alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 585.532 What happens if my surety wants to terminate the period of liability of my financial assurance? ( a ) Terminating the period of liability of your financial assurance ends the period during which surety liability continues to accrue. The surety continues to be responsible for obligations and liabilities that accrued during the period of liability and before the date on which BOEM terminates the period of liability under paragraph (b) of this section. The liabilities that accrue during a period of liability include: ( 1 ) Obligations that started to accrue before the beginning of the period of liability and have not been met; and
( 2 ) Obligations that began accruing during the period of liability.
( b ) Your surety must submit to BOEM its request to terminate the period of liability under its financial assurance and notify you of that request no less than 90 days before the proposed termination date. If you intend to continue activities on your lease or grant, you must provide replacement financial assurance of equivalent or greater value. BOEM will terminate that period of liability within 90 days after BOEM receives the request.
### **CHAPTER 51—TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL**

Sec.
5101.
Purpose.
5102.
Definitions.
5103.
General regulatory authority.
5103a.
Limitation on issuance of hazmat licenses.
5104.
Representation and tampering.
5105.
Transporting certain highly radioactive material.
5106.
Handling criteria.
5107.
Hazmat employee training requirements and grants.
5108.
Registration.
5109.
Motor carrier safety permits.
5110.
Shipping papers and disclosure.
[5111.
Repealed.]
5112.
Highway routing of hazardous material.
5113.
Unsatisfactory safety rating.
5114.
Air transportation of ionizing radiation material.
5115.
Training curriculum for the public sector.
5116.
Planning and training grants, monitoring, and review.
5117.
Special permits and exclusions.
5118.
Hazardous material technical assessment, research and development, and analysis program.
5119.
Uniform forms and procedures.
5120.
International uniformity of standards and requirements.
5121.
Administrative.
5122.
Enforcement.
5123.
Civil penalty.
5124.
Criminal penalty.
5125.
Preemption.
5126.
Relationship to other laws.
5127.
Judicial review.
5128.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2012**—Pub. L. 112–141, div. C, title III, §33007(b), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 836, added item 5118.

**2005**—Pub. L. 109–59, title VII, §§7111, 7115(a)(2), (h), 7123(c), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1899, 1901, 1908, struck out item 5111 "Rail tank cars", substituted "Special permits and exclusions" for "Exemptions and exclusions" in item 5117, struck out item 5118 "Inspectors", added items 5127 and 5128, and struck out former item 5127 "Authorization of appropriations".

**2001**—Pub. L. 107–56, title X, §1012(a)(2), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 397, added item 5103a.
### §3734. Limitation on availability of funds for Cooperative Threat Reduction activities with Russian Federation

#### (a) Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the United States should carry out activities under the Program in the Russian Federation only if those activities are consistent with and in support of the security interests of the United States; and

(2) in carrying out any such activities after December 19, 2014, the Secretary of Defense should focus on only those activities that—

(A) are in support of the arms control obligations of the United States and the Russian Federation; or

(B) will reduce the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction and related materials and technology to the United States and countries in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian regions.

#### (b) Completion of Cooperative Threat Reduction activities in Russian Federation

Cooperative Threat Reduction funds made available for a fiscal year after fiscal year 2015 may not be obligated or expended for activities in the Russian Federation unless such activities in Russia are specifically authorized by law.

(Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1334, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3603.)
§ 6.30 MSHA listing of equivalent non-MSHA product safety standards. MSHA evaluated the following non-MSHA product safety standards and determined that they provide at least the same degree of protection as current MSHA requirements with or without modifications as indicated: ( a ) The International Electrotechnical Commission's (IEC) standards for Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Part 0, General Requirements (IEC 60079-0, Fourth Edition, 2004-01) and Part 1, Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Flameproof Enclosures “d” (IEC 60079-1, Fifth Edition, 2003-11) must be modified in order to provide at least the same degree of protection as MSHA explosion-proof enclosure requirements included in parts 7 and 18 of this chapter. Refer to §§ 7.10(c)(1) and 18.6(a)(3)(i) for a list of the required modifications. The IEC standards may be inspected at the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Electrical Safety Division, Approval and Certification Center, 765 Technology Drive, Triadelphia, WV 26059, and may be purchased from International Electrical Commission, Central Office 3, rue de Varembé, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 GENEVA 20, Switzerland.
( b ) [Reserved]
[71 FR 28583, May 17, 2006, as amended at 73 FR 52210, Sept. 9, 2008]
#### § 56.20009 Tests for explosive dusts.

Dusts suspected of being explosive shall be tested for explosibility. If tests prove positive, appropriate control measures shall be taken.
#### § 35.4 Types of hydraulic fluid for which certificates of approval may be granted.

Certificates of approval will be granted for completely compounded or mixed fluids and not for individual ingredients; except that when a concentrate is submitted for testing, complete instructions for mixing with water or other vehicle shall be furnished to MSHA, together with the vehicle other than water, and the approval will cover only the specific mixture that constitutes the hydraulic fluid for use in coal mines.
#### David Peterman, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Ignatius A. Monforte, et al., Respondents, v. Ignatius A. Monforte et al., Appellants.

Motion by respondents to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellants perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the April Term, beginning March 27, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellants’ brief must be served and filed on or before March 1, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM VERITAS DGC
INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                             280
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  165,448
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,412
<INVENTORY>                                      3,967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               253,462
<PP&E>                                         354,656
<DEPRECIATION>                                 183,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 559,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,045
<BONDS>                                        135,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           214
<OTHER-SE>                                     309,467
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   559,881
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               248,451
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  173,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,084
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,939
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,058
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,058
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.83
        

</TABLE>
### §1203. Research and development

#### (a) In general

The Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Science and Technology, in consultation with the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, shall establish a research, development, testing, and evaluation program based on the recommendations of the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee, established pursuant to section 1202(a) of this title, to support the development of technologies to increase the number of commercial mobile service devices that can receive emergency alerts.

#### (b) Functions

The program established under subsection (a) shall—

(1) fund research, development, testing, and evaluation at academic institutions, private sector entities, government laboratories, and other appropriate entities; and

(2) ensure that the program addresses, at a minimum—

(A) developing innovative technologies that will transmit geographically targeted emergency alerts to the public; and

(B) research on understanding and improving public response to warnings.

(Pub. L. 109–347, title VI, §604, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1940.)
#### AMERICAN TACK CO., Inc., et al. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

No. 177, Docket 22884.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 11, 1954.

Decided March 24, 1954.

Maurice Gellar, New York City (Ros-enbaum & Gellar, New York City, on the brief), for petitioners.

Alan B. Hobbes, Sp. Atty., Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C. (Earl W. Kintner, Gen. Counsel, and Robert B. Dawkins, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.

Before CLARK, MEDINA, and HARLAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The cease and desist order which requires the disclosure of the country of origin (Germany) not only as to the products complained of, “Solid Head Nickel Plated Thumbtacks,” but also as to “other similar products,” is of usual nature, consistently upheld by the courts. Consumer Sales Corp. v. F. T. C., 2 Cir., 198 F.2d 404, 408, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 912, 73 S.Ct. 335, 97 L.Ed. 703; Hershey Chocolate Corp. v. F. T. C., 3 Cir., 121 F.2d 968, 971-972; Haskelite Mfg. Corp. v. F. T. C., 7 Cir., 127 F.2d 765, 766; P. Lorillard Co. v. F. T. C., 4 Cir., 186 F.2d 52, 58-59; Hill v. F. T. C., 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 104, 106; Eugene Dietzgen Co. v. F. T. C., 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 321, 329, certiorari denied 323 U.S. 730, 65 S.Ct. 66, 89 L.Ed. 586.

Order affirmed and enforcement granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with Quarterly Report of Comtech Group, Inc. and its
subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Jeffrey Kang, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company 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 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                         |  |        |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2006 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Jeffrey Kang       
|                         |  | Name:  |  | Jeffrey Kang           
|                         |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DANYELLE CHANTE JONES, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-426

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 26, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; J. Frank Porter, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and SALARIO, 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 Quarterly Report of Ultra Petroleum Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael D. Watford, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, to the best of my knowledge,
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 results of operations of the
Company. Date: October 26, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Michael D. WatfordMichael D. WatfordChairman, Chief Executive Officer
and President This certification is being furnished solely for purposes of compliance with
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or
otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section. Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference, except as
otherwise expressly stated in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Ultra Petroleum Corp. and will be retained by Ultra Petroleum
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John A. Kovary, Respondent, v. American Woolen Company et al., Respondents, and Special Fund for Reopened Cases, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under section 25-a from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Appellant has limited this appeal, taken upon an abbreviated record, “ to the issue of whether or not the claimant’s refusal to undergo surgery for his right hernia is unreasonable”, and we consider no-other question. The three physicians to testify advised the operation. It appeared, however, that claimant’s hernia was operated upon in 1949, recurred in 1950, was operated upon in that year and recurred in 1951. The operating surgeon said that the second recurrence was “because of intrinsic weakness in local tissues at operative site”. Claimant said he would submit to an operation if “ they will guarantee it will not return * * * I’ve had too many doctors tell me it’s impossible for me to have a successful hernia operation.” Of course, neither the request for a *“*guarantee ” nor hearsay evidence of medical advice satisfies the legal requirements in cases such as this, but other evidence in -the record supports the board’s decision. The attending surgeon said, “Ton can’t make any promise as to the tissues holding, it would be a case of the tissues holding ”. Another physician said, “ If he was past 60, I would tell him to wear a truss for the rest of his life and be happy ”, and it may not be said that the difference of less than two years between that and claimant’s actual age rendered claimant’s doubt unreasonable. This same physician, referring to the condition, said *“*the chances are it could be cured in the proper hands ”; and another limited his advice to an operation by a surgeon “ especially qualified in the repair of recurrent herniae ”, the manner of claimant’s selection of such not being made entirely clear. This is not, as in the decisions cited by appellant, the case of an operation or diagnostic procedure advised for the first time and declined merely because of unwarranted fear of an operation *(Palloni*v. *Brooklyn-Manhattan Tr. Corp.,*215 App. Div. 634; *Matter of Tillow*v. *Daystrom Corp.,*273 App. Div. 1045; *Matter of Peasley*v. *Wendling Iron Works, 277*App. Div. 821, 277 App. Div. 622). In *Matter of Long*v. *Lotmar*(277 App. Div. 822), claimant’s refusal of surgery was based “ on the failure of the previous surgical procedures, and the previous medical opinion that nonsurgieal treatment should be followed” and, in affirming the board’s finding that such refusal was not unreasonable, this court held: “ In such a debatable field, it could not possibly be said as a matter of law that the decision of the board, in its turn, is also unreasonable.” Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 16, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 02-30960

_______________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff-Counter DefendantAppellee-Cross-Appellant,

VERSUS

K&B LOUISIANA CORPORATION,

DOING BUSINESS AS RITE AID CORPORATION,

Defendant-Counter ClaimantAppellant-Cross-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

m 00–CV–2238

_________________________

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The EEOC sued, alleging that K&BLouisiana Corporation engaged in unlawful discrimination for failing to rehire JohnnyWilliams on

the basis of her sex. After a bench trial, the

court ruled that K&B had engaged in an unlawfulemployment practice, refused injunctive

relief, and ordered each side to bear its own

costs and attorney’s fees. K&B appeals on

various grounds, including its assertion that

there was no direct evidence of discrimination;

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2

K&B also seeks fees and costs. The EEOC

cross-appeals the decision not to award

injunctive relief.

We have read the briefs and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the

arguments of counsel, and have consulted the

applicable caselaw. We find no reversible

error. There was certainly direct evidence of

sex-based discrimination, including an

admission byK&B’smanagerthat he preferred

to hire men for a particular post.

Consequently, the EEOC did not have to

prove that Williams was qualified. The district

court was wellwithin its discretion in declining

injunctive relief. The court’s refusal to shift

costs or attorneys fees is a fair resolution of

this matter, which badly needs to be put to

rest.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.
§ 7.8 Post-approval product audit. ( a ) Approved products shall be subject to periodic audits by MSHA for the purpose of determining conformity with the technical requirements upon which the approval was based. Any approved product which is to be audited shall be selected by MSHA and be representative of those distributed for use in mines. The approval-holder may obtain any final report resulting from such audit.
( b ) No more than once a year except for cause, the approval-holder, at MSHA's request, shall make an approved product available at no cost to MSHA for an audit to be conducted at a mutually agreeable site and time. The approval-holder may observe any tests conducted during this audit.
( c ) An approved product shall be subject to audit for cause at any time MSHA believes that it is not in compliance with the technical requirements upon which the approval was based.
#### FROUNFELKER, Respondent, v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Action by Sarah A. Frounfelker against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company. H. Odell, for appellant. V. P. Donihee, for respondent.

No opinion. Reargument ordered. See 77 N. Y. Supp. 470.
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 Quarterly Report of Dionics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.





|Dated:  November 11, 2008 | By:   /s/ Bernard Kravitz            
|------------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                          | Bernard Kravitz,                     
|                          | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                          | (Principal Executive Officer)        
|                          |                                      
|                          |                                      
|Dated: November 11, 2008  | By:    /s/ Bernard Kravitz           
|                          | Bernard Kravitz,                     
|                          | Principal Financial Officer          

















1