alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### §§ 615.5209-615.5212 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           18476
<SECURITIES>                                    120827
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5036
<ALLOWANCES>                                       151
<INVENTORY>                                       2135
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                155310
<PP&E>                                          192814
<DEPRECIATION>                                   17085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  396186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            35786
<BONDS>                                         150504
<COMMON>                                           149
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      192895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    396186
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 80296
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    34945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 31669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3963
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  11851
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4622
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7229
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7229
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
H. R. 3056

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To clarify the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coast Barrier Resources System

Cedar Keys Unit P25 on Otherwise Protected Area P25P.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL

BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Of the 2 maps subtitled ‘‘P25/P25P’’ that

relate to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System

unit designated as Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys

Unit P25/P25P and are included in the set of maps entitled ‘‘Coastal

Barrier Resources System’’ referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal

Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), the map depicting the

northernmost area of that unit is hereby replaced by another map

relating to that unit entitled ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier

Resources System Cedar Keys Unit P25/P25P’’ and dated February

9, 2004.

(b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall keep

the replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal

Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
STRAUB SURVEYING MONTHLY MAINTENANCE LOG 

Month:________________Year:__________

Other: 

Landing Gear 

Vibration Dampening 

Propellers 

Camera Gimbal 

Airframe 

Engines 

UAS: __________ Date Issue 

Discovered 

Date Issue 

Addressed Issue Description & Maintenance Conducted Maintenance Performed By: Print & Sign 

Software Updates
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22642 Filed:10/13/22 Entered:10/18/22 17:32:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22642 Filed:10/13/22 Entered:10/18/22 17:32:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22642 Filed:10/13/22 Entered:10/18/22 17:32:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22642 Filed:10/13/22 Entered:10/18/22 17:32:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 4
#### § 619.9180 Fixed interest spread.

A percentage to be added to the cost of money to the bank or association as the means of establishing a lending rate.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3348 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3348

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

            To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3348

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
            To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE BAN ON UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS.

    Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. 
922 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``15'' and inserting ``25'';
            (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) by striking ``and (h)'' and inserting ``through 
                (o)''; and
                    (B) by striking ``and (g)'' and inserting ``through 
                (n)''; and
            (3) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E) and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(D) section 924(a)(1) of such title is amended by 
                striking `this subsection, subsection (b), (c), or (f) 
                of this section, or in section 929' and inserting `this 
                chapter'; and
                    ``(E) section 925(a) of such title is amended--
                            ``(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and 
                        provisions relating to firearms subject to the 
                        prohibitions of section 922(p)'; and
                            ``(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking `, 
                        except for provisions relating to firearms 
                        subject to the prohibitions of section 
                        922(p),'; and
                            ``(iii) in each of paragraphs (3) and (4), 
                        by striking `except for provisions relating to 
                        firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 
                        922(p),'.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 5, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

[Lucas Circuit Court,

April Term, 1894.]

Bentley, Haynes and Scribner, JJ.

#### C., H. V. & Toledo Ry. Co. v. John Burns.

Injury to Railroad Employee.

Plaintiff was employed upon railroad tracks in almost constant use for the passage of engines and cars, to his kñowledge; he did not look up after going to work, but relied upon being warned in time: *Held,*where it was shown that the engine which ran over him, was backing up and ringing the bell, that verdict in favor of plaintiff was unwarranted.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas county.

*Doyle, Scott & Lewis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hamilton & Ford,*for defendant in error.

Haynes, J.

The plaintiff below recovered a judgment against the plaintiff in error for damages from being run over by an engine of said railway company in the yards used by that company and the Pennsylvania company in Toledo, November 10, 1891, and while Butns was a day laborer for the Pennsylvania company, cleaning dirt from a wagon-crossing over its tracks near its freight depot.

The evidence showed, without contradiction, that his work was upon tracks in almost constant use for the passage of engines and cars, to his knowledge, and that he did not look up after he started to work for the purpose of seeing whether any engine or cars were coming, but relied wholly on being warned in time by the bell of an engine which might approach, though nothing obstructed his view of the tracks for over 300 feet; that an engine, whose bell was ringing, approached him while the engineer was looking at the bridge to see if any train or engine was coming; and not seeing Burns, ran over his arm, and injured it so as to require amputation a short distance below the shoulder. It was shown that the engine was backing at the time, and that its tender concealed the track from the engineer for from 50 to 75 feet, and it did not appear from the evidence how far the engine was from Burns when he stepped between the particular tracks whereon the engine came; the negligence charged in the petition was that the engine was moving without giving any warning by bell or otherwise, and that the engineer was not on his engine, having left it in charge of an incompetent fireman. The proof that the bell was ringing was overwhelming, and no proof whatever tended to show that the engine was not being run by the engineer himself. ,

*Held:*That the verdict was not warranted by the evidence.

Judgment reversed.
#### Kelley *v.*Smith *et al.,*executors.

No. 8584.

August 10, 1932.

Atkinson, J.

1. The charge “Misrepresentation of a material fact, made wilfully to deceive or recklessly without knowledge, and acted upon by the other party, constitutes legal fraud,” was not cause for reversal, under the evidence in this case.

2. The omission of the judge, without appropriate request, to charge the law relating to conflicting evidence and the credibility of witnesses was not cause for a reversal of the judgment refusing a new trial. *Darden*v. *State,*171 *Ga.*160 (6) (155 S. E. 38).

3. The requested charge which is set forth in the first special ground of the motion for a new trial, and the suggested charge which it is alleged in the second and fourth grounds that the court should have given, were not properly adjusted to the pleadings and all the evidence, and were argumentative and show no cause for a reversal.

4. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*280
      *Thad L. Bynum*and *J. B. Jones,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. A. Johns,*contra.
§ 370.3 Information technology system requirements. ( a ) A covered institution must configure its information technology system to be capable of performing the functions set forth in paragraph (b) of this section within 24 hours after the appointment of the FDIC as receiver. To the extent that a covered institution does not maintain its deposit account records in the manner prescribed under § 370.4(a) but instead in the manner prescribed under § 370.4(b), (c) or (d), the covered institution's information technology system must be able to perform the functions set forth in paragraph (b) of this section upon input by the FDIC of additional information collected after failure of the covered institution.
( b ) Each covered institution's information technology system must be capable of: ( 1 ) Accurately calculating the deposit insurance coverage for each deposit account in accordance with 12 CFR part 330;
( 2 ) Generating and retaining output records in the data format and layout specified in appendix B to this part;
( 3 ) Restricting access to some or all of the deposits in a deposit account until the FDIC has made its deposit insurance determination for that deposit account using the covered institution's information technology system; and
( 4 ) Debiting from each deposit account the amount that is uninsured as calculated pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
§ 4.11 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* This subpart sets forth the standards, policies, and procedures that the OCC applies in administering the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) to facilitate the OCC's interaction with the banking and savings association industries and the public.
( b ) *Scope.* ( 1 ) This subpart describes the information that the FOIA requires the OCC to disclose to the public (§ 4.12), and the three methods by which the OCC discloses that information under the FOIA (§§ 4.13, 4.14, and 4.15).
( 2 ) This subpart also sets forth predisclosure notice procedures that the OCC follows, in accordance with Executive Order 12600 (3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235), when the OCC receives a request under § 4.15 for disclosure of records that arguably are exempt from disclosure as confidential commercial information (§ 4.16). Finally, this subpart describes the fees that the OCC assesses for the services it renders in providing information under the FOIA (§ 4.17).
( 3 ) This subpart does not apply to a request for records pursuant to the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). A person requesting records from the OCC pursuant to the Privacy Act should refer to 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, and appendix J of subpart C.
[60 FR 57322, Nov. 15, 1995, as amended at 76 FR 43561, July 21, 2011; 81 FR 94244, Dec. 23, 2016]
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 10

- 00134

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C .D.N. AND M.L.N., CH ILDREN

From the 77th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09

- 107

- B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this app eal. Appellee has not filed a

response. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna , and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 12, 2010

[CV06]
§ 308.604 Notice of removal, suspension, or debarment. ( a ) *Notice to the public.* Upon the issuance of a final order for removal, suspension, or debarment of an independent public accountant or accounting firm from providing audit services, the FDIC will make the order publicly available and provide notice of the order to the other Federal banking agencies.
( b ) *Notice to the FDIC by accountants and firms.* An accountant or accounting firm that provides audit services to any insured depository institution for which the FDIC is the appropriate Federal banking agency must provide the FDIC with written notice of: ( 1 ) any currently effective order or other action described in §§ 308.602(a)(1)(vi) through (a)(1)(vii) or §§ 308.603(a)(2) through (a)(3); and
( 2 ) any currently effective action by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board under sections 105(c)(4)(C) or (G) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7215(c)(4)(C) or (G)).
( c ) *Timing and place of notice.* Written notice required by this paragraph shall be given no later than 15 calendar days following the effective date of an order or action, or 15 calendar days before an accountant or accounting firm accepts an engagement to provide audit services, whichever date is earlier. The written notice must be filed by the independent public accountant or accounting firm with the FDIC, Accounting and Securities Disclosure Section, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429.
[68 FR 48270, Aug. 13, 2003, as amended at 74 FR 32245, July 7, 2009; 74 FR 35745, July 20, 2009]
#### § 607.8 Reimbursements for services to non-System entities.

Non-System entities shall be assessed for direct expenses plus an amount for FCA indirect expenses reasonably related to the services rendered to the non-System entity. Such related indirect expenses shall be calculated as a percentage of the FCA's overall indirect expenses based on the extent of FCA activities with respect to the non-System entity during the period since the entity's most recent assessment.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division 

October 8, 2015 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence A venue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

RE: In the Matter of Schuman Aviation, LTD 

FAA Case No. 2012WP130065, DMS No. FAA-2013-0180 

BOO Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

RECEIVED 

OCT 0 8 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

Please be advised that, henceforth, I am the attorney of record for the Complainant in the abovereferenced matter. Accordingly, copies of all documents to be served should be sent to me at the 

following address: 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Fax: (202) 267-5106 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

~OvovJNW Casey E. o!rd~r, Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Telephone: (202) 267-5964 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have sent the foregoing entry of appearance by 

facsimile and by U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to: 

Christopher D. Ferrara, Esq. 

3555 Harding Avenue, Suite 2F 

Honolulu, HI 96816 

In addition, I certify that I have on this date personally delivered the original and one 

copy of the foregoing document to: 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dated: October 8, 2015 

2
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
April 3, 2004, of MTI Technology Corporation (the Company) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas
P. Raimondi, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
Section 78m(a) or Section 780(d)); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this
certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below. Date:
    
    July 1, 2004
    
    /s/ THOMAS P. RAIMONDI, JR.Thomas P. RaimondiChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### MATHIS *v.*McCORD.

Trespass — contract to keep fences in order — custom—care—record must show error relied upon.

*If*the landlord contract to keep up the fences of leased land and fail, the'remedy is on the contract, not trespass: so if it be the custom of landlords to keep up fences.

If injury result to the tenants by the indirect acts of another, the remedy is case, not trespass. If the record does not show the whole case, or make it appear that the court below erred, the court of error will not presume it.

Error to the Common Pleas. Mathis, the tenant of McGord, brought quare clausum fregit on the rented land, and treading down grass by McCord’s cattle. Plea not guilty with a notice of accord and satisfaction. On trial, the plaintiff offered evidence and claimed to have proven, that McCord agreed to keep the fences in repair —that it was the common custom of landlords to keep up the fences; that McCord’s cattle voluntarily entered through and over the fence into the field. On this, the court below charged the jury, that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant wilfully caused the cattle to enter the fields, or he could not recover; and if the proof was that they entered without his agency, then under our law, the injured party must call on the fence viewers and have the damages assessed on view. There was a verdict for the defendant.

*648
      *Bayles,*for the defendant.

*James,*for the plaintiff,

cited 12 *Mod.*335; *Ham. N. P.*217.

Wright, J.

If the plaintiff below relied upon the *contract*to keep up the fences, he should have brought assumpsit. If he relied upon the *custom,*or the injury resulted indirectly from the defendant’s acts, it was consequential, and he should have brought a special action on the *case.*In either event he could not recover in trespass. Was the proof as set forth in the bill of exceptions *all*that was given? This does not appear. Did the cattle do any injury? Was the accord made out? We cannot answer these questions from the record. If other proof were offered, the error, if any, may have occasioned no injury to the plaintiff. If the record shows all the proof, the judgment was rightly for the defendant, for assumpsit or case was the proper remedy, not trespass— if all the evidence is not set out, the charge of the court may have been erroneous, but the record does not show the error, and we cannot presume that the court erred. The judgment is affirmed.
# C_2020374EN.01000401.xml

| 5.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/4

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 374/04)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 17 July 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85378 |
| Decision No | 093/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | The Full-Scale CCS Project |
| Legal basis | Support Agreements between the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and Norcem AS, Fortum Oslo Varme AS and Northern Lights |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Investment aid (P85 estimate):
  Fortum Oslo Varme AS: NOK 4 365 million
  Norcem AS: NOK 3 141 million
  Northern Lights: NOK 8 169 million
  Operating aid (P85 estimate):
  Fortum Oslo Varme AS: NOK 2 225 million
  Norcem AS: NOK 1 172 million
  Northern Lights: NOK 4 429 million |
| Intensity | >100 % |
| Duration | Until 2034 (estimate) |
| Economic sectors | Production of electricity, Steam and air conditioning supply, Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas, Manufacture of refined petroleum products, Manufacture of articles of concrete, cement and plaster |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministry of Petroleum and Energy |
| Postboks 8148 Dep |
| N-0033 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

17 July 2020

Case No

85378

Decision No

093/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

The Full-Scale CCS Project

Legal basis

Support Agreements between the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and Norcem AS, Fortum Oslo Varme AS and Northern Lights

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Investment aid (P85 estimate):

Fortum Oslo Varme AS: NOK 4 365 million

Norcem AS: NOK 3 141 million

Northern Lights: NOK 8 169 million

Operating aid (P85 estimate):

Fortum Oslo Varme AS: NOK 2 225 million

Norcem AS: NOK 1 172 million

Northern Lights: NOK 4 429 million

Intensity

>100 %

Duration

Until 2034 (estimate)

Economic sectors

Production of electricity, Steam and air conditioning supply, Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas, Manufacture of refined petroleum products, Manufacture of articles of concrete, cement and plaster

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministry of Petroleum and Energy

Postboks 8148 Dep

N-0033 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---