alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THOMAS v. SCHWAB.

No. 11771.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 19, 1954.

Decided Feb. 11, 1954.

Mr. Rex K. Nelson, Washington, D. C. , for appellant. Messrs. Eugene X. Murphy, Hugh Lynch, Jr., and Charles E. Channing, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellant.

Mr. Harry L. Ryan, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Roger J. Whiteford and Duane G. Derrick, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for ap-pellee.

Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Our appellant, James A. Thomas, was an apprentice plumber engaged by a subcontractor in connection with the construction of a dwelling for appellee Schwab. The carpentry work was under subcontract to another subcontractor, and this work included the installation of the windows. In going from the inside of the partially completed building to the roof to install a vent pipe, Thomas went through a window, holding on to the casement of the window to steady himself. This casement had been temporarily secured in place by the carpenters, and its installation was not complete. The carpentry subcontractors were actively engaged that day in the performance of the carpentry work on the building. The casement gave way in Thomas’s hand, and he lost his balance, fell first to the roof and then to the ground, and was injured. The foregoing facts were shown by the pleadings and attached affidavits.

Upon an oral hearing the District Court ascertained that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. Upon the basis of the undisputed facts it entered summary judgment for the defendant Schwab. We think its judgment was correct. On the undisputed facts the carpenters were not negligent. Accordingly we do not reach the question whether appellee would have been liable to appellant if negligence of the carpenters had caused a dangerous condition.

Affirmed.
Map 3-29: Elk Habitat

0 20 40 60 80

Kilometers

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

1

LUP Amendments Planning Area

BLM Field Office Boundaries

Forest Service Planning Unit Boundaries

County Boundaries

Parturition Areas

Crucial Severe Winter Relief

Crucial Winter Range

Crucial Winter/Yearlong

Spring/Summer/Fall

Severe Winter Relief

Winter

Winter/Yearlong

Yearlong

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Final Environmental Impact Statement - May 2015

W Y O M I N G

M T

I D

M A P A R E A

Crook

Weston

Sundance

Rock Springs

Field Office

§ ̈¦80

U T

C O

N E

S D

Newcastle

Lusk

Douglas

Casper

Cheyenne

Wheatland Torrington

Laramie

Rawlins

Rock Springs

Green River

Evanston

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Rawlins Field Offi ce

Casper Field Offi ce

Newcastle

Field Office

Pinedale

Field Office

Kemmerer

Field Office

Bridger -

Teton

N.F.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine Bow

N.F.

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

Platte

G

o

s

h

e

n

Alb

a

n

y

L

a

r

a

mie

C

o

n

v

e

r

s

e

Nio

b

r

a

r

a

Nat rona

Carbon

S

w

e

etw

ate

r

C

a

r

b

o

n

Sublette

Lincoln

T

eto

n

Fr

e

m

o

nt

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(a)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration Statements of National City Bancshares, Inc. (File No. 333-75093
and 333-79163) of our report dated March 28, 2000, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of National City Bancshares, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for the years ended December
31, 1999, 1998 and 1997, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.





/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
------------------------------
Lexington, Kentucky
March 29, 2000
#### Dora Chicas et al., Appellants, v Phyllis Catalano, Respondent.

[833 NYS2d 625]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), dated January 10, 2006, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither *687of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion. The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see *Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The defendant’s moving papers failed to address the allegations made by each of the plaintiffs, as contained in their bill of particulars, that as a result of the accident they each sustained an injury which prevented them from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted their usual and customary daily activity for a period of not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident *(see*Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; *Nakanishi v Sadaqat,*35 AD3d 416 [2006]; *Sayers v Hot,*23 AD3d 453 [2005]; *Nembhard v Delatorre,*16 AD3d 390 [2005]; *Kawasaki v Hertz Corp.,*199 AD2d 46 [1993]). Since the defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the first instance, it is unnecessary to reach the question of whether the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
§ 56.14206 Securing movable parts. ( a ) When moving mobile equipment between workplaces, booms, forks, buckets, beds, and similar movable parts of the equipment shall be positioned in the travel mode and, if required for safe travel, mechanically secured.
( b ) When mobile equipment is unattended or not in use, dippers, buckets and scraper blades shall be lowered to the ground. Other movable parts, such as booms, shall be mechanically secured or positioned to prevent movement which would create a hazard to persons.
[53 FR 32521, Aug. 25, 1988; 53 FR 44588, Nov. 4, 1988]
### §403g. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 403g, comprising section 6 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, act June 20, 1949, ch. 227, was editorially reclassified as section 3507 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Carpio, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 107]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J), rendered April 11, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree (three counts), criminal contempt in the second degree (15 counts) and aggravated harassment in the second degree (13 counts), and sentencing him to a term of five years, consecutive to two consecutive terms of U/s to 4 years, and concurrent with an additional term of lVs to 4 years and 28 concurrent terms of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant failed to raise specific objections to the court’s supplemental jury instructions on the grounds he now raises on appeal, his current claims are unpreserved *(see People v Whalen,*59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the supplemental instructions were meaningful and conveyed the appropriate legal standards. The court properly explained the elements of burglary and explained that unlawful entry into the premises and intent to commit a crime within the premises were separate elements of the offense *(see People v Lewis,*5 NY3d 546, 551 [2005]). The court also properly instructed the jury that the second element of the burglary charge, an intent to commit a crime in the dwelling, could be satisfied by proof that the defendant intended to violate the provision of the order of protection requiring that he stay away from the person named therein. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.
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.

§ 75.1730 Compressed air; general; compressed air systems. ( a ) All pressure vessels shall be constructed, installed, and maintained in accordance with the standards and specifications of Section VIII “Unfired Pressure Vessels,” of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (1971), which is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. This document may be purchased from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 22 Law Drive, P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, New Jersey 07007, Phone: 800-843-2763 (toll free); *http://www.asme.org*; and it is available for examination in every MSHA Coal Mine Safety and Health district office.
( b ) Compressors and compressed-air receivers shall be equipped with automatic pressure-relief valves, pressure gages, and drain valves.
( c ) Repairs involving the pressure system of compressors, receivers, or compressed-air-powered equipment shall not be attempted until the pressure has been relieved from that part of the system to be repaired.
( d ) At no time shall compressed air be directed toward a person. When compressed air is used, all necessary precautions shall be taken to protect persons from injury.
( e ) Safety chains, suitable locking devices, or automatic cut-off valves shall be used at connections to machines of high-pressure hose lines of three-fourths of an inch inside diameter or larger, and between high-pressure hose lines of three-fourths of an inch inside diameter or larger, where a connection failure would create a hazard. For purposes of this paragraph, high-pressure means pressure of 100 p.s.i. or more.
[38 FR 4976, Feb. 23, 1973, as amended at 71 FR 16669, Apr. 3, 2006]
THE PARTNERSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY 

AND WORKFORCE AND ECONOMIC 

REVITALIZATION (POWER) INITIATIVE

The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative is 

a new interagency effort to assist communities negatively impacted by changes in the coal 

industry and power sector. Booming natural gas production, declining costs for renewable energy, 

increases in energy efficiency, flattening electricity demand, and updated clean air standards are 

changing the way electricity is generated and used across the country. These industry shifts are 

impacting workers and communities who have relied on the coal economy as a source of good 

jobs and economic prosperity.

POWER IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS

• U.S. Commerce Department Announces Up To $35 Million in Available Funding Through 

Obama Administration’s Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic 

Revitalization (POWER) Initiative (Press Release)

• POWER Implementation Grants FFO (Application Period Closed)

(View the latest EDA Regional Office contact information)

• Implementation Frequently Asked Questions

• POWER Implementation Grants Fact Sheet (PDF)

• POWER Initiative: Opportunities for Economic Diversification and Workforce Development

(Webinar and Slides)

• Map of Negatively Impacted Coal Mine Counties and Power Plants 6/2011 to 1/2015 (PDF)

(Map is for Reference Only – Does not Represent Eligibility Requirements)

• Building a Brighter Future for Coal Communities (Commerce Blog)

POWER PLANNING ASSISTANCE

• Planning and Local Technical Assistance FFO

(View the latest EDA Regional Office contact information)

• Planning and Local Technical Assistance FFO Addendum (PDF)

• Planning Frequently Asked Questions

IN THIS SECTION:

Overview

EDA's 50th Anniversary

Leadership

Investment Programs

Multi-Agency Initiatives

Investment Priorities

Office of Innovation and 

Entrepreneurship

Disaster Recovery

EDA Job Opportunities!

RESOURCES DIRECTORY

STAY CONNECTED

Click here to subscribe to EDA's 

monthly e-newsletter

EDA ANNUAL REPORTS

USEFUL LINKS:

FY 2016 Budget Briefing Webinar

(2/24/2015)

EDA Regulations

About the Department of Commerce

Department of Commerce Strategic Plan 

and Annual Performance plans

ABOUT EDA

ABOUT HOW TO APPLY FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES CASE STUDIES EDA TOOLS NEWSROOM CONTACT

http://www.eda.gov/power/

9/3/2015
Privacy Policy | Department of Commerce | FOIA | USA.gov | Information Quality | Disclaimer | Contact EDA

FOLLOW US

Department of Commerce Organizational 

Structure, Mission and Statutory 

Authority

No FEAR Act

Commerce and the Small Business 

Paperwork Reduction Act

SEARCH THE SITE

SEARCH

http://www.eda.gov/power/

9/3/2015
§ 918.16 Required program amendments. Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(f)(1), Louisiana is required to submit to OSM by the specified date the following written, proposed program amendment, or a description of an amendment to be proposed, that meets the requirements of SMCRA and 30 CFR chapter VII and a timetable for enactment that is consistent with Louisiana's established administrative or legislative procedures. ( a ) - ( b ) [Reserved]
[60 FR 4544, Jan. 24, 1995]
January 26, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

SUBJ'ECT: !PETITION FOR EXEMPTION- FAR 121.434(c)(1)(ii) 

Reference: Docket Number FAA-2001-8722 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

In accordance with the provisions of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 

11.61, SkyWest Airl:ines petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 7689D 

(Docket No. FAA-2001-8722). If granted, this exemption would provide relief to 

the extent necessary to substitute a quaHf:ied and authorized check airman in 

place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while 

that PIC is performing presonibed duties during at least one flight that includes a 

takeoff and landing when completing initial or upgrade training as specified in 

FAR 121.424. Additionally, the proposed exemption extension, if granted, would 

allow the substitution only at the discretion of the certificate holder and only when 

an FAA Inspector is not immediately available, subject to certain conditions and 

limitations. 

Exemption 7689D will expire on January 31, .2015, unless superseded or 

amended. Justification for extending this exemption was stated in the original 

exemption, dated January 3, 2001. SkyWest Airlines continues to expand its 

operation and foresees cont,inued growth for an extended period of time. 

The conditions and circumstances in regard to public interest and safety 

which warranted the original grant of exemption continue to exist. The exemption 

has been used since first granted with no known compromise of safety. 

Extending this exemption will not adversely affect safety, but will simply 

provide an equivalent alternative to an administrative aspect of the stated 

regulations. Extending this exemption will have no adverse impact on the 

interests of the aircraft owners or on governmental agencies. 

444 South River Road St. George, Utah 84790 Phone 435.634.3000 www.skywest.com 
U.S. Department of Transportation 

January 26, 2015 

Page two 

As the renewal of this exemption is not precedent-setting, SkyWest 

Airlines requests that publication of our petition in the Federal Register be waived in 

accordance with Section 11.87(b). The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial 

issue, as the reasons and conditions for implementation are identical to Exemption 7689 

original issue. 

Sincerely, . 

~ 

~#!a /./·? //?...____ ... 

Chris Brown 

Director Aircraft Operations 

SkyWest Airlines 

cc: Andrew Ayers, Principal Operations Inspector, FAA 

David Moxham, Director Training 

Robin Wall, Manaager Flight Standards
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9891 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

765 West Old Route 66 in Ash Fork, Arizona, as the ‘‘Fayrene Hume 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 1, 2024 

Mr. CRANE (for himself, Mr. BIGGS, and Mr. GOSAR) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 765 West Old Route 66 in Ash Fork, Arizona, 

as the ‘‘Fayrene Hume Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FAYRENE HUME POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 765 West Old Route 66 in Ash 

6 Fork, Arizona, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Fayrene Hume Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9891 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Fayrene Hume Post 

3 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Ludmilla Hunter, Appellant, v. Allan B. Hunter et al., Respondents.

. Order entered on October 17, 1960, as enjoins plaintiff and her attorneys from proceeding with an action brought against the defendants in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, County of Fairfield, and as vacates a notice of discontinuance of the within action, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.11**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

FNB Corp. 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-72686, 333-54702, 333-99333, 333-105442 and 333-109450) on Form S-8 andthe registration statement (No. 33-59565) on Form S-3 of FNB Corp. of our report dated March 12, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of FNB Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2005 annual report onForm 10-K of FNB Corp.
#### § 845.1 Scope.

This part covers the assessment of civil penalties under section 518 of the Act with respect to cessation orders and notices of violation issued under part 843 (Federal Enforcement), except for the assessment of individual civil penalties under section 518(f), which is covered in part 846.

[53 FR 3675, Feb. 8, 1988]
An official caption containing a complete list of parties is on file and available 1

for inspection in the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States Court of Appeals

for the Eighth Circuit. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1613

___________

Wendy E. Taylor, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri. 

State of Alabama Bar Association; *

et al., * [UNPUBLISHED] 1

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 3, 1998

 Filed: August 7, 1998 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. 

___________
The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

2

District of Missouri.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Wendy Taylor appeals from the district court&s dismissal without prejudice of 2

her complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). After carefully

reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons it

stated. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
FISCAL YEAR [YEAR] SPREADSHEET FOR SMALL, RURAL SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM AND RURAL LOW-INCOME SCHOOL PROGRAM

STATE:

School Locale Code Test Request

NCES 

DISTRICT ID 

#

NCES 

SCHOOL ID 

#

STATE 

SCHOOL ID 

# DISTRICT NAME SCHOOL NAME ADDRESS CITY COUNTY STATE ZIP ZIP+4

The NCES District ID - found on the State Eligibility Spreadsheet or http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/search.asp

The NCES School ID - found on the NCES website: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/search.asp

LEA Locale codes for REAP are a combination of the locale codes for each school in the District. To determine the locale codes of each school in the LEA, go to the NCES website. W hen the FY [YEAR] data 

is posted, it will be found at: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/search.asp

Directions:

Make sure to include only the SCHOOLS in the District that need to be tested. Include both the District name and the individual name of each school. If the address submitted matches the address on file at 

NCES, there will be NO CHANGE in the locale code. The address submitted should be a physical location of a school building and not a P.O. Box or mailing address. Make sure you include the City, County, 

State and Zip.

Public Burden Statement:

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden 

for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 

1 of 2
for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain benefit (ESEA Section 6212/6221). Send comments regarding the burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20210-4537 or 

email ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1810-0646. Note: Please do not return the completed REAP application to this address.

If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form write directly to: 

Email: REAPSEA@ed.gov

Subject: SRSA Application Status

2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 15-21





August 14, 2002

The Detroit Edison Company
Detroit, Michigan

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of The Detroit Edison Company and subsidiaries for the three-month
and six-month periods ended July 30, 2002 and 2001, as indicated in our report
dated July 30, 2002; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no
opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-63366 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Detroit, Michigan
### §441p. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 441p, comprising section 1024 of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3224 of this title.