alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.803 What SPPE failure reporting procedures must I follow? ( a ) You must follow the failure reporting requirements contained in section 10.20.7.4 of ANSI/API Spec. 6A for SSVs, BSDVs, GLSDVs and USVs. You must follow the failure reporting requirements contained in section 7.10 of ANSI/API Spec. 14A and Annex F of ANSI/API RP 14B for SSSVs (all incorporated by reference in § 250.198). Within 30 days after the discovery and identification of the failure, you must provide a written notice of equipment failure to the manufacturer of such equipment and to BSEE through the Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs, unless BSEE has designated a third party as provided in paragraph (d) of this section. A failure is any condition that prevents the equipment from meeting the functional specification or purpose.
( b ) You must ensure that an investigation and a failure analysis are performed within 120 days of the failure to determine the cause of the failure. If the investigation and analyses are performed by an entity other than the manufacturer, you must ensure that the analysis report is submitted to the manufacturer and to BSEE through the Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs, unless BSEE has designated a third party as provided in paragraph (d) of this section. You must also ensure that the results of the investigation and any corrective action are documented in the analysis report.
( c ) If the equipment manufacturer notifies you that it has changed the design of the equipment that failed or if you have changed operating or repair procedures as a result of a failure, then you must, within 30 days of such changes, report the design change or modified procedures in writing to BSEE through the Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs, unless BSEE has designated a third party as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
( d ) BSEE may designate a third party to receive the data required by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section on behalf of BSEE. If BSEE designates a third party, you must submit the information required in this section to the designated third party, as directed by BSEE.
[83 FR 49256, Sept. 28, 2018]
#### § 903.762 Criteria for designating areas as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.

Part 762 of this chapter, *Criteria for Designating Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining Operations,* applies to surface coal mining operations.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

MICHAEL HARBOURAND TASMAN HOLDINGS, LLC VERSUS THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE NO. 2023 CW 1366



### FEBRUARY 22, 2024

InRe: City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish ofEast BatonRouge, No. 662146.

BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ. WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Relator failed to provide a copy of all exhibits filed with Michael Harbour and Tasman Holdings, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment in violation of Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-5(C)(8). In particular, the Motion for Summary Judgment was filed with a certified copy of a prior Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on July 5, 2022 along with its exhibits and memorandum, and relator failed to provide copies of Exhibits B-2, B-3, and B-4 to the affidavit of Brett P. Furr (Exhibit B) and copies of the City-Parish's "Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests" (Exhibit C) filed with the prior Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Supplementation of this writ application and/or an application for rehearing will not be considered. Uniform Rules ofLouisiana Courts ofAppeal, Rules 2-18.7 &4-9. In the event relator seeks to file a new application with this court, it must contain all pertinent documentation, the missing items noted above, andmust comply with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.2. Any new application must be filed on orbefore March 1, 2024 andmust contain a copy ofthis ruling.

COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# otc,O
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT MRT AHP

HG
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9967 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9967

  To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to permit States to use 
 funds made available under such Act to improve the administration of 
elections for the physical security of polling places and poll workers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 11, 2024

  Mr. Gottheimer (for himself and Mr. Bacon) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to permit States to use 
 funds made available under such Act to improve the administration of 
elections for the physical security of polling places and poll workers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Our Local workers Act'' or 
the ``POL Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF FUNDS UNDER HAVA FOR PHYSICAL SECURITY OF POLLING PLACES 
              AND POLL WORKERS.

    (a) Authorizing Use of Payments.--Section 101(b)(1) of the Help 
America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 20901(b)(1)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(I) Ensuring the physical security of election 
                offices, including polling places, and election 
                workers, including poll workers.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to funds made available to States under the Help 
America Vote Act of 2002 at any time before or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Ruth Bloom et al., Respondents, v. New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

Order entered on October 17, 1961, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to compel acceptance of notice of claim pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law as timely served, denied. The legislative history indicates that a day of religious observance is not to be deemed a public holiday unless so proclaimed by the President or the Governor. (See L. 1875, eh. 27; L. 1887, eh. 289; L. 1889, ch. 198; Code Civ. Pro., § 3343, subd. 21 [1901]; L. 1892, ch. 677, § 24; General Construction Law, § 24; Executive Law, § 7.) An interpretation of the statute to bring all days of general religious observance within the statutory definition of a holiday, without requirement of executive proclamation, would lead to confusion and indefiniteness in the application of the statute. A construction, having this result, is to be avoided where, as here, it is not plainly indicated. (McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 1, Statutes, § 143.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Bastow, JJ. [31 Misc 2d 805.]
### §20103. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) Aeronautical and space activities.—The term "aeronautical and space activities" means—

(A) research into, and the solution of, problems of flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere;

(B) the development, construction, testing, and operation for research purposes of aeronautical and space vehicles;

(C) the operation of a space transportation system including the space shuttle, upper stages, space platforms, and related equipment; and

(D) such other activities as may be required for the exploration of space.

(2) Aeronautical and space vehicles.—The term "aeronautical and space vehicles" means aircraft, missiles, satellites, and other space vehicles, manned and unmanned, together with related equipment, devices, components, and parts.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3332.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 20103 | 42 U.S.C. 2452. | Pub. L. 85–568, title I, §103, July 29, 1958, 72 Stat. 427; Pub. L. 98–52, title I, §108, July 15, 1983, 97 Stat. 285. |

Section

In paragraph (1)(A), the word "Earth's" is capitalized for consistency in title 51.
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of ImClone Systems Incorporated (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Joseph L. Fischer,Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael J. Howerton, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each herby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

*(1)**        *The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

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

| Date: March 16, 2006  | /s/ JOSEPH  L. FISCHER        |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                       | Joseph L. Fischer                  |
|                       | *Interim Chief Executive Officer*  |
| Date: March 16,  2006 | /s/ MICHAEL J. HOWERTON  |
|                       | Michael J. Howerton                |
|                       | *Chief Financial Officer*          |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

**A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.**

----
§ 77.1601 Transportation of persons; restrictions. No person shall be permitted to ride or be otherwise transported on or in the following equipment whether loaded or empty: ( a ) Dippers, shovels, buckets, forks, and clamshells;
( b ) The cargo space of dump trucks or haulage equipment used to transport coal or other material;
( c ) Outside the cabs and beds of mobile equipment;
( d ) Chain, belt, or bucket conveyors, except where such conveyors are specifically designed to transport persons; and
( e ) Loaded buckets on aerial tramways.
EXHIBIT 4.1.1


                                 FIRST AMENDMENT

                                       TO

                             HAUPPAUGE DIGITAL INC.

                          EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

A.    Section 4.01 is hereby amended to increase the number of shares reserved
      for issuance under the Plan from One Hundred Thousand (100,000) shares of
      Common Stock to One Hundred and Eighty Thousand (180,000) shares of Common
      Stock which shares shall be authorized but unissued shares of Common
      Stock.

B.    Section 4.02 is hereby amended to change the date of December 31, 2003 to
      December 31, 2004.

C.    Except as amended herein all of the other terms of the Plan shall continue
      in full force and effect.

D.    The effective date of this First Amendment is May 1, 2002 subject to
      approval by the holders of a majority of the shares of Common Stock
      present and represented at the next special or annual meeting of the
      shareholders of the Company duly held.


                                        6
###### 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.

#### § 75.601-1 Short circuit protection; ratings and settings of circuit breakers.

Circuit breakers providing short circuit protection for trailing cables shall be set so as not to exceed the maximum allowable instantaneous settings specified in this section; however, higher settings may be permitted by an authorized representative of the Secretary when he has determined that special applications are justified:

| Conductor size AWG or MGM | Maximum allowable circuit breaker instantaneous setting (amperes) |
| --- | --- |
| 14 | 50 |
| 12 | 75 |
| 10 | 150 |
| 8 | 200 |
| 6 | 300 |
| 4 | 500 |
| 3 | 600 |
| 2 | 800 |
| 1 | 1,000 |
| 1/0 | 1,250 |
| 2/0 | 1,500 |
| 3/0 | 2,000 |
| 4/0 | 2,500 |
| 250 | 2,500 |
| 300 | 2,500 |
| 350 | 2,500 |
| 400 | 2,500 |
| 450 | 2,500 |
| 500 | 2,500 |
#### BARRY, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 20, 1903.)

Action by Edward F. Barry against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. B. H. Ames, for appellant. G. W. Smith, for respondent.

No opinion. Upon the plaintiff stipulating to reduce the judgment as entered to the sum of $5,474.63, judgment, as so reduced, and the order denying motion for new trial, affirmed, without costs to either party; if such stipulation be not given, judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

136565 Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r & (18) Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, J ustices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136565 COA: 283552 Ingham CC: 03-001110-FH MATTHEW GENE KEMMER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 14, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand for resentencing is DENIED.

0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
#### George Howes, Respondent, *v.*Henry Holmes *et*al., Appellants.

April 25, 1876.

11 A bill of exceptions signed after the close of the term in which the motion for new trial was overruled, without any stipulation or entry of record authorizing that proceeding, will not be noticed for any purpose.

*2.*An adjudication of bankruptcy will not compel a stay of proceedings, in a suit against a bankrupt in a State court, upon motion and production of' the certificate of adjudication.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

*Playback <& Haeussler,*for appellants,

cited: Bayley on Bills, 37, sec. 15 ; Carter *v.*McClintock, 29 Mo. 464; Parsons’ Merc. Law (1st ed.), 85, note 2; Woodford *v.*Darwin, 3 Yt. 82; Story on Part., secs. 140, 142, 147, 148;. Wag. Stat. 1374, sec. 7 ; Snyder *v.*Raab, 40 Mo. 167.

*Hitchcock, Lubke & Player,*for respondent,

cited : Wag. Stat. 851, sec. 23, p. 1043, sec. 28, p. 1374, sec. 7; Haggerty *v.*Morrison, 59 Mo. 324; Carpenter *v.*Turrell, 100 Mass. 450 ; Diepenbrock *v.*Shaw, 21 Mo. 122; Sutter *v.*Streit, 21 Mo. 159 ; Farrar *v.*Finney, 21 Mo. 569 ; Wilcoxson *v.*McBride, 23 Mo. 404; Ellis *v.*Andrews, 25 Mo. 327 ; Gale *v.*Foss, 47 Mo. 276.

Lewis, J.,

delivered the opinion of tbe court.

The record shows that this cause was tried, and a final judgment rendered against defendants, at the October term, 1873. A motion for new trial was overruled during the December term, 1873. The bill of exceptions was presented and signed hi the February term, 1874. No stipulation of the parties, or entry of any sort, shows that consent or permission was given for presenting a bill of exceptions after the close of the term in which the motion for new trial was overruled. This is conclusive against our authority *82to notice that paper for any pui’pose. *Smith*v. *Pollack,*58 Mo. 161. No error is suggested, in the record proper.-

Defendants Holmes and Moody have presented certificates showing that they have been adjudged bankrupts by a court of competent jurisdiction, under the laws of the United States, and file motions for a stay of further proceedings in this court until they shall have obtained their respective discharges. We can find no reason for granting the applications. Nothing in the bankrupt law operates to oust this court of its jurisdiction already acquired, in the absence of a restraining order from the bankruptcy court. No such order appears ; but, on the contrary, the plaintiff here produces an order from that authority, issued under the 21st section of the bankrupt law, expressly granting leave to proceed herein to final judgment. The motions are overruled, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

All the judges concur.
#### Puritan Silks Corporation, appellee, v. Leon Freeman, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,275.

Suit to recover balance due for merchandise sold. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

Samuel Kraus, for appellant.

Vent & Warfield, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §20502. Definitions

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term "election" has the meaning stated in section 30101(1) of this title;

(2) the term "Federal office" has the meaning stated in section 30101(3) of this title;

(3) the term "motor vehicle driver's license" includes any personal identification document issued by a State motor vehicle authority;

(4) the term "State" means a State of the United States and the District of Columbia; and

(5) the term "voter registration agency" means an office designated under section 20506(a)(1) of this title to perform voter registration activities.

(Pub. L. 103–31, §3, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 77.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1973gg–1 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
###### 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.

#### § 75.822 Underground high-voltage longwall cables.

In addition to the high-voltage cable design specifications in § 75.804 of this part, high-voltage cables for use on longwalls may be a type SHD cable with a center ground-check conductor no smaller than a No. 16 AWG stranded conductor. The cables must be MSHA accepted as flame-resistant under part 18 or approved under subpart K of part 7.
[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:****EAR Program research results.**
 
2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2016
 
SuDoc Number:TD 2.30: EA 7/
Item Number:0982-G-11 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001010567
 
April 10, 2018
### **CHAPTER 205—NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION**

Sec.
20501.
Findings and purposes.
20502.
Definitions.
20503.
National procedures for voter registration for elections for Federal office.
20504.
Simultaneous application for voter registration and application for motor vehicle driver's license.
20505.
Mail registration.
20506.
Voter registration agencies.
20507.
Requirements with respect to administration of voter registration.
20508.
Federal coordination and regulations.
20509.
Designation of chief State election official.
20510.
Civil enforcement and private right of action.
20511.
Criminal penalties.
BELOW IS THE COMMENT YOU SELECTED TO DISPLAY.

COMMENT 1 FOR STATUS REPORT ON THE STATE STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA'S 2007 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

(SIPREV09) - NON-REG.

First Name: Leisa

Last Name: Brug

Email Address: leisa.brug@asm.ca.gov

Phone Number:

Affiliation:

Subject: Temporary Suspension of CARB Diesel Truck Regulations

Comment:

April 1, 2009

Dear CARB Members,

The attached February 17, 2009 letter from Assemblymen Chuck

DeVore and Mike Villines and Senator Lou Correa of the California

State Legislature was delivered to CARB Headquarters on February

18, 2009. The letter provides scientific, legal, and economic

justifications for the “Temporary Suspension of CARB On-Road and

Off-Road Diesel Truck Regulations.” The letter is highly relevant

to 2007 State Strategy for the California State Implementation

Plan.

Sincerely yours,

Leisa Brug Kline, Chief Of Staff 

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore

California's 70th Assembly District

District Office - (949) 863-7070

Capitol Office - (916) 319-2070

leisa.brug@asm.ca.gov

Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/siprev09/1-carb_devore_villines_correa_letter_regarding_diesel_regs_021709.pdf

Original File Name: CARB DeVore Villines Correa Letter Regarding Diesel Regs 021709.pdf

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-04-01 11:45:07

If you have any questions or comments please contact COTB at (916) 322-5594.

Board Comments Home

COMMENT LOG DISPLAY

The Board is one of six boards, departments, and offices under

the umbrella of the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Cal/EPA | ARB | CIWMB | DPR | DTSC | OEHHA | SWRCB

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccomdisp.php?listname=siprev09...

1 of 1 8/18/2009 10:48 AM
#### In the Matter of Patsy V. Croce, Respondent, v. Alice K. Drake, Appellant.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal denied on condition that appellant argue or submit the appeal at the November Term, beginning October 31, 1960. The appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar for said term. Respondent is directed within three days after entry of the order hereon, to furnish to appellant’s attorneys a copy of landlord’s Exhibit No. 4, so that same may be included and printed in the record on appeal. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before October 20, 1960. Motion by appellant to dispense with printing of landlord’s Exhibits Nos. 1, 2 and 5 granted, on condition that five typewritten or photostat copies thereof be handed up upon the argument or submission of the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.