alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 429.13 Testing requirements. ( a ) The determination that a basic model complies with an applicable energy conservation standard shall be determined from the values derived pursuant to the applicable testing and sampling requirements set forth in parts 429, 430 and 431. The determination that a basic model complies with the applicable design standard shall be based upon the incorporation of specific design requirements in parts 430 and 431 or as specified in section 325 and 342 of the Act.
( b ) Where DOE has determined a particular entity is in noncompliance with an applicable standard or certification requirement, DOE may impose additional testing requirements as a remedial measure.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 64 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      February 2, 2005.
    Resolved, That the following Members be, and are hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
            Committee on the budget: Mr. Crenshaw to rank after Mr. Ryun of 
        Kansas; Mr. Wicker to rank after Mr. Putnam and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen to rank 
        after Mr. Hensarling.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32245]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 224: Airport Security 
Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 224 meeting: Airport Security 
Access Control Systems (Update to DO-230B).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224: Airport Security Access Control 
Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held January 13, 2011, from 10 a.m. to 5 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, MacIntosh--NBAA Room and Hilton--ATA Room, Washington, DC 
20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 224: Airport Security Access 
Control Systems (Update to DO-230B):

Agenda

January 13, 2011

    <bullet> Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks.
    <bullet> Review/Approve Summary--Second Meeting.
    <bullet> Report on Security Construction Guidelines Process.
    <bullet> Workgroup Reports.
    <bullet> Credentialing.
    <bullet> PACS.
    <bullet> Biometrics.
    <bullet> Communications.
    <bullet> Video.
    <bullet> Other Input from Members.
    <bullet> Work Objectives for Next Plenary.
    <bullet> Other Business.
    <bullet> Establish Agenda for Next Meeting.
    <bullet> Date and Place of Next Meeting.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 16, 2010.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-32245 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
2007-1951.

#### State v. Norman.

Cuyahoga App. No. 87920, 2007-Ohio-629. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Cupp, J., dissents.
#### GODDARD, Respondent, v. BIGELOW, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 5, 1915.)

Action by Charles H. Goddard against Warren Bigelow.

PER CURIAM.

We think but one cause of action is stated, and in our opinion it is an action for assault, and not for trespass. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
# EUR-Lex - 31987R1307 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31987R1307

**Council Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EEC) No 1307/87 of 11 May 1987 amending Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 determining the categories of officials entitled to allowances for shiftwork, and the rates and conditions thereof **

*
Official Journal L 124 , 13/05/1987 P. 0006 - 0006 Finnish special edition: Chapter 1 Volume 2 P. 0071 Swedish special edition: Chapter 1 Volume 2 P. 0071 *

*****

COUNCIL REGULATION (Euratom, ECSC, EEC) No 1307/87

of 11 May 1987

amending Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 determining the categories of officials entitled to allowances for shiftwork, and the rates and conditions thereof

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), as last amended by Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EEC) No 793/87 (2), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 56a thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission made after consulting the Staff Regulations Committee,

Whereas dispatch facilities for the Official Journal of the European Communities must be permanently available so that it can be distributed by the deadlines laid down; whereas, for one week in five, staff responsible for distribution work at night, including Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays;

Whereas Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 3856/86 (4), should therefore be extended to cover such staff,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 1 (1) of Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 is hereby amended as follows:

(1) The section of the first subparagraph following the words 'telex service', and preceding the indents, shall be replaced by the following: 'or involved in the dispatch of the Official Journal of the European Communities, who is engaged in shiftwork within the meaning of Article 56a of the Staff Regulations, shall be entitled to an allowance of:'.

(2) The following indent shall be inserted after the first indent:

'- Bfrs 12 641 where the department operates on a two-shift basis, one of them at night, including Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays;'.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from the first day of the month following that in which it enters into force.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 May 1987.

For the Council

The President

M. EYSKENS

(1) OJ No L 56, 4. 3. 1968, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 79, 21. 3. 1987, p. 1.

(3) OJ No L 38, 13. 2. 1976, p. 1.

(4) OJ No L 359, 19. 12. 1986, p. 5.
#### § 603.675 Reporting use of IPA for subawards.

An expenditure-based TIA should require participants to report to the contracting officer when they enter into any subaward allowing a for-profit subawardee to use an IPA, as described in § 603.670(b)(2).
#### § 431.151 Purpose and scope.

This subpart contains energy conservation requirements for commercial clothes washers, pursuant to Part C of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317.
#### HULL, Appellant, v. FIFTY-SECOND ST. STORAGE HOUSE, Inc., Respondent, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1914.)

Action by Lawrence Hull, as trustee in bankruptcy of Clarence E. Hopkins, against the Fifty-Second Street Storage House, Incorporated, impleaded with others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### § 603.1295 Periodic audit.

An audit of a participant, performed at an agreed-upon time (usually a regular time interval), to determine whether the participant as a whole is managing its Federal awards in compliance with the terms of those awards. Appendix A to this part describes what such an audit may cover. A periodic audit of a participant differs from an award-specific audit of an individual award (as defined in § 603.1220).
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134605 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134605 COA: 268150 St. Clair CC: 05-000220-FH TERRY LEE CEASOR, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 12, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1022 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.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
#### § 60.73 Reports of deficiencies.

DOE shall promptly notify the Commission of each deficiency found in the characteristics of the site, and design and construction of the geologic repository operations area which, were it to remain uncorrected, could: (a) Be a substantial safety hazard, (b) represent a significant deviation from the design criteria and design bases stated in the application, or (c) represent a deviation from the conditions stated in the terms of a construction authorization or the license, including license specifications. The notification shall be in the form of a written report, copies of which shall be sent to the Director and to the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Office listed in appendix D of part 20 of this chapter.

[48 FR 28222, June 21, 1983]
EX-34.4
(logo) pwc


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.
(the "Company"), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service
provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2013 and for the year then ended,
only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii),
1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has
determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with
respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining
whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected
servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this
report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from
errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during
the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2013 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing
customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


February 14, 2014


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201
T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Destin Spearman

Appellate case number: 01-22-00735-CR

Trial court case number: 1747440

Trial court: 482nd District Court of Harris County

On January 31, 2023, the Court abated this appeal and remanded the case to the trial court 

for the trial court to execute a certification of appellant’s right to appeal that complied with 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) and indicated whether appellant had a right to appeal 

from the trial court’s September 29, 2022 order denying his application for writ of habeas 

corpus.

On February 7, 2023, the trial court clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing a 

certification of appellant’s right to appeal indicating that appellant “has the right to appeal from 

th[e] [trial] [c]ourt’s order denying relief.”

Accordingly, we REINSTATE this appeal on the Court’s active docket.

The State’s appellee’s brief, if any, is due to be filed seven days from the date of this 

order.

1

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Julie Countiss________

  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: February 14, 2023

1 The State’s appellee’s brief was previously due on January 25, 2023. In its motion to abate, the 

State requested a briefing deadline of seven days from the date of reinstatement.
§ 504.2 Purpose and scope. ( a ) Sections 504.5, 504.6, and 504.8, set forth the prohibitions that OFP, pursuant to section 301 of the Act, as amended, may impose upon existing powerplants after a review of the certification and prohibition order compliance schedule submitted by the owner or operator of a powerplant. Sections 504.5 and 504.8 are explanatory sections, and § 504.6 provides the informational requirements necessary to support the certification.
( b ) Sections 504.6 and 504.7, set forth the prohibitions that OFP may impose upon certain electing powerplants, pursuant to former section 301 (b) and (c) of FUA, where OFP can make the findings as to the unit's technical capability and financial feasibility to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. The prohibitions may be made to apply to electing powerplants unless an exemption is granted by OFP under the provisions of the Final Rule for Existing Facilities (10 CFR parts 500, 501 and 504) published at 45 FR 53682, Aug. 12, 1980 and 46 FR 59872, Dec. 7, 1981. Any person who owns, controls, rents or leases an existing electing powerplant may be subject to the prohibitions imposed by and the sanctions provided for in the Act or these regulations, if OFP can make the findings required by former section 301 (b) and (c) of FUA.
(Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565 (42 U.S.C. 7101 *et seq.*); Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-620, 92 Stat. 3269 (42 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.*); Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-35; E.O. 12009, 42 FR 46267, Sept. 15, 1977)
[47 FR 50849, Nov. 10, 1982]
§ 709.32 Training requirements for polygraph examiners. ( a ) Examiners must complete an initial training course of thirteen weeks, or longer, in conformance with the procedures and standards established by DODPI.
( b ) Examiners must undergo annual continuing education for a minimum of forty hours training within the discipline of Forensic Psychophysiological Detection of Deception.
( c ) The following organizations provide acceptable curricula to meet the training requirement of paragraph (b) of this section: ( 1 ) American Polygraph Association,
( 2 ) American Association of Police Polygraphists, and
( 3 ) Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.
AAM-12-278-E April 3, 2012

Exemption No. 10497 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0309

Mr. Brian L. Johnson Vermilion Ventures, LLC 11038 Highway 37 #2 Hibbing, MN 55746

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 14, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Vermilion Ventures, LLC (Vermilion Ve ntures), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Vermilion Ventures, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Vermilion Ventures.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Vermilion Ventures, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Vermilion Ventures, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Vermilion Ventures are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Vermilion Ventures part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
Exhibit 32



Certification

Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of FNB Corp., a North Carolina corporation (the Corporation), does hereby certify that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004
(the Form 10-Q) of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 5, 2004 |  | /s/ Michael C. Miller  
|                       |  | Michael C. Miller      
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                       | 
|Date: November 5, 2004 |  | /s/ Jerry A. Little    
|                       |  | Jerry A. Little        
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BNP Residential Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Scott Wilkerson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ D. Scott Wilkerson
D. Scott Wilkerson
Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2002


                                       27
<PAGE>