alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Eiropas Savienības C 254A/2005

| | ISSN 1725-5201 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 254A |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 48. sējums2005. gada 14. oktobris |

ISSN 1725-5201

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 254A

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

48. sējums2005. gada 14. oktobris

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Paziņojumi |
| | Padome |
| 2005/C 254A/1 | Darba piedāvājums dežurējošo amatpersonu nodaļas vadītājs – komunikators; dežurējošā amatpersona – komunikators — Atsauce Conseil/B/023 un Conseil/B/024 | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

III   Paziņojumi

Padome

2005/C 254A/1

Darba piedāvājums dežurējošo amatpersonu nodaļas vadītājs – komunikators; dežurējošā amatpersona – komunikators — Atsauce Conseil/B/023 un Conseil/B/024

1

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

III Paziņojumi

Padome

| 14.10.2005 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 254/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2005

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 254/1

---

DARBA PIEDĀVĀJUMS

DEŽURĒJOŠO AMATPERSONU NODAĻAS VADĪTĀJS — KOMUNIKATORS

DEŽURĒJOŠĀ AMATPERSONA — KOMUNIKATORS

Atsauce Conseil/B/023 un Conseil/B/024

(2005/C 254 A/01)

Eiropas Savienības Padomes Ģenerālsekretariāts meklē pagaidu darbiniekus:

| — | vienai B* kategorijas 7. pakāpes (AST7) amata vietai — Conseil/B/023, |
| --- | --- |

—

vienai B* kategorijas 7. pakāpes (AST7) amata vietai — Conseil/B/023,

| — | astoņām B* kategorijas 5. pakāpes (AST5) amata vietām — Conseil/B/024 |
| --- | --- |

—

astoņām B* kategorijas 5. pakāpes (AST5) amata vietām — Conseil/B/024

darbam Eiropas Savienības Kopīgajā situācijas novērtējuma centrā (SITCEN) Briselē. SITCEN seko starptautiskajiem notikumiem un izvērtē tos 24 stundas diennaktī, īpašu uzmanību pievēršot riska zonām, terorismam un masu iznīcināšanas ieroču izplatībai, un nodrošina atbalstu un palīdzību ģenerālsekretāram/ES Augstajam pārstāvim, ES Īpašajiem pārstāvjiem un citām augstākajām ES amatpersonām, kā arī ES militārajām operācijām un civilo krīžu pārvarēšanai.

Sīkāku informāciju var iegūt, sazinoties ar Darbā pieņemšanas dienestu pa šādu e-pasta adresi:

service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int

vai dienesta interneta vietnē:

http://ue.eu.int/concours

Kandidatūras pieteikumi jāiesniedz līdz 2005. gada 10. novembrim (pasta zīmogs).

---
#### John M. Syms, Respondent, v. Agricultural Society of Queens and Nassau Counties, Defendant, and Hempstead Bus Corporation, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 826.]
-cr-06218-NCR Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2000 P
§ 103.2 Who may conduct business with SBA? ( a ) If you are an Applicant, a Participant, a partner of an Applicant or Participant partnership, or serve as an officer of an Applicant, Participant corporation, or limited liability company, you may conduct business with SBA without a representative.
( b ) If you are an Agent, you may conduct business with SBA on behalf of an Applicant, Participant or lender, unless representation is otherwise prohibited by law or the regulations in this part or any other part in this chapter. For example, persons debarred under the SBA or Government-wide debarment regulations may not conduct business with SBA. SBA may request that any Agent supply written evidence of his or her authority to act on behalf of an Applicant, Participant, or lender as a condition of revealing any information about the Applicant's, Participant's, or lender's current or prior dealings with SBA.
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Peekaboo Loop

Bryce Canyon National Park
Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM   Document 192   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024   Page 1 of 2

Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM   Document 192   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024   Page 2 of 2
#### Robert A. Kingsland, an Infant, by Frederick G. Kingsland, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. Erie County Agricultural Society, Appellant-Respondent, and International Fireworks Company, Appellant.

Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Larkin, J., not voting, and Kimball, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for dismissal of the complaint in the following memorandum: If the defendants-appellants may not be held liable unless their negligence was a proximate cause of the accident and injury, then I think that, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to make out a case and that the complaint should have been dismissed. My view is, I think, supported by the rule laid down in *Perry*v. *Rochester Lime Co.*(219 N. Y. 60), *Hall*v. *New York Telephone Co.*(214 N. Y. 49), *Morse*v. *Buffalo*
      *940
      *Tank Corp.*(280 N. Y. 110, and cases therein cited) and *Babcock*v. *Fitzpatrick*(221 App. Div. 638). (The portions of the judgment appealed from award plaintiffs judgment against both defendants; allow defendant Agricultural Society to recover over against defendant Fireworks Company any amount it is compelled to pay plaintiffs; and dismisses the counterclaim of defendant Fireworks Company against its codefendant. The order denies defendants’ motion for a new trial; denies their motion for a directed verdict; grants motion by the Agricultural Society to set aside the verdict of no cause as to its counterclaim against defendant Fireworks Company, and directs judgment against the codefendant for any part of the judgment the Agricultural Society was compelled to pay, and denies judgment by defendant Fireworks Company for a directed verdict on its counterclaim against the Agricultural Society, in a negligence action,) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCum, Larkin, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
#### § 150.10 Date of submission of nominations.

Nominations may only be submitted for acts, services, or contributions occurring within two years preceding the November 15 cut-off date described in § 150.3(c) of this part. However, nominations submitted prior to the February 28, 1985 cut-off date may be made for acts, services or contributions occurring on or after October 29, 1972 (two years before the effective date of the Act).

[50 FR 3350, Jan. 24, 1985]
Exhibit 99.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diametrics Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, André de Bruin, interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 Company.





/s/    ANDRÉ DE BRUINAndré de BruinInterim Chief Executive OfficerAugust 14, 2002
### SUBCHAPTER I—BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
#### Board v. Hendricks.

Aug. 3, 1945.

Rodes K. Myers for appellant.

Eldon S. Dummit, Attorney General, and M. J. Sternberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Cammack

Dismissing appeal.

George Board inflicted a wound upon Sadie Brown which caused her death. Upon his examining trial he was held without bond. He fiíed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Warren Circuit Court. The judge of that court dismissed his petition on June 26, 1945. He filed his appeal in this Court under section 429-1 of the .Criminal Code of Practice on July 9th. The section of the Code just mentioned directs that such an appeal shall be filed within 10 days after the entry of the judgment in the lower court. It is apparent, therefore, that the appeal was filed too late, because 12 days had intervened between the time of the entry of the judgment in the lower court and the filing of the appeal in this Court.

As pointed out in Hudgeons v. Commonwealth, 292 Ky. 845, 168 S. W. 2d 359, such a question is jurisdictional, and, since the appeal was filed too late, it must be dismissed.

We said in the recent case of Smith v. Henson, 298 Ky. 182, 182 S. W. 2d 666, that it is incumbent upon the petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding to establish that the order denying his motion for bail was illegal, and not merely an erroneous exercise of discretion on the part of the trial judge. We are convinced from our examination of the record of the case at bar that the judge of the Warren Circuit Court did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the appellant’s petition.

Appeal dismissed.
#### § 19.540 Advertising.

A recipient shall not in any advertising related to employment indicate preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the particular job in question.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0202

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SEIDEL PINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 28, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 21 2022

01/21/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0202
**EXHIBIT 32.1****Certification of Chief Executive Officer of HypercomCorporation****pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to****Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**     I certify that: (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2004 of Hypercom Corporation(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Hypercom Corporation. By:     /s/ C.S. Alexander       Christopher S. Alexander     Chief Executive OfficerMarch 16, 2005
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that th i s

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________
No. 00-60416 Summary Calendar Civil Docket #1:98-CV-191-B-D

_______________________

SHERMAN HALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICK HAYES; TOMMY WALLACE; CURTIS AUSTIN; THE CITY OF COLUMBUS, MISSISSIPPI, POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

_________________________________________________________________ May 9, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: *

Appellant Hall challenges the dismissal without prejudice

of his § 1983 claim against Columbus, Miss issippi police officer

Rick Hayes. On appeal, Hall has briefed and argued only the merits

of his claim that Hayes repeatedly arrested an d maliciously2

prosecuted him in order to coerce him to become an informant.

Since the merits were never decided, we cannot rule on his claim.

Hall has not briefe d the correctness of the district

court’s dismissal, which occurred because Hall did not show up for
trial, having failed to deposit money to cover costs of his
transportation from prison to attend trial. Nor has Hall briefed
whether the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for

relief from judgment. These issues are waived. H ainze v.

Richards , 207 F.3d 795, 798 (5th Cir. 2000).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUDOLPH DECAMBRA, AKA Anthony

Decambra, AKA Rudolph Anthony

Decambra, AKA Rudy Decambra, AKA

Roland James, AKA Andrew Lyon, AKA

Ray Wilson,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 73573

Agency No. A027

- 251

- 462

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 9, 2015 **

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA , Circuit Judges.

Rudolph Decambra, a native and citizen of Guyana, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection unde r the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 14 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 73573

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) . We h ave jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings. Arbid v. Holder , 700 F.3d 379, 385

- 86 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Decambra’s CAT claim

because Decambra failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Guyana. See Alphonsus v. Holder , 705 F.3d 1031, 1049

- 50 (9th Cir. 2013) . We

reject Decambra’s contention that the BIA did not c onsider Decambra’s news

article or all of the country report.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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 Annual report of Fellows Energy Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form
        10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George S. Young,
        Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





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





Date:
                  October 19, 2006
              By:*/s/ GEORGE S. YOUNG*
                
                George
                  S. YoungChief
                    Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directorsand Shareholders 

ARAMARK Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-75870, 333-89118, 333-89120, 333-89122, 333-89124, 333-89126, 333-103517, 333-115950, 333-53163-99, 333-124927, 333-124929, 333-127513, and 333-131701) onForm S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-85050) on Form S-3 of ARAMARK Corporation and subsidiaries of our reports dated November 20, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ARAMARK Corporation and subsidiaries as ofSeptember 30, 2005 and September 29, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows, and shareholders’ equity for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 29, 2006, the related financialstatement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 29, 2006, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 29, 2006, whichreports appear in the September 29, 2006, annual report on Form 10-K of ARAMARK Corporation. Our audit report on the consolidated financial statements refers to accounting changes as a result of the adoption of Statement of Financial AccountingStandard No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment* and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 47, *Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of Statement of Financial Accounting StandardsNo. 143*. 

**/s/ KPMG LLP**

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

November 20, 2006
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Lead Shielding Attached to Safety Related Systems Without 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations

## HPPOS-091 PDR-9111210180

See IE Information Notice No. 83-64 entitled as above and dated September 29, 1983.

This document informs licensees that failure to analyze for possible seismic and structural effects, both dynamic and static, from lead shielding on safety-related systems constitutes an unreviewed safety question. In addition to this document, see IE Circular No. 80-18, "10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation for Changes to Radioactive Waste Treatment System" (see HPPOS-086).

During a routine inspection, an NRC inspector noted that portions of safety-related piping in the primary auxiliary building of a power station was covered with lead shielding. Discussions with the plant engineering staff revealed that licensee safety evaluations supporting this modification had not been done.

The licensee had neither formal control mechanisms to govern the installation, use, and accounting of the temporary shielding, nor records to document the dates and locations of the shielding installations. The shielding was placed on plant systems during a period when high fuel element failure rates led to increased radiation fields throughout the plant.

After a refueling outage, the licensee began a program to identify and remove temporary shielding installed on systems inside the containment building, but failed to do this in other plant areas. Improvements in the maintenance and design program would have prevented shielding installation without required 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations.

Failure to analyze for possible seismic / structural effects (both dynamic and static) of lead shielding on safety-related systems constitutes an unreviewed safety question. In regards to the above situation, safety-related systems were modified with additional shielding without supporting engineering evaluations to ensure system operability under design-basis event conditions.

Although it is focused on radioactive waste treatment systems, IE Circular No. 80-18, "10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation for Changes to Radioactive Waste Treatment System", provides general guidance and clarification regarding the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 (see HPPOS-086).

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 50.59

**Subject codes:** 5.3, 8.5

**Applicability:** Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, October 13, 2017
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 426

**Question 426:** Are the noble gas ("submersion") DACs based on a dose of 5 rem per year or 50 rem per year? Is the submersion dose calculated at a depth of 1000 mg/square cm or 7 mg/square cm?

**Answer:** There is no one particular dose or one particular depth. The method for calculating submersion doses is explained in Federal Guidance Report No. 11 on pages 10, 18, 181, and 182. When air concentration is limited by submersion dose, the DAC for a particular radionuclide is the maximum concentration of that radionuclide in air that, for a 2,000-hour exposure, will result in a dose that is equal to or less than each of the applicable limits (5 rem effective dose equivalent, 15-rem eye dose equivalent, 50-rem dose equivalent to other organs and tissues, shallow dose equivalent of 50 rem to the skin). That is, the DAC for a particular radionuclide depends on which of the applicable dose limits is the most restrictive with respect to the concentration of that particular radionuclide. The dosimetric model used to calculate the DACs considers shielding of organs by overlying tissues and the degradation of the photon spectrum through scatter and attenuation by air. The dose from beta particles is evaluated at a depth of 7 mg/square cm for skin, and at a depth of 3 mm for the lens of the eye. The worker is assumed to be immersed in pure parent radionuclide, and no radiation from airborne progeny is considered. In most cases, the concentration limit for submersion is based on external irradiation of the body; it does not take into account either absorbed gas within the body or the inhalation of radioactive decay products. An exception to the preceding statement is Ar-37, for which direct exposure of the lungs by inhaled activity limits (stochastically) the concentration in air. The skin dose is limiting for Ar-39, Kr-85, and Xe-131m; the eye dose is limiting for Kr-83m. Note: There are typographical errors in the discussion of submersion doses on page 10 of Federal Guidance Report No. 11. In the fifth sentence of the paragraph beginning "Some airborne radionuclides...", the word "effective" should be added before the words "dose equivalent rate". In equation (8b), the subscript "E" should be the subscript "T."

(Reference: 10 CFR 20 Appendix B)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-01085-CV

Gregory MENDOZA III,

Appellant

v.

INVERTERRA HOLDINGS LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023CV03761

Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. We order that no costs of appeal be assessed against appellant 

because he qualifies as indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.

SIGNED May 15, 2024.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
§ 47.20 What factors will the Secretary consider in analyzing a land exchange? The Secretary may approve an exchange only after making a determination that the exchange will advance the interests of the beneficiaries. In considering whether a land exchange will advance the interests of the beneficiaries, the Secretary will evaluate the extent to which it will: ( a ) Achieve better management of Hawaiian home lands;
( b ) Meet the needs of HHCA beneficiaries and their economic circumstances by promoting: ( 1 ) Homesteading opportunities,
( 2 ) economic self-sufficiency, and,
( 3 ) social well-being;
( c ) Promote development of Hawaiian home lands for residential, agricultural, and pastoral use;
( d ) Protect cultural resources and watersheds;
( e ) Consolidate lands or interests in lands, such as agricultural and timber interests, for more logical and efficient management and development;
( f ) Expand homestead communities;
( g ) Accommodate land use authorizations;
( h ) Address HHCA beneficiary needs; and
( i ) Advance other identifiable interests of the beneficiaries consistent with the HHCA.