alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 6 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3126-6 Filed:05/23/18 Entered:05/23/18 11:45:37 Desc:

Exhibit Law 40 of 2016 (Contains Spanish & English within same version) Page 1 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3126-6 Filed:05/23/18 Entered:05/23/18 11:45:37 Desc:

Exhibit Law 40 of 2016 (Contains Spanish & English within same version) Page 2 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3126-6 Filed:05/23/18 Entered:05/23/18 11:45:37 Desc:

Exhibit Law 40 of 2016 (Contains Spanish & English within same version) Page 3 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3126-6 Filed:05/23/18 Entered:05/23/18 11:45:37 Desc:

Exhibit Law 40 of 2016 (Contains Spanish & English within same version) Page 4 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3126-6 Filed:05/23/18 Entered:05/23/18 11:45:37 Desc:

Exhibit Law 40 of 2016 (Contains Spanish & English within same version) Page 5 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3126-6 Filed:05/23/18 Entered:05/23/18 11:45:37 Desc:

Exhibit Law 40 of 2016 (Contains Spanish & English within same version) Page 6 of 6
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTHC IRC UIT MAY 3 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14054 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C
. Do c k e tNo
. 9 9

- 0 1 3 1 7

- MD- P AS V A L L E Y D R U G C O M P A N Y , e t a l., P la in tif fs , TR USTE ES OF THE C ORRE CT I ON OFFI CE RS BE NEVO LE NT AS S OC I AT I ON S E C U R I T Y B E N E F I T S F U N D

- R E T I R E E S , C OR R E C T I ON S OF F I C E R S B E NE VO L E NT AS S OC I AT I ON S E C UR I T Y B E N E F I T S F U N D S A C T I V E ,, TR USTE ES OF THE L OCAL 4 4 5 FR EI GH T DI VI SI ON W EL FARE F U N D , T R US T E E S OF T HE L OC AL 4 4 5 C ON S T R UC T I ON DI VI S I ON W E L F A R D F U N D , N E W Y O R K C I T Y T R A N S I T A U T H O R I T Y , B L U E C R O S S B L U E S H I E L D O F F L O R I D A , B L U E C R O S S B L U E S H I E L D O F M I N N E S O T A , B L U E C R O S S B L U E S H I E L D O F T E N N E S S E E , C A R E F I R S T , F E D E R A T E D M U T U A L I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , H E A L T H C A R E S E R V I C E S C O R P O R A T I O N , M U T U A L O F O M A H A I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , P la in tif fs - A p p e lla n ts ,2 v ersu s G E N E V A P H A R M A C E U T I C A L S , A B B O T T L A B O R A T O R I E S , D e fe n d a n ts
- A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t ates D i stri ctC ou rt forthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 3, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d B IR C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: In thi s c l as s a cti on , the di stri ctcourt , pu rs uantt o a se ttl em entagre em entthat had b ee n n egot i ated and w ou l d b e pre se nt ed t o the courtfor app roval , es t abl i shed A pr i l 11, 2005, a s the de a dl i ne forthe c l a i m s a dm i ni s tr a t or ’ s r e c e i ptof opt
- out
r e q u e s t s . A p p e l l a n t s mi s s e d th i s d e a d l i n e a n d mo v e d th e c o u r tfo rFe d
. R. Ci v . P. 6( b) r e l i e f

– s o tha tthe y c oul d t ake the i rc l a i m s e l s e w he r e . T he c our the l d a h eari n g o n ap p el l an t s’ m o ti o n s, co n si d ered th e p arti es su b m i ssi o n s an d arg u m en t s,
an d d en i ed th e m o ti o n s. A p p el l an t s ap p eal th e co u rt ’ s ru l i n g s. W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on for abu se of di sc re ti on . A fter3

c ons i de r i ng the par ti e s br i e fs a nd the r e l e va ntpor ti ons of the r e c or d, w e f

i nd no such abuse. AF F I RME D.
R18 - 2 - 514. R e n u m b e re d H i sto r ical No t e

Adopt e d e f

f ec t i ve M a y 1 4, 1979 ( S upp. 7 9

- 1). A mend e d e f f e c t i ve O c tob e r 2, 1 979 ( S upp. 79

- 5). A mend e d e f

f ec t i v e J u l y 9, 1980 ( S upp. 8 0

- 4). F orm e r Se c t i on R 9

- 3

- 514 r e numbe r e d without c h a n g e a s S ec t i on R1 8

- 2

- 514 (Supp. 87

- 3). A mend e d e f fec t i ve S e p t e mber 26, 1990 ( S u p p. 9 0

- 3). R e numbe r e d to R 1 8

- 2

- 714 e f f ec t i ve No v e mber 14, 1993 ( S upp. 9 3

- 4). R18 - 2 - 714. Standards of Performance for Existing Sewage Treatment Plants A. No person shall cause, allow or permit to be emitted into the atmosphere, from any municipal sewage treatment plant sludge incinerator: 1. Smoke, fumes, gases, particulate matter or other gas

- borne material which exceeds 20% opacity for more than 30 seconds in any 60

- minute period. 2. Particulate matter in concentrations in excess of 0.1 grain per cubic foot, based on dry flue gas at standard conditions, corrected to 12% carbon dioxide. B. The owner or operator of any sludge incinerator subject to the provisions of this Section shall monitor operations by doing all of the following: 1. Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a flow measuring device which can be used to determine either the mass or volume of sludge charged to the incinerator. The flow measuring device shall have an accuracy of ± 5% over its operating range. 2. Provide access to the sludge charged so that a well

- mixed representa tive grab sample of the sludge can be obtained. 3. Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a weighing device for determining the mass of any municipal solid waste charged to the incinerator when sewage sludge and municipal solid wastes are incinerated tog ether. The weighing device shall have an accuracy of ± 5% over its operating range. C. The test methods and procedures required by this Section are as follows: 1. The reference methods set forth in 40 CFR 60, Appendix A shall be used to determine complianc e with the standards prescribed in subsection (A) as follows: a. Method 5 for concentration of particulate matter and associated moisture content; b. Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses; c. Method 2 for volumetric flow rate; and d. Method 3 for gas analysis. 2. For Method 5, the sampling time for each run shall be at least 60 minutes and the sampling rate shall be at least 0.015 dscm/min (0.53 dscf/min), except that shorter sampling times, when necessitated by process variables or other factors, may be approved by the Director. Historical Note Section R18

- 2

- 714 renumbered from R18

- 2

- 514 effective November 15, 1993 (Supp. 93

- 4).
§ 25.1419 Ice protection. If the applicant seeks certification for flight in icing conditions, the airplane must be able to safely operate in the continuous maximum and intermittent maximum icing conditions of appendix C. To establish this— ( a ) An analysis must be performed to establish that the ice protection for the various components of the airplane is adequate, taking into account the various airplane operational configurations; and
( b ) To verify the ice protection analysis, to check for icing anomalies, and to demonstrate that the ice protection system and its components are effective, the airplane or its components must be flight tested in the various operational configurations, in measured natural atmospheric icing conditions and, as found necessary, by one or more of the following means: ( 1 ) Laboratory dry air or simulated icing tests, or a combination of both, of the components or models of the components.
( 2 ) Flight dry air tests of the ice protection system as a whole, or of its individual components.
( 3 ) Flight tests of the airplane or its components in measured simulated icing conditions.
( c ) Caution information, such as an amber caution light or equivalent, must be provided to alert the flightcrew when the anti-ice or de-ice system is not functioning normally.
( d ) For turbine engine powered airplanes, the ice protection provisions of this section are considered to be applicable primarily to the airframe. For the powerplant installation, certain additional provisions of subpart E of this part may be found applicable.
( e ) One of the following methods of icing detection and activation of the airframe ice protection system must be provided: ( 1 ) A primary ice detection system that automatically activates or alerts the flightcrew to activate the airframe ice protection system;
( 2 ) A definition of visual cues for recognition of the first sign of ice accretion on a specified surface combined with an advisory ice detection system that alerts the flightcrew to activate the airframe ice protection system; or
( 3 ) Identification of conditions conducive to airframe icing as defined by an appropriate static or total air temperature and visible moisture for use by the flightcrew to activate the airframe ice protection system.
( f ) Unless the applicant shows that the airframe ice protection system need not be operated during specific phases of flight, the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section are applicable to all phases of flight.
( g ) After the initial activation of the airframe ice protection system— ( 1 ) The ice protection system must be designed to operate continuously;
( 2 ) The airplane must be equipped with a system that automatically cycles the ice protection system; or
( 3 ) An ice detection system must be provided to alert the flightcrew each time the ice protection system must be cycled.
( h ) Procedures for operation of the ice protection system, including activation and deactivation, must be established and documented in the Airplane Flight Manual.
[Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29785, July 20, 1990, as amended by Amdt. 25-121, 72 FR 44669, Aug. 8, 2007; Amdt. 25-129, 74 FR 38339, Aug. 3, 2009]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2013

d1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147637

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147637

COA: 316490

Jackson CC: 12

- 004533

- FH

ANDREW DOUGLAS BEYERLEIN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 3, 2013 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it i s DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9

                        AFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY AGREEMENT

         Reference is made to that certain  Fourth  Amended and Restated
Revolving Credit and Security Agreement dated December 26, 2001, among WinCup
Holdings, Inc., Radnor Chemical Corporation, StyroChem U.S., Ltd., Radnor
Holdings Corporation, Radnor Delaware II, Inc., StyroChem Delaware, Inc., WinCup
Texas, Ltd., StyroChem G.P., L.L.C., StyroChem L.P., L.L.C., WinCup G.P.,
L.L.C., WinCup L.P., L.L.C., (each individually a "Borrower" and collectively,
"Borrowers") and PNC Bank, National Association as Agent ("Agent") for itself
and the financial institutions which are now or which hereafter become a party
thereto (individually, a "Lender" and collectively, the "Lenders") (as amended
by that certain First Amendment to Fourth Amended and Restated Revolving Credit
and Security Agreement, dated February 4, 2002 and that certain letter
agreement, dated March 21, 2002, collectively, the "Credit Agreement").

         Pursuant to the terms of the Credit Agreement, Agent and Lenders made
available to Borrowers a revolving credit facility in the amount of Thirty-Five
Million Dollar ($35,000,000). On December 26, 2001, the undersigned executed and
delivered to Agent for the benefit of Lenders an Amended and Restated Guaranty
Agreement whereby undersigned unconditionally guaranteed, inter alia, all
present and future obligations and liabilities of each Borrower to Agent and/or
Lenders (the "Guaranty Agreement").

         Borrowers have requested and Agent and Lenders have agreed pursuant to
the terms of that certain Second Amendment to Fourth Amended and Restated
Revolving Credit and Security Agreement (the "Second Amendment") among
Borrowers, Agent and Lenders dated the date hereof, to, inter alia, amend the
Credit Agreement to (i) increase the revolving credit facility to an amount not
to exceed Forty-Five Million Dollars ($45,000,000) and (ii) advance a term loan
in the amount of Forty-Five Million Dollars ($45,000,000).

         The undersigned hereby (i) acknowledges that undersigned has read the
terms and conditions of the Second Amendment, (ii) consents to the terms and
conditions of the Second Amendment and (iii) agrees that its Guaranty Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect and shall continue to cover all
Obligations (as defined in the Credit Agreement), including without limitation,
the Term Loan (as defined in the Second Amendment) in accordance with the terms
of the Guaranty Agreement, as affirmed hereby.

         Dated: March 5, 2003

                                WINCUP EUROPE DELAWARE, INC.


                                By: /s/ R. Radcliffe Hastings
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                        R. Radcliffe Hastings, Senior V.P.
§ 161.319 Withdrawal or revision of restriction. ( a ) The applicant may withdraw or revise a proposed restriction at any time prior to FAA approval or disapproval, and must do so if substantial changes are made as described in § 161.309. The applicant shall notify the FAA in writing of a decision to withdraw the proposed restriction for any reason. The FAA will publish a notice in the Federal Register that it has terminated its review without prejudice to resubmission. A resubmission will be considered a new application.
( b ) A subsequent amendment to a Stage 3 restriction that was in effect after October 1, 1990, or an amendment to a Stage 3 restriction previously approved by the FAA, is subject to the procedures in this subpart if the amendment will further reduce or limit aircraft operations or affect aircraft safety. The applicant may, at its option, revise or amend a restriction previously disapproved by the FAA and resubmit it for approval. Amendments are subject to the same requirements and procedures as initial submissions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
STANLEY FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.
ARTICLE 5
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
FOR PERIOD ENDING JUNE 29, 1997
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                           8,330
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,131
<INVENTORY>                                     47,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,563
<PP&E>                                          81,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,337
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,801
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,901
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            91
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,801
<SALES>                                         99,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,100
<CGS>                                           74,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,989
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,461
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,528
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,528
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10
        

</TABLE>
§ 1221.201 Basis for award of the medal. ( a ) The standard of award for the Congressional Space Medal of Honor is established by Pub. L. 91-76 (42 U.S.C. 2461) which provides that the President may award the Medal to any “astronaut who in the performance of his duties has distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious efforts and contributions to the welfare of the Nation and of mankind.”
( b ) Only one Congressional Space Medal of Honor may be awarded to a person. However, for each succeeding act that would otherwise justify the award of the Medal, the President may award a suitable bar or other device.
( c ) The Medal may be awarded to any person who is or has been designated to travel in space and who has distinguished himself or herself while undertaking duties in preparation for, execution of, or subsequent to, but in connection with, a space flight.
( d ) The Medal may be awarded for actions occurring before the effective date of this subpart 1221.2, and, when appropriate, posthumously.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL HAYS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 1077

[ February 18, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Charles E. Burton , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2020

- MH

000710

- XXXX

- SB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and L.K.S. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Barbara Junge, Assi stant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C IKLIN , C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 27.339 Resultant limit maneuvering loads.

The loads resulting from the application of limit maneuvering load factors are assumed to act at the center of each rotor hub and at each auxiliary lifting surface, and to act in directions, and with distributions of load among the rotors and auxiliary lifting surfaces, so as to represent each critical maneuvering condition, including power-on and power-off flight with the maximum design rotor tip speed ratio. The rotor tip speed ratio is the ratio of the rotorcraft flight velocity component in the plane of the rotor disc to the rotational tip speed of the rotor blades, and is expressed as follows:

where—

*V = * The airspeed along flight path (f.p.s.);

*a = * The angle between the projection, in the plane of symmetry, of the axis of no feathering and a line perpendicular to the flight path (radians, positive when axis is pointing aft);

*omega = * The angular velocity of rotor (radians per second); and

*R = * The rotor radius (ft).

[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55469, Dec. 20, 1976]
180917 ORDER RE MANDRY MERCADO EXT.DOCX VERSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

----------------------------------------------------------x 

In re: PROMESA 

 Title III 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered) 

et al., 

 Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x 

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES UNDER 

ORDER REGARDING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE COURT ON AUGUST 27, 2018 

The Court has received and reviewed the Urgent Joint Motion for Extension of 

Deadlines (Docket Entry No. 3938 in Case No. 18-3283, the “Motion”) filed by the Puerto Rico 

Fiscal Agency and Financial Authority (“AAFAF”) and María E. Vicéns Rivera. The Motion is 

hereby granted to the extent provided herein. AAFAF and Ms. Vicéns Rivera shall file a joint 

status report no later than September 19, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. (Atlantic Standard Time). 

This Order resolves Docket Entry No. 3938 in Case No. 17-3283. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 17, 2018 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN 

 United States District Judge 

 

1

 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-

LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing 

Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority 

(“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747). 

(Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software 

limitations.) 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3939 Filed:09/17/18 Entered:09/17/18 17:05:56 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1