alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 71.500 Sanitary toilet facilities at surface work sites; installation requirements. ( a ) Each operator of a surface coal mine shall provide and install at least one sanitary toilet in a location convenient to each surface work site. A single sanitary toilet may serve two or more surface work sites in the same surface mine where the sanitary toilet is convenient to each such work site.
( b ) Where 10 or more miners use such toilet facilities, sufficient toilets shall be furnished to provide approximately one sanitary toilet for each 10 miners.
( c ) Sanitary toilets shall have an attached toilet seat with a hinged lid and a toilet paper holder together with an adequate supply of toilet tissue.
( d ) Only flush or nonflush chemical or biological toilets, combustion or incinerating toilets, sealed bag toilets, and vault toilets meet the requirements of this section. Privies are prohibited.
Note to paragraph ( d
):
Sanitary toilet facilities for surface work areas of underground mines are subject to the provisions of § 75.1712-3 of this chapter.)
[68 FR 37087, June 23, 2003]
#### Hedwig Todebush et al., Appellants, v. Fred Dill et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 25,1961, which denied their motion to reconsider their application for a preference under rule 4A of Nassau County Supreme Court Rules, which had been previously denied. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. On the basis of the medical proof submitted, the denial of a preference was not an abuse of discretion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 872.13 What moneys does OSM distribute each year? ( a ) Under Title IV of SMCRA, each Federal fiscal year we must distribute to you, the States and Indian tribes with approved reclamation plans, the moneys listed in this section. We distribute all Fund moneys and other moneys from the Treasury that have been designated for mandatory distribution. We provide information to you showing how we calculated your distribution. We distribute the following moneys: ( 1 ) State share funds to uncertified States as described in § 872.14;
( 2 ) Tribal share funds to uncertified Indian tribes as described in § 872.17;
( 3 ) Historic coal funds to uncertified States and Indian tribes as described in § 872.21;
( 4 ) Minimum program make up funds to eligible uncertified States and Indian tribes as described in § 872.26;
( 5 ) Prior balance replacement funds to certified and uncertified States and Indian tribes as described in § 872.29; and
( 6 ) Certified in lieu funds to certified States and Indian tribes as described in § 872.32.
( b ) We calculate annual fee collections for coal produced in the previous Federal fiscal year on a net cash basis. This means that we use collections that are paid for the current Federal fiscal year to adjust fees that were overpaid or underpaid in prior fiscal years.
( c ) We distribute any Congressionally-appropriated funds for grants to you out of the Federal expense funds when the appropriation becomes available.
( d ) You may apply for any or all distributed funds at any time after the distribution using the procedures in part 885 of this chapter for certified States and Indian tribes or part 886 for uncertified States and Indian tribes.
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.

§ 75.826 High-voltage trailing cables. High-voltage trailing cables must: ( a ) Meet existing trailing cable requirements and the approval requirements of the high-voltage continuous mining machine; and
( b ) Meet existing ground-check conductor requirements (§ 75.804) or have a stranded center ground-check conductor not smaller than a No. 16 A.W.G.
[75 FR 17549, Apr. 6, 2010]
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-10-0000013

31-DEC-2013

07:55 AM
### §100731. Findings and declaration

Congress finds and declares that—

(1) the level of technology of mineral exploration and development has changed radically, and continued application of the mining laws of the United States to System units to which the mining laws apply conflicts with the purposes for which the System units were established; and

(2) all mining operations in System units should be conducted so as to prevent or minimize damage to the environment and other resource values.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3109.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 100731 | 16 U.S.C. 1901. | Pub. L. 94–429, §1, Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1342. |

Section

In paragraph (1), the words "in recent years" are omitted as obsolete.

In paragraph (2), the words "in certain areas of the National Park System, surface disturbances from mineral development should be temporarily halted while Congress determines whether or not to acquire any valid mineral rights which may exist in such areas" are omitted as obsolete.
### §415a–8. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 415a–8, comprising section 506F of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3102 of this title.
§ 822.12 Protection of agricultural activities. ( a ) *Prohibitions.* Surface coal mining and reclamation operations shall not: ( 1 ) Interrupt, discontinue, or preclude farming on alluvial valley floors; or
( 2 ) cause material damage to the quantity or quality of water in surface or underground water systems that supply alluvial valley floors.
( b ) *Statutory exclusions.* The prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply— ( 1 ) Where the premining land use of an alluvial valley floor is undeveloped rangeland which is not significant to farming;
( 2 ) Where farming on the alluvial valley floor that would be affected by the surface coal mining operation is of such small acreage as to be of negligible impact on the farm's agricultural production;
( 3 ) To any surface coal mining and reclamation operation that, in the year preceding August 3, 1977— ( i ) Produced coal in commercial quantities and was located within or adjacent to an alluvial valley floor; or
( ii ) Obtained specific permit approval by the State regulatory authority to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations within an alluvial valley floor; or
( 4 ) To any land that is the subject of an application for renewal or revision of a permit issued pursuant to the Act which is an extension of the original permit, insofar as: ( i ) The land was previously identified in a reclamation plan submitted under either part 780 or 784 of this chapter, and
( ii ) the original permit area was excluded from the protection of paragraph (a) of this section for a reason set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
Exhibit 31.2 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Christopher W. Vieth, certify that: 

 

1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 of Dow Jones & Company, 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, inlight 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 financialcondition, 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 ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure 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 usby 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 endof 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 (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’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 adverselyaffect 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: November 3, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1022 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1022

 Expressing support for the designation of the month of March 2024 as 
                ``National March into Literacy Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 20, 2024

Mr. Allen submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for the designation of the month of March 2024 as 
                ``National March into Literacy Month''.

Whereas child literacy is essential for a child's success in the United States;
Whereas literacy must be addressed early to have the most significant impact;
Whereas elementary and secondary education environments of all varieties in the 
        United States should include an emphasis on literacy;
Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of these education 
        environments prepare children to achieve their dreams;
Whereas research shows individuals who can read at the high school level are 
        more likely to be hired in the workforce and less likely to be 
        incarcerated;
Whereas more public awareness of the issue of literacy in the United States is 
        needed;
Whereas the ability to read transforms lives and provides children with the 
        means to become productive members of society and to improve their 
        communities;
Whereas promoting not only child literacy but also adult literacy is of critical 
        importance; and
Whereas events are planned to celebrate literacy during the annual National 
        March into Literacy Month, held in the month of March 2024: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses support for the designation of ``National 
        March into Literacy Month'';
            (2) applauds students, parents, teachers, and school 
        leaders from elementary and secondary education environments of 
        all varieties for their persistence, achievements, dedication, 
        and contributions to society in the United States;
            (3) encourages all parents and schools, during March into 
        Literacy Month, to promote literacy; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States to hold 
        appropriate programs, events, and activities during National 
        March into Literacy Month to raise public awareness of reading 
        as an essential skill.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
              Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                    ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Annual Report of SEDONA Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Marco A. Emrich, President, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (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.



/s/Marco A. Emrich
-------------------------
Marco A. Emrich
President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer

April 15, 2003
Exhibit 32

 

**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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 of BNP U.S. Funding L.L.C. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Olivier Meisel, President and Director of the Company, and Thomas Clyne, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, each certify, 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 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|                    |  ****                                                                    |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                                                          |
|                    | By  /s/        Olivier Meisel  

Olivier MeiselPresident and Director    |
|                    |                                                                          |
|  

 

   | By /s/         Thomas Clyne

Thomas ClyneChief Financial Officer and Director |
| Date:   August 15, 2005 |                                                                          |

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
#### Hearn *vs.*Adamson.

It is the duty of a garnishee in a justice court to answer a summons of garnishment served upon him within ten days. This duty is imposed upon him by law, whether the summons specifies that he shall answer within that time or not.

Garnishment. Before Judge Buchanan. Carroll Superior Court. October Term, 1879.

Adamson was a judgment creditor of one Snow. On December 2nd, 1878, he sued out summons of garnishment, which was served on Hearn the same day. This summons called upon Hearn to answer at the December term of the justice court. At the bottom of the summons was a “ P. S.,” without date or signature, notifying the garnishee to answer in ten days. The December term was on December 14th. On that day Hearn answered “not indebted.” Plaintiff moved to take judgmenc against him by default, because he did not answer in ten days. The motion was granted. On appeal to a jury they found for the garnishee. Plaintiff sued out a writ of *certiorari.*On the hearing it was sustained, and the garnishee excepted.

Oscar Reese ; N. Shellnutt, by brief, for plaintiff in error,

cited Code §§4139, 4161, 3536, 4162; 15 *Ga.,*186; 50 *Ib.,*575; 55 *Ib.,*410; 53 *Ib.,*28; 60 *Ib.,*554.

Grow *&*Adamson, by H. C, Peeples, for defendant,

cited Code, §4161; 55 *Ga.,*410.

Warner, Chief Justice.

■ This case came before the court below on a *certiorari*from a justice court, on the hearing of which the court sustained the *certiorari,*and the defendant therein excepted.

It appears from thejrecord that the defendant in the *cer*
      *609
      *Uorari*had been served with a summons of garnishment in a justice court, but did not answer the same until after the expiration of ten days from the date of the service upon him, the summons not specifically requiring him to answer within ten days, though there was a postscript to the summons that he must answer in ten days, which was without date or signature.' On the appeal trial in the justice court the jury found a verdict in favor of the garnishee. The court sustained the *certiorari*on the ground that the verdict discharging the garnishee was contrary to law and the evidence.

There was no error in this ruling of the court. When the garnishee was served with the summons, the law made it his duty to answer it within ten days from the date of such service, and it was not necessary to state in the summons that he should answer within ten days. The mandate of the law was sufficient for that purpose, of which he was bound to take notice, and be governed by it. See Code, §4161.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Mr. Leonard Velsor 

Senior Attorney 

Global Trade and Compliance 

Eastman Chemical Company 

P.O. BOX 511 , Building 75 

Kingsport, TN 37662-5075 

JUL Z 4 2014 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

Re: Notice of Inadequacy of Chronic Daphnid Toxicity Test Data Required by HPV 3 Test Rule 

Dear Mr. V elsor: 

This letter is in reference to the aquatic toxicity test requirement for chronic toxicity to Daphnia 

for propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3-(benzoyloxy)-2,2,4-trimethylpentyl ester (CASRN 22527-63-5) 

specified in a test rule (Testing of Certain High Production Volume; Third Group of Chemicals; 

referred to herein as the HPV 3 test rule) issued under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) on October 21,201 1, (76 FR 65385). 

Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman) submitted data on June 20, 2013, pursuant to the test 

rule that included a "Benzoflex 1046: Chromosome Aberration Test in Human Lymphocytes In 

Vitro", a "Benzoflex 1046: Algal Growth Inhibition Test" and a "Benzoflex 1046: Daphnia 

magna Reproduction Test." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed 

its review of these tests and determined that the chronic toxicity to Daphnia study conducted for 

Benzoflex 1 046 is not considered adequate to satisfy the testing requirement for this endpoint. 

Details of the test deficiencies in this study are provided in the enclosed Data Adequacy Review. 

The noted deficiencies include the fact that the highest measured concentration of test material in 

a treatment was more than twice the lowest in the same treatment, rendering this study out of 

compliance with the required test procedures and criteria specified in the guideline (see: 

12.11.3 .3 "In each treatment, the highest of all the measured concentrations obtained during the 

test divided by the lowest must be less than two. ") (See also 14.1.11 regarding acceptability of 

test). 

The EPA has determined that the chronic toxicity to Daphnia study failed to meet a requirement 

of the test protocol in the HPV 3 test rule, and Eastman is, therefore, not in compliance with the 

HPV 3 test rule. The EPA may take enforcement action, or Eastman may come into compliance 

with the HPV 3 test rule by submitting a final report that meets the requirements in the HPV 3 

test rule. Please let the EPA know by August 15, 2014, whether Eastman will submit a final 

Internet Address (URL) • http.//www epa gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted w1th Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlonne Free Recycled Paper 
repo1t for the chronic toxicity to Daphnia study that meets the requirements of the I-IPV 3 test 

rule and a date when The EPA can expect to receive that report. 

If you have any questions, please contact John Schaeffer of my staiT (schaeffer.john@epa.gov; 

202-564-8173). 

Enclosure 

cc: Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 

Sincerely. 

foJ~ Paul Lewis, Ph.D. 

Chief, Chemical Information 

and Testing Branch
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FAITHLYN ANN SIMPSON, 

Petitioner,

v.  No. 00-1708 U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney

General,

Respondents. 

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A72-395-413)

Submitted: July 20, 2001

Decided: January 14, 2002

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Aloy Ejimakor, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart E. Schiffer,

Acting Assistant Attorney General, Papu Sandhu, Senior Litigation

Counsel, James A. Hunolt, Office of Immigration Litigation,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,

D.C., for Respondents. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Faithlyn Ann Simpson, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying

her motion to reopen. Simpson was convicted in the District of

Columbia of attempted possession of cocaine, for which she received

a one-year suspended sentence and one year of probation. She contends that the Board abused its discretion in denying the motion to

reopen after she submitted evidence that her conviction has been

expunged. Simpson insists that protections against deportation present

in the Federal First Offenders Act extend to convictions expunged

under state law, and that different treatment of those convicted under

state law violates the equal protection component of the Due Process

Clause. Simpson maintains that the expungement renders her eligible

for relief in the form of suspension of deportation. 

We are not persuaded by Simpson’s contention that her expunged

drug offense does not constitute a "conviction" under immigration

law, and thus conclude that we lack jurisdiction over her petition for

review. See Herrera-Inirio v. INS, 208 F.3d 299 (1st Cir. 2000); Hall

v. INS, 167 F.3d 852, 854-56 (4th Cir. 1999); 8 U.S.C.A.

§ 1101(a)(48)(A), (B) (West 1999). Accordingly, the petition for

review is dismissed. Having previously granted Simpson’s motion to

consider the case on the briefs, 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. 

DISMISSED

2 SIMPSON v. U.S. INS
#### § 769.1 Scope.

This part establishes minimum procedures and standards for designating Federal lands as unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal mining operations and for terminating designations pursuant to petition.