alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 77.701-2 Approved methods of grounding metallic frames, casings, and other enclosures of electric equipment receiving power from a direct-current power system. ( a ) The following methods of grounding metallic frames, casings, and other enclosures of electric equipment receiving power from a direct-current power system with one polarity grounded will be approved: ( 1 ) A solid connection to the grounded power conductor of the system; and,
( 2 ) Any other method, approved by an authorized representative of the Secretary, which insures that there is no difference in potential between such metal enclosures and the earth.
( b ) A method of grounding of metallic frames, casings, and other enclosures of electric equipment receiving power from a direct-current power system other than a system with one polarity grounded, will be approved by an authorized representative of the Secretary if the method insures that there is no difference in potential between such frames, casings, and other enclosures, and the earth.
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  North  American  Gaming   and
Entertainment  Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2006  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I E. H. Hawes II, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of  the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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

/s/ E. H. HAWES, II,
-----------------------
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

November 20, 2006
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.

§ 75.363 Hazardous conditions and violations of mandatory health or safety standards; posting, correcting, and recording. ( a ) Any hazardous condition found by the mine foreman or equivalent mine official, assistant mine foreman or equivalent mine official, or other certified persons designated by the operator for the purposes of conducting examinations under this subpart D, shall be posted with a conspicuous danger sign where anyone entering the areas would pass. A hazardous condition shall be corrected immediately or the area shall remain posted until the hazardous condition is corrected. If the condition creates an imminent danger, everyone except those persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Act shall be withdrawn from the area affected to a safe area until the hazardous condition is corrected. Only persons designated by the operator to correct or evaluate the hazardous condition may enter the posted area. Any violation of a mandatory health or safety standard found during a preshift, supplemental, on-shift, or weekly examination shall be corrected.
( b ) A record shall be made of any hazardous condition and any violation of the nine mandatory health or safety standards found by the mine examiner. This record shall be kept in a book maintained for this purpose on the surface at the mine. The record shall be made by the completion of the shift on which the hazardous condition or violation of the nine mandatory health or safety standards is found and shall include the nature and location of the hazardous condition or violation and the corrective action taken. This record shall not be required for shifts when no hazardous conditions or violations of the nine mandatory health or safety standards are found.
( c ) The record shall be made by the certified person who conducted the examination or a person designated by the operator. If made by a person other than the certified person, the certified person shall verify the record by initials and date by or at the end of the shift for which the examination was made. Records shall be countersigned by the mine foreman or equivalent mine official by the end of the mine foreman's or equivalent mine official's next regularly scheduled working shift. The record shall be made in a secure book that is not susceptible to alteration or electronically in a computer system so as to be secure and not susceptible to alteration.
( d ) *Retention period.* Records shall be retained at a surface location at the mine for at least 1 year and shall be made available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representative of miners.
( e ) *Review of citations and orders.* The mine operator shall review with mine examiners on a quarterly basis citations and orders issued in areas where preshift, supplemental, on-shift, and weekly examinations are required.
[61 FR 9829, Mar. 11, 1996; 61 FR 26442, May 28, 1996; 77 FR 20715, Apr. 6, 2012]
###### 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.

#### § 75.501 Permissible electric face equipment; coal seams above water table.

[Statutory Provision]

On and after March 30, 1974, all electric face equipment, other than equipment referred to in paragraph (b) of § 75.500, which is taken into and used inby the last open crosscut of any coal mine which is operated entirely in coal seams located above the water table and which has not been classified under any provision of law as a gassy mine prior to March 30, 1970, and in which one or more openings were made prior to December 30, 1969, shall be permissible.
###### Editorial Note on Part 777

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54947, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 777 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93326-93327, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 777.17 Permit fees.

An application for a surface coal mining and reclamation permit shall be accompanied by a fee determined by the regulatory authority. The fee may be less than, but shall not exceed, the actual or anticipated cost of reviewing, administering, and enforcing the permit. The regulatory authority may develop procedures to allow the fee to be paid over the term of the permit.
### §3510a. Availability of appropriations for construction projects

During the current fiscal year and thereafter, funds appropriated for construction projects of the Central Intelligence Agency, which are transferred to another Agency for execution, shall remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 103–139, title VIII, §8104, Nov. 11, 1993, 107 Stat. 1463.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified as a note under section 403j of this title prior to editorial reclassification as this section.

Section was enacted as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994, and not as part of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 102–396, title IX, §9030, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1907.

Pub. L. 102–172, title VIII, §8030, Nov. 26, 1991, 105 Stat. 1177.

Pub. L. 101–511, title VIII, §8031, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1881.

Pub. L. 101–165, title IX, §9042, Nov. 21, 1989, 103 Stat. 1137.

Pub. L. 100–463, title VIII, §8074, Oct. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2270–29.

Pub. L. 100–202, §101(b) [title VIII, §8095], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–43, 1329–79.

Pub. L. 99–500, §101(c) [title IX, §9130], Oct. 18, 1986, 100 Stat. 1783–82, 1783–128; Pub. L. 99–591, §101(c) [title IX, §9130], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341–82, 3341–128.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Seymour Grasberg.

Enlargement of time granted. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally and Bergan, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Ikhana Unmanned Aircraft System[electronic resource] : Western States fire missions**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:NAS 1.21:2009-4544
Item Number:0830-I (online)
CGP systemNumber:000804523
 
August 27, 2019
### §21144. Other criminal penalties

#### (a) Conspiracy to deprive voters of a fair election

Any individual who knowingly and willfully gives false information in registering or voting in violation of section 10307(c) of this title, or conspires with another to violate such section, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, in accordance with such section.

#### (b) False information in registering and voting

Any individual who knowingly commits fraud or knowingly makes a false statement with respect to the naturalization, citizenry, or alien registry of such individual in violation of section 1015 of title 18 shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, in accordance with such section.

(Pub. L. 107–252, title IX, §905, Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1729.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 15544 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 76 ) ll-K - (B ) -6 4 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:50 AM Sheet 76 of 325P. 2 

# /A \ 

# ( 8
II-K-(B)-6 4
EIGHT H ROUNDIFCA

M RESULT S COMPARE DT O A "1. 2 LB . S0 2 " SCENARIO . Lette r fro

m T . Hogan , EEA

t o R . Short , EPArSASD . Februar y 17 , 1981 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUNDI

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-6 4
AFS-16-2547-E 

December 23, 2015 

 Exemption No. 9576D 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-29162 

Mr. Andrew Lotter 

Senior Vice President of Flight Operations 

Ameriflight, LLC 

1515 West 20th Street 

P.O. Box 612763 

Dallas, TX 75261 

Dear Mr. Lotter: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9576, 

as amended. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and 

limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated November 23, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Ameriflight, LLC (Ameriflight) for an extension of Exemption No. 9576, 

as amended. That exemption from §§ 91.411(b) and 91.413(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows Ameriflight to perform air traffic control transponder tests and 

inspections, altimeter system and altimeter reporting equipment tests, and inspections for its 

part 135 aircraft maintained under an approved aircraft inspection program based on 

Ameriflight’s continuous aircraft maintenance program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Ameriflight. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9576, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the 

FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant Ameriflight LLC (Ameriflight) an exemption 

from 14 CFR §§ 91.411(b) and 91.413(c) to allow Ameriflight to perform air traffic control 

transponder tests and inspections, altimeter system and altimeter reporting equipment tests, 

and inspections for its part 135 aircraft maintained under an approved aircraft inspection 

program based on Ameriflight’s continuous aircraft maintenance program (CAMP), subject to 

the following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. All ATC transponder tests and inspections and all altimeter reporting equipment tests 

and inspections must be conducted under Ameriflight’s part 135 CAMP. 

2. All tests and inspections must be recorded in the aircraft’s maintenance log by the 

person performing each inspection and test. This record must identify the person 

performing the inspection, the date of the inspection, and this exemption number. 

3. All records of these tests and inspections also must be kept in Ameriflight’s 

maintenance recording system for its part 135 aircraft. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

This exemption terminates on December 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

//s// 

John Barbagallo 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
# C_2023115EN.01000401.xml

| 30.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/4

---

Special report 08/2023

‘Intermodal freight transport – EU still far from getting freight off the road’

(2023/C 115/04)

The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 08/2023: ‘Intermodal freight transport – EU still far from getting freight off the road’.

The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=63659

---
#### ABERNETHY et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 11977.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 17, 1954.

Decided April 1, 1954.

Mr. J. Barrett Carter, Washington, D. C. , for petitioners.

Mr. Robert B. Ross, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Florida, *pro hac vice,*by special leave of Court, with whom Messrs. Ellis N. Slack and Robert N. Anderson, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for respondent. Messrs. Lee A. Jackson and George F. Lynch, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, Department of Justice, and Mr. Christopher A. Ray, Washington, D. C., Special Attorney, Internal Revenue Service, entered appearances for respondent.

Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court of the United States, which sustained a proposed deficiency in income taxes for 1949 sought to be imposed upon $2,400 paid by Calvary Baptist Church to its retired pastor “as a token of its gratitude and appreciation,” as it was phrased in the first resolution on the subject, adopted in 1941, or “in appreciation of his long and faithful services”, as it was phrased in the later resolution of 1944.

The order of the Tax Court is reversed upon authority of Bogardus v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,1 Schall v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,2 Mutch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,3 and Hershman v. Kavanagh.4

Reversed.

1

. 1937, 302 U.S. 34, 58 S.Ct. 61, 82 L.Ed. 32.

2

. 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 893.

3

. 3 Cir., 1954, 209 F.2d 390.

4

. D.C.E.D.Mich., 120 F.Supp. 956, June 29, 1953, affirmed per curiam, 6 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 654.
§ 735.10 Information collection. ( a ) The information collection and retention requirements in 30 CFR 735.13 (a) and (b), 735.16(e), 735.18, 735.26 and 735.27 were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3507 and assigned clearance numbers for §§ 735.13 (a) and (b); SF 424, 1029-0016; OSM 50-A, 1029-0079; OSM 50-B, 1029-0078; OSM-47, 1029-0064; OSM-48, 1029-0070; OSM-51, 1029-0072; OSM-51A, 1029-0074; OSM-51B, 1029-0075; OSM-51C, 1029-0069; for Sections 735.16(e) and 735.18; SF 269, 1029-0017; OSM-51, 1029-0072; SF 271, 1029-0073; OSM-51A, 1029-0074; OSM-51B, 1029-0075; OSM-51C, 1029-0069; OSM-60, 1029-0076; OSM-62, 1029-0077; and OSM-63, 1029-0068; for section 735.26; and section 735.27 which was included in the above clearance numbers.
( b ) The information required by 30 CFR part 735 will be used by OSM's Headquarters and State offices in administering, evaluating and auditing its State reimbursement grants for program development and administration and enforcement to insure that the requirements of OMB Circular A-102 and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act are met. The information required by 30 CFR part 735 is mandatory.
[47 FR 38491, Aug. 31, 1982]
### §70710. Reporting requirements and termination

(a) Interim Reports.—A Commission may submit to the President and Congress interim reports containing such findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective actions as have been agreed to by a majority of Commission members.

(b) Final Report.—A Commission shall submit to the President and Congress, and make concurrently available to the public, a final report containing such findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective actions as have been agreed to by a majority of Commission members. Such report shall include any minority views or opinions not reflected in the majority report.

(c) Termination.—

(1) In general.—A Commission, and all the authorities of this chapter with respect to that Commission, shall terminate 60 days after the date on which the final report is submitted under subsection (b).

(2) Administrative activities before termination.—A Commission may use the 60-day period referred to in paragraph (1) for the purpose of concluding its activities, including providing testimony to committees of Congress concerning its reports and disseminating the final report.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3436.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 70710 | 42 U.S.C. 16850. | Pub. L. 109–155, title VIII, §830, Dec. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2944. |

Section
§ 886.14 How long will my grant be? ( a ) We approve a grant period on the basis of the information contained in the grant application showing that projects to be funded will fulfill the objectives of SMCRA and the approved reclamation plan.
( b ) The grant period is normally for 3 years.
( c ) We may extend the grant period at your request. We normally approve one extension for up to one additional year.
( d ) The grant period for funding your administrative costs does not normally exceed the first year of the grant.
( e ) We award grants containing State or Tribal share funds distributed to you in Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, or 2010 for a budget period of five or three years at your request.
### §20905. Administration of programs

In administering the programs under this subchapter, the Administrator shall take such actions as the Administrator considers appropriate to expedite the payment of funds to States.

(Pub. L. 107–252, title I, §105, Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1673.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 15305 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6677

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KUNTA KENTA REDD , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 7:08

- cr
- 00043

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kunta Kenta Redd , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Kunta Kenta Redd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. We dismiss the appeal. In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) ; see United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 235 n.* (4th Cir. 2010) (“[Section] 3582 motions

. . . are criminal in nature.”)

. With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The distric t court entered its order denying Redd’s § 3582(c)(2) motion on August 8, 2014. Redd’s notice of appeal was filed on April 26, 2019. * Redd’s appeal notice is thus untimely, and he has not obtained an extension of the appeal period. Further, although t he appeal period in a criminal case is not a jurisdictional provision, but, rather, a claim

- processing rule, Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 209

- 1 3 (2007); United States v. Urutyan , 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009) , we conclude that,
because an interveni ng judgment already has relied on the district court’s denial order, extraordinary circumstances meriting sua sponte dismissal of the appeal are present.
See United States v. Oliver , 878 F.3d 120, 1 22, 1 29 (4th Cir. 2017).

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (1988).3 We therefore dismiss the appea l. We deny Redd’s motion s to suspend counsel’s bar license and for partial transcripts of the proceedings of his co

- defendants and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this co urt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 1, 2014

NO. 03-13-00170-CR

Devin Blake Espinoza, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 421ST DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment entered by the district court. Having reviewed the record 

and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the district

court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s judgment. Because appellant 

is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JULMAL LEWIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 17 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of May, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.