alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.4 General requirements as to documents. ( a ) *Contents.* ( 1 ) In case there is no rule, regulation, or order of the Department that prescribes the contents of a formal application, petition, complaint, motion or other authorized or required document, such document shall contain a proper identification of the parties concerned, a concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon and the relief sought, and, where required, such document shall be accompanied by an Energy Statement, in conformity with the provisions of part 313 of this chapter.
( 2 ) ( i ) Each document must include with or provide on its first page: ( A ) The docket title and subject;
( B ) The relevant operating administration before which the application or request is filed;
( C ) The identity of the filer and its filing agent, if applicable;
( D ) The name and mailing address of the designated agent for service of any documents filed in the proceeding, along with the telephone and facsimile numbers and, if available, electronic mail address of that person; and
( E ) The title of the specific action being requested.
( ii ) Department of Transportation Dockets has an Expedited Processing Sheet that filers can use to assist in preparing this index for submission of paper documents, and an electronic registration for electronic filing at *http://www.regulations.gov*.
( 3 ) All documents filed under this part consisting of twenty (20) or more pages must contain a subject index of the matter in such document, with page references.
( b ) *Verification:* The following certification shall be included with every pleading filed under this part: “Pursuant to Title 18 United States Code Section 1001, I [*the individual signing the pleading, who shall be a principal owner, senior officer, or internal counsel of the pleader*], in my individual capacity and as the authorized representative of the pleader, have not in any manner knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed or failed to disclose any material fact or made any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or knowingly used any documents which contain such statements in connection with the preparation, filing or prosecution of the pleading. I understand that an individual who is found to have violated the provisions of 18 U.S.C. section 1001 shall be fined or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” In addition, electronic subscription requirements shall be those specified at *http://www.regulations.gov*.
[Docket No. OST-97-2090, 65 FR 6457, Feb. 9, 2000, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15936, Apr. 16, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 380
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 380.61 Operation by foreign charter operators. ( a ) Each foreign charter operator shall be registered under this subpart and file a prospectus under § 380.25 before organizing groups for transportation on Public Charters that originate in the United States.
( b ) Each foreign charter registered under this subpart shall comply with the other provisions of this part directed to charter operators.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.407 Commencement of enforcement proceeding. ( a ) Whenever in the opinion of the Assistant General Counsel there are reasonable grounds to believe that any economic regulatory provision of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, or any rule, regulation, order, limitation, condition, or other requirement established pursuant thereto, has been or is being violated, that efforts to satisfy a complaint as provided by § 302.405 have failed, and that the investigation of any or all of the alleged violations is in the public interest, the Assistant General Counsel may issue a notice instituting an enforcement proceeding before an administrative law judge.
( b ) The notice shall incorporate by reference the formal complaint submitted pursuant to § 302.404 or shall be accompanied by a complaint by an attorney from the Office of the Assistant General Counsel. The notice and accompanying complaint, if any, shall be formally served upon each respondent and each complainant.
( c ) The proceedings thus instituted shall be processed in regular course in accordance with this part. However, nothing in this part shall be construed to limit the authority of the Department to institute or conduct any investigation or inquiry within its jurisdiction in any other manner or according to any other procedures that it may deem necessary or proper.
( d ) Whenever the Assistant General Counsel seeks an assessment of civil penalties in an enforcement proceeding, he or she shall serve on all parties to the proceeding a notice of the violations alleged and the amount of penalties for which the respondent may be liable. The notice may be included in the notice instituting a formal enforcement proceeding or in a separate document.
( e ) In any proceeding in which civil penalties are sought, any decisions issued by the Department shall state the amount of any civil penalties assessed upon a finding of violation, and the time and manner in which payment shall be made to the United States.
[Docket No. OST-97-2090, 65 FR 6457, Feb. 9, 2000, as amended at 84 FR 15936, Apr. 16, 2019]
COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 72nd District Court of Lubbock County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on February 12,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of M.H. and Z.H., Children v.

Case Number: 07-15-00046-CV Trial Court Number: 2012-502,824

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated February 12, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the 72nd

District Court of Lubbock County, Texas for further proceedings in accordance with this

Court’s opinion entered this day.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on February 12, 2015.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-1242

____________

SAMUEL JASON DERRICK, 

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

[February 2, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Samuel Jason Derrick’s appeal of the circuit court’s 

order denying Derrick’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 

Derrick’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme 

Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on 

remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 

2161 (2017). This Court stayed Derrick’s appeal pending the disposition of 

Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). 
- 2 -

After this Court decided Hitchcock, Derrick responded to this Court’s order to 

show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Derrick’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 

State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Derrick is not entitled to relief. 

Derrick was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a 

vote of seven to five. Derrick v. State, 641 So. 2d 378, 379 (Fla. 1994). Derrick’s 

sentence of death became final in 1995. Derrick v. Florida, 513 U.S. 1130 (1995). 

Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Derrick’s sentence of death. See

Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Derrick’s 

motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Derrick, we 

caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so 

ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

QUINCE, J., recused.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock 

v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now 

final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting 

opinion in Hitchcock.
- 3 -

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Pasco County, 

Stanley Richard Mills, Judge - Case No. 511987CF001775CFAXWS

Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida; and Harry P. 

Brody, Sarasota, Florida,

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and C. Suzanne Bechard, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida,

for Appellee
#### RED FEATHER COAL CO. v. LIGHTSEY.

(Decided June 13, 1916.)

Appeal from Bibb Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. B. M. Miller.

Lavender & Thompson, for appellant. No counsel marked for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kelly J. Milan, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 916]

—Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered October 26, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant, an inmate at Bare Hill Correctional Facility in Franklin County, was charged with the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree after he was found in possession of a sharpened metal shank. Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of IV2 to 3 years, which was to run consecutive to the sentence he was then serving. County Court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement, prompting this appeal.

Defendant’s contention that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary by ineffective assistance of counsel is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant failed to move to withdraw his guilty plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see, People v Soto,*259 AD2d 904).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
§ 29.1303 Flight and navigation instruments. The following are required flight and navigational instruments: ( a ) An airspeed indicator. For Category A rotorcraft with VNE less than a speed at which unmistakable pilot cues provide overspeed warning, a maximum allowable airspeed indicator must be provided. If maximum allowable airspeed varies with weight, altitude, temperature, or r.p.m., the indicator must show that variation.
( b ) A sensitive altimeter.
( c ) A magnetic direction indicator.
( d ) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation.
( e ) A free-air temperature indicator.
( f ) A non-tumbling gyroscopic bank and pitch indicator.
( g ) A gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator combined with an integral slip-skid indicator (turn-and-bank indicator) except that only a slip-skid indicator is required on rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system that— ( 1 ) Is usable through flight attitudes of ±80 degrees of pitch and ±120 degrees of roll;
( 2 ) Is powered from a source independent of the electrical generating system;
( 3 ) Continues reliable operation for a minimum of 30 minutes after total failure of the electrical generating system;
( 4 ) Operates independently of any other attitude indicating system;
( 5 ) Is operative without selection after total failure of the electrical generating system;
( 6 ) Is located on the instrument panel in a position acceptable to the Administrator that will make it plainly visible to and useable by any pilot at his station; and
( 7 ) Is appropriately lighted during all phases of operation.
( h ) A gyroscopic direction indicator.
( i ) A rate-of-climb (vertical speed) indicator.
( j ) For Category A rotorcraft, a speed warning device when VNE is less than the speed at which unmistakable overspeed warning is provided by other pilot cues. The speed warning device must give effective aural warning (differing distinctively from aural warnings used for other purposes) to the pilots whenever the indicated speed exceeds VNE plus 3 knots and must operate satisfactorily throughout the approved range of altitudes and temperatures.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, and 605 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424, and 1425); and sec. 6(c), Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-12, 41 FR 55474, Dec. 20, 1976; Amdt. 29-14, 42 FR 36972, July 18, 1977; Amdt. 29-24, 49 FR 44438, Nov. 6, 1984; 70 FR 2012, Jan. 12, 2005]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1145]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: January 25-26, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 am to 2:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 
20815.
    Contact Person: Gerald E. Calderone, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Rm 
6150, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1340.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 11, 2000.
Laverne Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-1145 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 414.7 Eligibility. ( a ) There is no citizenship requirement to obtain a safety element approval.
( b ) You may be eligible for a safety element approval if you are— ( 1 ) A designer, manufacturer, or operator of a launch or reentry vehicle or component thereof;
( 2 ) The designer or developer of a safety system or process; or
( 3 ) Personnel who perform safety-critical functions in conducting a licensed launch or reentry.
( c ) A safety element approval applicant must have sufficient knowledge and expertise to show that the design and operation of the safety element for which safety element approval is sought qualify for a safety element approval.
( d ) Only the safety elements defined under this part are eligible for a safety element approval.
§ 27.659 Mass balance. ( a ) The rotors and blades must be mass balanced as necessary to— ( 1 ) Prevent excessive vibration; and
( 2 ) Prevent flutter at any speed up to the maximum forward speed.
( b ) The structural integrity of the mass balance installation must be substantiated.
[Amdt. 27-2, 33 FR 963, Jan. 26, 1968]
EVIDENCE — NEGLIGENCE.

[Hamilton Circuit Court.]

King, Haynes and Parker, JJ. (Of the Sixth Circuit, sitting in Hamilton County.)

#### Emil Gobrecht v. Henry Sicking.

1. Hearsay Evidence.

In action against the owner of a runaway horse evidence of a third person that one of defendants employees, in defendants absence, said the horse had run away before and “ the boss knew it ” is incompetent.

Error to Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

*A. H. Bode,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wm. Littleford,*contra.

Per Curiam.

A horse belonging to the plaintiff in error, while in charge of ah employee, ran away and collided with a horse and carriage belonging to the defendant in error, on account of which he obtained in the court below a judgment for $100 damages.

Held: 1. It was error in the court to admit the evidence of the witness, Beebe, to the effect that witness, Brokamp, told him in the absence of plaintiff in error that the horse had run away before, and that “ the boss (Gobrecht) knew it.”

2. The evidence does not show or tend to show any actionable negligence on the part of plaintiff in error or his servant, Brokamp, in the management of the horse, causing or contributing to cause the injury of which defendant in error complains.

On these two grounds the judgment of the court of common pleas is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
# Appendix 6: HYSPLIT Trajectories for the Davidsonville, Prince 

# George’s Equestrian Center and Howard University — Beltsville by



# GroupFigure 6A - 1 Davidsonville & Howard U - Beltsville 2008 - 2010 Group 1 Days (<= 0.078 ppm)

Howard Uni --

- Beltsville (Prince George’s Co., MD) (240330030) Davidsonville (Anne Arundel Co., MD) (240030014)Figure 6A - 2 Davidsonville & Howard U - Beltsville 2008 - 2010 Group 2 Days (>=0.079 & <= 0.081 ppm)

Howard Uni --

- Beltsville (Prince George’s Co., MD) (240330030) Davidsonville (Anne Arundel Co., MD) (240030014)Figure 6A - 3 Davidsonville & Howard U - Beltsville 2008 - 2010 Group 3 Days (>=0.082 & <= 0.086 ppm)

Howard Uni --

- Beltsville (Prince George’s Co., MD) (240330030) Davidsonville (Anne Arundel Co., MD) (240030014)Figure 6A - 4 Davidsonville & Howard U - Beltsville 2008 - 2010 Group 4 Days (>=0.087 & <= 0.090 ppm)

Howard Uni --

- Beltsville (Prince George’s Co., MD) (240330030) Davidsonville (Anne Arundel Co., MD) (240030014)Figure 6A - 5 Davidsonville & Howard U - Beltsville 2008 - 2010 Group 5 Days (>= 0.091 ppm)

Davidsonville (Anne Arundel Co., MD) (240030014) Howard Uni --

- Beltsville (Prince George’s Co., MD) (240330030)Figure 6A - 6 Davidsonville & Howard U - Beltsville 2006 - 2007 Group 1 Days (>=0.076 & <= 0.078 ppm)Figure 6A - 7 Davidsonville & Howard U - Beltsville 2006 - 2007 Group 2 Days (>=0.079 & <= 0.081 ppm)Figure 6A - 8 Davidsonville & Howard U - Beltsville 2006 - 2007 Group 3 Days (>=0.082 & <= 0.086 ppm)Figure 6A - 9 Davidsonville & Howard U - Beltsville 2006 - 2007 Group 4 Days (>=0.087 & <= 0.090 ppm)Figure 6A - 10 Davidsonville & Howard U - Beltsville 2006 - 2007 Group 5 Days (>=0.091 ppm)

### Figure 6A - 11 Prince George’s Equestrian Center (AQS ID No. 240338003 Group 1 (0.076 to 0.078 ppm) – Select days 2006 to 2007

### Figure 6A - 12 Prince George’s Equestrian Center (AQS ID No. 240338003 Group 2 (0.079 to 0.081 ppm) – Select days 2006 to 2007

### Figure 6A - 13 Prince George’s Equestrian Center (AQS ID No. 240338003 Group 3 (0.082 to 0.086 ppm) – Select days 2006 to 2007

### Figure 6A - 14 Prince George’s Equestrian Center (AQS ID No. 240338003 Groups 4 and

5 (0.087 to 0.090 and >= 0.091 ppm) – Select days 2006 to 2007

This monitor only had one Group 4 Day. 

### Group 4 Day
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60738

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DLOYS GIVHAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:96-CV-7-S

- - - - - - - - - -

April 9,1998

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Federal prisoner Dloys Givhan (# 09244-042) appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Givhan argues

that his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) conviction must be reversed in

light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United States,

516 U.S. 137 (1995), because the jury was erroneously instructed

as to the “use” prong of § 924(c)(1).
No. 97-60738

-2-

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

The district court instructed the jury as to the “carrying” prong

only. The court’s instructions regarding the use of a firearm

with respect to the “in relation to” prong are unaffected by

Bailey. United States v. Tolliver, 116 F.3d 120, 125 (5th Cir.)

(“Bailey did not address the ‘in relation to’ prong of

§ 924(c)(1). The pre-Bailey interpretation of the ‘in relation

to’ language therefore remains unaffected.”), cert. denied, 118

S. Ct. 324 (1997). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Arch Chemicals, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael E.
Campbell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

/s/ Michael E. Campbell


Michael E. Campbell
Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Arch Chemicals, Inc. and will be retained by Arch Chemicals, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.