alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 27.727 Reserve energy absorption drop test. The reserve energy absorption drop test must be conducted as follows: ( a ) The drop height must be 1.5 times that specified in § 27.725(a).
( b ) Rotor lift, where considered in a manner similar to that prescribed in § 27.725(b), may not exceed 1.5 times the lift allowed under that paragraph.
( c ) The landing gear must withstand this test without collapsing. Collapse of the landing gear occurs when a member of the nose, tail, or main gear will not support the rotorcraft in the proper attitude or allows the rotorcraft structure, other than the landing gear and external accessories, to impact the landing surface.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-26, 55 FR 8001, Mar. 6, 1990]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS
     ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND THE UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
     SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000797315
<NAME>                        BALDWIN PIANO & ORGAN COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 260
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       22,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,045
<INVENTORY>                                         51,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    85,027
<PP&E>                                              41,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                      22,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     115,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               31,965
<BONDS>                                             31,232
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                42
<OTHER-SE>                                          50,529
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       115,845
<SALES>                                             99,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   100,718
<CGS>                                               87,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       87,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    16,513
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       260
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (6,277)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (2,325)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (3,952)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         875
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (3,077)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.89)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            2126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2126
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2400
<OTHER-SE>                                       (254)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2126
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3996
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3996)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3996)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### § 811.7 Servicing book-entry Federal Financing Bank securities; payment of interest; payment at maturity or upon call.

Interest becoming due on book-entry Federal Financing Bank securities shall be charged against the special agent account maintained by the Department of the Treasury for the Federal Financing Bank on the interest due date and remitted or credited in accordance with the depositor's instructions. Such securities shall be redeemed and charged against the above said account on the date of maturity or call, and the redemption proceeds, principal and interest, shall be disposed of in accordance with the depositor's instructions.
§ 27.1397 Color specifications. Each position light color must have the applicable International Commission on Illumination chromaticity coordinates as follows: ( a ) *Aviation red* — *y* is not greater than 0.335; and *z* is not greater than 0.002.
( b ) *Aviation green* — *x* is not greater than 0.440−0.320*y*; *x* is not greater than *y*−0.170; and *y* is not less than 0.390−0.170*x.*
( c ) *Aviation white* —
*x* is not less than 0.300 and not greater than 0.540; *y* is not less than *x*−0.040” or *y* c−0.010, whichever is the smaller; and *y* is not greater than *x* + 0.020 nor 0.636−0.400*x*; Where *y* c is the *y* coordinate of the Planckian radiator for the value of *x* considered.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-6, 36 FR 12972, July 10, 1971]
#### June L. NELMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86-3139

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1986.

*1165William C. Davis, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

Dorothea Beane, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, VANCE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In this social security case appellant’s work background sheet showed that she had worked as a “custodial worker” at a university. She testified that she cleaned classrooms and offices. No detailed description of her custodial duties or the physical demands thereof was solicited or proffered. For example, there is no evidence concerning whether she used equipment, the size and weight of items she was required to use, whether she scrubbed floors or merely dusted, or whether she was required to move furniture. These are but a few of the details that are missing. Moreover, the AU stated that appellant’s past work as a maid was described as “light work.” We are not able to locate this description in the record.

In the absence of evidence of the physical requirements and demands of appellant’s work the AU could not properly determine that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform it.

The record as it stands is insufficient to affirm, but it is also lacking in evidence to support a finding that appellant is totally disabled. The AU was obliged to develop a full and fair record. *Cowart v. Schweiker,*662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir.1981).

The cause must be remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for a further hearing with regard to the physical demands of appellant’s past work and her ability to perform the same in light of her impairments. *See Brenem v. Harris,*621 F.2d 688, 690 (5th Cir.1980); *Cowart v. Schweiker, supra.*

Consultative physician Evans testified that appellant’s left wrist was so painful that he could not examine it. Appellant’s testimony and prior recorded complaints described acute pain. Despite this evidence the AU found that this ailment was “minor discomfort.” The AU was required to determine whether objective medical impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the pain complained of. *Smith v. Bowen,*792 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir.1986). There is not substantial evidence to support the finding of “minor discomfort.” An adequate medical opinion on this issue must be included in the record. *Smith v. Bowen, supra; Cowart v. Schweiker, supra.*

REVERSED and REMANDED.
Exhibit 23.4








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS








We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (File Nos.333-91526, 333-94387, 333-161235, 333-116180 and 333-134430) on Form S-8, and the Registration Statement (File No. 333-160046) on Form S-3 of Quicksilver Resources Inc. of the references to our reports for Quicksilver Resources Inc., which appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quicksilver Resources Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, and our report attached as Exhibit 99.2 to Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quicksilver Resources Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed on Form 10-K/A.




LAROCHE PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS, LTD.By:
/s/ Joe A. YoungJoe A. YoungSenior Partner
§ 29.1543 Instrument markings: general. For each instrument— ( a ) When markings are on the cover glass of the instrument there must be means to maintain the correct alignment of the glass cover with the face of the dial; and
( b ) Each arc and line must be wide enough, and located to be clearly visible to the pilot.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 60850 Summary Calendar

JUAN RAMON CARCAMO-CRUZ,
Petitioner

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 116 463

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Ramon Carcamo-Cruz petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for statutory withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). He does not brief any challenge to the denial of withholding of removal under the Convention A gainst Torture . Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft ,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 11, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-60850 Document: 00513947553 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2017No. 15

- 60850

2 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (issues not briefed are considered abandoned). In his petition, Carcamo

- Cruz contends that he is eligible for statutory withholding based on his membership in a particular social group (PSG), to wit, individuals who were part of a crowd of persons being robbed but were singled out, shot, and subsequently threatened by the MS

- 18 gang. He does not point to any evidence in the record or to any relevant legal authority that shows that his proposed PSG ha s a common immutable characteristic, particularity, or social distinction within the Salvadoran community. See Orellana- Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511, 517

- 22 (5th Cir. 2012) , as modified by Hernand ez - De La Cruz v. Lynch , 819 F.3d 784, 786

- 87 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2016);

see Bouchikhi v. Holder , 676 F.3d 173, 181 (5th Cir. 2012). The petition for review is DENIED. Case: 15-60850 Document: 00513947553 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2017
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-10752 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Christopher Michael Fairley, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:20-CR-357-1 

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Christopher Michael Fairley pleaded guilty to using or possessing a 

fraudulent immigration document, namely a passport card. The district 

court sentenced him to 23 months of imprisonment and two years of 

supervised release. Fairley timely appealed. 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

April 1, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-10752 Document: 00516263322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
No. 21-10752 

2 

In his sole appellate issue, Fairley challenges the supervised release 

condition that he provide to his probation officer “any requested financial 

information.” He argues that the condition should not have been imposed 

because his judgment of conviction did not order any financial obligation. 

Review is for plain error because, although Fairley challenged the condition 

in the district court, he did so on other grounds. See United States v. MedinaAnicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 643 (5th Cir. 2003). 

In sentencing Fairley, the district court tied the financial-disclosure 

condition to relevant sentencing factors and carefully considered the need to 

impose no greater deprivation of liberty than was necessary to account for 

them. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)-(2); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). 

Moreover, the condition is not inconsistent with the language used in the 

policy statement found at U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(3). See § 3583(d)(3); 

§ 5D1.3(d)(3), p.s. 

On this record, we are not persuaded that the district court clearly or 

obviously abused its discretion in imposing the financial-disclosure 

condition. See § 3583(d); § 5D1.3(d)(3), p.s.; United States v. Bree, 927 F.3d 

856, 859-60 (5th Cir. 2019). Fairley’s reliance on United States v. Stafford, 

983 F.2d 25 (5th Cir. 1993), is misplaced and fails to demonstrate plain error. 

See Bree, 927 F.3d at 859. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 21-10752 Document: 00516263322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
1/4/13 page of



### POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-13-0075 Reviewer: Tobias/SS

Results Table: Dose, Concentration, and Days Exceeded Results Summary

Exposure Scenario 1 Water Landfill Stack Air Fugitive Air Drinking Water Fish Ingestion
ADR LADD ADR LADD 7Q10 4
CC = 2 PDM Days Exceede d LADD ADR LADD ADR LADD

Release activity(ies) 2 ; exposure calculation(s) 3 mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day μg/l # Days mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day

max acute eco --- --- --- --- 3.87E+00 --- --- --- --- --- ---

1 Exposure scenario titles consist of release activity followed by exposure calculation abbreviation. 2 Release activities are from engineering report's Manuf acturing (Mfg), Processing (Proc) and Use release activity labels. Multiple release activities are combined in one exposure scenario if their releases occur at same location. 3 Exposure calculations are Acute Dose Rate (A DR), Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD), and Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM). There may be one, two, or all three exposure calculations per exposure scenario. CC is the aquatic concentration of concern. 4 This column displays concentration values for the 7Q 10 streamflow, which is defined as the average daily streamflow of the seven consecutive days of lowest flow within a ten year period.



### Fate test recommendations?: (default is NA)1/4/13 page of

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-13-0075 Assessor: Tobias/SS

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES

Scenario#:1 Number of Release Sites: Release Activity: Max ADR
Release Description: WATER LANDFILL Non-sludge/Sludge STACK FUGITIVE

Total Releases: (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Non-sludge/Sludge Release Days/yr:

Per Site Release: (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day)

Remarks:1/4/13 page of

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-13-0075

SIC-CODE BASED HUMAN AND AQUATIC EXPOSURES TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

SCENARIO #: 1 Number of Sites: RELEASE ACTIVITY: Max ADR

SIC-CODE DESCRIPTION: POTW's (All facilities) SIC-CODE (S): 4952 EX POSED POPULATION: Adult

WWT REMOVAL (%) RELEASE DAYS PRETREATMENT RELEASE (kg/site/day) POSTTREATMENT RELEASE (kg/site/day) DWT (%) BCF (L/kg)

0.00 0.00

AQUATIC EXPOSURE ESTIMATES - SURFACE WATER

PLANT TYPE % ILE FACILITY STREAM FLOW (MLD) STREAM CONC. ( μ g/l)

Harmonic

Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10 Harmonic Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10

ALL 50 125.56 44.02 26.80 22.53 3.27E-02 9.31E-02 0.15 0.18

ALL 10 11.11 1.94 1.06 0.96 0.37 2.11 3.87 4.27

DRINKING WATER AND FISH IN GESTION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES

Exposure Units Drinking Water Results Drinking Water Units Fish Ingestion Results Fish Ingestion

Units 50% 10% 50% 10%

Cancer

LADD pot 6.98E-10 7.89E-09 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day

LADC pot 3.58E-08 4.04E-07 mg/L 0.00 0.00 mg/kg

Acute

ADR pot 7.78E-06 1.77E-04 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day

SIC Code Comments:
§ 135.421 Additional maintenance requirements. ( a ) Each certificate holder who operates an aircraft type certificated for a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of nine seats or less, must comply with the manufacturer's recommended maintenance programs, or a program approved by the Administrator, for each aircraft engine, propeller, rotor, and each item of emergency equipment required by this chapter.
( b ) For the purpose of this section, a manufacturer's maintenance program is one which is contained in the maintenance manual or maintenance instructions set forth by the manufacturer as required by this chapter for the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, rotor or item of emergency equipment.
( c ) For each single engine aircraft to be used in passenger-carrying IFR operations, each certificate holder must incorporate into its maintenance program either: ( 1 ) The manufacturer's recommended engine trend monitoring program, which includes an oil analysis, if appropriate, or
( 2 ) An FAA approved engine trend monitoring program that includes an oil analysis at each 100 hour interval or at the manufacturer's suggested interval, whichever is more frequent.
( d ) For single engine aircraft to be used in passenger-carrying IFR operations, written maintenance instructions containing the methods, techniques, and practices necessary to maintain the equipment specified in §§ 135.105, and 135.163 (f) and (h) are required.
( e ) No certificate holder may operate a single engine aircraft under IFR, carrying passengers, unless the certificate holder records and maintains in the engine maintenance records the results of each test, observation, and inspection required by the applicable engine trend monitoring program specified in (c) (1) and (2) of this section.
[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-70, 62 FR 42374, Aug. 6, 1997]
#### § 25.1719 Accessibility provisions: EWIS.

Access must be provided to allow inspection and replacement of any EWIS component as necessary for continued airworthiness.
**Exhibit
      99.3**








**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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal
      year
      ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) by CGI Group Inc. (the “Company”), the
      undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




|· | the
              Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
              15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
              and
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|· | the
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








Date:
      December 20, 2006




/s/
      Michael E. Roach


Michael
      E. Roach


President
      and


Chief
      Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.135 Organization. ( a ) Each applicant for or holder of a production certificate must provide the FAA with a document— ( 1 ) Describing how its organization will ensure compliance with the provisions of this subpart;
( 2 ) Describing assigned responsibilities, delegated authorities, and the functional relationship of those responsible for quality to management and other organizational components; and
( 3 ) Identifying an accountable manager.
( b ) The accountable manager specified in paragraph (a) of this section must be responsible within the applicant's or production approval holder's organization for, and have authority over, all production operations conducted under this part. The accountable manager must confirm that the procedures described in the quality manual required by § 21.138 are in place and that the production approval holder satisfies the requirements of the applicable regulations of subchapter C, Aircraft. The accountable manager must serve as the primary contact with the FAA.
( c ) Each applicant for or holder of a production certificate, except those based only on a supplemental type certificate or on the rights to the benefits of a supplemental type certificate under a licensing agreement, must meet the applicable requirements of part 5 of this chapter.
[Doc. No. FAA-2013-0933, Amdt. 21-98, 80 FR 59031, Oct. 1, 2015, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2021-0419, Amdt. No. 21-108, 89 FR 33108, Apr. 26, 2024]
#### CARAVELLA v. GOODMAN, ET AL.

(Decided May 11, 1915.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Sharpe.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. K. Brown, for appellee.

Brown, J.

Affirmed for want of assignment of error.