alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.405 Jurisdiction. ( a ) The Administrative Law Judge selected to preside over an appeal shall decline to accept jurisdiction over any matter if: ( 1 ) The appeal does not, on its face, allege facts that, if proven to be true, would warrant reversal or modification of the determination, including appeals of denials of 8(a) BD program admission based in whole or in part on grounds other than a negative finding of social disadvantage, economic disadvantage, ownership or control;
( 2 ) The appeal is untimely filed or is not otherwise filed in accordance with the requirements of this subpart or the requirements in subparts A and B of this part; or
( 3 ) The matter has been decided or is the subject of an adjudication before a court of competent jurisdiction over such matters.
( b ) Once the Administrative Law Judge accepts jurisdiction over an appeal, subsequent initiation of an adjudication of the matter by a court of competent jurisdiction will not preclude the Administrative Law Judge from rendering a final decision on the matter.
( c ) Jurisdiction of the Administrative Law Judge in a suspension case is limited to the issue of whether the protection of the Government's interest requires suspension pending resolution of the termination action, unless the Administrative Law Judge has consolidated the suspension appeal with the corresponding termination appeal.
[63 FR 35766, June 30, 1998; 75 FR 47443, Aug. 6, 2010]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 16, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133255 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. _________________________________________ Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

IN RE GREGORY KENNETH MICHAEL 

CAMPBELL, NATALIE JOCELYNNE NICOLE 

CAMPBELL, NATHAN JEFFREY ALLEN 

CAMPBELL, and JESSICA LYNNE CHRISTINA 

CAMPBELL, Minors. 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERICES, f/k/a 

FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 133255 

 COA: 269585

 Oakland CC

KENNETH FALKIEWICZ, 

Respondent-Appellant, 

 Family Division: 03-684390-NA 

and 

TAMMY LYNNE CAMPBELL, 

Respondent. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0313 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 16, 2007 

Clerk
#### Paul J. Aparo, Administrator (Estate of Steven J. Palmieri) v. United Technologies Corporation et al.

James E. Kernan, in support of the petition.

Constance L. Epstein, in opposition.

Decided April 23, 1986

The cross petition of the defendant Wetherell Corporation for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 6 Conn. App. 60, is denied.
#### W. C. Glass, Respondent, *v.*R. B. Pennock, Appellant.

March 23, 1885.

Judgment of the circuit court affirmed, because there is neither assignment of errors or briefs filed in this case by the appellant as by statute required.

*144Appeal from Bates Circuit Court, J. B. Gantt, Judge. -

*Affirmed.*

Opinion

*Per Curiam.*

There is neither assignment of errors or briefs filed in this case by the appellant, as by statute required. The judgment of the circuit court must therefore be affirmed, —39 Mo. 418; 52 Mo. 551; 60 Mo. 515.
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of theundersigned certifies that:

 

1.  This periodic reportcomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.  The information contained inthe periodic report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Apex Mortgage Capital, Inc.

 

 
| Dated:  March  27, 2003 | /s/ Philip A. Barach                                                 |   |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         | Philip A. Barach                                                     |
|                         | President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
p. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 86 ) IV-C-5

2
Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:55 AM Sheet 86 of 232P. 2

J ffi t0ST<% ! UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON

, D.C . 2046 0


### FE B 

### 2 198

8

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N

Honorabl e Steven Gunderso n United State s Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Gunderson : Thi s i s i n respons e t o your Januar y 21 , 198 8 lette r relayin g th e concern s o f your constituent , Mr . Joh n J . Hansen , regardin

g EPA' s regulator

y proposa l t o requir e onboar d canister s o

n ne w vehicle s t o contro l refuelin g emissions . T o assis t yo u wit hyour response , I have enclosed a cop y o f ou r proposa l fo

r your review . Section E (page s 31177-31182 ) explain s EPA' s overal l rational e fo r proposing onboar d controls . I f you woul d lik e furthe r detail s o f our analysis , pleas e contac t Mr . Phili p Carlson o f th e Standard s Developmen t an

d Suppor t Brancho f the Emissio n Contro l Technolog

y Division , 256 5 Plymout hRoad , An n Arbor , Michigan 4810 5 (FT S 374-827 0 o r Commercia l (313 ) 668-4270) . Than k you for your letter . W e wil l plac e th e lette r fro m Mr . Hansen in ou

r publi c docke t an

d full y conside r hi s comment s i n th

e next phas e o f ou

r rulemakin

g process . Sincerel y

yours , ORIGINA L SIGNE D B Y RICHAR D D

. WILSO N Richar d D . Wilson Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosur e
cc : Docke t A-87^1 1

Prepare d by : For

mLettensal : l/28/88:AL88035 9 - ECTD , Ann Arbor , M I
bcc : Regio n 0 5 Congressiona l Liaison/Quin n
Paraquat Dichloride:

One Sip Can Kill !
Deaths from Accidental Ingestion 

of Paraquat

 Several accidental paraquat ingestion deaths have 

occurred in recent years.

 EPA looked into these deaths and found that such cases 

often occur as a result of the pesticide being transferred 

into a beverage container.

 This is a major concern to EPA because paraquat is a 

Restricted Use Pesticide and, like all pesticides, should 

never be placed into a beverage container.

 Paraquat is highly toxic to humans; one small accidental 

sip is often fatal and there is no antidote. 
Deaths from Accidental Ingestion 

of Paraquat

 The product labels clearly prohibit pouring paraquat 

into food or beverage containers with the prominentlyplaced statements:

“NEVER PUT INTO FOOD, DRINK OR OTHER CONTAINERS.”

“DO NOT REMOVE CONTENTS EXCEPT FOR IMMEDIATE USE.” 
True Stories

 In 2008, an 8-year old boy drank paraquat that 

had been put in a Dr. Pepper bottle, which he 

found on a window sill in the garage. He died in 

the hospital 16 days later. His older brother had 

used the product on weeds around the house 

and put it in the bottle in the garage. The older 

brother obtained the product from a family 

friend who is a certified Restricted Use Pesticide 

applicator. 
True Stories

In 2003, a 49-year old male took a sip from his coffee cup 

in which he had poured paraquat herbicide because the 

product’s bottle was deteriorating. He realized his mistake 

and went to the Emergency Department. At that time, he 

was vomiting, cold and sweating profusely. 

Doses of activated charcoal were administered and his 

stomach was pumped; morphine was provided for 

esophageal pain; and he was intubated to support 

breathing function on the fourth day. Aggressive 

supportive care continued until he died on the tenth day.
True Stories

 In 2000, a 15-month old boy 

ingested paraquat product 

that had been transferred into 

a Gatorade container and 

stored inappropriately. The 

boy survived in the hospital for 

13 days after the ingestion and 

received aggressive treatment, 

but died after suffering acute 

kidney and liver failure.

 In 2000, an 18-month old boy 

ingested an unknown amount 

of paraquat solution from a 

bottle found in his father’s 

landscaping truck. He 

received multiple-dose 

activated charcoal treatment 

two hours after the ingestion. 

He suffered from lack of 

oxygen during the first 24 hours 

followed by progressive liver, 

kidney, and cardio-pulmonary 

dysfunction. The boy died 11 

days after the ingestion.
Applicators: The Solution is You!

To prevent the severe injury and/or death from 

paraquat ingestion, a paraquat product must: 

 Be used only by a certified applicator or under the direct supervision 

of a certified applicator.

 Never be transferred to a food or drink container. 

 Always be kept secured to prevent access to children and/or other 

unauthorized persons.

 Never be stored in or around residential dwellings.

 Never be used around home gardens, schools, recreational parks, 

golf courses or playgrounds.
ARTHUR BRITT , Appellant,

v.
STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 15

- 2827

_____________________________/ Opinion filed October 7 , 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Angela Cox , Judge

. Diana L. Johnson of Johnson and Lufrano, P.A., Jacksonville , for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Based on the State’s proper concession of error, we reverse and remand for resentencing on Counts I and II in accordance with Williams v. State , 186 So. 3d2 989 (Fla. 2016), which held that consecutive mandatory minimum terms under the
10

- 20

- Life statute ar e permissible but not mandatory where, as here, the defendant shot at multiple victims. In all other respects, we affirm. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
ROBERTS , C.J., WETHERELL , and BILBREY , J J

. , CONCUR.
Editorial Note on Part 115
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 115 appear at 72 FR 50038, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 115.65 General PSB procedures. ( a ) *Retention of information.* A PSB Surety must comply with all applicable SBA regulations and obtain from its applicants all the information and certifications required by SBA. The PSB Surety must document compliance with SBA regulations and retain such certifications in its files, including a contemporaneous record of the date of approval and Execution of each bond. See also § 115.19(f). The certifications and other information must be made available for inspection by SBA or its agents and must be available for submission to SBA in connection with the Surety's claims for reimbursement. The PSB Surety must retain the certifications and other information for the term of the bond, plus such additional time as may be required to settle any claims of the Surety for reimbursement from SBA and to attempt salvage or other recovery, plus an additional 3 years. If there are any unresolved audit findings in relation to a particular bond, the Surety must maintain the related certifications and other information until the findings are resolved.
( b ) *Usual staff and procedures.* The approval, Execution and administration by a PSB Surety of SBA guaranteed bonds must be handled in the same manner and with the same staff as the Surety's activity outside the PSB program. The Surety must request job status reports from Obligees in accordance with its own procedures.
( c ) *Notification to SBA* — ( 1 ) *Approvals.* A PSB Surety must notify SBA by electronic transmission or monthly bordereau, as agreed between the Surety and SBA, of all approved Bid and Final Bonds, and of the Surety's approval of increases and decreases in the Contract or bond amount. The notice must contain the information specified from time to time in agreements between the Surety and SBA. SBA may deny liability with respect to Final Bonds for which SBA has not received timely notice.
( 2 ) *Other events requiring notification.* The PSB Surety must notify SBA within 30 calendar days of the name and address of any Principal against whom legal action on the bond has been instituted; whenever an Obligee has declared a default; whenever the Surety has established or added to a claim reserve; of the recovery of any amounts on the guaranteed bond; and of any decision by the Surety to bond any such Principal again.
§ 3255.15 When will BLM consult with Indian mineral owners when information concerning their minerals is the subject of a FOIA request? ( a ) We use the standards and procedures of § 2.15(d) of this title before making a decision about the applicability of FOIA exemption 4 to information obtained from a person outside the United States Government.
( b ) BLM will notify the Indian mineral owner(s) identified in the records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and BIA, and give them a reasonable period of time to state objections to disclosure. BLM will issue this notice following consultation with a submitter under § 2.15(d) of this title if: ( 1 ) BLM determines that the submitter does not have an interest in withholding the records that can be protected under FOIA; and
( 2 ) BLM has reason to believe that disclosure of the information may result in commercial or financial injury to the Indian mineral owner(s), but is uncertain that such is the case.
AFS - 13 - 436 - E

November 17, 2014 Mr. Moffett B. Roller Counsel for Servicios Aeros Gana , S.A. de C.V. c/o Roller & Bauer, PLLC . 45005 Aviation Drive, Suite 200 Dulles, VA 20116 Dear Mr. Roller : This is in response to your June 26 , 2013 letter (public docket No. FAA - 20 13 - 0581 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Servicios Aeros Gana , S.A. de C.V. ( SAGSA ) for an exemption from § 1 29.5(b ) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) . That exemption, if granted, would allow SAGSA to operate it s Mexico - registered aircraft in U.S. airspace under the same flight data recorder ( FDR) requirements that are applied to United States (U.S. ) registered aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 135 . Upon review of SAGSA ’s petition for exemption and applicable regulations and international standards, the FAA has determined that SAGSA is not required to have an exemption from § 129.5(b) and should be permitted to operate its aircraft in U.S. airspace if its aircraft meet either the I CAO Annex 6 standards for FDR s or the FDR standards the FAA has applied to its own similarly

situated part 135 operators. Per a memo sent to the Office of Rulemaking from M s . Beverly Sharkey (copy

enclosed) in the Office of Chief Counsel dated September 20, 2013 , it state s that “...when FAA rules allow U.S. air carriers to meet different standards, then the FAA can permit foreign air carriers to operate in the U.S. airspace either under the U.S. standards appropriate to the class of air carrier or under I CAO Annex 6 standards . ” Ina separate policy memo to Mr. Robert Shuter (copy

enclosed) dated May

15, 2008, clarifying specific issues regarding the U.S. application of Annex 6 requirements for Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems , it states that “ ...when the FAA allows all U.S. c arriers or a class of U.S. carriers to meet different safety

standards in U.S. airspace, we believe that our Article II obligations permit us to allow similarly

situated carriers from I CAO member States to operate in U.S. airspace under standards that do n ot make distinctions among the operators based on nationality .”2

If you have any

questions, please contact the FAA ’ s International L aw Branch at (202) 267 - 8018 or (202) 267 - 3073 . Because the relief you seek has been determined to be unnecessary , we will take no further action on your petition. Sincerely , //s// John Barbagallo Acting Deputy

Director, Flight Standard Service Enclosure
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Lathrop Brown, Respondent, v. Charles A. Hannigan and Others, as Members of and Together Constituting the Board of Inspectors of Elections of Election District No. 13, Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County, and Others, Respondents. Frederick C. Hicks, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 9.)

The parties hereto having stipulated in open court that this case may be disposed of by a court of foul1, the decision is as follows: Order modified in accordance with opinion in *People ex rel. Brown*v. *Freisch No. 1 (ante,*p. 370), decided herewith, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Order to be settled before the presiding justice.
#### Howard 149th St. Inc., Respondent, v. Harris Block, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and the Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the nine months ended March 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               2,690,107
<SECURITIES>                                         4,143,035
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2,633,281
<ALLOWANCES>                                            82,750
<INVENTORY>                                            741,071
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    11,425,439
<PP&E>                                               2,341,115
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,147,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      27,905,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                3,299,386
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                95,737
<OTHER-SE>                                          20,125,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        27,905,304
<SALES>                                             27,051,858
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    27,995,845
<CGS>                                               16,724,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       16,724,645
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8,632,190
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       1,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      3,220,463
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,220,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  2,000,463
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                         2,000,463
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0.21
                                               


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 134.708 What is the standard of review?

The standard of review for an appeal of a WOSB or EDWOSB protest determination is whether the D/GC's determination was based on clear error of fact or law.
#### Whitehall Water Power Company, Limited, and Champlain Silk Mills, Respondents, v. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company, Appellant.

Motion denied.
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 Annual Report of TransAlta Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brett Gellner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 
| 1.     | The Report fully complies with the requirements of   Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable of the Securities Exchange   Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                           |
| 2.     | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all   materials respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the   Company.       |

 

 

 
| /s/   Brett Gellner            |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
|                           |
| Brett   Gellner                |
| Chief   Financial Officer      |
|                           |
| Dated:  October 30, 2012. |

 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
§ 49.805 Where is casual collecting allowed? ( a ) Casual collecting of common invertebrate or plant paleontological resources is allowed on lands administered by BLM, except on BLM-administered land that is closed to casual collecting in accordance with this part, other statutes, executive orders, regulations, proclamations, or land use plans.
( b ) Casual collecting of common invertebrate or plant paleontological resources is allowed on lands administered by Reclamation only in locations where the bureau has established a special use area for casual collecting using processes defined in 43 CFR part 423, Public Conduct on Bureau of Reclamation Facilities, Lands, and Waterbodies. Casual collecting is prohibited on Reclamation project land that is administered by NPS or FWS.
( c ) Persons interested in casual collecting are responsible for learning which bureau manages the land where they would like to collect paleontological resources, learning if the land is open to casual collecting, and obtaining information about the managing bureau's casual collecting procedures.