate a loss of process control.
( d ) Establishments operating under the line speed limits authorized in this section shall comply with all other applicable requirements of the laws, including, but not limited to, 29 U.S.C. 654(a).
[79 FR 49635, Aug. 21, 2014]
§ 145.32 Participation. Participating flocks of multiplier meat type chickens, and the eggs and chicks produced from them, shall comply with the applicable general provisions of subpart A of this part and the special provisions of this subpart C. ( a ) Started chickens shall lose their identity under Plan terminology when not maintained by Plan participants under the conditions prescribed in § 145.5(a).
( b ) Hatching eggs produced by multiplier breeding flocks should be nest clean. They may be fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter or otherwise sanitized.
( c ) Any nutritive material provided to chicks must be free of the avian pathogens that are officially represented in the Plan disease classifications listed in § 145.10.
[36 FR 23112, Dec. 3, 1971, as amended at 40 FR 1502, Jan. 8, 1975; 41 FR 48724, Nov. 5, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR 61586, Oct. 26, 1979, and amended at 49 FR 19802, May 10, 1984; 57 FR 57341, Dec. 4, 1992; 65 FR 8018, Feb. 17, 2000; 68 FR 64510, Nov. 14, 2003; 72 FR 1419, Jan. 12, 2007; 79 FR 38756, July 9, 2014]
# C_2007125EN.01000601.xml

| 6.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 June 2007

(2007/C 125/11)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3532 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 164,42 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4479 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67830 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3250 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6483 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 85,56 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0840 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5832 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,399 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,72 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8126 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,2580 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,034 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7780 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6122 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4305 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5654 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7956 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0684 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 254,42 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,6777 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3401 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3410 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 901,39 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6090 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,922 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,9430 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,529 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3532

JPY

Japanese yen

164,42

DKK

Danish krone

7,4479

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67830

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3250

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6483

ISK

Iceland króna

85,56

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0840

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5832

CZK

Czech koruna

28,399

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,72

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8126

RON

Romanian leu

3,2580

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,034

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7780

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6122

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4305

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5654

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7956

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0684

KRW

South Korean won

1 254,42

ZAR

South African rand

9,6777

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3401

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3410

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 901,39

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6090

PHP

Philippine peso

61,922

RUB

Russian rouble

34,9430

THB

Thai baht

44,529

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
§ 111.18 Conciliation (52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)). ( a ) Upon a Commission finding of probable cause to believe, the Office of General Counsel shall attempt to correct or prevent the violation by informal methods of conference conciliation and persuasion, and shall attempt to reach a tentative conciliation agreement with the respondent.
( b ) A conciliation agreement is not binding upon either party unless and until it is signed by the respondent and by the General Counsel upon approval by the affirmative vote of four (4) members of the Commission.
( c ) If the probable cause to believe finding is made within forty-five days prior to any election, such conciliation attempt shall continue for at least fifteen (15) days from the date of such finding. In all other cases such attempts by the Commission shall continue for at least thirty (30) days, not to exceed ninety (90) days.
( d ) Nothing in these regulations shall be construed to prevent the Commission from entering into a conciliation agreement with a respondent prior to a Commission finding of probable cause if a respondent indicates in writing to the General Counsel a desire to enter into negotiations directed towards reaching such a conciliation agreement. However, the Commission is not required to enter into any negotiations directed towards reaching a conciliation agreement unless and until it makes a finding of probable cause to believe. Any conciliation agreement reached under this subsection is subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section and shall have the same force and effect as a conciliation agreement reached after a Commission finding of probable cause to believe.
( e ) If a conciliation agreement is reached between the Commission and the respondent, the General Counsel shall send a copy of the signed agreement to both complainant and respondent.
[45 FR 15120, Mar. 7, 1980, as amended at 89 FR 218, Jan. 2, 2024]