alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Respirator User's Notice - Use of Unapproved Subassemblies

## HPPOS-147 PDR-9111220069

See the above entitled notice issued by J. B. Moran on November 6, 1984.

This notice states that NIOSH / MSHA approves only complete respirator assemblies and not subassemblies such as cylinders or air supply hoses. Users of approved respirators must not interchange subassemblies or make unapproved modifications to respiratory protection devices.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) had received many questions and complaints in regard to the interchangeability of respirator subassemblies and unapproved modifications to NIOSH / MSHA certified respirators. Further, some problems reported to NIOSH had, upon investigation, been found to have been caused by user's modifying certified respirators that resulted in the modified respirator failing to perform as anticipated, thus jeopardizing the respirator user.

NIOSH / MSHA respirator certification regulations, Title 30 Code of Federal Regulations Part 11 (30 CFR 11), state that approved respirators "are maintained in an approved condition and are the same in all respects as those respirators for which a certificate has been issued." [30 CFR 11, 11.2 (b)] In addition, the regulations permit NIOSH / MSHA to approve only complete respirator assemblies and prohibit the approval of respirator subassemblies such as cylinders or air supply hoses.

These requirements are intended to ensure that one manufacturer has overall control and responsibility for the integrity of the approved respirator. In some cases even minor modifications to respirators may make significant changes in the performance of the respirator. 

Manufacturers who modify certified respirators must test the modification to determine if the respirator continues to meet the minimum requirements of 30 CFR 11, and must submit the modifications to NIOSH.

A user who modifies a certified respirator may not be able to determine whether a change will decrease respiratory protection. Several cases have been reported to NIOSH where unapproved modifications or use of an unapproved subassembly have resulted in respirator failures.

Therefore, users of NIOSH / MSHA approved respirators are cautioned against interchanging subassemblies or making unapproved modifications to their respiratory protective devices.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 20.103, 10 CFR 20.1703

**Subject codes:** 8.10

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017
#### § 3864.1-3 Millsites for quartz mills or reduction works.

In case the owner of a quartz mill or reduction works is not the owner or claimant of a vein or lode claim the law permits him to make application therefor in the same manner prescribed for mining claims, and after due notice and proceedings, in the absence of a valid adverse filing, to enter and receive a patent for his millsite at the price named in the preceding section.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-60994-CIV-ALTMAN/Reid 

GLENN BLAKELY, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Defendant. 

_________________________/ 

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Complaint”) 

[ECF No. 1]. On August 24, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid entered a 

Report and Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 8], in which she recommended that this Court 

dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. See Report at 10. In that Report, Magistrate 

Judge Reid warned the Plaintiff: 

Objections to this report may be filed with the District Judge within fourteen (14) 

days of receipt of a copy of the Report. Failure to file timely objections shall bar 

plaintiff from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in 

this report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal factual findings 

accepted or adopted by the District Court Judge, except upon grounds of plain 

error or manifest injustice. 

Id. The Plaintiff has filed no objections, and the time for doing so has passed. 

 When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts 

must review that disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But when no party has timely 

objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in 

order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation 

omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has 

acknowledged that Congress’ intent was to require de novo review only where objections have 

Case 0:20-cv-60994-RKA Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

been properly filed—and not, as here, when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a 

magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when 

neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate 

[judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 

855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 

1982)). 

The Court has reviewed the Report, the Complaint, the record, and the applicable law and 

can find no clear error in the Report. Accordingly, the Court hereby 

ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 8] is 

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as follows: 

1. The Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DENIED. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case, all pending hearings and 

deadlines are TERMINATED, and any pending motions are DENIED as moot. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 17th day of September 2020. 

 _________________________________ 

 ROY K. ALTMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

cc: counsel of record 

 Anthony McIntyre, pro se

Case 0:20-cv-60994-RKA Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2020 Page 2 of 2
### PART III—PENALTY, SEIZURE, AND FORFEITURE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO BEER AND BREWING

Sec.
5671.
Penalty and forfeiture for evasion of beer tax and fraudulent noncompliance with requirements.
5672.
Penalty for failure of brewer to comply with requirements and to keep records and file returns.
5673.
Forfeiture for flagrant and willful removal of beer without taxpayment.
5674.
Penalty for unlawful production or removal of beer.
5675.
Penalty for intentional removal or defacement of brewer's marks and brands.
[5676.
Repealed.]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part III consisted of sections 5671 to 5676 of this title, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1313.

#### Amendments

**1978**—Pub. L. 95–458, §2(b)(5)(B), Oct. 14, 1978, 92 Stat. 1257, substituted "production or removal" for "removal" in item 5674.

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1905(b)(1)(B), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1822, struck out item 5676 "Penalties relating to beer stamps".
# Recent Blog Posts

RSS Feed for Recent Blog Posts

- Update for April 17, 2024 (last update for the season) This is our final post of the 2024 winter. Unlike most snowbirds, after the May 1 snow surveys, we will be migrating south to our summer Sierra Nevada home.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Although it was a late start to winter, once the storm door opened in January the frequency of storms and the precipitation contained therein has resulted in an approximate 100% of “average” snowpack for snow water equivalent on the ground as of mid-April. This is good news for the Sierra Nevada water bank.
- Update for April 10, 2024 The above weather data tells the tale of another cold and snowy week at Tuolumne Meadows. Cold temperatures, new snow, and gusty ridge winds characterized the weather this week. This resulted in good powder conditions on due north-facing sheltered slopes above 9,000 feet. The corn snow that the Sierra Nevada is known for is only now starting to simmer.
- Update for April 3, 2024 It was a wintry week to close out the month of March. “Out like a lion” so to speak. It was another month of above average precipitation and snowfall, and a bit cooler than “normal.” We have been out doing the April 1 snow surveys this week and with one more course to go the Tuolumne River drainage is coming in between 90-100% of average.
- Update for March 27, 2024 Late March in the Sierra Nevada can see big swings in weather and this week was no exception. The first half of the week was characterized by warm temperatures and sunny skies producing a good corn snow cycle. Spring did start on March 19 after all! Old man winter said, “not so fast,” however, and the past three days have seen the return to winter weather and ski conditions. Single-digit overnight lows and twenty inches of new snow have put the brakes on spring for now.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Doberstein, Appellant, against Curtiss-Wright Corporation et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Claimant appeals from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board denying his claim to compensation for disability due to Parkinson’s disease. Upon the contested issue of causal relation there was a sharp conflict of evidence. The finding of no causal relation had support in the evidence. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Foster and Russell, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-81004-CIV-ALTMAN/Brannon

NELSON FERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLEBEE’S RESTAURANTS, LLC,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Stipulation of Dismissal with 

Prejudice [ECF No. 15]. Being fully advised, the Court hereby

ORDERS that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 25th day of August 2020. 

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:20-cv-81004-RKA Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 1 of 1
§ 45.57 Who has the burden of persuasion, and what standard of proof applies? ( a ) Any party who has filed a request for a hearing has the burden of persuasion with respect to the issues of material fact raised by that party.
( b ) The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.1102 Who may file a VOSB or SDVOSB Appeal?

A concern that has been denied certification as a VOSB or SDVOSB or has had its VOSB or SDVOSB status decertified may appeal the decision to OHA.
### §5353. Bonded wine warehouse

Any responsible warehouse company or other responsible person may, upon filing application with the Secretary and consent of the proprietor and the surety on the bond of any bonded wine cellar, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, establish on such premises facilities for the storage of wines and allied products for credit purposes, to be known as a "bonded wine warehouse". The proprietor of the bonded wine cellar shall remain responsible in all respects for operations in the warehouse and the tax on the wine or wine spirit stored therein.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1379; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5353, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 663, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: John Laurie Bush, Jr. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00357-CR

Trial court case number: 221956

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 1 of Brazoria County

On April 30, 2019, this case was abated and remanded to the trial court to determine 

whether appellant wished to prosecute the appeal and, if so, whether or not appellant should be 

appointed counsel. On May 15, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on our abatement order but 

appellant failed to appear. The supplemental clerk’s record contains the trial court’s written 

findings of fact that appellant is not indigent, but he has not made the necessary arrangements for 

filing a brief. 

Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket. The case will be 

set for submission and considered without briefs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4) (“If the trial court 

has found that the appellant . . . is not indigent but has not made the necessary arrangements for 

filing a brief, the appellate court may consider the appeal without briefs, as justice may require.”); 

see also Ayala v. State, No. 01-13-00393-CR, 2015 WL 161788, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] Jan. 13, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Compian v. State, No. 01-

08-00034-CR, 2010 WL 3220644, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 12, 2010, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Sherry Radack_____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __June 6, 2019___
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                 
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive
Officer August 12, 2004





|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                 
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial
Officer August 12, 2004
MIKE BRYANTON 

INGHAM COUNTY CLERK 

MAIN OFFICE .<«EnB^ BRANCH OFFICE 

P.O. Box 179 /^jT m 1^'Floor 

Courthouse l^^^'i^l l 313 W. Kalamazoo 

Mason, Ml 48854 iE^M ' Lansing, Ml 48933 

Phone:(517)676-7201 ^SS ^ Phone:(517)483-6425 

Fax: (517)676-7254 -^JESi-' Pg^. (517)493.5421 

Find us on the web at: www.inaham.orQ/cl/clindex.htm 

February 16, 2012 

The Honorable Raymond L. Lahood .,., -ij'crj'^i 

Secretary of Transportation -~^^,— 

Untied States Department of Transportation " '•-

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE jr., 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Sun Country Slot Exemption Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

Dear Secretary Lahood: 

I Mike Bryanton, Ingham County Clerk, life long resident of the Mid-Michigan area, am 

interested in the development of the strongest possible air service in our region. To that end, 1 

write this letter to 'support Sun Country Airlines year-round service from Lansing to Ronald 

Reagan Washington National Airport. 

The route, added last year, connects the state's capital city with the nation's capital. In addition 

to state government, it eases travel for Michigan State University, numerous state associations 

and businesses with ties to Washington, D.C. It's a valuable route for the region's economy; 

officials say some 48,000 passengers have used it since last April. This non-stop service to 

Washington DC has proven to be popular with the Sun Country airlines experiencing a 156 

percent increase in daily passengers in the third quarter of 2011 over the numbers from a year 

earlier. 

But service is in jeopardy because a federal court ruled that the U.S. Department of 

Transportation was wrong to give Sun Country the slots at Reagan National. The U.S. Court of 

Appeals ruled that DOT had broken a precedent of allowing slot transfers as part of acquisitions 

or mergers. The court said Republic Airways Holdings Inc. should have retained the slot as part 

of its acquisition of Midwest Airlines Inc. 

Sun Country should be held harmless. The airline isn't responsible for the error. It invested in 

aircraft and staff for year-round service to Washington, D.C, from Capital Region International 

Airport. 
DOT has a means to allow Sun Country fly, even if it returns a slot to Republic. It can authorize 

slots under an exemption rule. Sun Country has appealed to request just that. 

An exemption will not adversely affect safety, since the airline has provided safe service on the 

route since last April. 

With all of this in mind, I would greatly appreciate your granting approval of the retention of 

landing rights and slot exemptions. 

Sincerely, 

Mike Bryanton 

Ingham County Clerk
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55871-55872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23063]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of 
the Louisiana Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by 
conference call at 1 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3 p.m. on 
Friday, September 30, 2011. The purpose of this meeting is to continue 
planning the Committee's civil rights project. Review and discuss 
information collected at the SAC's public briefing meeting on May 10, 
2011.
    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-
free call-in

[[Page 55872]]

number: (866) 393-8073, conference call access code number *3046445*. 
Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to 
the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they 
initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any 
incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate 
over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons 
with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first 
calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the 
Service with the conference call number and contact name Farella E. 
Robinson.
    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of 
lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting 
Corrine Sanders of the Central Regional Office and TTY/TDD telephone 
number, by 4:00 p.m. on September 22, 2011.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by October 30, 2011. 
The address is U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 400 State Avenue, Suite 
908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may be e-mailed to 
frobinson@usccr.gov Records generated by this meeting may be inspected 
and reproduced at the Central Regional Office, as they become 
available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the 
work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's 
Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Central Regional 
Office at the above e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, September 6, 2011.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2011-23063 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM  THE QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT  TO SECTION
               13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES  EXCHANGE  ACT  OF 1934 FOR
               THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              17,957
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       12,859
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,404
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    33,958
<PP&E>                                              24,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                      20,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      46,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               23,402
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               424
<OTHER-SE>                                          22,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        46,282
<SALES>                                              3,867
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    10,149
<CGS>                                                  705
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    13,435
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (4,704)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            66
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (4,770)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (4,770)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.12)



</TABLE>