alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 151.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Act* means the Diplomatic Relations Act, Pub. L. 95-393 (22 U.S.C. 254a *et seq.,* 28 U.S.C. 1364).
( b ) *Persons subject to the Act,* as defined in section 2 of the Act, means: ( 1 ) The head of a mission and members of the diplomatic staff, administrative and technical staff, and service staff of a mission, as such terms are defined in Article 1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 (TIAS 7502, 23 U.S.T. 3227);
( 2 ) members of the family of a member of the diplomatic staff of a mission who form part of his or her household if they are not nationals of the United States, and members of the family of a member of the administrative and technical staff of a mission who form part of his or her household if they are not nationals or permanent residents of the United States; and
( 3 ) senior officials of the United Nations as defined in paragraph (d) of this section.
( c ) *Missions,* as defined in section 2 of the Act, means missions within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and any missions representing foreign governments, individually or collectively, which are extended the same privileges and immunities, pursuant to law, as are enjoyed by missions under the Vienna Convention.
( d ) *Senior United Nations official* means a United Nations official entitled to diplomatic immunity as provided in section 19 of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of February 13, 1946 (21 UST 1418; 1 UNTS 16).
( e ) *Insurance* means insurance as required by the Act and these regulations.
#### Isidore Dolnick, Respondent, v. Edward Donner Lumber Corporation et al., Defendants, and Maran Construction Co., Inc., Appellant. Maran Construction Co., Inc., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. *955Louis Cohen et al., Doing Business as L & S Cohen, Third Party Defendants-Appellants, et al., Third Party Defendants.

On appeal by the third party defendants-appellants, the judgment over in favor of the Maran Construction Co., Inc., upon its third party complaint against its subcontractor, the employers of plaintiff, for the amount of plaintiff’s recovery, insofar as appealed from, is reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and the third party complaint dismissed on the law, with costs to the third party defendants-appellants against the third party plaintiff-respondent. In our opinion the evidence adduced upon the trial sustains the finding implicit in the verdict and in the answers by the jury to the submitted questions that the general contractor was negligent in furnishing the defective beam and knowingly permitting its use as it was being used, without inspecting it for defects, and in failing to furnish the plaintiff a safe place to work. The general contractor failed to establish that the plaintiff’s employers were the primary active wrongdoers and that it, the third party plaintiff, was guilty of passive negligence only. In the aspect most favorable to the general contractor, the record establishes that the general contractor was a joint tort-feasor *in pari delicto*with the plaintiff’s employers (Labor Law, § 200; *Caspersen*v. *La Sala Bros.,*253 N. Y. 491, 494; *Schwartz*v. *Merola Bros. Constr. Corp.,*290 N. Y. 145, 151; *Wohlfron*v. *Brooklyn Edison Co.,*238 App. Div. 463, 465, affd. 263 N. Y. 547; *Smith*v. *167th St. & Walton Ave. Corp.,*264 App. Div. 570, 572; *Union Stock Yards Co.*v. *Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co.,*196 U. S. 217, 227). The general contractor, third party plaintiff, made no request that any issues between it and the third party defendants-appellants should be submitted to the jury, made no objection thereto and acquiesced in the practice followed by the trial court in that respect. Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ.
#### § 1421.5 Regional Director.

*Regional Director* means the Director of a region of the Authority with geographical boundaries as fixed by the Authority.
#### § 1423.20 Unavailability of Administrative Law Judges.

In the event the Administrative Law Judge designated to conduct the hearing becomes unavailable, the Chief Administrative Law Judge shall designate another Administrative Law Judge for the purpose of further hearing or issuance of a decision on the record as made, or both.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix A 

Gateway West Transmission Line Project Maps 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix A– Gateway West Transmission Line Figures 

List of Figures 

Figure A‐1 Project Overview

Figure A‐2 Segment 1E/1W─Windstar to Aeolus

Figure A‐3 Segment 2─Aeolus to Creston

Figure A‐4 Segment 3─Creston to Anticline

Figure A‐5 Segment 4–Wyoming─Anticline to Idaho Stateline

Figure A‐6 Segment 4–Idaho─Wyoming Stateline to Populus

Figure A‐7 Segment 5─Populus to Borah

Figure A‐8 Segment 6─Borah to Midpoint

Figure A‐9 Segment 7─Populus to Cedar Hill

Figure A‐10 Segment 8─Midpoint to Hemingway

Figure A‐11 Segment 9─Cedar Hill to Hemingway

Figure A‐12 Segment 10─Midpoint to Cedar Hill

Figure A‐13 Creston 230‐kV Substation

Figure A‐14 Anticline 500‐kV Substation

Figure A‐15 Jim Bridger 230/345‐kV Substation

Figure A‐16 Cedar Hill 500‐kV Substation

Figure A‐17 Aeolus 230/500‐kV Substation

Figure A‐18 Windstar 230‐kV Substation

Figure A‐19 Heward 230‐kV Substation

Figure A‐20 Populus 500‐kV Substation

Figure A‐21 Borah 500‐kV Substation

Figure A‐22 Midpoint 500‐kV Substation

Figure A‐23 Hemingway 500‐kV Substation

Figure A‐24 Rogerson 500‐kV Substation (Relocated Cedar Hill)
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3968 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of Disperse Red 367, Benzo, 

and Acetic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2012 

Mr. WATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of Disperse 

Red 367, Benzo, and Acetic acid. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF DISPERSE RED 367, BENZO, AND 

4 ACETIC ACID. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3968 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures of Disperse Red 

367, (Acetic acid, [4-(2,6- 

dihydro-2,6-dioxo-7- 

phenylbenzo[1,2-b:4,5- 

b’]difuran-3-yl)phenoxy]-, 2- 

ethoxyethyl ester) (CAS No. 

126–05–2) and (Benzo[1,2- 

b:4,5-b’]difuran-2,6-dione, 3- 

phenyl-7-(4-propoxyphenyl)-) 

(CAS No. 79694–17–0) and 

(Acetic acid, [4-[2,6-dihydro2,6-dioxo-7-(4- 

propoxyphenyl)benzo[1,2- 

b:4,5-b’]difuran-3- 

yl]phenoxy]-, 2-ethoxyethyl 

ester) (CAS No. 126877–06– 

3) (provided for in subheading 3204.11.35) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2014 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      the undersigned officer of Sovereign Exploration Associates International,
      Inc.
      (The “Company") hereby certifies, to such officers’ knowledge,
      that:





(i)
      the
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the nine months
      ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended; and





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





Date:
                May 14, 2008
            /s/
                Robert D. BacaRobert
                D. BacaChief
                Executive OfficerDate:
                May 14, 2008
            /s/
                Martin ThorpMartin
                ThorpChief
                Financial Officer
### §285a–11b. Best practices for long-term follow-up services for pediatric cancer survivors

The Secretary of Health and Human Services may facilitate the identification of best practices for childhood and adolescent cancer survivorship care, and, as appropriate, may consult with individuals who have expertise in late effects of disease and treatment of childhood and adolescent cancers, which may include—

(1) oncologists, which may include pediatric oncologists;

(2) primary care providers engaged in survivorship care;

(3) survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer;

(4) parents of children and adolescents who have been diagnosed with and treated for cancer and parents of long-term survivors;

(5) nurses and social workers;

(6) mental health professionals;

(7) allied health professionals, including physical therapists and occupational therapists; and

(8) others, as the Secretary determines appropriate.

(Pub. L. 115–180, title II, §203, June 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 1389.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research Act of 2018, also known as the Childhood Cancer STAR Act, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRI MILLER and ERIC MILLER,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

OPERADORA DE HOTELES VILLA

MEXICANA,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 08-00176 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

In an Order dated September 22, 2009, the Court set a further case management

conference for October 16, 2009 at 1:30 pm. Plaintiffs were required to file a further case

management conference statement by October 9, 2009 and to appear for the case management

conference on October 16, 2009. Plaintiffs did neither. Therefore, Plaintiffs are HEREBY

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than January 15, 2010, as to why this case

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Failure to respond to this Order by January 15,

2010 shall result in dismissal of this matter without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00176-JSW Document 38 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 1
132 STAT. 4436 PUBLIC LAW 115–319—DEC. 14, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3237: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Nov. 15, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 11, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–319 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 12th 

Street Lobby in Columbus, Georgia, as the ‘‘Richard W. Williams, Jr., Chapter 

of the Triple Nickles (555th P.I.A.) Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. RICHARD W. WILLIAMS, JR., CHAPTER OF THE TRIPLE 

NICKLES (555TH P.I.A.) POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 120 12th Street Lobby in Columbus, Georgia, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Richard W. Williams, Jr., 

Chapter of the Triple Nickles (555th P.I.A.) Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Richard W. Williams, Jr., Chapter of the Triple Nickles 

(555th P.I.A.) Post Office’’. 

Approved December 14, 2018. 

Dec. 14, 2018 

[S. 3237] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
# PHANTOM 3 Prop Guards Installation Guide

### In the Box
Weight (1pc) 21 g Angle 155.0° Radius 131.7 mm Installed Circumference 612 mm 

### Specifications Prop Guards ×4 Thread ×1 Hex Key ×1 Screws ×10


### Installation Prepare your Phantom 3, Prop Guards (4pcs), screws (8pcs), thread and hex key. © 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved.

### Use the hex key to remove the two outer screws under each of the four motors.

Keep these original screws for when you are not using Prop Guards. © 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved. 

# 1

### Only use the Prop Guard screws when Prop Guards are mounted to avoid loose joints or damage to the motors. Mount all four Prop Guards onto the Phantom 3 and tighten the Prop Guard screws. Do not use threadlocker.

© 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved. 

# 2

### For better protection, attach the thread so that it runs through and under the Prop Guards.

If you have any questions about this document, please contact DJI by sending a message to DocSupport@dji.com . Download the latest version from http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3 The content is subject to change. © 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved. 

# 3
#### § 4.9 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Mooney Aerospace
Group, Ltd. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Barry Hodkin, 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)
      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.


Dated:  May 15, 2006                By: /s/ Barry Hodkin
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Barry Hodkin
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Blair Lewis, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 898]

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Corso, J.), rendered August 11, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, *467criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument, and reckless driving, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, under Indictment No. 1890/97, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Mullen, J.), rendered November 8, 1998, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence under Indictment No. 1007D/98.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record sufficiently demonstrates that he knew and understood the terms of the agreement made after the jury trial on the charges under Indictment 1890/97, and the plea of guilty under Indictment No. 1007D/98, and willingly accepted them *(see, People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831; *People v Mingo,*269 AD2d 469). Therefore, the defendant’s waivers of his right to appeal were voluntary, knowing, and intelligent *(see, People v Muniz,*91 NY2d 570; *People v Brathwaite,*263 AD2d 89). Accordingly, appellate review of the issues raised by the defendant is precluded. Friedmann, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 133

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 133 appear at 68 FR 66582, Nov. 26, 2003.

#### § 133.210 To whom must I distribute my drug-free workplace statement?

You must require that a copy of the statement described in § 133.205 be given to each employee who will be engaged in the performance of any Federal award.
§ 450.1 Scope of regulations; office responsible. ( a ) This part applies to depository institutions that hold government securities as fiduciary, custodian, or otherwise for the account of a customer, and that are not government securities brokers or dealers, as defined in sections 3(a)(43) and 3(a)(44) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(43)-(44)). Depository institutions exempt under part 401 of this chapter from the requirements of Subchapter A of this chapter must comply with this part. Certain depository institutions that are government securities brokers or dealers must also comply with this part, as well as with additional requirements set forth in § 403.5.
( b ) The regulations in this subchapter are promulgated by the Assistant Secretary (Domestic Finance) pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury. The office responsible for the regulations is the Office of the Commissioner, Bureau of the Fiscal Service. Procedures for obtaining interpretations of the regulations are set forth at § 400.2.
[52 FR 27957, July 24, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 28987, Aug. 1, 1988; 79 FR 38456, July 8, 2014]
### §2064. Disposition of energy; regulation on sale

If energy is produced at production facilities of the Commission or is produced in experimental utilization facilities of the Commission, such energy may be used by the Commission, or transferred to other Government agencies, or sold to publicly, cooperatively, or privately owned utilities or users at reasonable and nondiscriminatory prices. If the energy produced is electric energy, the price shall be subject to regulation by the appropriate agency having jurisdiction. In contracting for the disposal of such energy, the Commission shall give preference and priority to public bodies and cooperatives or to privately owned utilities providing electric utility services to high cost areas not being served by public bodies or cooperatives. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the Commission to engage in the sale or distribution of energy for commercial use except such energy as may be produced by the Commission incident to the operation of research and development facilities of the Commission, or of production facilities of the Commission.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §44, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 929; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919, known as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in section 7(d) of act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, 60 Stat. 764, which was classified to section 1807(d) of this title, prior to the general amendment and renumbering of act Aug. 1, 1946, by act Aug. 30, 1954.
### §285b–5. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–607, title I, §129, Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3055

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §423, as added Nov. 20, 1985, Pub. L. 99–158, §2, 99 Stat. 841, directed Secretary to establish an Interagency Technical Committee on Heart, Blood Vessel, Lung, and Blood Diseases and Blood Resources.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1048

LOIS E. MCKINNEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MOTEL 6,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-96-476-R)

Submitted: April 14, 1998 Decided: June 22, 1998

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lois E. McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Frank Marino, Eric

Anthony Welter, REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, McLean, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* McKinney failed to provide the court with a transcript of

the trial, so our review is necessarily limited by the sparse

nature of the record. In any event, the jury’s verdict was undoubtedly based on its view of the weight of the evidence and the

credibility of the witnesses, and those findings are not reviewable. See, e.g., DeJarnette v. Corning, Inc., 133 F.3d 293, 297

(4th Cir. 1998).

2

PER CURIAM:

Lois McKinney appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on her employment discrimination action after a jury trial.

McKinney was terminated from employment as the general manager of

the Motel 6 in Sandston, Virginia. She contends that her termination was based on her gender, while Motel 6 asserts that she

was terminated based on an undue number of customer complaints and

on her failure to properly maintain and operate the motel.*

McKinney was a member of a protected class, and after her

termination the general manager position was filled by someone

outside of that class. However, there is no evidence in the record

from which to conclude that McKinney was performing her job in a

satisfactory manner, or that the reasons for her termination proffered by Motel 6 were a pretext for discrimination. See Texas Dep’t

of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-56 (1981);

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing

to admit evidence regarding the alleged misconduct of McKinney’s
3

successor because that evidence was irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid.

402.

Because McKinney did not carry her burden of showing that her

termination was based on discrimination, we affirm. See St. Mary’s

Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507-08 (1993). We dispense with

oral argument because argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. (the “Company”),on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JamesG. Ivey, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of myknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/JAMES  G. IVEY        |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| James  G. Ivey           |
| Chief Financial  Officer |
|                     |
| December 9, 2005         |

 

----