alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1610.35 Procedures for testing special types of textile fabrics under the standard. ( a ) *Fabric not customarily washed or dry cleaned.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, any textile fabric or article of wearing apparel which, in its normal and customary use as wearing apparel would not be dry cleaned or washed, need not be dry cleaned or washed as prescribed in § 1610.6(b) when tested under the Standard if such fabric or article of wearing apparel, when marketed or handled, is marked in a clear and legible manner with the statement: “Fabric may be dangerously flammable if dry cleaned or washed.” An example of the type of fabric referred to in this paragraph is bridal illusion.
( 2 ) Section 1610.3, which requires that all textiles shall be refurbished before testing, shall not apply to disposable fabrics and garments. Additionally, such disposable fabrics and garments shall not be subject to the labeling requirements set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) A coated fabric need not, upon test under the procedures outlined in subpart A of part 1610, be dry cleaned as set forth in § 1610.6(b)(1)(i).
( c ) In determining whether a textile fabric having a raised-fiber surface, which surface is to be used in the covered or unexposed parts of articles of wearing apparel, is so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals, only the opposite surface or surface intended to be exposed need be tested under the applicable procedures set forth in § 1610.6, providing an invoice or other paper covering the marketing or handling of such fabric is given which clearly designates that the raised-fiber surface is to be used only in the covered or unexposed parts of articles of wearing apparel.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

I, Mark H. McKinnies, as Chief Financial Officer of ADA-Es, Inc. (the Company), certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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/ Mark H. McKinnies
|Name:                 |  | Mark H. McKinnies      
|Title:                |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                 |  | August 6, 2008
#### Samuel Sachs, Appellant, *v.*Screen Tek, Inc., Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The City Court granted a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment. On appeal the Appellate Term affirmed “ with $10.00 costs ”. The clerk of the City Court nevertheless taxed costs on the basis of $20 before argument and $40 after argument of the appeal for a total of $60 costs under section 1508 of the Civil Practice Act.

Upon a review of this taxation at a Special Term of the City Court a reduction of the costs as taxed was denied. The Appellate Term, by a divided court, reversed the order of the City Court denying retaxation and limited the costs to $10 by the order appealed from.

We are inclined to agree with the action of the clerk. The amount of costs in this instance is statutory, and the statute must be followed. Section 1490 of the Civil Practice Act, as amended in 1943 (L. 1943, eh. 452), permitted the appellate court in its discretion to affirm or reverse, without costs. But where the appellate court allows costs, it would seem that no discretion is permitted as to the amount. Costs, if granted, are required to be in the amount prescribed by section 1508. No distinction is made in this regard between an appeal from a judgment entered after trial and one entered on motion for summary judgment.

The order of the Appellate Term should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the order of the City Court denying the motion for retaxation should be affirmed.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the order of the City Court affirmed.
#### § 1061.10 Information on affected parties.

An application for an exemption from preemption shall include a statement which identifies in general terms, parties potentially affected by the State or local requirement, especially small businesses, including manufacturers, distributors, retailers, consumers, and consumer groups.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7638

ERIKA E. SIFRIT,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

RANDALL S. NERO, Director; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:12-cv-00910-RDB)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: June 1, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert W. Biddle, NATHANS & BIDDLE, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Erika E. Sifrit seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Sifrit has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
### **CHAPTER 59—NATIONAL URBAN POLICY AND NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT**

Sec.
4501.
Congressional statement of purpose.

#### Part A—Development of a National Urban Policy

4502.
Congressional findings and declaration of policy.
4503.
National Urban Policy Report.

#### Part B—Development of New Communities

4511 to 4524. Repealed.
4525.
Real property taxation.
4526.
Audit by Government Accountability Office.
4527.
General powers of Secretary.
4528 to 4532. Repealed.
#### Herschel H. Byall, Administrator, Appellee, v. F. Landon, Appellant.

Gen. No. 21,326.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Dan W. Maddox, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.

Reversed with finding of fact.

Opinion filed January 3, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Herschel M. Byall, administrator of the estate of Harry Boyd King, deceased, plaintiff, against F. Landon, defendant, to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate. From a judgment of $1,500 for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The evidence shows that defendant, who is in the teaming and hauling business, at the time in question was engaged in hauling the materials of a dismantled police station through an alley which runs easterly into Market street, Chicago, between the building occupied by the Gault House on the north, and the building of the Chicago Evening Post on the south. The alley is ten feet ten or eleven inches wide, and inclines upward from the rear of these buildings towards Market street, with “quite a grade.” The materials loaded on the wagon were iron gratings and flat iron sheets about ten feet long by eight feet wide. They were loaded so as to extend an equal distance on each side of the wagon, which left a space of about eighteen inches between the edge of the load and either wall of the alley. There is evidence that the iron was tightly tied down with chains and ropes so that it could not slip.

The deceased, King, at this time was about twenty years old, and was an assistant cashier of the Post. In the early afternoon of April 23rd with a companion *301he came out of the rear of the Post building into the alley and walked towards Market street, passing the loaded wagon as it stood in the alley. After standing for a time in Market street they retraced their steps down the alley way. At this time the heavily loaded wagon was moving, with four horses pulling it up the slope towards Market street. Plaintiff continued walking towards the approaching wagon and attempted to pass in the narrow space between it and the wall of the Post building. Just as he was opposite the hind wheels •a wheel struck a hole in the pavement, causing the wagon to skid towards the Post building, catching and crushing plaintiff against the wall. From the injuries thus received he died shortly thereafter. At the time of the accident the wagon was nearly out of the alley.

Abstract of the Decision.

Negligence, § *187*
      ***
      *—when evidence shows contributory negligence.*In an action to recover for wrongful death, alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, evidence examined and *held*to show the injury to have been caused by the negligence of plaintiff’s intestate.

Calhoun, Lyford &Sheean, for appellant; Edward W. Rawlins, of counsel.

Alden, Latham & Young, for appellee.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 1209.1 Scope and application. ( a ) *Scope.* This part 1209, an interim consumer product safety standard, prescribes flame resistance and corrosiveness requirements for cellulose insulation that is a consumer product. These requirements are intended to reduce or eliminate an unreasonable risk of injury to consumers from flammable and corrosive cellulose insulation. The requirements are based upon the flame resistance and corrosiveness requirements of General Services Administration Specification HH-I-515D.
( b ) *Application.* This part 1209 shall apply to cellulose insulation that is a consumer product, that is, cellulose insulation produced or distributed for sale to, or for the personal use, consumption, or enjoyment of consumers in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise. The interim standard applies to cellulose insulation that is produced or distributed for sale to consumers for their direct installation or use, as well as cellulose insulation that is produced or distributed for installation by professionals. This part 1209 applies only to cellulose insulation manufactured after October 15, 1979.
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

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 Worldwide Manufacturing USA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Jimmy Wang, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 Company.



/s/ Jimmy Wang

Chief Executive Officer

Date:  April 14, 2006
#### In the Matter of Albert B. Millman, Respondent, against John F. O’Connell et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, Appellants.

No opinion. Present- — -Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Glennon and Cohn, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.
### SUBCHAPTER II—SLUM CLEARANCE AND URBAN RENEWAL
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 68 FR 51355, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 20.18 Alternative funds disbursal procedure. ( a ) When, under the provisions of these regulations, DOC terminates the funding of a recipient, the Secretary may, using undisbursed funds from the terminated award, make a new award to an alternate recipient, *i.e.* any public or non-profit private organization or agency, or State or political subdivision of the State.
( b ) The Secretary will require any alternate recipient to demonstrate: ( 1 ) The ability to comply with these regulations; and
( 2 ) The ability to achieve the goals of the Federal statute authorizing the Federal financial assistance.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In connection with this Annual Report of Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding Limited (the “Company”) on the Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cai Yongjun, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2010 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding Limited.





Date: September 28, 2010




By: /s/ Cai Yongjun


___________________________




Cai Yongjun


Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Margaret E. McCarthy, on Behalf of Herself and John R. McCarthy and Others, Infants, Respondent, against Remington Rand, Inc., Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

*867Heffernan, J., Brewster, Santry and Bergan, JJ., concur; Deyo, J., dissents in the following memorandum: Regardless of any preholiday drinking in the plant, the fact remains that the death did not result from any drinking party. Assuming that deceased was the butt of a practical joke, there is not one scintilla of evidence to the effect that any such horseplay had ever been engaged in before, much less that it was known to the employer. It cannot be said, therefore, that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. *(Matter of Gaurin*v. *Bagley & Sewall Co.,*298 N. Y. 511.) I dissent and vote to reverse the award.
§ 719.8 Filing and service of papers other than the NOVA. ( a ) *Filing.* All papers to be filed with the ALJ shall be addressed to “CWC Administrative Enforcement Proceedings” at the address set forth in the NOVA, or such other place as the ALJ may designate. Filing by United States mail (first class postage prepaid), by express or equivalent parcel delivery service, via facsimile, or by hand delivery, is acceptable. Filing from a foreign country shall be by airmail or via facsimile. A copy of each paper filed shall be simultaneously served on all parties.
( b ) *Service.* Service shall be made by United States mail (first class postage prepaid), by express or equivalent parcel delivery service, via facsimile, or by hand delivery of one copy of each paper to each party in the proceeding. The Department of State is a party to cases under the CWCR, but will be represented by the Office of Chief Counsel. Therefore, service on the government party in all proceedings shall be addressed to Office of Chief Counsel for Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room H-3839, Washington, DC 20230, or sent via facsimile to (202) 482-0085. Service on a respondent shall be to the address to which the NOVA and proposed order was sent, or to such other address as the respondent may provide. When a party has appeared by counsel or other representative, service on counsel or other representative shall constitute service on that party.
( c ) *Date.* The date of filing or service is the day when the papers are deposited in the mail or are delivered in person, by delivery service, or by facsimile. Refusal by the person to be served, or by the person's agent or attorney, of service of a document or other paper will be considered effective service of the document or other paper as of the date of such refusal.
( d ) *Certificate of service.* A certificate of service signed by the party making service, stating the date and manner of service, shall accompany every paper, other than the NOVA and proposed order, filed and served on the parties.
( e ) *Computation of time.* In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this part, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included. The last day of the period so computed is to be included unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday (as defined in Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), in which case the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, a Sunday, nor a legal holiday. Intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded from the computation when the period of time prescribed or allowed is 7 days or less.
#### § 970.801 Criteria for safety of life and property at sea.

Response to the safety at sea requirements in essence will involve vessel inspection requirements. These inspection requirements may be identified by reference to present laws and regulations. The primary inspection statutes pertaining to United States flag vessels are: 46 U.S.C. 86 (Loadlines); 46 U.S.C. 395 (Inspection of seagoing barges over 100 gross tons); 46 U.S.C. 367 (Inspection of sea-going motor vessels over 300 gross tons); and 46 U.S.C. 404 (Inspection of vessels above 15 gross tons carrying freight for hire). All United States flag vessels will be required to meet existing regulatory requirements applicable to such vessels. This includes the requirement for a current valid Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection, as specified in § 970.205. Being United States flag, these vessels will be under United States jurisdiction on the high seas and subject to domestic enforcement procedures. With respect to foreign flag vessels, the SOLAS 74 or SOLAS 60 certificate requirements or alternative IACS requirements, as specified in § 970.205, apply.

[46 FR 45909, Sept. 15, 1981]
Patti Perry- Resident ofWilmette, IL 

### (847-853-7420) pattikperry@sbcglobal.net Thank you for giving methis opportunityto testify. When my son was in grammar school about 

### 10years ago-1 read a study about health risks from riding a school bus (risks that included increased asthma attacks and lung cancer). I promptly decided to drive him to school instead. Since then a growing number ofstudies including the World Health Organization Study of

### 2012 have linked diesel exhaust exposure with cancer, heart attacks, and premature death

. Diesel exhaust-soot particles lodge deeply in the lungs and penetrate the bloodstream. Diesel exhaust is one ofthe most dangerous forms ofair pollution. And it's especially harmful for children. Children are more susceptible to these health problems because their lungs are notfully developed and breathe more rapidly than adults. They inhale more pollution than adults. Recently I was atthe Glenview Environmental Town Hall and asked state legislators and environmental experts about rules preventing pollution from all school buses

.They were not aware ofthem. Ifound out there are no rules/regulations that cover millions of old school buses. Buses made in 

### 2007 model year are cleaner (reduce less harmful emissions). But there are no regulations for older school buses. I was shocked. I expected that in the 

### 10years that my son was in junior high- there would be rules in place to reduce diesel emissions from all school buses.1 wondered how many older school buses there were-model year 2006 and earlier

. I did a small sampling and called the North Shore Transit Corporation that provides school buses for Wilmette, Winnetka and other North Shore suburbs. They operate over 2200 buses. They said that halftheirfleet were pre-model 2007 buses. Again I was shocked. This well-funded area did not retrofit or replace old school buses. Why be surprised- there are no regulations. If kids are riding these old school buses
- they can be breathing in black clouds ofsmoke from tail pipe and fuel leakage from engine

. Millions ofchildren ride old school buses powered by diesel fuel. Please create regulations for older school buses. These buses must reduce diesel emissions with filtration devices or be replaced. Protect our kids

. Thank you for listening.
§ 971.415 Duration of a permit. ( a ) Unless suspended or revoked pursuant to §§ 971.406 and 971.417, each commercial recovery permit will be issued for a period of 20 years and for so long thereafter as hard mineral resources are recovered annually in commercial quantities from the area listed in the permit.
( b ) If the permittee has substantially complied with the permit and its associated recovery plan and requests an extension of the permit, the Administrator will extend the permit with appropriate TCRs, consistent with the Act, for so long thereafter as hard mineral resources are recovered annually in commercial quantities from the area to which the recovery plan associated with the permit applies. The Administrator may make allowance for deviation from the recovery plan for good cause, such as significantly changed market conditions. However, a request for extension must be accompanied by an amended recovery plan to govern the activities by the permittee during the extended period.
( c ) Successive extensions may be requested, and will be granted by the Administrator, based on the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) and (b).