alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1402-1 Communication between shaft stations and hoist room.

One of the methods used to communicate between shaft stations and the hoist room shall give signals which can be heard by the hoisting engineer at all times while men are underground.
#### BROOKER v. BROOKER.

No. 11969.

United States Court of Appeals, District *of*Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 10,1954.

Decided April 1, 1954.

Mr. John H. Wilson, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Joseph C. Waddy, Washington, D. C. , Mr. William C. Gardner, Washington, *D.*C., *on*the brief, for appellee.

Before CLARK, WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In 1952 Mrs. Brooker sued for a limited divorce, alleging cruelty. She prayed, inter alia, for a fair and reasonable allowance for her maintenance. The District Court found that she had not sustained her burden of proof, and denied the divorce. It did, however, award her “alimony,” though it made no findings on the subject.

No appeal was taken from that judgment. We now have before us an appeal from an order of the District Court denying the husband’s motion — made many months later — to discontinue alimony. The motion was not based on any allegation of changed circumstances, but solely on the alleged invalidity of the earlier judgment. Appellant husband argued in the District Court, and argues here, that the earlier judgment was void, in that (1) the court had no authority to grant alimony to a wife who failed to obtain a divorce, and (2) the judgment was inconsistent with the findings of fact.

*649These arguments are untenable. Although the District Court used the term “alimony,” maintenance was clearly intended. And that court has power, upon a proper showing, to grant maintenance to a wife even though there is no ground for divorce. D.C.Code, Tit. 16, § 415 (1951); Gill v. Gill, 1945, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 357, 147 F.2d 154; Parrella v. Parrella, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 161, 120 F.2d 728; Shaw v. Shaw, 1894, 2 App.D.C. 204; Tolman v. Tolman, 1893, 1 App.D.C. 299. To be sure there were no findings of fact in support of the maintenance award. But we must assume at this date, no appeal having been taken, that a proper showing on the point was made. Cf. Gill v. Gill, supra.

For these reasons, the order of the District Court must be

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2084
GEORGE GREGORY JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-114-R) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Gregory Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Roger Louis Williams, WILLIAMS, BUTLER & PIERCE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendant on his action alleging breach of an employment contract. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jackson v. Computer Professionals, Inc. , No. CA-96-114-R (E.D. Va. June 27, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### SUBCHAPTER II—CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM
No. 7974.

#### The State *v.*Bowers.

(Decided December 8, 1903.)

Exceptions to the Court of Common Pleas of Stark: county.

*Mr. J, M. Sheets,*attorney general, and *Mr. Robert H. Day,*prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. James Sterling,*for defendant in error.

Exceptions overruled. A fee of $50 allowed to' James Sterling, Esq., counsel, -to be paid from the-treasury of Stark county.

Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
IRA E. REYNOLDS, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NOS. 1D16-1455, 1D16-1456, and 

1D16-1457 (CONSOLIDATED)

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 3, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Kevin J. Carroll, Judge.

Candice K. Brower, Regional Counsel, and Michael J. Titus, Assistant Conflict 

Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            4188
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      123
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4435
<PP&E>                                           62955
<DEPRECIATION>                                   21300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   46090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1637
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       47360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     46090
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 10767
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4044
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4044
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    14.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    14.46
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Clifford Morehouse, Respondent, v. Town of Bolton et al., Appellants, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

In this second-injury case, appellants rely solely on the testimony of the employer’s foreman but this was merely that he knew that claimant “ had a back condition before ”; and, on cross-examination, he admitted that he did not “consider it” when hiring claimant. Thus, there is no proof that the employer hired claimant as a handicapped person or, indeed, that he could know or infer either the nature of the back condition or its permanency. *(Matter of Vance*v. *Ormsby,*6 A D 2d 960; *Matter of Weinberger*v. *Zeibert é Sons,*2 A D 2d 908.) Contrary to appellants’ contention, the decision was made and signed by a board panel, but as appellants were not furnished with a complete copy thereof prior to printing of the record we do not award costs. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### Priscilla Glassner, Individually and as Executrix of Sidney First, Deceased, and as Trustee for Helaine Hamerslough, Respondent, v. Emil Kaufman et al., Individually and as General Partners of Kaufman, First *&*Rosenkrantz, Appellants.

Order, entered on October 1, 1963, appointing a temporary receiver of partnership property, unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion for a receiver is denied. The appointment of a receiver of a going concern is a drastic remedy, and can properly be invoked only where there is a clear evidentiary showing of the necessity for the conservation of property and the protection of the interests of the litigant (S'. *Z. B. Corp.*v. *Ruth,*14 A D 2d 678). In this action for the dissolution of a partnership and for an accounting, it is shown that plaintiff’s testator and defendants were partners for over 40 years before the death of plaintiff’s testator in 1962. The business the partnership conducted was that of commission selling agents in the ready-to-wear apparel field. Plaintiff’s papers, upon which the receivership was granted, fail to demonstrate any danger of the dissipation of the limited assets of this personal service business, or, in view of the nature of the business, that a receiver is necessary and would be able to continue the operation of the business so as to preserve plaintiff’s interest. Under all of the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the motion for a receivership. While we do not condone the failure of defendants to permit plaintiff to have access to the books and records of the partnership, it seems that plaintiff’s proper recourse for inability to obtain an examination of the books and records is not a destructive receivership but a vigorous prosecution of the action to an early trial. To that end, plaintiff may provide in the order to be settled hereon for an early trial of the action, dispensing with all pretrial procedures and for permission to file a statement of readiness and note of issue placing the cause on the calendar for trial. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 82493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27980]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting.

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Comprehensive and Rapid Response to 
NIAID Research Programs, Task Area B.
    Date: January 15, 2021.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G30, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ron Otten, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G30, Rockville, MD 
20852, 301-496-7650, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1938e8fcf8e9595848fa18f8889cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f3d202161203b3b2a210f21262761282039">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 15, 2020.
Tyeshia M. Roberson,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-27980 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 71.1 Scope.

This part 71 sets forth mandatory health standards for each surface coal mine and for the surface work areas of each underground coal mine subject to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended.
§ 580.50 When do I notify BOEM that geophysical data and information are available for submission, inspection, and selection? ( a ) You must notify the Regional Director in writing when you complete the initial processing and interpretation of any geophysical data and information. Initial processing is the stage of processing where the data and information become available for in-house interpretation by the permittee, or become available commercially to third parties via sale, trade, license agreement, or other means.
( b ) The Regional Director may ask whether you have further processed or interpreted any geophysical data and information. When asked, you must respond to us in writing within 30 days.
( c ) The Regional Director may request that the permittee or third party submit geophysical data and information before making a final selection for retention. Our representatives may inspect and select the data and information on your premises, or the Regional Director can request delivery of the data and information to the appropriate regional office for review.
( d ) You must submit the geophysical data and information within 30 days of receiving the request, unless the Regional Director extends the delivery time.
( e ) At any time before final selection, the Regional Director may review and return any or all geophysical data and information. We will notify you in writing of any data the RD decides to retain.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Hope Ni, Chief Financial 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: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Hope Ni            
|                      |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Hope Ni                
|                      |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
§ 585.528 May I use a third-party guaranty to meet the financial assurance requirement for lease or grant activities? ( a ) You may use a third-party guaranty to secure all or part of the obligations for which financial assurance was demanded by BOEM if the guarantor: ( 1 ) Meets the credit rating or proxy credit rating criterion set forth in § 585.527(a); and
( 2 ) Submits an agreement containing each of the provisions in paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) A third-party guarantor may limit its cumulative obligations to a fixed dollar amount as agreed to by BOEM at the time the third-party guaranty is provided.
( c ) If, during the life of your third-party guaranty, your guarantor no longer meets the criterion referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must: ( 1 ) Notify BOEM within 72 hours of so learning; and
( 2 ) Submit a surety bond or other financial assurance covering the obligations previously secured by the third-party guaranty.
( d ) Your guarantor must submit an agreement executed by the guarantor and all parties bound by the agreement. All parties are bound jointly and severally, and the guarantor must meet the legal and financial qualifications set forth in §§ 585.107 and 585.108. ( 1 ) When any party is a corporation, two corporate officers authorized to execute the guaranty agreement on behalf of the corporation must sign the agreement.
( 2 ) When any party is a partnership, joint venture, or syndicate, the guaranty agreement must bind each party who has a beneficial interest in your guarantor and provide that, upon BOEM demand under your guaranty, each party is jointly and severally liable for compliance with all terms and conditions of your lease(s) or grant(s) covered by the agreement.
( 3 ) When forfeiture of the guaranty is called for, the agreement must provide that your guarantor will either bring your lease(s) or grant(s) into compliance or provide, within 7 days, sufficient funds to permit BOEM to complete corrective action.
( 4 ) The guaranty agreement must contain a confession of judgment, providing that, if BOEM determines that you or your operator is in default, the guarantor must not challenge the determination and must remedy the default.
( 5 ) If your guarantor wants to terminate the period of liability, your guarantor must notify you and BOEM at least 90 days before the proposed termination date, obtain BOEM's approval for termination of all or a specified portion of the guarantee for liabilities arising after that date, and remain liable for all your work performed during the period the agreement is in effect.
( 6 ) Each guaranty submitted pursuant to this section is deemed to contain all the terms described in in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section, even if they are not actually in the agreement.
( e ) Before the termination of your guaranty, you must provide an acceptable replacement in the form of a bond or other security.
EXHIBIT 12.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Adar Azancot, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of RADA Electronic Industries
Ltd.;

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(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-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) [Reserved]

(c) 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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual
report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 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 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:  March 30, 2006
/s/ Adar Azancot *
------------------
Adar Azancot
Chief Executive Officer

     * The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at
the Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
### §2674. Protection of classified information during laboratory-to-laboratory exchanges

#### (a) Provision of training

The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that all Department of Energy employees and Department of Energy contractor employees participating in laboratory-to-laboratory cooperative exchange activities are fully trained in matters relating to the protection of classified information and to potential espionage and counterintelligence threats.

#### (b) Countering of espionage and intelligence-gathering abroad

(1) The Secretary shall establish a pool of Department employees and Department contractor employees who are specially trained to counter threats of espionage and intelligence-gathering by foreign nationals against Department employees and Department contractor employees who travel abroad for laboratory-to-laboratory exchange activities or other cooperative exchange activities on behalf of the Department.

(2) The Director of Intelligence and Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy may assign at least one employee from the pool established under paragraph (1) to accompany a group of Department employees or Department contractor employees who travel to any nation designated to be a sensitive country for laboratory-to-laboratory exchange activities or other cooperative exchange activities on behalf of the Department.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLV, §4524, formerly Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXI, §3145, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 935; renumbered Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLV, §4524, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(h)(14), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1775; amended Pub. L. 116–92, div. E, title LXVII, §6744(b), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2241.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 7383b of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 108–136.

#### Amendments

2019—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 116–92 inserted "Intelligence and" after "The Director of".