alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.802 Requirements for SPPE. ( a ) All SSVs, BSDVs, USVs, and GLSDVs and their actuators must meet all of the specifications contained in ANSI/API Spec. 6A and API Spec. 6AV1 (both incorporated by reference in § 250.198).
( b ) All SSSVs and their actuators must meet all of the specifications and recommended practices of ANSI/API Spec. 14A and ANSI/API RP 14B, including all annexes (both incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198). Subsurface-controlled SSSVs are not allowed on subsea wells.
( c ) Requirements derived from the documents incorporated in this section for SSVs, BSDVs, SSSVs, USVs, GLSDVs, and their actuators, include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) You must ensure that each device is designed to function in the conditions to which it may be exposed; including temperature, pressure, flow rates, and environmental conditions. ( i ) The device design must be tested by an independent test agency according to the test requirements in the appropriate standard for that device (API Spec. 6AV1 or ANSI/API Spec. 14A), as identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
( ii ) You must maintain a description of the process you used to ensure the device is designed to function as required in paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) of this section and provide that description to BSEE upon request.
( iii ) If you remove any SPPE from service and install the device at a different location, you must have a qualified third party review and certify that each device will function as designed under the conditions to which it may be exposed.
( 2 ) All materials and parts must meet the original equipment manufacturer specifications and acceptance criteria.
( 3 ) The device must pass applicable validation tests and functional tests performed by an API-licensed test agency.
( 4 ) You must have requalification testing performed following manufacture design changes.
( 5 ) You must comply with and document all manufacturing, traceability, quality control, and inspection requirements.
( 6 ) You must follow specified installation, testing, and repair protocols.
( 7 ) You must use only qualified parts, procedures, and personnel to repair or redress equipment.
( d ) You must install and use SPPE according to the following table. If . . .
Then . . . (1) You need to install any SPPE
You must install SPPE that conforms to § 250.801. (2) A non-certified SPPE is already in service
It may remain in service. (3) A non-certified SPPE requires offsite repair, re-manufacturing, or any hot work such as welding
You must replace it with SPPE that conforms to § 250.801.
( e ) You must retain all documentation related to the manufacture, installation, testing, repair, redress, and performance of the SPPE until 1 year after the date of decommissioning of the equipment.
[81 FR 60918, Sept. 7, 2016, as amended at 83 FR 49256, Sept. 28, 2018]
#### Frank Robert and another *vs.*J. J. Brooks and another.

October 10, 1876.

Justice of tie Peace — Waiver of Oath, to Officer in Charge of Jury. — The oath to-an officer, in whose charge a jury retire to consider of their verdict, in a trial before a justice of the peace, required by Gen. St. *e.*65, § 56, may be waived by the parties, and is to be deemed waived if it is omitted, and the parties make no objection at the time.

The action was begun in a justice’s court, where plaintiffs. *139liad judgment. Defendants appealed, upon questions of law alone, to the district court for Ramsey county, where the judgment of the justice was affirmed, after a hearing before *Simons,*J., and the defendants appealed to this court.

*Morris Lamprey,*for appellants.

*Simonton (& Reid,*for respondents.

Gileillan, C. J.

There is but a single question in this case. The suit was commenced before a justice of the peace, and tried with a jury. After the evidence was in, and arguments of counsel, the jury retired under charge of an officer, without any oath having been administered to him for that purpose, and afterwards came in with a verdict for plaintiffs. Both parties appear to have been present, and no notice was taken, at the time the jury retired, of the omission to administer the oath to the officer; but, when the jury came in, the defendants objected to receiving the verdict because of such omission.

The statute (Gen. St. c. 65, § 56) requires that the-officer shall be sworn in such cases. This requirement is not, however, a matter affecting the *jurisdiction;*it is a, provision regulating the proceedings upon the trial after the jurisdiction has attached. Like all provisions not governing-the jurisdiction, but only regulating the proceedings under the jurisdiction acquired, compliance with it may be waived! by the parties. Their consent to waive it is presumed, unless compliance is insisted on at the time. By failing to make the objection at the time the jury retired, so that the justice could at Qnce correct the omission, the defendants waived it.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 56.23004 Record and inspection. ( a ) The operator shall make the written safety program available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and provide a copy upon request.
( b ) The operator shall make the written safety program available for inspection by miners and their representatives and, at no cost, provide a copy upon request.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3343

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Nemacur VL. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 2005

Mr. JEFFERSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Nemacur 

VL.

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

3 SECTION 1. NEMACUR VL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.60 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Nemacur VL) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2

•HR 3343 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9436 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9436

To establish a National Science Foundation grant program to provide and 
    strengthen opportunities for peer-led research regarding autism 
   spectrum disorder and its characteristics in women, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 30, 2024

 Mr. Khanna (for himself, Ms. Tenney, and Mr. Fitzpatrick) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, 
                         Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a National Science Foundation grant program to provide and 
    strengthen opportunities for peer-led research regarding autism 
   spectrum disorder and its characteristics in women, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting Peer-led Efforts to 
Conduct Thoughtful Research and Understand the Modalities of Autism in 
Women and Girls Act'' or the ``SPECTRUM Act''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION GRANT PROGRAM TO STRENGTHEN 
              OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEER-LED RESEARCH REGARDING AUTISM 
              SPECTRUM DISORDER.

    The Director of the National Science Foundation is authorized to 
award grants on a competitive basis to support participatory research 
approaches into autism, including with respect to women and girls. Such 
research may include research into any of the following:
            (1) Characteristics of autism in girls and women, including 
        the incidence of ``masking'', ``camouflaging'', or other 
        psychosocial factors.
            (2) Communication between autistic and neurotypical women 
        and girls, and the phenomenon of the ``double empathy problem'' 
        theory.
            (3) Additional related topics at the discretion of the 
        Director.
                                 <all>
```
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 this Annual Report of Equity Ventures Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, , Colette Kim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | 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 result of operations of

 
the Company.

 
 

 

*/s/ Colette Kim*

Colette Kim

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer

 

March 6, 2006

 

 

 

  |
#### § 56.19068 Orderly conduct in conveyances.

Persons shall enter, ride, and leave conveyances in an orderly manner.
### §44941. Immunity for reporting suspicious activities

(a) In General.—Any air carrier or foreign air carrier or any employee of an air carrier or foreign air carrier who makes a voluntary disclosure of any suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation, relating to air piracy, a threat to aircraft or passenger safety, or terrorism, as defined by section 3077 of title 18, United States Code, to any employee or agent of the Department of Transportation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, or any airport or airline security officer shall not be civilly liable to any person under any law or regulation of the United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision of any State, for such disclosure.

(b) Application.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(1) any disclosure made with actual knowledge that the disclosure was false, inaccurate, or misleading; or

(2) any disclosure made with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of that disclosure.

(Added Pub. L. 107–71, title I, §125(a), Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 631; amended Pub. L. 115–254, div. K, title I, §1991(d)(32), Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3640.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–254 inserted "the Department of Homeland Security," after "Department of Transportation,".
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of Photogen Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for theperiod ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brooks Boveroux, ChiefFinancial 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:

 

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

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company

 

 
| /s/  Brooks Boveroux |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Brooks  Boveroux          |
| Chief  Financial Officer  |
| April 24,  2003           |

 

----
March 31, 1977.

M. P. No. 76-462.

#### Rollins, Inc. *v.*Archie Smith *et al.*

*J. Frederick Murphy,*for petitioner. *Harold W. Demopulos,*for Newport Cable TY, Inc. *Tobin, LeRoy & Sil*
      *909
      *verstein, Max Wistow, Merrill W. Sherman,*for Plantations CATV Co., Inc.

*908Petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the writ shall issue forthwith.

*909
      *George C. Berk,*for Cable Television of Rhode Island, Inc.

*Charles J. McGovern,*for Vision Cable Company of Rhode Island, Inc.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.812 Surface-controlled SSSVs—dry trees. You must equip all tubing installations open to a hydrocarbon-bearing zone that is capable of natural flow with a surface-controlled SSSV, except as specified in §§ 250.813, 250.815, and 250.816. ( a ) The surface controls must be located on the site or at a BSEE-approved remote location. You may request District Manager approval to situate the surface controls at a remote location.
( b ) You must equip dry tree wells not previously equipped with a surface-controlled SSSV, and dry tree wells in which a surface-controlled SSSV has been replaced with a subsurface-controlled SSSV, with a surface-controlled SSSV when the tubing is first removed and reinstalled.
#### Bennett A. Cohen, Appellant, v Wallace & Minchenberg et al., Defendants, and Panken, Besterman, Winer, Becker & Sherman, LLP, et al., Respondents.

[835 NYS2d 284]

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated November 30, 2004, as denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to reargue and, in effect, denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to renew the prior motion of the defendants Panken, Besterman, Winer, Becker & Sherman, LLR Kenneth Becker, individually and as a member of Panken, Besterman, Winer, Becker & Sherman, LLR and Richard Becker, individually and as a member of Panken, Besterman, Winer, Becker & Sherman, LLR to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7), or for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and his cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, which were determined in an order of the same court dated September 4, 2003.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed because no appeal lies from the denial of reargument *(see Bellantoni v Kelligrew,*26 AD3d 401 [2006]; *Frisenda v X Large Enters.,*280 AD2d 514 [2001]; *Sallusti v Jones,*273 AD2d 293 [2000]). The Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew his opposition to the respondents’ prior motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7), or for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and his prior cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, which were determined in an order of the same court dated September 4, 2003. The new evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of that branch of the motion would not have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; *Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc.,*15 AD3d 628, 630 [2005]; *Gorman v Ochoa,*2 AD3d 582, 582-583 [2003]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
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 Transitional Report of Rand Logistics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


July 14, 2006                                    By: /s/ Laurence S. Levy
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Laurence S. Levy
                                                     Chairman of the Board and
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
#### PEOPLE ex rel. RICE v. STURGIS, Com’r.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 6, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of Thomas F. Rice, against Thomas Sturgis, commissioner.

No opinion. Motion denied.
### **CHAPTER 151—GENERAL PROVISIONS**

Sec.
15101.
Transportation policy.
15102.
Definitions.
15103.
Remedies as cumulative.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1996**—Pub. L. 104–287, §5(41), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3392, struck out duplicative chapter heading.
#### § 56.18010 First aid.

An individual capable of providing first aid shall be available on all shifts. The individual shall be currently trained and have the skills to perform patient assessment and artificial respiration; control bleeding; and treat shock, wounds, burns, and musculoskeletal injuries. First aid training shall be made available to all interested miners.

[61 FR 50436, Sept. 26, 1996]
### §384. Authority of Commission; operations, installations, and additional equipment

The Commission shall have authority with respect to any vessel subject to this part—

(1) to specify operating and technical conditions and characteristics including frequencies, emissions, power, communication capability and range, of installations required by reason of this part;

(2) to approve the details as to the location and manner of installation of the equipment required by this part or of equipment necessitated by reason of the purposes and requirements of this part;

(3) to approve installations, apparatus and spare parts necessary to comply with the purposes and requirements of this part;

(4) to prescribe such additional equipment as may be determined to be necessary to supplement that specified herein for the proper functioning of the radio installation installed in accordance with this part or for the proper conduct of radio communication in time of emergency or distress.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, §384, as added Aug. 6, 1956, ch. 973, §1, 70 Stat. 1048; amended Pub. L. 103–414, title III, §303(a)(20)(D), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4295.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–414 inserted section catchline.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Mar. 1, 1957, see section 4 of act Aug. 6, 1956, set out as a note under section 381 of this title.
#### HAMILTON BANK-NOTE ENGRAVING & PRINTING CO., Respondent, v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June, 1903.)

Action by the Hamilton Bank-Note Engraving & Printing Co. against the Twin City Power Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

E. W. Tyler, for appellant. Meyer & Godson, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

It is undisputed that the plaintiff printed and delivered certain bonds to the defendant upon its order, and that the latter never returned or offered to return them, even when apprised of delivery and receipt by a brother of an executive officer and a casual visitor in the offices of the defendant. That time was essential was affirmed and denied, but the determination of the jury thereon is final, in the absence of evidence of return, or offer to return, or of refusal to accept when informed of the completion of the work; for the officer of the defendant directly testified, somewhat inconsistently it is true, that “after the time had expired, and after January 31st, I notified him [the general manager of the plaintiff] on tjie telephone that the time had gone by to use the bonds, and not to deliver them. I cannot tell you how soon after January 31st. I think it was more than a week, I should thinkAO days, after January 31st. He notified me he had the bonds ready for delivery at that time, and I told him not to deliver them, I said: ‘Do not deliver them. We have no place to keep them here. You keep them there, until we can arrange to use them.’ ” This accords with the testimony of the general manager of the plaintiff on that point, and makes the exclusion of evidence of purposed use thereafter—for use there was by the undisputed retention, imprint of corporate seal, and signatures of two officers of the defendant attached—proper and as not within the issue. Judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.