alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Spectrum Aeromed is requesting an exemption from the dynamic requirements of § 

25.562 as required for berths per § 25.785(b). Spectrum Aeromed owns several 

supplemental type certificates that allow the installation of medical systems (including 

litters or berths) on various aircraft certified under parts 23, 25, 27, and 29. The dynamic 

criteria in parts 23, 27, and 29 specifically exclude litters but the dynamic criteria in part 

25 does not specifically exclude litters. 

Spectrum Aeromed states that the estimated cost of demonstrating compliance of medical 

system installations with dynamic test requirements is quite high considering the limited 

number of units for which the cost could be amortized. Since none have been shown to 

comply with the dynamic test criteria, medical systems cannot currently be used on 

airplanes whose type certificate basis includes the dynamic requirements. In this case, a 

person who needs to travel for essential medical care can either charter an airplane at 5 to 

10 times the cost of a commercial ticket, or if the cost is prohibitive, fail to receive the 

needed treatment (the consequences of which may be fatal). Another alternative would 

be flying on an aircraft whose certification basis does not require dynamic testing. This 

would offer no increase in safety and may not be available. 

Spectrum Aeromed notes that the FAA has granted similar exemptions for litter 

installations on other Boeing Model 777, Airbus Model A330, Airbus Model A340, 

Cessna Model 750, Gulfstream Model G-V, and Cessna Model 560XL airplanes.

Spectrum Aeromed states that granting the petition would be in the public interest for the 

following reasons:

1. The exemption would relieve an economic burden on a segment of the 

traveling public already dealing with adversity. 

2. The level of safety that would be provided is an acceptable level of safety, 

given the limited usage and exposure of the medical system.

3. Compliance with the dynamic test requirements would be difficult at best, and 

very expensive, while returning a marginal safety benefit. In addition, § 25.562 is 

written specifically for seats and would not be easy to apply to a litter.

Spectrum Aeromed requested that the publication of this petition for public 

comment be waived because this subject has been previously discussed in the 

public forum.
#### In the Matter of Donald A. Harter, as Herkimer County Clerk.

Order for destruction of records entered. (Order entered March 23, 1970).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF FINANCIAL POSITION STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND UNASSIGNED DEFICIT AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        13,336,716
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                       13,336,716
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                         13,568,000
<EQUITIES>                                  34,550,965
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              47,887,681
<CASH>                                       6,222,528
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           8,617,963,449
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                               5,675,123
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                            163,911,732
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,600,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  68,244,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             8,617,963,449
<PREMIUMS>                               1,203,870,215
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          4,069,336
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                 373,710,145
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,396,370
<INCOME-TAX>                                   225,841
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,170,529
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,170,529
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
1409.506 Procedures.       If the CO determines that contractor performance of the contemplated work is likely to create an organizational conflict of interest, then the contracting officer shall refer the documentation of the potential conflict and proposed resolution prepared in accordance with 7.105(b)(18) to the HCA for approval. Referrals to the HCA shall be initiated by the CO and reviewed by the SOL.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1409.5 - Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest
#### § 984.68 Expenses.

The Board is authorized to incur such expenses as the Secretary finds are reasonable and likely to be incurred by it during each marketing year for the maintenance and functioning of the Board, and for such other purposes as the Secretary may, pursuant to this part, determine to be appropriate. The Board shall file a proposed budget of expenses and a rate of assessment with the Secretary as soon as practicable after the beginning of each marketing year.

[41 FR 31544, July 29, 1976]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: Thurman et al v. Timberline Homes, Inc. et al 

Case Number: 1:06-cv-00709-DRB

Referenced Pleading: NOTICE - Doc. 3

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to correct the PDF

documents attached to this notice. Please see the correct PDF documents to this notice.

Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 5 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 5-2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 5-2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 986.21 Handler inventory.

*Handler inventory* means all pecans, shelled or inshell, as of any date and wherever located within the production area, then held by a handler for their account.
-80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/26 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.03 N 77.49 WMeters AGL
Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 31 Filed 09/05/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 31 Filed 09/05/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 31 Filed 09/05/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Anthony Costantini, Appellant, v. Board of Elections of Suffolk County et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to validate petitions designating appellant and others as candidates in the Democratic Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for nomination for public offices in the Town of Brookhaven, the public office as to appellant being Supervisor, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 6, 1969, which dismissed the petition in the proceeding. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., and Rabin, J., concur; Benjamin, J., concurs, with the following additional memorandum: It is clear that section 136 of the Election Law does not include a town within the listed exceptions to the 5% rule. While this may result in requiring a larger number of signatures for a town than for a larger subdivision within which it is contained, this anachronism appears to be a subject for legislative correction rather than for judicial legislation. Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the order and declare the designating petitions valid.
§ 981.472 Report of almonds received. ( a ) Each handler shall report to the Board, on or before the 5th calendar day of each month, on ABC Form 1, the total adjusted kernel weight of almonds, by variety, received by it for its own account for the preceding month.
( b ) [Reserved]
[58 FR 34696, June 29, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 32922, June 26, 1996; 62 FR 37488, July 14, 1997; 64 FR 18802, Apr. 16, 1999]
§ 915.30 Procedure. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, six members of the committee, including alternates acting for members, shall constitute a quorum and any decision, recommendation or other action of the committee shall require not less than five concurring votes including one by a handler, or an alternate acting as such: *Provided,* That if the committee is increased by one, the quorum requirement shall be increased to seven and any decision, recommendation or other action of the committee shall require not less than six concurring votes including one by a handler, or an alternate acting as such.
( b ) The committee may provide for simultaneous meetings of groups of its members assembled at two or more designated places: *Provided,* That such meetings shall be subject to the establishment of telephone communication between all such groups and the availability of loud speaker receivers for each group so that each member may participate in the discussions and other actions the same as if the committee were assembled in one place.
( c ) For any recommendation of the committee for an assessment rate change, a quorum of seven committee members and a two-thirds majority vote of approval of those in attendance is required.
[19 FR 3439, June 11, 1954, as amended at 22 FR 3513, May 21, 1957. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 43 FR 39322, Sept. 5, 1978; 73 FR 6837, Feb. 6, 2008]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leroy Barnes, Appellant.

Determination unanimously withheld on the appeal from the judgment rendered on February 24, 1966 convicting defendant following trial before court and jury of felonious possession of narcotics in violation of subdivision 3 of section 1751 of the former Penal Law and section 3305 of the Public Health Law; and matter remanded to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for an evidentiary and suppression hearing (see *People*v. *Morhouse,*21 N Y 2d 66; *People*V. *Munger,*24 N Y 2d 445). During the trial, on the examination of the detectives involved, it appeared that the police were possessed of wiretap conversations referring to the defendant. One detective testified that he could not recall all of the contents of the wiretaps without referring to the recordings or his notes. The court denied defendant’s request for production of the wiretap orders and supporting papers, if any, and for transcripts of the taped conversations, and denied defendant’s application for a hearing outside the presence of the jury. The People contend that the wiretap conversations were recordings from a telephone installed upon the premises of a third party and further contend that the information obtained from the wiretap conversations was not in any way utilized for the purpose of obtaining defendant’s arrest or upon the trial. The record,' however, is inadequate to permit a determination as to whether the defendant had standing to object to the use of the wiretap conversations and as to whether the People did in fact obtain information from such conversations that was improperly used as against the defendant. Under the circumstances, therefore, the matter should be remanded for a proper hearing upon all relevant facts and circumstances with relation to the wiretaps. (See, also, *People*v. *Butler,*33 A D 2d 675.) Concur — Eager, J. P„ Capozzoli, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE BENNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.:

v ) 1:06-CV-723-MHT

)

ARMY FLEET SUPPORT, LLC )

)

)

Defendant. )

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and

submits this Response to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment in the above-styled cause. Plaintiff responds that the Defendant’s

motion is due to be denied in part, and granted in part. Plaintiff relies on the

pleadings to date, a brief in opposition to Defendant’s motion, and an

evidentiary submission in opposition to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff further

states:

1. Defendant is an entity that receives federal financial assistance and

Defendant is subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is due to be

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

denied with respect to the Rehabilitation Act.

2. Plaintiff concedes that Defendant’s motion is due to be granted only with

respect to Plaintiff’s Title VII sex discrimination claim.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff respectfully requests the

entry of an Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

with respect to her Title VII sex discrimination claim, and DENYING

Defendant’s motion as it pertain to her claim under the Rehabilitation Act of

1973.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Ethan R. Dettling

Jon C. Goldfarb (ASB-5401-F58J)

Ethan R. Dettling (ASB-9067-T68E)

Counsel for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500

Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

document has been properly filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF

system which will send electronic notification to the following counsel of

record:

Kirk Cordell Shaw

Mary Carol Ladd

Ambrecht Jackson LLP

PO Box 290

Mobile, AL 36601-0290

251-405-1302

Email: kcs@ajlaw.com

Email: mcl@ajlaw.com

on this the 9th day of July, 2007.

s/Ethan R. Dettling

OF COUNSEL

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### § 58.242 Product adulteration.

All necessary precautions shall be taken throughout the entire operation to prevent the adulteration of one product with another. The commingling of one type of liquid or dry product with another shall be considered as an adulteration of that product. This does not prohibit the normal standardization of like products in accordance with good commercial practices or the production of specific products for special uses, provided applicable labeling requirements are met.
Subpart 5623.4 - Use of Recovered Materials

Parent topic: Part 5623 - ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND

DRUGFREE WORKPLACE

5623.404 Agency Affirmative Procurement Programs.

(Revised February 2007 )

(a) Each contracting office shall refer to the Affirmative Procurement Plan (APP) (i.e. Green

Procurement Plan (GPP)) of its host base for guidance on the promotion, compliance, and preference

for use of recovered materials. Web sites for Army, Air Force, and Navy APPs can be found in the

USSOCOM Desktop Resource Center (DCG).

(c) The Defense Acquisition University Government Purchase Card (GPC) tutorial provides

USSOCOM approving officials and cardholders with guidance on the purchase of EPA-designated

products at or below the micro-purchase threshold as required by FAR.

5623.405 Procedures.

(c) Refer to the USSOCOM DCG for a template of the written justification required by FAR 23.405(b)

(2) .

HQ, United States Special Operations Command

Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L)

SOFARS 5624

February 2007
1553.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes Agency forms for use in acquisitions and contains requirements and information

generally applicable to the forms.

Parent topic: PART 1553 - FORMS
Subpart 5203.1 - SAFEGUARDS     **Parent topic:** Part 5203 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST5203.101 Standards of conduct.     5203.101-1 General.    (a) DON contracting activities, purchasing offices and CAOs are responsible for ensuring that a single individual performs only one of the following functions:       (1) initiation of the requirement;       (2) award of contract or placement of order; and       (3) receipt, inspection, and acceptance of supplies or services.       (b) If circumstances preclude an individual from performing a single function, as a minimum, the individual responsible for the award of a contract or placement of an order should not perform the receipt, inspection and acceptance function.5203.104 Procurement integrity.     5203.104-7 Violations or possible violations.    (a)(1) The CCO is designated, without power of redelegation, as the individual to receive the contracting officer’s report and documentation concluding that there is no impact on the procurement.       (f) Submit agency head          notifications to DASN(P) by email at usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject          “[Activity Name] FAR 3.104-7 - Contract Award – Possible Procurement Integrity Act          Violation.” Verify receipt by the agency head before authorizing award of the contract or          execution of the contract modification.
§ 993.165 Disposition of reserve prunes. ( a ) *General.* For purposes of § 993.65(a)(2), normal outlets for salable prunes (herein referred to as “normal outlets”) and outlets noncompetitive with normal outlets for salable prunes (herein referred to as “noncompetitive outlets”) are defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) *Normal outlets. Normal outlets* means all outlets not specifically set forth in paragraph (c) of this section as noncompetitive outlets.
( c ) *Noncompetitive outlets. Noncompetitive outlets* means ( 1 ) the U.S. Government or any agency thereof and any State or local government, except when such outlets are normally serviced through regular commercial trade channels,
( 2 ) any foreign government or any agency thereof, except any which normally is serviced through regular commercial trade channels,
( 3 ) any foreign country with an average of annual commercial imports of California prunes of less than 5 tons, based on imports during the most recent 5 years,
( 4 ) diced prunes for use as an ingredient in, or the manufacture of, food products for human consumption, other than for use in the manufacture of prune juice, prune concentrate, baby food, puree, butter, jam, and low moisture nuggets, granules, and powder,
( 5 ) charities,
( 6 ) research or educational activities, and
( 7 ) animal feed, distillation, and other salvage use.
[31 FR 5751, Apr. 14, 1966, as amended at 37 FR 5600, Mar. 17, 1972]
§ 927.52 Prerequisites to recommendations. ( a ) Decisions of the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee with respect to any recommendations to the Secretary pursuant to the establishment or modification of a supplemental rate of assessment for an individual variety or subvariety of pears shall be made by affirmative vote of not less than 75 percent of the applicable total number of votes, computed in the manner described in paragraph (b) of this section, of all members. Decisions of the Fresh Pear Committee pursuant to the provisions of § 927.50 shall be made by an affirmative vote of not less than 80 percent of the applicable total number of votes, computed in the manner prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, of all members.
( b ) With respect to a particular variety or subvariety of pears, the applicable total number of votes shall be the aggregate of the votes allotted to the members in accordance with the following: Each member shall have one vote as an individual and, in addition, shall have a vote equal to the percentage of the vote of the district represented by such member; and such district vote shall be computed as soon as practical after the beginning of each fiscal period on either: ( 1 ) The basis of one vote for each 25,000 boxes (except 2,500 boxes for varieties or subvarieties with less than 200,000 standard boxes or container equivalents) of the average quantity of such variety or subvariety produced in the particular district and shipped therefrom during the immediately preceding three fiscal periods; or
( 2 ) Such other basis as the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee may recommend and the Secretary may approve. The votes so allotted to a member may be cast by such member on each recommendation relative to the variety or subvariety of pears on which such votes were computed.
#### § 51.708 Serious damage.

*Serious damage* means any specific defect described in Table 1 to § 51.713; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects, which seriously detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing quality of the fruit.

[85 FR 68428, Oct. 29, 2020]
Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

§ 989.17 Acquire. *Acquire* means to have or obtain physical possession of raisins by a handler at his packing or processing plant or at any other established receiving station operated by him: *Provided,* That a handler shall not be deemed to acquire any raisins (including raisins produced or dehydrated by him) while: ( a ) He stores them for another person or as handler-produced tonnage in compliance with the provisions of §§ 989.58 and 989.70;
( b ) He reconditions them, or;
( c ) He has them in his possession for the purpose of inspection; and *Provided further,* That the term shall apply only to the handler who first acquires the raisins.