alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 550.267 What actions will BOEM take after the DPP or DOCD is deemed submitted? ( a ) *State, local government, CZMA consistency, and other reviews.* Within 2 working days after the Regional Supervisor deems your DPP or DOCD submitted under § 550.266, the Regional Supervisor will use receipted mail or alternative method to send a public information copy of the DPP or DOCD and its accompanying information to the following: ( 1 ) *The Governor of each affected State.* The Governor has 60 calendar days after receiving your deemed-submitted DPP or DOCD to submit comments and recommendations. The Regional Supervisor will not consider comments and recommendations received after the deadline.
( 2 ) *The executive of any affected local government who requests a copy.* The executive of any affected local government has 60 calendar days after receipt of your deemed-submitted DPP or DOCD to submit comments and recommendations. The Regional Supervisor will not consider comments and recommendations received after the deadline. The executive of any affected local government must forward all comments and recommendations to the respective Governor before submitting them to the Regional Supervisor.
( 3 ) *The CZMA agency of each affected State.* The CZMA consistency review period under section 307(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the CZMA (16 U.S.C.1456(c)(3)(B)(ii)) and 15 CFR 930.78 begins when the States CZMA agency receives a copy of your deemed-submitted DPP or DOCD, consistency certification, and required necessary data/information (see 15 CFR 930.77(a)(1)).
( b ) *General public.* Within 2 working days after the Regional Supervisor deems your DPP or DOCD submitted under § 550.266, the Regional Supervisor will make a public information copy of the DPP or DOCD and its accompanying information available for review to any appropriate interstate regional entity and the public at the appropriate BOEM Regional Public Information Office. Any interested Federal agency or person may submit comments and recommendations to the Regional Supervisor. Comments and recommendations must be received by the Regional Supervisor within 60 calendar days after the DPP or DOCD including its accompanying information is made available.
( c ) *BOEM compliance review.* The Regional Supervisor will review the development and production activities in your proposed DPP or DOCD to ensure that they conform to the performance standards in § 550.202.
( d ) *Amendments.* During the review of your proposed DPP or DOCD, the Regional Supervisor may require you, or you may elect, to change your DPP or DOCD. If you elect to amend your DPP or DOCD, the Regional Supervisor may determine that your DPP or DOCD, as amended, is subject to the requirements of § 550.266.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 05, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 05, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0340. JAMES LANDING v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

15CR000337
### §44808. Carriage of property by small unmanned aircraft systems for compensation or hire

(a) In General.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall update existing regulations to authorize the carriage of property by operators of small unmanned aircraft systems for compensation or hire within the United States.

(b) Contents.—Any rulemaking conducted under subsection (a) shall provide for the following:

(1) Use performance-based requirements.

(2) Consider varying levels of risk to other aircraft and to persons and property on the ground posed by different unmanned aircraft systems and their operation and tailor performance-based requirements to appropriately mitigate risk.

(3) Consider the unique characteristics of highly automated, small unmanned aircraft systems.

(4) Include requirements for the safe operation of small unmanned aircraft systems that, at a minimum, address—

(A) airworthiness of small unmanned aircraft systems;

(B) qualifications for operators and the type and nature of the operations;

(C) operating specifications governing the type and nature of the unmanned aircraft system air carrier operations; and

(D) the views of State, local, and tribal officials related to potential impacts of the carriage of property by operators of small unmanned aircraft systems for compensation or hire within the communities to be served.

(5) Small uas.—The Secretary may amend part 298 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to update existing regulations to establish economic authority for the carriage of property by small unmanned aircraft systems for compensation or hire. Such authority shall only require—

(A) registration with the Department of Transportation;

(B) authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct operations; and

(C) compliance with chapters 401, 411, and 417.

(6) Availability of current certification processes.—Pending completion of the rulemaking required in subsection (a) of this section, a person may seek an air carrier operating certificate and certificate of public convenience and necessity, or an exemption from such certificate, using existing processes.

(Added Pub. L. 115–254, div. B, title III, §348(a), Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3297.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, referred to in subsec. (a), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 115–254, which was approved Oct. 5, 2018.
#### In re SHEPARD.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 15, 1905.)

In the matter of the application of Frederic White Shepard for a writ of mandamus against John T. Oakley, as commissioner, etc. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3474

To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the provision of law requiring termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans as 

of December 31, 2009. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005

Mr. GUTIERREZ (for himself and Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the provision of law requiring termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans as of December 31, 2009.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION FOR ADVISORY 

4 COMMITTEE ON MINORITY VETERANS. 

5 Subsection (e) of section 554 of title 38, United 

6 States Code, is repealed.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                    BRILLIANT DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

               COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

                                               NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                               -------------------------------
                                                    1997             1996
                                               -------------    --------------
Weighted average shares outstanding                 7,200             4,455
Common Stock equivalents:
        Stock options granted                                            37
        Warrants granted                                                 47
                                               -------------    --------------

Weighted average number of shares used in 
 computing net income(loss) per share               7,200             4,539
                                               -------------    --------------
                                               -------------    --------------
  Net income (loss)                              $   (944)        $  (2,371)
                                               -------------    --------------
                                               -------------    --------------
  Net income (loss) per common shares            $  (0.13)        $   (0.52)
                                               -------------    --------------
                                               -------------    --------------
§ 402.10 Research-project applications. ( a ) Only those applications for grants that are in response to and meet the guidelines of specific USGS announcements will be considered for funding appropriated for this program.
( b ) The USGS program announcements will identify priorities, matching requirements, particular areas of interest, criteria for evaluation, OMB regulations as appropriate, assurances, closing date, and proposal submittal instructions. Program announcements may also include criteria for high-priority subjects of a basic nature that may be funded on other than a dollar-for-dollar basis. Program announcements will be distributed to names on the current USGS mailing list for the Water-Resources Research Program announcements, including new requests received in response to published notices of upcoming program announcements.
( c ) Notification of the availability of the program announcement will be published in the Commerce Business Daily and/or Federal Register.
( d ) The application for funds must be signed by an individual or official authorized to commit the applicant and it must contain: ( 1 ) A Standard Form 424 “Federal Assistance,” sections I and II completed by applicant, used as the cover sheet for each proposal.
( 2 ) A project summary of no more than one typed, single-spaced page providing the following specific information: ( i ) Identification of the water or water-related problems and the problem-solution approach;
( ii ) Identification of the proposed scientific contribution of the problem solution;
( iii ) Concise statement of the specific objectives of the project;
( iv ) Identification of the approach to be used to accomplish the work; and
( v ) Identification of potential users of the proposed work.
( 3 ) Narrative information, as specified in the published program announcement, such as project title, project objectives, background information, research tasks, methodology to conduct the research task, the relevancy of the proposed project to water-resources problems, qualifications of the principal investigators and their organizations, and proposed budget with supporting information sufficient to allow evaluation of costs.
(June 11, 1963)

#### Jean Rucker, as Guardian ad Litem of Rosa Hill, a Mentally Incompetent Person, Respondent, v. Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of plaintiff, entered June 29, 1962, in New York County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term.

Judgment affirmed.

Steueb, J.

(dissenting). I do not believe the plaintiff proved a cause of action. The accident resulted from the contact of one of defendant’s buses with the plaintiff as she was crossing- Lexington Avenue at 112th Street. Plaintiff was unable to testify at the trial and there were no eyewitnesses, plaintiff had perforce to rely on the testimony of the bus driver. While the jury would be justified in drawing unfavorable inferences from his testimony, they could not base a verdict on anything except the facts he testified to. So it appears without contradiction that, prior to the accident, plaintiff had stopped in the roadway, though on the crosswalk a foot or two nearer the center of the street than the row of ears parked along the curb. At a time when the bus was about 10 feet from the corner and when the traffic lights were red against her, she *599elected to cross the *street. The bus*driver swerved his vehicle to the left and the front of the vehicle passed plaintiff, but contact with the side towards the rear resulted, either from its hitting her or her walking into it. At the time of contact she was at or about the center line of the roadway. The bus was proceeding within the speed limit. These circumstances do not show negligence. The claim that the driver on seeing the plaintiff standing out from the curb should have anticipated that she might at any time have proceeded into the street and hence into the path of his bus, and have slowed down, assumes a rule of conduct utterly at variance with street conditions and, if followed in practice, would undoubtedly so disrupt traffic that the streets would become well nigh unusable for vehicles. It is impossible to move about in this city without recognizing that a great number, if not the majority, of pedestrians wait for a change in the traffic lights not on the sidewalk but in the roadway, at about the point where cars are parked, just as this plaintiff did. If a driver would be obliged to stop or slow down to the extent that he could stop in time, his progress would be so affected at practically every corner he approached that vehicular traffic would be impeded to an intolerable extent. Common experience shows no driver does this. Unless we wish to announce one rule for liability and another, quite different, rule for practical use, the theory of liability in this ease cannot stand.

The complaint should have been dismissed.

McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ., concur in decision; Stener, J., dissents in opinion in which Rabin, J. P., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.
### SUBCHAPTER III—RENT, INSTALLMENT CONTRACTS, MORTGAGES, LIENS, ASSIGNMENT, LEASES, COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE CONTRACTS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 115–407, title III, §304(b)(2)(A), Dec. 31, 2018, 132 Stat. 5375, substituted "RENT, INSTALLMENT CONTRACTS, MORTGAGES, LIENS, ASSIGNMENT, LEASES, COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE CONTRACTS" for "RENT, INSTALLMENT CONTRACTS, MORTGAGES, LIENS, ASSIGNMENT, LEASES, TELEPHONE SERVICE CONTRACTS" in heading.

Pub. L. 111–275, title III, §302(b), Oct. 13, 2010, 124 Stat. 2876, inserted ", TELEPHONE SERVICE CONTRACTS" after "LEASES" in heading.
### **CHAPTER 301—GENERAL LIABILITY PROVISIONS**

Sec.
30101.
Extension of jurisdiction to cases of damage or injury on land.
30102.
Liability to passengers.
30103.
Liability of master, mate, engineer, and pilot.
30104.
Personal injury to or death of seamen.
30105.
Restriction on recovery by non-citizens and non-resident aliens for incidents in waters of other countries.
30106.
Time limit on bringing maritime action for personal injury or death.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior chapter 301, consisting of section 30101, provided definitions for purposes of this subtitle, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–304, §6(b), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1509.
Clean Power Plants/Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources and Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: EGUs Wash in gton, D.C
. July 29, 2014 Press Sign

- i n Sheet Affiliation Contact Information

### /~



# Nw.JS 1-\- o lAK > \.A..('.

**0~**



## c.



## . -f

## /~ Cle a n Power Plants/Carbon Pollution Emission Guideline s for Exist i ng Sta t ionary Source s and Standards fo
. r Modified a nd Reconstructed Stationary Sources: EGUs W ash i ngton , D.C
. July 29 , 2014 Press S i gn-in Sheet N a m e A ffi liation Contact Inform at i on

# ~ 

# W J"' "'**): 11):** **~** 

# -fpA )

# ~f**~**

### ~\G'v\..U- \

### \\ 

# A -/" C)v c;**t.Jiv\. ~** **\..~** 

# ( t1 \ / ? J S 

# t£c**~** 

## v 

# v Fc:J. y'J**~** (# A '-...___-J 

### !l fli/{ { U 

# (lv/,dr I _f 

# v**'€ ~**  

# h/1 R A 

# hLl ) • v 

# c T ! t (c

{_

# Juj 

# la ui3 Co D**_C~ f~{O-**  

# U7 I
. e_ {}tJ

### ~ ( \.....1/ 

# llf\**a~** 

# lfv 

# ! l vr J**l!l oorM** **tr r**  

# 1?NA v v

# ,~4V\**~Me_<** £f\v**~(D"\t"'V\+** 

### f\M Q r:c..cq 

## I I

# . . 

# 7
Clean Power Plants/Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources and Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: EGUs Washington, D.C. July 29, 2014 ress Sign-in Sheet Name Affiliation Contact Information



# J

**~ ~**  .s \ C..li\ 

# s

**6V'~~,.,.cl ~**  

# A v-r

**LoG ~** 



# Al **YNdre** 

# A \LOO L 

# Tk

**.l** v

**~**



### -



# ~ \f\



# ~) 

# "-- v 

# P o

\{}leo 

# )
. ti 0toJIL6-



# JJJI~frr.y 

# Er , ' c

**Qi ff**  

# e 5 /V L



# ~, -v 

# /1.: /vPJ>) 

# f

**t# v~**  - 

# Sli({ 

# /v-

**{i~** 

### I 

## l
EXHIBIT
31.2





Certification
of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Joseph W.
Baty, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed
this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Schiff Nutrition International,
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 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 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.








Date: April
      3, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Joseph W.
      BatyJoseph W.
      BatyChief
      Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of John S. Stillman et al., Individually as Electors and Taxpayers and on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, against Lester J. Roosa et al., Constituting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 101 of the County Law and section 330 of the Election Law, for an order declaring sufficient, valid, proper and legally effective, a petition filed with the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange which requested the taking of a referendum vote of qualified electors upon a certain Local Law of said county, increasing the compensation of certain county officers, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated February 1, 1960 and entered in Orange County, February 2, 1960, dismissing the petition upon the, merits. Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and application granted, without costs, to the extent that the petition for a referendum filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange on December 30, 1959, be declared valid, proper and legally effective, and that the said Board of Supervisors be directed to proceed with its statutory duty under the County Law to adopt a resolution causing Local Law No. 1 of 1959 to be submitted to a referendum vote at a special or general election. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. The petition for a referendum stated that a referendum vote was requested on said Local Law and described the same by its number and date of adoption. It also contained an abstract of the text of said Local Law which, in our *780opinion, was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute (County Law, § 101, subd. 2). Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ, concur.
### §92. Lists furnished with deposits

At the time of making such deposit the officer designated by the Secretary of the Interior shall furnish a list showing the date when the money was paid to him or to his predecessor; the names and residences of the parties; the purposes of the payments and the amounts thereof, which list shall bear the certificate of the officer that the same is correct; that the amounts are due and payable; that diligence has been exercised to return the same, and that the sums specified have remained unclaimed for a period of five years or more.

(Mar. 2, 1907, ch. 2562, §2, 34 Stat. 1245; Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 114, §1, 42 Stat. 208; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1145; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This section, as originally enacted, related to receivers of public moneys for land districts. The office of receiver was consolidated with that of register by acts Mar. 3, 1925, and Oct. 28, 1921, under which the office of receiver was abolished. See, also, Transfer of Functions note below.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.

Words "officer designated by the Secretary of the Interior" and "officer" substituted for "register" on authority of section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946. See note set out under section 1 of this title.