alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 15.11 Revocation. ( a ) MSHA may revoke for cause an approval issued under this part if the explosive or sheathed explosive unit— ( 1 ) Fails to meet the applicable technical requirements; or
( 2 ) Creates a hazard when used in a mine.
( b ) Prior to revoking an approval, the approval-holder shall be informed in writing of MSHA's intention to revoke. The notice shall— ( 1 ) Explain the specific reasons for the proposed revocation; and
( 2 ) Provide the approval-holder an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with the product approval requirements.
( c ) Upon request, the approval-holder shall be afforded an opportunity for a hearing.
( d ) If an explosive or sheathed explosive unit poses an imminent hazard to the safety or health of miners, the approval may be immediately suspended without a written notice of the agency's intention to revoke. The suspension may continue until the revocation proceedings are completed.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Anoka Air, Inc., et al 

Complainant, 

v. FAA Docket No. 16-11-12 

Metropolitan Airports Commission 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to March 1 , 20 15. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

D --c~ a'-17----

r HEREBY CERTIFY that on t - \) , I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time 

addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Steven M. Taber, Esq. 

Taber Law Group 

13 Atlanta 

Irvine, CA 92620 

Facsimile: (714) 707-4282 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Thomas W. Anderson, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Metropolitan Airports Commission 

6040 28th A venue South 

Minneapolis, MN 55450 

Facsimile: (612) 726-5306 

Pablo 0. Niiesch, Esq. 

Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 

1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Facsimile: (202) 393-2866 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

q]cud:AA (l;J:~ lc audia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert V. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of FCStone Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|    |  |                                                                        
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/    ROBERT V.
JOHNSON                                               
|    |  | Robert V. Johnson Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

Date: February 5, 2007
### §1344–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–845, §26(b), Oct. 18, 1962, 76A Stat. 701

Section, act Dec. 16, 1941, ch. 580, §3, 55 Stat. 803, related to rules of criminal procedure.
*

This decision is rendered by a quorum due to the retirement of then-Chief Judge Hatchett on May 14,

1999. See, 28 U.S.C. §46(d). 

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Roy Mack WEST, a.k.a. Teeny Man, etc., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-6960.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 26, 2000.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (No. 95-00091-CR-AR-S);

William M. Acker, Jr., Judge.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before GODBOLD and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

This case comes before us by order of the United States Supreme Court, which has vacated the

judgment of this Court as to appellant Roy Mack West, and remanded the case for our reconsideration in light

of Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985(1999). See United States v.

West, 142 F.3d 1408 (11th Cir.1998), vacated and remanded, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 2042, 144 L.Ed.2d 211

(1999). In Richardson, the Supreme Court held that "a jury in a federal criminal case brought under [21

U.S.C.] § 848 must unanimously agree not only that the defendant committed some 'continuing series of

violations' but also that the defendant committed each of the individual 'violations' necessary to make up that

'continuing series.' " 526 U.S. at ----, 119 S.Ct. at 1709.

West was convicted of both conducting a continuing criminal enterprise ("CCE")(Count 1) and being

a member of the underlying drug conspiracy (Count 2). At sentencing, the court vacated Count 2 as a lesser

included offense of the CCE conviction. See United States v. Nixon, 918 F.2d 895, 908 (11th Cir.1990)

(when defendant convicted on both a CCE count and a conspiracy county, the Court will merge the two
offenses by vacating the conviction of the lesser included conspiracy count). The government concedes that

the jury instruction given was not in accord with the requirements of Richardson and that West's conviction

on the CCE count cannot stand, see also United States v. Riley, No. 96-4653, 161 F.3d 20 (11th

Cir.1998)(unpublished), and requests that this Court remand to the district court with instructions to reinstate

the vacated drug conspiracy count and resentence West.

Accordingly, we vacate West's conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. Since

the conspiracy conviction under Count 2 was vacated only because it was a lesser included offense of the

CCE conviction, and the CCE conviction no longer stands, we remand this case to the district court with

instructions to reinstate West's conspiracy conviction under Count 2 and resentence him.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 52997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20831]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Connected Vehicle Research Program Public Meeting; Notice of 
Public Meeting

AGENCY: ITS Joint Program Office, Research and Innovative Technology 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Intelligent 
Transportation System Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) will host its 
annual free public meeting to provide an overview of the ITS JPO 
Connected Vehicle research program. The meeting will take place 
September 24 to 26, 2013, at the Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 
4610 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, 22203, 703-243-9800. Persons 
planning to attend the meeting should register online at www.itsa.org/connectedvehicleworkshop.
    The public meeting is the best opportunity to learn details about 
the Connected Vehicle research program in anticipation of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 2013 decision regarding vehicle 
safety communications for light vehicles and 2014 decision for heavy 
vehicles. The meeting will have focused discussions on the ITS JPO's 
Connected Vehicle safety program, including vehicle-to-vehicle 
communications, safety pilot, vehicle-to-infrastructure communications, 
human factors, and policy. There will also be a special session 
dedicated to the ITS Strategic Plan for 2015 to 2019 including a 
session on the developing USDOT Multimodal Plan for Vehicle Automation. 
The agenda for the meeting will be posted on the ITS JPO Web site at 
www.its.dot.gov.

About the Connected Vehicle Research Program at USDOT

    Connected Vehicle research at USDOT is a multimodal program that 
involves using wireless communication between vehicles, infrastructure, 
and personal communications devices to improve safety, mobility, and 
environmental sustainability. To learn more about the Connected Vehicle 
program please visit www.its.dot.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 21st day of August 2013.
Stephen Glasscock,
Program Analyst, ITS Joint Program Office.
[FR Doc. 2013-20831 Filed 8-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P
```
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1703 What are the general requirements for decommissioning? When your facilities are no longer useful for operations, you must: ( a ) Get approval from the appropriate District Manager before decommissioning wells and from the Regional Supervisor before decommissioning platforms and pipelines or other facilities;
( b ) Permanently plug all wells. Packers and bridge plugs used as qualified mechanical barriers must comply with ANSI/API Spec. 11D1 (as incorporated by reference in § 250.198). You must have two independent barriers, one being an ANSI/API Spec. 11D1 qualified mechanical barrier, in the exposed center wellbore prior to removing the tree and/or well control equipment;
( c ) Remove all platforms and other facilities, except as provided in §§ 250.1725(a) and 250.1730.
( d ) Decommission all pipelines;
( e ) Clear the seafloor of all obstructions created by your lease, pipeline right-of-way, or right-of-use and easement operations;
( f ) Follow all applicable requirements of subpart G of this part; and
( g ) Conduct all decommissioning activities in a manner that is safe, does not unreasonably interfere with other uses of the OCS, and does not cause undue or serious harm or damage to the human, marine, or coastal environment.
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 26037, Apr. 29 2016; 84 FR 21984, May 15, 2019; 88 FR 23580, Apr. 18, 2023]
#### Mary Waiters et al., Respondents, v Board of Education, Amityville Union Free School District, et al., Appellants.

In an action to declare that "plaintiffs, as reading specialist teachers, shall have their tenure and seniority rights determined in the elementary tenure” area, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 14, 1977, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, plaintiffs’ motion denied and judgment is granted in favor of defendants declaring that, in the Amityville Union Free School District, remedial reading is a special subject tenure area. The plaintiffs-respondents were employed by the appellant board as full-time reading specialists in September, 1973. They continuously held their positions through the 1973-1974 and 1974-1975 academic years. It is assumed that they possessed skills in this specialized field. At no time were they engaged in general classroom teaching. By resolution dated June 16, 1975, the board abolished the positions of reading specialist because the funding for the program under which the plaintiffs were hired (Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [US Code, tit 20, § 236 *et seq.])*was terminated. Subsequently, due to the availability of other Federal funds for reading instruction, the plaintiffs accepted positions as part-time reading teachers for the 1975-1976 academic year. It is our opinion that the teaching of remedial reading is a traditional tenure area in the Amityville Union Free School District (see *Steele v Board of Educ.,*40 NY2d 456, 463; *Matter of Robinson v Roosevelt Union Free School Dist.,*57 AD2d 570). The plaintiffs were hired under a specific Federal grant to perform a specific teaching function. There was no implication that they would be equivalent to general elementary school teachers. It is also significant that, in response to the holding in *Matter of Baer v Nyquist*(34 NY2d 291), the Board of Regents chose to make the teaching of remedial reading a special tenure area (see 8 NYCRR 30.8 [a] [13]). Although such a determination is not controlling herein, it is indicative of a recognition that the subject area should be treated in this manner. Martuscello, J. P., Rabin, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Document

Exhibit 10.87

ARAMARK


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 2021 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


Effective November 7, 2022, Section 10 of the 2021 Employee Stock Purchase Plan is amended by deleting the existing Section 10 in its entirety and replacing it with the following Section 10:


10.  Limitation on Number of Shares That an Employee May Purchase. Subject to the limitations set forth in Section 5(c), each Participant will have the right to purchase as many whole and fractional Shares as may be purchased with the Contributions credited to his or her account (and the proceeds of any Cashless Participation Amount, if the Participant has agreed to participate in the Cashless Participation Program) as of the last day of the Offering Period (or such other date as the Committee may determine) at the Purchase Price applicable to such Offering Period; provided, however, that a Participant may not purchase in excess of 1,500 Shares under the Plan per Offering Period or such other maximum number of Shares as may be established for an Offering Period by the Committee (in each case subject to adjustment pursuant to Section 17 hereof). Any amounts not applied to the purchase of Shares during an Offering Period shall be promptly refunded following such Purchase Date and will not be carried forward to any subsequent Offering Period.
### §2148. Required reports

#### (a) Annual report

Not later than 30 days after the last day of each fiscal year, the Oversight Board shall submit a report to the President, Congress, the Governor and the Legislature, describing—

(1) the progress made by the territorial government in meeting the objectives of this chapter during the fiscal year;

(2) the assistance provided by the Oversight Board to the territorial government in meeting the purposes of this chapter during the fiscal year;

(3) recommendations to the President and Congress on changes to this chapter or other Federal laws, or other actions of the Federal Government, that would assist the territorial government in complying with any certified Fiscal Plan;

(4) the precise manner in which funds allocated to the Oversight Board under section 2127 of this title and, as applicable, section 2124(e) of this title have been spent by the Oversight Board during the fiscal year; and

(5) any other activities of the Oversight Board during the fiscal year.

#### (b) Report on discretionary tax abatement agreements

Within six months of the establishment of the Oversight Board, the Governor shall submit a report to the Oversight Board documenting all existing discretionary tax abatement or similar tax relief agreements to which the territorial government, or any territorial instrumentality, is a party, provided that—

(1) nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to limit the power of the territorial government or any territorial instrumentality to execute or modify discretionary tax abatement or similar tax relief agreements, or to enforce compliance with the terms and conditions of any discretionary tax abatement or similar tax relief agreement, to which the territorial government or any territorial instrumentality is a party; and

(2) the members and staff of the Oversight Board shall not disclose the contents of the report described in this subsection, and shall otherwise comply with all applicable territorial and Federal laws and regulations regarding the handling of confidential taxpayer information.

#### (c) Quarterly reports of cash flow

The Oversight Board, when feasible, shall report on the amount of cash flow available for the payment of debt service on all notes, bonds, debentures, credit agreements, or other instruments for money borrowed whose enforcement is subject to a stay or moratorium hereunder, together with any variance from the amount set forth in the debt sustainability analysis of the Fiscal Plan under section 2141(b)(1)(I) of this title.

(Pub. L. 114–187, title II, §208, June 30, 2016, 130 Stat. 575.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a)(1) to (3) and (b)(1), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 114–187, June 30, 2016, 130 Stat. 549, known as the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act and also as PROMESA, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2101 of this title and Tables.
### §731b. Organization of a government pursuant to a constitution

Fully recognizing the principle of government by consent, sections 731b to 731e of this title are now adopted in the nature of a compact so that the people of Puerto Rico may organize a government pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption.

(July 3, 1950, ch. 446, §1, 64 Stat. 319.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Repeals

Act July 3, 1950, ch. 446, §6, 64 Stat. 320, provided that: "All laws or parts of laws inconsistent with this Act [enacting sections 731b to 731e of this title] are hereby repealed."
§ 1218.702 What happens to delinquent debts you owe ONRR? ( a ) The ONRR will collect debts from you under the regulations in this subpart in addition to other applicable statutory and regulatory authorities.
( b ) The ONRR will transfer to the U.S. Department of the Treasury any past due, legally enforceable nontax debt that is delinquent within 180 days from the date the debt becomes delinquent so that Treasury may take appropriate action to collect the debt or terminate the collection action under 26 U.S.C. 6402(d)(1) and (2); 31 U.S.C. 3711, 3716, and 3720A; the FCCS; and 31 CFR 285.2 and 285.5.
# National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) Model Documents

            -  Share 
            -          Post      Linkedin
Email
Print
Grade "A" Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO)
***FDA celebrates the **PMO 100 Year Anniversary* *in 2024***

2023 PMO (PDF - 16MB) August 2024

2019 PMO (PDF - 8MB) July 2020

2017 PMO (PDF - 8MB) June 2018

2015 PMO (PDF - 11MB) July 2016

2013 PMO (PDF -  5MB) May 2014

2011 PMO (PDF - 5MB) February 10, 2012

2009 PMO (PDF - 5MB) April  26, 2010

2007 PMO May 29, 2009

2005 PMO March 25, 2005
Evaluation of Milk Laboratories 
2023 Revision (PDF - 5MB) August 2024

2019 Revision (PDF - 536KB) May 2020

2017 Revision (PDF - 910KB) July, 2018

2015 Revision (PDF - 1.14MB) May, 2016

2011 Revision (PDF - 303KB) February, 2012

2009 Revision (PDF - 225KB) August 5, 2010

2007 Revision (PDF - 404KB) September 21, 2009

2005 Revision (PDF - 256KB) January 1, 2007  
Procedures Governing the Cooperative State-Public Health Service/FDA Program of the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments
2023 Revision (PDF - 3MB) August 2024

2019 Revision (PDF - 646KB) May 12, 2020

2017 Revision (PDF - 583 KB) January 30, 2018

2015 Revision (PDF - 497KB) February 4, 2015

2013 Revision (PDF - 552KB) December 3, 2013

2011 Revision (PDF - 214KB) December 6, 2011

2009 Revision (PDF - 711KB) January 22, 2010

2007 Revision December 17, 2007; Updated May 22, 2009

2005 Revision November 14, 2005; Updated November 21, 2011
Methods of Making Sanitation Ratings of Milk Shippers and the Certifications/Listings of Single-Service Containers and/or Closures for Milk and/or Milk Products Manufacturers
2023 - Revision (PDF - 42MB) August 2024

2019 Revision (PDF - 31MB) May 20, 2020

2017 Revision (PDF - 18MB) March 8, 2018

2015 Revision (PDF - 21MB) April 25, 2016
Methods of Making Sanitation Ratings of Milk Shippers
2013 Revision (PDF - 2MB) February 13, 2015

2011 Revision (PDF - 2MB) February 7, 2012

2009 Revision (PDF - 4MB) January 28, 2010

2007 Revision (PDF - 1MB) March 5, 2009

2005 Revision (PDF - 3MB) April 10, 2012 
-  Content current as of:
08/19/2024
 
-  Regulated Product(s)- Food & Beverages
- Milk/Milk Product
 
-                                          Milk Guidance Documents & Regulatory Information                        - National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) Model Documents
- Pasteurized Milk Ordinance Centennial
- Questions and Answers Regarding Milk Safety During Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) Outbreaks 
   
Footer Links- FDA Archive
- About FDA
- Accessibility
- Visitor Information 
- Website Policies / Privacy
- No FEAR Act
- Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
- FOIA
- HHS.gov
- USA.gov
Contact FDAFollow FDA on FacebookFollow FDA on XFollow FDA on InstagramFollow FDA on LinkedInView FDA videos on YouTubeSubscribe to FDA RSS feedsFDA HomepageContact Number      1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332)    Back to Top
### SUBCHAPTER II—CAR SERVICE