alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 25.1322 Flightcrew alerting. ( a ) Flightcrew alerts must: ( 1 ) Provide the flightcrew with the information needed to: ( i ) Identify non-normal operation or airplane system conditions, and
( ii ) Determine the appropriate actions, if any.
( 2 ) Be readily and easily detectable and intelligible by the flightcrew under all foreseeable operating conditions, including conditions where multiple alerts are provided.
( 3 ) Be removed when the alerting condition no longer exists.
( b ) Alerts must conform to the following prioritization hierarchy based on the urgency of flightcrew awareness and response. ( 1 ) Warning: For conditions that require immediate flightcrew awareness and immediate flightcrew response.
( 2 ) Caution: For conditions that require immediate flightcrew awareness and subsequent flightcrew response.
( 3 ) Advisory: For conditions that require flightcrew awareness and may require subsequent flightcrew response.
( c ) Warning and caution alerts must: ( 1 ) Be prioritized within each category, when necessary.
( 2 ) Provide timely attention-getting cues through at least two different senses by a combination of aural, visual, or tactile indications.
( 3 ) Permit each occurrence of the attention-getting cues required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section to be acknowledged and suppressed, unless they are required to be continuous.
( d ) The alert function must be designed to minimize the effects of false and nuisance alerts. In particular, it must be designed to: ( 1 ) Prevent the presentation of an alert that is inappropriate or unnecessary.
( 2 ) Provide a means to suppress an attention-getting component of an alert caused by a failure of the alerting function that interferes with the flightcrew's ability to safely operate the airplane. This means must not be readily available to the flightcrew so that it could be operated inadvertently or by habitual reflexive action. When an alert is suppressed, there must be a clear and unmistakable annunciation to the flightcrew that the alert has been suppressed.
( e ) Visual alert indications must: ( 1 ) Conform to the following color convention: ( i ) Red for warning alert indications.
( ii ) Amber or yellow for caution alert indications.
( iii ) Any color except red or green for advisory alert indications.
( 2 ) Use visual coding techniques, together with other alerting function elements on the flight deck, to distinguish between warning, caution, and advisory alert indications, if they are presented on monochromatic displays that are not capable of conforming to the color convention in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
( f ) Use of the colors red, amber, and yellow on the flight deck for functions other than flightcrew alerting must be limited and must not adversely affect flightcrew alerting.
[Amdt. 25-131, 75 FR 67209, Nov. 2, 2010]
###### Editorial Note on Part 221

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 221.106 [Reserved]
# AVS

Quality Management System Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with 58 QPM# AIR-ANM-Q30-F7
Date: December 17, 2008 Revision 1


## Record ofContacts 

# 20IO-03'b5" FDMS Docket No. f

### AA-i089

__ - _ With whom outside 

## meFAA has Ihis proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, elc.)? I

Orgallizati(lll Persou Coutacttci Dale Huncrwdl Don Diehn "'cb 8. 2010 AT;\. l\lark Lopl:Z Feb 10.2010 G.·\i\M Greg Bo\\'les Ftb 10,2010 

# , Neil Berr)""lIlan .'~IIF..\A PrograOi Mansgers for those Cindy Asbfortb Feh 8-10. 2010 aircraft known tobeaffected. Doug Rudolph Tina Miller

UNCONTROLLED COpy WHEN DOWNLOADED Check tile Masler Us! to Verify That This is the Correct R""i$iOn Befon! U5I!
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 

# Time and Date: 

11:00 a.m., Monday, May 8, 2000. 

# Place:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551. 

# Status:

Closed. 

# Matters to be Considered: 

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 

2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204. 

# Supplementary Information:

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. 

Dated: April 28, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-11067 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105
- 2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION January 20 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Email received from Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) FROM: Angela Cullen TO: Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2010
- 0162 This memorandum documents an email and attachment received from Tim Blubaugh of EMA to By ron Bunker on 1/20/2011. **From :**  "Tim othy A. Blubaugh" [tblubaugh@emamail.org] **Sent:** 01/20/2011 12:03 AM GMT **To:** By ron Bunker **Subject:** Vehicle Classifications By ron, Attached is a framework for a workable approach to classifying vehicles for the purposes of the GHG/FE regulation. If you have an y questio ns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Tim **Timothy A. Blubaugh** Engine Manufacturers Association 333 West Wacker Drive ▪ Suite 810 Chicago, IL ▪ 60606 312.929.1972 direct ▪ 312.208.0948 mobile 312.929.1975 fax tblubaugh@emamail.org ▪ www.enginemanufacturers.org
§ 161.107 Implementation of the restriction. ( a ) To be eligible to implement a Stage 3 noise or access restriction under this subpart, an airport operator shall have the restriction contained in an agreement as defined in § 161.101(b) of this part.
( b ) An airport operator may not implement a restriction pursuant to an agreement until the notice and comment requirements of § 161.103 of this part have been met.
( c ) Each airport operator must notify the Federal Aviation Administration of the implementation of a restriction pursuant to an agreement and must include in the notice evidence of compliance with § 161.103 and a copy of the signed agreement.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1317** 

PAULA A. POWELL , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.
FF A CQUISITION , LLC , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:11

- cv - 00305

- RBS

- FBS )

Submitted : July 27, 2012 Decided: August 16, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Paula A. Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Lucas, Michael Bradley Steele, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; John Michael Remy, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

.2 PER CURIAM: Paula A. Powell appeals the district court’s order granting D efendant’s motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no re versible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reason s stated by the district court. Powell v. FF Acquisition , LLC , No. 2:11

- cv - 00305

- RBS

- FBS (E.D. Va. Feb. 15, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials befor e the court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-10-042-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.D.H., A CHILD

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

FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On April 15, 2010, we notified Appellant that her brief had not been filed as

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P.

38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless

Appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten

days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3. No response having been received, on May 11, 2010, we abated this appeal

and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether

Appellant desires to continue this appeal and appoint new appellate counsel if

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
necessary. On June 14, 2010, we received a supplemental clerk’s record, and on

June 15, 2010, we received the reporter’s record from the abatement hearing

conducted pursuant to our May 11, 2010 abatement order. The supplemental clerk’s

record and the reporter’s record confirm that Appellant has decided not to further

pursue this appeal.

Because Appellant’s brief has not been filed and the appellate record confirms

that Appellant has decided not to further pursue this appeal, we dismiss the appeal

for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 24, 2010

2
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 51 ) IV-C-17 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:53 AM Sheet 51 of 232P. 2

(5RA-14 ) 

## | 7 ^ W8 8 Honorabl e Rober t W . Davi s Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Davis : Than k yo u fo r you r Decembe r 17 , 1987 , lette r concernin g th e U.S . Environ
menta l Protectio nAgency' s (USEPA ) Augus t 19 , 1987 , regulator yproposa l (se e 5 2 FR31162 ) t o requir e onboar dcanister s o nne wvehicle s t o contro l refuelin g emissions . Sectio nE o f thi s proposa l (page s 31177-31182 ) explain s USEPA' s overal l rational e fo r proposin g onboar dcontrols . Fo r you r convenienc e I a menclosin g a copyo f thes e pages . I amals o enclosin g a fac t shee t o nth e contro l o f gasolin e vapor s whic haddresse s th e issue s o f concer nt o you r constituent . Pleas e b e assure dtha t th e comment s provide dbyyou r constituen t wil l b e considere da s USEP Aprepare s it s Fina l Rule . Vi e wil l als o h e plating a cop yo f th e conment s i nth e publi c docke t fo r th e Rul e (Docke t No . A-37-11) , I f yo u woul dlik e furthe r informatio nregardin g USEPA' s analysi s o f th e contro l o f gasolin e vapors , pleas e contac t Mr . Phili p Carlso no f USEPA' s Standard s Developmen t and Suppor t Branch , Emissio nContro l Technolog y Division , 256 5 PlymouthRoad , AnnArbor , Michiga n48105 . Hi s telephon e numbe r i s (313 ) 668-4270 . I f I ca nb e o f anyfurthe r assistance , pleas e le t m e know . Sincerel yyours , /s / Origina

l signe db y VALDA S V . ADAMKU S Valda s V . Adamku s Regiona l Administrato r Enclosure s bcc : OR

AW/Contro l Sli p S
. Mitchel l A tW/Contro l Sli p an d Incomin g J
. Bortze r M
. Canava n ORAC-267 K
. "estlak e A
. Lill y P
. Carlson. /

N
. Wiggin sP. 3



## EW/K^S-So Y irN m^OTECT>O H 

## o5 

## \9 $
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FRANCIS QUIROZ,

Appellant,

v.

ANDRES TORRES,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1878

[October 6, 2021]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Scott R. Kerner, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 502020DR007413.

Dania Viñuela and Rosa Garcia Acevedo of Family Help Center, LLC, 

Pembroke Pines, for appellant.

Dina Gutierrez of Law Office of Dina Gutierrez, Hollywood, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 

1150 (Fla. 1979); Waites v. Middleton, 302 So. 3d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2020).

CIKLIN, LEVINE, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS. THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE
ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          30,317
<SECURITIES>                                     2,346
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (982)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,245
<PP&E>                                           5,158
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,112
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           147
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,060
<SALES>                                         90,421
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,421
<CGS>                                           69,386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,027
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 976
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,010
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,908)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,102
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (379)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,723
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
#### § 152.119 Contract requirements and procurement standards.

To the extent applicable, all grant agreements, contracts, and subcontracts involving airport development projects or airport planning must be in accordance with the contract requirements in appendices A and C, as applicable, and the procurement standards in Attachment O of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102 (42 FR 45828).
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO

As representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO

Debtor

Case No. 17-BK-3283 LTS

PROMESA

TITLE III

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR NOTICE 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW the undersigned legal counsel and respectfully SETS FORTH and 

PRAYS:

Creditor Julio Rancel López has retained the service of the undersigned to 

represent him in the case of caption as a creditor and/or party in interest.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested from this Honorable Court that it 

enter an order for all notices and documents filed in this case to be sent to the 

undersigned.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this day, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to 

the Office of the United States Trustee and to the attorneys of record.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

In Guayama, Puerto Rico, this 21st day of April, 2018.

/s/ Miguel Ángel Serrano-Urdaz

USDC No. 223608

P. O. Box 1915

Guayama, Puerto Rico 00785

Tel./Fax: 787.864.5454 

serrano.urdaz.law@hotmail.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2941 Filed:04/21/18 Entered:04/21/18 12:08:09 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
#### § 794.151 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the agency shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 101-19.600 to 101-19.607, apply to buildings covered by this section.
#### Mercia RIGGINS v. STATE of Arkansas

5806

490 S.W. 2d 124

Opinion delivered February 12, 1973

*Carpenter, Finch*¿r *McArthur,*for appellant.

*Rodney. Parham,*Attorney General; *Frank B. New-ell,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Upon a homicide charge, arising out of the stabbing of Nathaniel Hampton with a pair of scissors, appellant Mercia Riggins was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and her punishment was fixed at seven years imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. For reversal she contends that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence a pair of unidentified scissors and that the case should have been dismissed or reduced to involuntary manslaughter. We find no merit in either contention.

The proof showed that Nathaniel Hampton died from a stab wound. Eye witnesses identified the scissors introduced into evidence as the scissors that Nathaniel Hampton pitched upon the porch either during or immediately after the altercation with appellant. In a hand written confession appellant stated:

> “I call Nathaniel and said I was coming over When I got to wemon and him was out in the yard. I told him I think I was going to have a baby, he said something smart. And I got mad and got my sissors out of my purse and stab him. he ask one of the ladys in the yard to get his car keys and take him to the hospital they could not find the keys so they call a ambulance. I wait till the police come. When *1008the police got thir they addvised me of my right, and took me to the police station.”

Affirmed.
222 of 290
223 of 290
224 of 290
225 of 290
226 of 290
227 of 290
228 of 290
229 of 290
230 of 290
231 of 290
232 of 290
233 of 290
234 of 290
235 of 290
236 of 290
237 of 290
238 of 290
239 of 290
240 of 290
241 of 290
242 of 290
243 of 290
244 of 290
245 of 290
246 of 290
247 of 290
248 of 290
249 of 290
250 of 290
251 of 290
252 of 290
253 of 290
254 of 290
255 of 290
256 of 290
257 of 290
258 of 290
259 of 290
260 of 290
261 of 290
262 of 290
263 of 290
264 of 290
265 of 290
266 of 290
267 of 290
268 of 290
269 of 290
270 of 290
271 of 290
272 of 290
273 of 290
274 of 290
275 of 290
276 of 290
277 of 290
278 of 290
279 of 290
280 of 290
281 of 290
282 of 290
283 of 290
284 of 290
285 of 290
286 of 290
287 of 290
288 of 290
289 of 290
290 of 290
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 10, 2013

NO. 03-12-00182-CR

Anthony O’Neal, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the district court’s 

judgment: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment 

of the district court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and 

unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified 

below for observance.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)**

**OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Michael Vernon, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of aQuantive, Inc.; 

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

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

 

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

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) Allsignificant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 9, 2004