alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gary J. BEAM, Appellant, v. SUN SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 81-2770.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) May 25, 1982.

Decided June 7, 1982.

Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied July 12, 1982.

'- ‘-’Robert T. Seiwell, Media, Pa., for appellant.

, Doretta P. Hahn, Robert A. Webster, ■Radnor, Pa., for appellee.

Frank J. Laski, Thomas K. Gilhool, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa., for Epilepsy Foundation of America, Philadelphia Chapter, American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, Pennsylvania Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, National Association of the Deaf, and National Federation of the Blind, Pennsylvania Affiliate, amici curiae.

Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, Mary Louise Kibbey, McGuiness & Williams, Washington, D. C., for the Equal Employment Advisory Council, amicus curiae.

Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and SLOVI-TER and BECKER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellee Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company (Sun) hired appellant Gary Beam on November 29, 1978. Three days later, upon learning that Beam was an epileptic, Sun dismissed him. After filing a complaint with the United States Department of Labor, Beam brought this action, alleging that he was dismissed in violation of section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 793 (1976). Beam seeks reinstatement, backpay, and restoration of his seniority rights.

Section 503(a) requires that certain federal contracts contain a provision requiring the contractor to “take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified handicapped individuals.... ” Section 503(b) authorizes the Department of Labor to investigate complaints filed by handicapped individuals for violations of the statute. Although the statute provides no explicit private remedy, Beam urges that section 503 contains an implied private right of action. The district court rejected Beam’s contention and granted Sun Ship’s motion for summary judgment. Thus, the sole issue in this appeal is whether a private right of action may be implied under section 503.

*1078The six circuits that have considered the issue have held that no private right of action exists under section 503. *See Davis v. United Airlines,*662 F.2d 120 (2d Cir. 1981); *Fisher v. Tucson,*663 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1981); Simon *v. St. Louis County,*656 F.2d 316 (8th Cir. 1981), *cert.*denied,U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1485, 71 L.Ed.2d 688 (1982); *Simpson v. Reynolds Metals Co.,*629 F.2d 1226 (7th Cir. 1980); *Rogers v. Frito Lay, Inc.,*611 F.2d 1074 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*449 U.S. 889, 101 S.Ct. 246, 66 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980); *Hoopes v. Equifax, Inc.,*611 F.2d 134 (6th Cir. 1979). These courts arrived at this result after an extensive analysis of the four factors set forth by the Supreme Court in *Cort v. Ash,*422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975). Our own examination of the *Cort*factors in light of section 503 and its legislative history leads us to the same conclusion. Therefore, we will affirm the order of the district court.
1

RECORD OF CONVERSATION

Date of Conversation: January 9, 2015

Company: Liberty Foundation

Contact Name: Mr. Ray Fowler

Docket Number: FAA-2004-17662

Phone: Phone Number:

Email: Email Address:

Visit: Location:

Subject: Need for more ELOS information on the topics below

Details: Conversation with Mr Ray Fowler on March 9, 2015

Conclusion or Action Taken:

Liberty Foundation will provide needed information in 30 days, 

of March 9, 2015

NAME OFFICE DATE SIGNATURE

Thomas J. 

Leahy

AFS-830

Liberty Foundation Did not include a risk management or SMS document in support of its 

commitment to Equal Level of Safety (ELOS), which it will need to implement if this Exemption 

is granted.

Liberty Foundation has not submitted an Operations Manual or training documents in support of 

ELOS, which it will need to implement if granted. 

CONTACT INFORMATION

CONVERSATION INFORMATION

FAA EMPLOYEE INFORMATION
2

This office proposes a teleconference or meeting to clarify the FAA position and discuss the 

following topics: 

 Liberty Foundation’s need to include Risk Management or SMS and Operations 

Document or Manual.

 Liberty Foundation’s Operations Manual must interface with the SMS Manual, Neither 

document is sufficient as a stand-alone document.

 Liberty Foundation’s operations manual must include an operational control structure 

and the elements required to support an SMS program, pilot aircraft training, 

qualification, general subjects training, maintenance provider training,. 

 Must provide an operational control structure or chain of command within your 

operations manual for pilot’s maintenance, and support personnel or supporting 

documents that these safeguards are in place.

 Please list the qualifications required to hold an operational control position. 

 Please provide an outline or explanation of your proposed general subjects and 

maintenance training. 

 

Comments or submission of additional documents or clarifications addressing these concerns 

would be helpful in evaluating Liberty Foundation’s ELOS position. 

Absent requested information Liberty Foundation will not meet an ELOS IAW CFR 14 Part 11.

Please provide the requested information within 30 days.

Conversation completed March 9, 2015
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00057-CV

Ross O. Brown, Appellant

v.

The County of Comal, Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. T-7993C, HONORABLE JACK ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on January 31, 2014, and filed an affidavit of

indigence in this Court on February 18. On March 17, appellee filed a response asserting that

appellant was not indigent and that the affidavit contained several defects. We therefore abate the

appeal and remand to the trial court to hear evidence, make factual determinations, and grant the

appropriate relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(h)(4). Notice shall be given and the hearing shall be

held within the deadlines set out in the rules of appellate procedure. See id. R. 20.1(i)(1) (trial court

must set hearing and notify parties and court reporter), (2) (hearing must be held within ten days of

date trial court receives referral of contest), (3) (trial court may extend time for hearing for up to

twenty days), (4) (contest is deemed overruled unless trial court signs ordersustaining contest within

period set for hearing).
It is ordered May 6, 2014.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Abated and Remanded

Filed: May 6, 2014

2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 60 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 60

  Providing for the reappointment of Barbara M. Barrett as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 24, 2018

  Mr. Boozman (for himself, Mr. Perdue, and Mr. Leahy) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for the reappointment of Barbara M. Barrett as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 
than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the expiration of the 
term of Barbara M. Barrett of Arizona on January 10, 2019, is filled by 
the reappointment of the incumbent. The reappointment is for a term of 
6 years, beginning on the later of January 11, 2019, or the date of the 
enactment of this joint resolution.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-16325) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan of ACR Group,Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-42701) pertaining to the registration of 2,411,667 shares of common stock of ACR Group, Inc., of our report dated April 28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of ACR Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 28, 2003. 

 

ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

Houston, Texas

May 28, 2003
#### 2414.407 Mistakes in bids.
#### 252.228-7000 Reimbursement for War-Hazard Losses.

As prescribed in 228.371(a), use the following clause:

# Reimbursement for War-Hazard Losses (DEC 1991)

(a) Costs for providing employee war-hazard benefits in accordance with paragraph (b) of the Workers' Compensation and War-Hazard Insurance clause of this contract are allowable if the Contractor—

(1) Submits proof of loss files to support payment or denial of each claim;

(2) Subject to Contracting Officer approval, makes lump sum final settlement of any open claims and obtains necessary release documents within one year of the expiration or termination of this contract, unless otherwise extended by the Contracting Officer; and

(3) Provides the Contracting Officer at the time of final settlement of this contract—

(i) An investigation report and evaluation of any potential claim; and

(ii) An estimate of the dollar amount involved should the potential claim mature.

(b) The cost of insurance for liabilities reimbursable under this clause is not allowable.

(c) The Contracting Officer may require the Contractor to assign to the Government all right, title, and interest to any refund, rebate, or recapture arising out of any claim settlements.

(d) The Contractor agrees to—

(1) Investigate and promptly notify the Contracting Officer in writing of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim or potential claim, including the estimated amount of the claim;

(2) Give the Contracting Officer immediate written notice of any suit or action filed which may result in a payment under this clause; and

(3) Provide assistance to the Government in connection with any third party suit or claim relating to this clause which the Government elects to prosecute or defend in its own behalf.

(End of clause)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 88 FR 17352, Mar. 22, 2023]
p.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

148) IV-C-115 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:59 AM Sheet 148 of 232 
P.2 

<•• ' 

SIS 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

1 6 MAV 1988 

Mr. Steve Pezda 

Ford Motor Company 

World Headquarters 

Post Office Rox 1899 

Room 236 

Dearborn, MI 48121 

Dear Mr. Pezda: 

This lette r is in response to your April telephone request concerning 

risk from exposure to benzene from gasoline marketing sources. Specifically , 

you wanted to know i f the baseline lifetime risks presented on Table 2-27 

in EPA's July 1987 Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis document for the 

onboard refueling proposal were for benzene or total gasoline vapors. 

Table 2-27 presents only the highest risk calculated for each source. 

In thi s case, the highest risks are from total gasoline vapors. The 

enclosed table provides both the gasoline vapor and benzene risk estimates. 

In addition, you had some questions as to how these benzene risk estimates 

might relate to the recent EPA decision on other benzene sources. Per 

our conservation, you need to discuss those questions with Mr. Gil Wood, 

Chief, Regulation Preparations Section at 919 541-5625. 

I f you have any other questions concerning the gasoline marketing 

analysis, please call me at 919 541-5397. 

Sincerely, 

Stephen A. Shedd 

Petroleum Section 

Chemicals and Petroleum Branch 

1 Enclosure 

cc: Onboard Refueling Public Docket No. A-87-11 

Gil Wood, SOB/ESD (MD-13) 
P.3 

o 

^GEWCyR°

TECr'0(V 

SEcrigjoer 
5/10/88 

SUMMARY OF BENZENE (Bz) AND GASOLINE VAPOR (GV) RISK 

FROM GASOLINE MARKETING SOURCES3 

P.4 

Source 

Lifetime Risk From High Exposure*3 

Before Controls After Controlc 

Bz GV Bz GV 

BULK TERMINALS 2.0*10~4 

5.7*10 -3 

3.4*10-5 

9.8*10 -4 

BULK PLANTS 7.1*10 -6 

2.0*10 -4 

1.3*10"6 

3.6*10 -5 

SERVICE STATIONS: 

- Community Exposure 

Stage I 4.7*10"6 

6.7*10 -5 

4.5*10~7 

6.4*10 -6 

Stage II 6.3*10 -6 

9.1*10 -5 

6.5*10"7 

8.6*10"6 

Total Community 1.1*10 -5 

1.6*10 -4 

1.1*10~6 

1.5*10~5 

- Self-service 1.3*10 -5 

7.9*10 -5 

1.8*10-6 

2.4*10 -6 

- Occupational 3.4*10 -4 

4.1*10 -3 Not Calculated 

a Data from analysis used in "Draft RIA . . . Proposed . 

... Standards ...", EPA-450/3-87-001a, July 1987. 

. Refueling 

b Numbers calculated using the following unit risk factors: 

Benzene: 2.6*10~2 and, the Plausible Upper Limit (Rat) for Total 

Gasoline Vapors: 3.1*10**3. 

c Controlled by 35 mg/l vapor processor at bulk terminals, tank 

truck and storage tank vapor balancing at bulk plants and service 

stations, and onboard vehicle refueling controls at service 

stations.
NO. 07-04-0340-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

AUGUST 24, 2004

______________________________

TROY DANTE STEPTOE, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 34,247-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Troy Dante Steptoe attempts to bring an appeal from his 1996 prosecution for

conspiracy to commit murder. Finding we have no jurisdiction, we will dismiss. 

Steptoe filed a notice of appeal with the district clerk in trial court cause number

34,247-D on April 7, 2004. His notice of appeal alleged he was convicted of conspiracy

to commit murder on June 3, 1996, and requested an out-of-time appeal. It also requested
1The same deadlines applied under former Rule 41(b)(1) applicable at the time of

appellant’s conviction.

-2-

appointment of counsel and a free record on appeal. The notice of appeal was forwarded

to this court and filed June 29, 2004. The record consists of a June 13, 1996 motion and

order dismissing cause number 34,247-D for the reason that Steptoe had been convicted

of another offense in cause number 36,425-C and sentenced to 40 years confinement.

 By letter dated July 23, 2004, we informed Steptoe this court has no authority to

grant an out-of-time appeal and that an untimely notice of appeal does not vest this court

with jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Tex. R.

App. P. 26.2(a). We also advised him this court’s jurisdiction is limited to judgments of guilt

or other appealable orders. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). We requested a response

showing why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The only response we have received is a “Motion for Docketing Statement” filed

August 2, 2004. This document seeks to provide the information required by Rule of

Appellate Procedure 32.2. Unlike the matters raised in our July 23, 2004 letter, the failure

to file a docketing statement does not affect our jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 32.4.

Steptoe’s response fails to provide any basis on which we can find we have jurisdiction

over his appeal. To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day

sentence is imposed unless a timely motion for new trial is filed, in which case appeal must

be perfected within 90 days after the imposition of sentence. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).1 A

motion for new trial must be filed no later than 30 days after imposition of the sentence.

Tex. R. App. P. 21.4. In the absence of jurisdiction we can take no action other than to
-3-

dismiss the appeal. Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Lacking jurisdiction over the appeal, we

dismiss it.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
,, 

# `~ ~ HDES Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner April 3, 2008 David Conroy EPA- New

England, Region I 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA02114-2023 Dear Mr . Conroy: As you are aware, sections 110(a) (1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide procedural, timing and infrastructure requirements related to compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

. In 2005, the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a Consent Decree with EarthJustice which obligates EPAto determine whether states have made submissions necessary to meet the 110(a) (1) and (2) requirements for the fine particulate matter (PMZ.5) NAAQS by October 5, 2008. To meet this obligation, EPAissued a guidance memo on October 2, 2007 directing states to review existing State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and, if the existing fine particulate matter SIPis adequate to meet the 110(a) requirements, to certify that adequacy in a letter to EPA . This letter will serve as the certification for New

Hampshire. The guidance memo identifies fourteen elements required by sections 110(a) (1) and (2) . Those elements and the sections of the New Hampshire program

that are consistent with those elements are identified in the attached table. The New Hampshire SIP was originally submitted to EPAon January 27, 1972 and has had numerous revisions since that date. New Hampshire's EPAapproved SIP, which is published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40CFR52 Subpart EE, explicitly fulfills most of the requirements ofsections 110(a) (1) and (2) . Other section 110(a) (1) and (2) requirements are fulfilled in applicable chapters and parts fromthe New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) pertaining to the duties and powers of the Commissioner of the Department ofEnvironmental Services (NHDES) as well as applicable chapters and parts fromthe New Hampshire Rules Governing the Control ofAir Pollution, NH Administrative Rules Env-A 100 et seq. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (603) 271-1088 or Charles H . Martone of my staffat (603) 271-1089. Sincerely, 15~j di~~4 /1,/ Robert R . Scott YK Director Air Resources Division Cc: Anne Arnold, EPA New England, Region I Jeffrey T. Underhill, DES AndrewM

. Bodnarik, DES Charles H

. Martone, DES The State of New Hampshire DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

DES Web site: www

.des.nh.gov P .O . Box 95, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095 Telephone: (603) 271-1370 " Fax: (603) 271-1381 " TDDAccess: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Wilson, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court convicting defendant of the crimes of assault, second degree, under count one, and carrying and use of dangerous weapons under count three.) Present — Bastow. J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### David G. Yuengling, Jr., Respondent, *v.*William Hone et al., Appellants.

(Submitted June 19,1883 ;

decided June 26, 1883.)

*Andrew H. H. Dawson*for appellants.

*Charles Unangst*for respondent.

*Agree*to affirm on opinion below.

All concur, except Andrews, J., absent.

Order affirmed.
86 So.2d 916

#### Francis A. GRAHAM v. MANUFACTURERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 42036.

Feb. 20, 1956.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1956.

Hobbs & Yeates, Minden, for plaintiff-relator.

Jackson, Mayer & Kennedy, Shreveport, for defendants-respondents.

SIMON, Justice.

Plaintiff and relator herein, Francis A. Graham, instituted this suit for damages for personal injuries suffered in the accident of December 11, 1951, on U.S. Highway 80, involving a truck driven by him and a timber truck which was stopped on the highway at the time of the accident. Our findings on the issues of fact and law given in the case of Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co., 229 La. 798, 86 So. 2d 909, are equally applicable to the instant case, and our decision therein is controlling here.

Accordingly, for the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, annulled and set aside, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated and affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1



Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd.



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



I, John W. A. McDonald, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. (the registrant);



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

(intentionally omitted pursuant to the guidance contained in SEC Release No. 33  8238)



(c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 10, 2004



by /s/ John W. A. McDonald



John W. A. McDonald

President and Chief Executive Officer