alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5275 Microwave diathermy. ( a ) *Microwave diathermy for use in applying therapeutic deep heat for selected medical conditions* — ( 1 ) *Identification.* A microwave diathermy for use in applying therapeutic deep heat for selected medical conditions is a device that applies to specific areas of the body electromagnetic energy in the microwave frequency bands of 915 megahertz to 2,450 megahertz and that is intended to generate deep heat within body tissues for the treatment of selected medical conditions such as relief of pain, muscle spasms, and joint contractures, but not for the treatment of malignancies.
( 2 ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
( b ) *Microwave diathermy for all other uses* — ( 1 ) *Identification.* A microwave diathermy for all other uses except for the treatment of malignancies is a device that applies to the body electromagnetic energy in the microwave frequency bands of 915 megahertz to 2,450 megahertz and that is intended for the treatment of medical conditions by means other than the generation of deep heat within body tissues as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP for a device described in paragraph (b) of this section is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before July 13, 1999, for any microwave diathermy described in paragraph (b) of this section that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before July 13, 1999, been found to be substantially equivalent to a microwave diathermy described in paragraph (b) of this section that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other microwave diathermy described in paragraph (b) of this section shall have an approved PMA or declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 52 FR 17742, May 11, 1987; 64 FR 18331, Apr. 14, 1999]
#### Maggie WALKER *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5470

451 S. W. 2d 727

Opinion delivered March 30, 1970

*Harkness, Friedman & Kusin,*for appellant.

*Joe Purcell,*Attorney General; *Don Langston*and *Mike Wilson,*Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

A jury found appellant Maggie Walker guilty of voluntary manslaughter and fixed her punishment at five years in the penitentiary. For reversal of the judgment upon the verdict, appellant argues that the trial court erred in not dismissing the charges against her because her actions were in self-defense and for her own protection. We find no merit in appellant’s argument.

The record shows that H. D. Hughes, the ex-husband of Mary Hughes, was corresponding with both appellant and the decedent Norene Hatter. Immediately prior to the shooting a commotion occurred when *422H. D. Hughes tried to get his drunk son to go home. About the time that Mary Hughes, the boy’s mother, started trying to get him home, a fight started between appellant Maggie Walker and Norene Hatter.

Appellant’s version is that when she got even with decedent, the decedent grabbed her dress, started stabbing at her with a knife, and said, “Bitch if you don’t kill me g . . .d . . . I’m going to kill you.” Decedent kept on stabbing, so appellant commenced shooting to protect herself.

Other witnesses stated that appellant started the fight. Alton Hodnett said that when appellant came out of Al’s Cafe, she walked up behind decedent and hit her, and that when decedent turned around, he heard four or five shots.

Dr. Scott McMahen testified that decedent died of three gun shot wounds in the abdomen.

The issue of self-defense was a fact question for the jury.

Affirmed.
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- Contact

### Low-flow characteristics of streams in the Mississippi 
embayment in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Illinois, with a section on quality of the 
water

#### Professional Paper 448-H

Tweet


#### Links

- Document: **Document**                                
  (pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate 1**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 2**                                
    (pdf)
- Paper 
  version: **USGS Store**
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it 
is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them 
with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or 
print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe 
Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and 
printing report files can be found here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and 
Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior				    | 				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				    				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp448H 
                   				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 
2012 00:10:19
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6250 Non-powdered patient examination glove. ( a ) *Identification.* A non-powdered patient examination glove is a disposable device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the examiner's hand or finger to prevent contamination between patient and examiner. A non-powdered patient examination glove does not incorporate powder for purposes other than manufacturing. The final finished glove includes only residual powder from manufacturing.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device, when it is a finger cot, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 880.9.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 54 FR 1604, Jan. 13, 1989; 66 FR 46952, Sept. 10, 2001; 81 FR 91730, Dec. 19, 2016; 84 FR 71815, Dec. 30, 2019]
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 17, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1638

Lower Tribunal No. F20-7172

________________

Pradel Lucas,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William 

Altfield, Judge.

Pradel Lucas, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. 

MILLER, J.
2

Appellant, Pradel Lucas, a prisoner incarcerated in Miami-Dade 

County, appeals the summary denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The 

lower tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims alleged

in the petition. Because Lucas was convicted and sentenced in Broward 

County and the petition challenges the legality of his conviction, rather than 

the conditions of his confinement, we affirm without prejudice to the refiling 

of the petition in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit. See Johnson v. State, 947 

So. 2d 1192, 1192-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“While a defendant is required to 

file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit where the defendant is 

incarcerated when the petition involves an issue regarding the prisoner's 

incarceration, the converse is true when the petition is based upon the 

legality of the conviction imposed in another circuit.”) (citations omitted);

Calloway v. State, 699 So. 2d 849, 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“[A] circuit court 

has no jurisdiction to review the legality of a conviction in another circuit.”) 

(alteration in original) (citation omitted).

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.9 (m)

                           LOAN SATISFACTION AGREEMENT


         Pursuant to the terms of that certain Subscription Agreement dated
November 4, 2002, the undersigned as the assignee (the "Holder") of $152,084 of
obligations due from I. T. Technology, Inc. (the "Obligor") pursuant to that
certain Loan Agreement dated November 8, 2000 (the "Loan") has agreed that, in
full satisfaction of all amounts due and owing by the Obligor to the Holder
under the Loan or $152,084 (USD), as of the date hereof, to accept 1,520,840
restricted shares of the Obligor's $ .0002 (USD) par value per share common
stock (the "Shares") (the "Exchange").

         In connection with the Exchange, Holder acknowledges receipt of the
certificates representing the Shares and Obligor acknowledges full satisfaction
of all amounts due pursuant to the Loan.

                                                  COHERO GROUP, INC..

                                                  By: /s/ Mendel Mochkin
                                                  Name: Mendel Mochkin
                                                  Its:  Managing Director

                                                  I. T. TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                                                  By: /s/ Yam-Hin Tan
                                                  Name: Yam-Hin Tan
                                                  Its:  Chief Financial Officer
§ 1.1244(d)-4 Net operating loss deduction. ( a ) *General rule.* For purpose of section 172, relating to the net operating loss deduction, any amount of loss that is treated as an ordinary loss under section 1244 (taking into account the annual dollar limitation of that section) shall be treated as attributable to the trade or business of the taxpayer. Therefore, this loss is allowable in determining the taxpayer's net operating loss for a taxable year and is not subject to the application of section 172(d)(4), relating to nonbusiness deductions. A taxpayer may deduct the maximum of ordinary loss permitted under section 1244(b) even though all or a portion of the taxpayer's net operating loss carryback or carryover for the taxable year was, when incurred, a loss on section 1244 stock.
( b ) *Example.* The provisions of this section may be illustrated by the following example:
Example: A, a single individual, computes a net operating loss of $15,000 for 1980 in accordance with the rules of § 1.172-3, relating to net operating loss in case of a taxpayer other than a corporation. Included within A's computation of this net operating loss is a deduction arising under section 1244 for a loss on small business stock. A had no taxable income in 1977, 1978, or 1979. Assume that A can carry over the entire $15,000 loss under the rules of section 172. In 1981 A has gross income of $75,000 and again sustains a loss on section 1244 stock. The amount of A's 1981 loss on section 1244 stock is $50,000. A may deduct the full $50,000 as an ordinary loss under section 1244 and the full $15,000 as a net operating loss carryover in 1981.
[T.D. 7779, 46 FR 29473, June 2, 1981]
§ 884.5330 Multiple-use female condom. ( a ) *Identification.* A multiple-use female condom is a sheath-like device that lines the vaginal wall and is inserted into the vagina prior to the initiation of coitus. At the conclusion of coitus, the device can be reused. It is indicated for contraception and prophylactic (preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections) purposes.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of PDP is required.* A PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before November 21, 2011, for any female condom that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before November 21, 2011, been found to be substantially equivalent to any female condom that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other female condom shall have an approved PMA or declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[65 FR 31455, May 18, 2000, as amended at 76 FR 50667, Aug. 16, 2011; 83 FR 48714, Sept. 27, 2018]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       ARMANINO FOODS OF DISTINCTION, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of Armanino Foods of Distinction, Inc. for the period ending
March 31, 2004:

     (1) complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Armanino Foods of Distinction, Inc.





/s/ Edmond J. Pera
Edmond J. Pera
Chief Operating Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
April 27, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Armanino Foods of Distinction,
Inc. and will be retained by Armanino Foods of Distinction, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
39425.

#### MANLEY v. THE STATE.

Decided April 3, 1962.

*Charles L. Pickett,*for plaintiff in error.

*Earl B. Self, Solicitor-General,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

Leon Manley under an indictment charging him with the offense of bastardy was tried and convicted in the City Court of Walker County. His amended motion for new trial was denied and he excepted to that judgment. *Held:*

1. Special grounds 4 and 10 of the amended motion assign error on the refusal of the court to give in charge to the jury in the exact language requested two timely written requests which appear to have been correct statements of the law and adjusted to the facts. While the court did, in the charge given, charge upon the principles involved in the requests, and in language that covered them in substantially the same manner, under the controlling decisions of the Supreme Court in *Werk v. Big Bunker Hill Mining Corp.,*193 Ga. 217 (17 SE2d 825); *Summer v. Boyd,*208 Ga. 207 (66 SE2d 51); *Randall v. State,*210 Ga. 435 (1) (80 SE2d 695); and *Vaughan v. Vaughan,*212 Ga. 485 (93 SE2d 743), where a timely written request, correct, pertinent and adjusted to the facts, is made, the court must give it in charge, without change or variation, and failure to do so requires the grant of a new trial. *Code Ann.*§ 70-207; *Durand v. Reeves,*217 Ga. 492, 494 (123 SE2d 552); *Leggett v. Brewton,*104 Ga. App. 580, 584 (122 SE2d 469).

2. The remaining special grounds, all of which assign error on various excerpts from the charge of the' court, are without merit. The general grounds are not ruled upon since the case is to be retried.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P.J., and Franküm, J., concur.*
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Stiefermann, Mike" <mstiefermann@cepc.net>

Date: 7/22/2010 11:48 AM

Subject: Re: ICR Extension Request

Attachments: pic08672.gif

Greetings,

EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent

guidelines questionnaire for the Central Electric Cooperative Chamois

facility. The deadline for your plant to submit Version 2 of the

completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. If you

need assistance during the completion of the steam electric

questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at

steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic08672.gif)

 

 From: "Stiefermann, Mike" <mstiefermann@cepc.net> 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Date: 07/08/2010 05:56 PM 

 Subject: ICR Extension Request 

To whom it may concern:

I am hereby requesting an extension of the deadline for completing the

information collection request (ICR) questionnaire for the steam

electric power generating effluent guidelines. Central Electric Power

Cooperative is a small organization as defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, that operates a single, small power plant (59 MW total

nameplate capacity) with two coal-fired generating units in Chamois,

Missouri - ICR Plant ID 04388. We have very limited resources to

complete a questionnaire of this nature within a 90 day timeframe amid

competing regulatory monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements. I have been working through the questionnaire and have

found that it imposes a very large burden on my time as the primary

environmental compliance coordinator at the facility. At the same time

that I am completing this ICR, I will also be working with our state

agency as new air and water permits are written for our facility. In

addition, I am in the process of reviewing the following rules that have

been proposed by the EPA which would affect our facility and are
currently open for comment:

Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing

of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric

Utilities; Proposed Rule

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major

Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process

Heaters; Proposed Rule

Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid

Waste; Proposed Rule

We also have a relatively small accounting department who have expressed

concern about being able to complete Part I "Economic and Financial

Data" and compile other cost data within the 90 day timeframe, while

keeping up with their normal accounting workload. I respectfully

request that we be granted an additional 90 days to complete the

questionnaire.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Michael C. Stiefermann, P.E.

Environmental & Operations Engineer

Central Electric Power Cooperative

(573) 763-5314 x 223

mstiefermann@cepc.net
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0514

IN THE MATTER OF, 

A.G.,

A Youth.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 15, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 9 2024

02/09/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0514
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
 April 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                
|(2) | The
 information contained in the accompanying Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
 Company.                           

|      |               |  |                                  | 
|----- | ------------- |  | -------------------------------- | 
|Date: | June 14, 2011 |  | /s/ Gregg O.
 Lehman             | 
|      |               |  | Interim
 Chief Executive Officer | 
|      |               |  |                                  | 
|Date: | June 14, 2011 |  | /s/ Robert
 M. Wolf              | 
|      |               |  | Chief
 Financial Officer         | 

24

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

JAMES DUANE BAKER

- MYERS,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 193 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26 th day of November , 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED . The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Whether the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, citing the case of Commonwealth v. Magliocco , 883 A.2d 479 (Pa. 2005), properly held the language “in violation of Chapter 31” is an essential element necessary for a conviction of Corruption of Minors as a felon y of the third degree[.]

(2) Whether the evidence was sufficient for a conviction of Corruption of Minors as a felony of the third degree despite the jury’s acquittal of Rape, Sexual Assault, Aggravated Indecent Assault and Indecent Assault[.]
TIME 08:30 EDT
DATE 6/1/2016

RECORD OF CONVERSATION

NAME(S) OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONFERENCE AND LOCATION Thomas Schaner, Director of Operations, Air Net II, LLC

SUBJECT Request for exemption: Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2016

- 3686 DIGEST Mr. Thomas Schaner was contacted b y the FAA to obtain clarification and additional information for Air Net II, LLC’s (Air Net) petition for an exemption from 14 CFR 61.51 (f) (2)

. Air Net is a part 135 operat or with operation configurations for passengers and cargo operations for its fleet of BE

- 58 and LR

- 35

- A aircraft. The petition er noted that Air Net has a second

- in

- command (SIC) training program for operations in both aircraft

. According to Mr. Schaner, the vast majority of Air Net’s operations involve cargo. Mr. Schaner noted that it is difficult to retain SIC pilots in Air Net’s BE

- 58 due to limited operations needing an SIC. Mr. Schaner expressed that relief from 14 CFR 61.51 (f)(2) would be of great benef it due to increased SIC exposure to Air Net operations.

The FAA requested clarification regarding Air Net’s belief that its relief sought is similar in all material aspects to the relief granted to Ameriflight, LLC (Ameriflight) in exemption No. 9770D. The petitioner explained that Air Net works closely with Am eriflight and expressed that the method s in which both operators conducts pilot training are very similar. The FAA explained to the petitioner that Air Net differs from Ameriflight due to Ameriflight’s operation configuration s are listed as cargo only . The FAA also explained that Air Net’s LR

- 35

- A requires a minimum of two crewmember s therefore its petition for exemption should be exclusively for BE

- 58 operations.

CONCLUSION, ACTION TAKEN, OR REQUIRED The information obtained was relevant to the petition for exemption and will be considered. An e

mail from the petitioner will be submitted to the General Aviation and Commercial Division in efforts to further specify Air Net’ s use of the relief sought.

Neil Rose, Acting Manager, Airmen Training and Certi fication Branch, AFS

- 810 Jabari Raphael

, Aviation Safety Analyst

, Airmen Training and Certification Branch

, AFS

- 810