alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 57.14111 Slusher, backlash guards and securing. ( a ) When persons are exposed to slushing operations, the slushers shall be equipped with rollers and drum covers and anchored securely before slushing operations are started to protect against hazardous movement before slushing operations are started.
( b ) Slushers rated over 10 horsepower shall be equipped with backlash guards, unless the equipment operator is otherwise protected.
( c ) This standard does not apply to air tuggers of 10 horsepower or less that have only one cable and one drum.
### §1908. Transitional immigration rules

#### (a) Citizen of Northern Mariana Islands

Any person who is a citizen of the Northern Mariana Islands, as that term is defined in section 24(b) of the Act of December 8, 1983 (97 Stat. 1465), is considered a citizen of the United States for purposes of entry into, permanent residence, and employment in the United States and its territories and possessions.

#### (b) Termination

The provisions of this section shall cease to be effective when section 301 of the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union With the United States (Public Law 94–241) becomes effective pursuant to section 1003(c) of the Covenant.

(Pub. L. 99–239, title I, §108, Jan. 14, 1986, 99 Stat. 1798.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 24(b) of the Act of December 8, 1983, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 98–213, §24(b), Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1465, which was formerly set out as a note under section 1801 of this title.

The Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union With the United States, referred to in subsec. (b), is contained in section 1 of Pub. L. 94–241, as amended, set out as a note under section 1801 of this title. For November 4, 1986, as the effective date of section 301 of the Covenant, see Proc. No. 5564, Nov. 3, 1986, 51 F.R. 40399, set out as a note under section 1801 of this title.

Public Law 94–241, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 94–241, Mar. 24, 1976, 90 Stat. 263, as amended, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§1801 et seq.) of chapter 17 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly set out as a note under section 1681 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.861 Foam firefighting systems. When you install foam firefighting systems as part of a firefighting system that protects production handling areas, you must: ( a ) Annually conduct an inspection of the foam concentrates and their tanks or storage containers for evidence of excessive sludging or deterioration;
( b ) Annually send samples of the foam concentrate to the manufacturer or authorized representative for quality condition testing. You must have the sample tested to determine the specific gravity, pH, percentage of water dilution, and solid content. Based on these results, the foam must be certified by an authorized representative of the manufacturer as suitable firefighting foam consistent with the original manufacturer's specifications. The certification document must be readily accessible for field inspection. In lieu of sampling and certification, you may choose to replace the total inventory of foam with suitable new stock;
( c ) Ensure that the quantity of concentrate meets design requirements, and that tanks or containers are kept full, with space allowed for expansion.
#### Katherine M. Cernak, Appellant, v. William Cernak, Respondent.

In an action (1) to set aside a separation agreement and (2) for a judicial separation, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 24, 1960, granting defendant’s motion, made pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that on its face it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, the complaint sufficiently pleads a cause of action to set aside the separation agreement (cf. *Pomerance*v. *Pomerance,*301 N. Y. 254, 256; *Galusha*v. *Galusha,*138 N. Y. 272, 284). Plaintiff has pleaded facts which may be held sufficient to excuse her failure to tender to defendant the balance of the consideration for the agreement remaining in her hands, as a condition precedent to the bringing of her action. If it shall appear on trial that a return of such consideration is required for an equitable disposition of the issues, an appropriate judgment may be entered after the facts have been determined. Defendant’s time to serve his answer to the complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon, or until such other date as may be mutually fixed by the parties. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof NeoMedia Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Laura A. Marriott, does hereby certify, pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to her knowledge:

 

1.              The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.              The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

Friday, June 24, 2011

Ms. Nancy Bolin Broaddus

Smith & Smith

710 N. Post Oak Road, Suite 209

Houston, TX 77024

Mr. Christopher Bradshaw-Hull

Attorney at Law

4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 570

Houston, TX 77006

RE:Case Number:  10-0748

Court of Appeals Number:  14-09-01001-CV

Trial Court Number:  2009-19832

Style:KACHIKWU ILLOH, M.D.

v.

DAMITA CARROLL AND KAREN BUTLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES CARROLL

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@txcourts.gov or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Michael A. Cruz, Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 10-0748Page 1**
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATION*

I, William A. Owen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Outdoor Channel
Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 annual report fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

         (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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting

Date: March 30, 2004     /s/ William A. Owen
                         -----------------------------------------------
                         WILLIAM A. OWEN, Chief Financial Officer
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: November 7, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0110 

M.T.I. TRAVEL, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2013S0950011 

Respondent 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On September 9, 2014 a Notice of Hearing Location was filed. 

On November 5, 2014, the parties appeared for Hearing in Courtroom No.4 at the U.S. 

District Court, District ofNew Jersey, Newark, New Jersey. At the beginning of the courtreported Hearing, the parties stated that they had settled the case. As a result, the FAA orally 

stated that it was withdrawing its Complaint. Based on the November 5, 2014 court-reported 

proceedings, the parties agreed that an Order of Dismissal could be immediately issued. 

After reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority, and being 

fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint. 

2. This proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 

IVan 

Ali'l:rr.rfiistrative Law Judge 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

Mr. Michael F. McKinley 

Complainant's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Senior Attorney, Office ofthe Chief Counsel, AGC~300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202~267~ 7100 

FAX: 202~267~5106 

Mr. David P. Affinito 

Respondent's Counsel 

101 Eisenhower Parkway 

Suite 300 

Roseland, NJ 07068 

TEL: 973-672-8000 

FAX: 973-672-8215 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0110 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT  11.1
                                 CARDIMA, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                     (in thousands, except per share data)
                                  (unaudited)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                               Three months ended     Six months ended
                                                                     June 30,              June 30,
                                                               ------------------    ------------------
                                                                 1997      1996        1997      1996
                                                               --------   -------    -------    -------
<S>                                                             <C>        <C>       <C>        <C> 
Historical:
 Weighted average common shares outstanding                      2,277         72      1,175         71
   Shares related to Staff Accounting Bulletins Nos. 55,
     64 and 83:
   Stock options                                                  -           632        316        632
   Preferred Stock                                                -         2,357      1,179      2,357
                                                               -------    -------    -------    -------

Total shares used in calculating net loss per share              2,277      3,061      2,670      3,060
                                                               =======    =======    =======    =======

Net Loss                                                       $(2,761)   $(1,627)   $(5,087)   $(3,147)
                                                               =======    =======    =======    =======

Net loss per share                                             $ (1.21)   $ (0.53)   $ (1.91)   $ (1.03)
                                                               =======    =======    =======    =======


Pro forma:
 Shares used in calculating net loss per share (per above)       2,277      3,061      2,670      3,060
 Preferred Stock if converted                                    2,444      3,370      2,908      3,253
                                                               -------    -------    -------    -------

Total shares used in calculating pro forma net loss per share    4,721      6,431      5,578      6,313
                                                               =======    =======    =======    =======

Net Loss                                                       $(2,761)   $(1,627)   $(5,087)   $(3,147)
                                                               =======    =======    =======    =======

Pro forma net loss per share                                   $ (0.58)   $ (0.25)   $ (0.91)   $ (0.50)
                                                               =======    =======    =======    =======

</TABLE>
y



### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 13

- 0 0896

- CR

VICTOR CHARLES BANKETT , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1866497 ).

TO THE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW NO. 8 OF HARRIS COUNTY,

GREETINGS:

Before this Court , on the 11 th day of June 201 5 , the cause upon appeal to revise or

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

The cause heard today b y the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on September 20, 2013 . After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the opinion of this Court that the appellant is

entitled to a new trial

. Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings

.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered June 11 , 201 5

.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd

.WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

August 21 , 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
Exhibit
23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm
 
 
 We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the following Registration Statements:
 
 (a)
              the Registration Statement
      (Form S-3/A Amendment No. 3 No. 333-141098)
      and related prospectus of OccuLogix, Inc. for the registration of
      9,441,749 shares of common stock;
and
 
 (b)
              the Registration Statement
      (Form S-8 No. 333-124505) pertaining to the Employees’
      Stock Option Plan of OccuLogix,
Inc.;
 
 of our reports datedMarch 14, 2008, (except for note 2(a) as to
which the date is July 18, 2008) with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of OccuLogix, Inc., andMarch 14, 2008 (except for internal control over financial reporting
related to the material weakness described in the sixth paragraph of that
report, as to which the date is July 18, 2008) on the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting of OccuLogix, Inc., included in this restated Annual
Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31,
2007.
 
 
 July 18,
    2008
              /s/ Ernst & Young
      LLPToronto,Canada
              Chartered
      AccountantsLicensed Public
      Accountants
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ ________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 10, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 126980(87)(88) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, JOSEPH STAMPLIS and THEODORA STAMPLIS, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees, SC: 126980 v COA: 241801 St. Clair CC: 01-001051-NH ST. JOHN HEALTH SYSTEM, d/b/a RIVER DISTRICT HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant, and

G. PHILLIP DOUGLASS, Defendant-Appellee, and

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, d/b/a HENRY FORD HOSPITAL, et al Defendants.

On order of the Chief Justice, motions by defendants-appellant for extension of the time for filing their briefs and appendices are considered and they are
GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 10, 2006

Clerk
#### § 560.502 Are electronically filed document transmissions legally binding?

Any document or information referenced in § 560.500 which is submitted to BOEM through a secure electronic filing system that is approved by BOEM will be legally binding, without the need for a paper copy thereof.
J

- S50025

- 18

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.
LUIS LAQUAL TIRADO : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 83 WDA 2018 Appeal from the Order January 5, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 25

- CR

- 0002366

- 2017

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and KUNSELMAN, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: FILED OCTOBER 30, 2018 The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered January 5, 2018, granting Luis Laqual Tirado’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence recovered during a traffic stop. Because the Commonwealth failed to certify in its notice of appeal that the order will terminate or substantially handicap its prosecution, we quash the appeal as interlocutory. 1
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 311 , “ the Commonwealth may take an appeal as of right from an order that does no t end the entire case where the Commonwealth certifies in the notice of appeal that the order will terminate or substa ntially handicap the prosecution

. ” Pa.R.Crim.P. 311(d). Rule 904 further mandates: “When the Commonwealth takes an appeal pursuant to P a.R.A.P. 311(d), the notice of appeal shall

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______
1 We note Tirado raised this issue in his appellee brief. See Tirado’s Brief at 5

- 6.J

- S50025

- 18

- 2

-

include a certification by counsel that the order will terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution. ” Pa.R.A.P. 904(e) (emphasis supplied). In the present case, the Commonwealth failed to include the requisite certification in its notice of appeal. See Notice of Appeal, 1/10/2018. This defect is fatal ; “[w]ithout the certification, the Commonwealth has no right to appeal.” Commonwealth v. M alinowski , 671 A.2d 674, 678 (Pa. 1996). Moreover, the fact that the Commonwealth included the requisite certification in the Statement of Jurisdiction in its appellate brief is of no moment. The certification must be in the notice of appeal. See Common wealth v. Knoeppel , 783 A.2d 404 (Pa. Super. 2001) appeal denied , 806 A.2d 859 (Pa. 2002). Because the Commonwealth failed to certify in its notice of appeal that the order under review will terminate or substantially handicap its prosecution,
we are comp elled to quash this appeal. Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/30/2018J

- S50025

- 18

- 3

-
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 A0 08 4 . RASHAD BALLARD v . PHI LLI P HALL.

Ras h ad Bal lard ap peal s t o t h i s Co u rt fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’s f i n a l o rd er i n t h i s h ab eas co rp u s act i o n

. T h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg ia, h o wev er, h as ap p el l at e ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er al l cas es i n v o lv i n g h ab eas co rp u s

. See Ga. Co n st

. o f 1 98 3 , Art

. VI, Sec. V I, Par. III (4 ). Th i s ap peal i s th erefo re T RANSFERRED t o t h e Su prem e Co u rt

o f Geo rg ia fo r d i s p o s i t i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. August 14, 2019

08/14/2019
#### § 56.19091 Signaling instructions to hoist operator.

Hoist operators shall accept hoisting instructions only by the regular signaling system unless it is out of order. In such an event, and during other emergencies, the hoist operator shall accept instructions to direct movement of the conveyances only from authorized persons.