alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 23.2225 Component loading conditions. The applicant must determine the structural design loads acting on: ( a ) Each engine mount and its supporting structure such that both are designed to withstand loads resulting from— ( 1 ) Powerplant operation combined with flight gust and maneuver loads; and
( 2 ) For non-reciprocating powerplants, sudden powerplant stoppage.
( b ) Each flight control and high-lift surface, their associated system and supporting structure resulting from— ( 1 ) The inertia of each surface and mass balance attachment;
( 2 ) Flight gusts and maneuvers;
( 3 ) Pilot or automated system inputs;
( 4 ) System induced conditions, including jamming and friction; and
( 5 ) Taxi, takeoff, and landing operations on the applicable surface, including downwind taxi and gusts occurring on the applicable surface.
( c ) A pressurized cabin resulting from the pressurization differential— ( 1 ) From zero up to the maximum relief pressure combined with gust and maneuver loads;
( 2 ) From zero up to the maximum relief pressure combined with ground and water loads if the airplane may land with the cabin pressurized; and
( 3 ) At the maximum relief pressure multiplied by 1.33, omitting all other loads.
630 A.2d 721

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Charles F. EASON, Jr.

Misc. (Subtitle BV) No. 25,

Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Sept. 14, 1993.

ORDER

The Court having considered the joint petition by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Respondent to suspend the Respondent from the practice of law, it is this 14th day of September, 1993,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition be, and it is hereby GRANTED and the Respondent, Charles F. Eason, Jr., is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years from the date of this order, and it is further

ORDERED, that Respondent will immediately execute a confessed judgment note in the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), without interest, made payable in three (3) years, to Donald Sartorius or the Estate of Lynwood Sartorius, as appropriate, and the note will contain a clause accelerating the due date if Mr. Eason either has a judgment against him which he fails to satisfy within 30 days or any action in the nature of insolvency or bankruptcy is instituted against him either voluntary or involuntary, and it is further

ORDERED, that it shall be a condition of reinstatement that Respondent pay the confessed judgment note, but in the event of a discharge in bankruptcy of the confessed judgment note in the amount of $100,000.00, Respondent will be required as a condition to being reinstated to pay the $100,000.00 before the filing of his petition for reinstatement, and it is further

*140ORDERED, that prior to any reinstatement, Charles F. Eason, Jr. shall pay to the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland the sum of One Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Dollars and Fifty Cents ($1,620.50) with interest at 10% from the date of this order and judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against Mr. Eason for the aforesaid sum and interest, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall certify the suspension of the Respondent to the Clerks of all Courts in this State and to the Trustees of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund.

Judge CHASANOW would not approve the joint petition for consent to suspension without a hearing or stipulation of facts which would justify the sanctions imposed by the consent order.
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 06/25 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR– 2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** Goal Computation Call with the State of Colorado held on 06 / 23 /2014 **SUMMARY :**  EPA Headquarters and Region 8 staff discussed the computation of the State of Colorado goal under the proposed Clean Power Plan for E xisting Power Plants on 06 / 23 /2014
. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES:** EPA HQ: Kevin Cullig an, Travis Johnson, Jan Cortelyou , and Brian Fisher EPA Region 8: Laura Farris, Mark Komp Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: Dena Wojtach, Curtis Taipale **ATTACHMENTS** Discussion Questions
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Zaxis International Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the “Report”), as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ivo Heiden, President,CFO and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Ivo Heiden

Ivo Heiden President, CFO and ChairmanDated: May 17, 2005

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zaxis International Inc. and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
| 1. | I      have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q      for the period ended September 30, 2007 of Playboy Enterprises, Inc.;      and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a      material 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      report. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      February 20, 2009 | /s/      Linda G. Havard |
|------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                         | Name:                    | Linda      G. Havard |
|                         | Title:                   | Executive      Vice President and |
|                         |                     | Chief      Financial Officer |
#### Bryant *v.*The State.

Gaming.

(Decided December 15, 1915.

Rehearing denied January 11, 1916.

70 South. 961.)

Appeal and Error; Order Supporting; Sentence. — An appeal from a judgment of sentence alone confers no jurisdiction on the Appellate Court to review; the facts in this case being that the original cause was remanded for resentence only, and this appeal is attempted from the judgment imposing a proper sentence.

*29(This cause was reviewed by the Supreme Court upon petition for writ of certiorari, and the certiorari was denied. See *Ex parte Bryant v. The State,*195 Ala. 698, 70 South. 1012.— Reporter.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court, '

Heard before Hon. H. P. Heflin.

R. Leonard Bryant was convicted of keeping a gaming table, and on appeal from this conviction the cause was affirmed except as to the sentence, and remanded for proper sentence. From the judgment of sentence imposed, defendant appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Smith & Wilkinson, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

BROWN, J.

On appeal to this court at a former term the judgment of conviction was affirmed, and the judgment of sentence annulled, and the case remanded, with direction to the trial court to resentence the *defendant.*—Bryant *v. State,*13 Ala. App. 206, 68 South. 704. After the case was remanded, the defendant was brought into court and sentenced in accordance with the mandate of this court, and he appeals from that judgment.

It is settled that the judgment of sentence alone will not support an appeal, and an appeal therefrom confers no jurisdiction on this court to review the *sentence.*—Wright *v. State,*12 Ala. App. 253, 67 South. 798; *Allen v. State,*141 Ala. 35, 37 South. 393.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
#### RIGGINS v. THE STATE.

(Decided November 11, 1915.)

Appeal from Chilton Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

J. F. Stallings, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Robert M. Budd, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the periodic report, to which this Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC upon request.







Date:  April 14, 2010

By: /s/ Robert M. Budd



Robert M. Budd



Chief Executive Officer
§ 250.11 Public disclosure of deliberate overbooking and boarding procedures. ( a ) Every carrier shall cause to be displayed continuously in a conspicuous public place at each desk, station and position in the United States which is in the charge of a person employed exclusively by it, or by it jointly with another person, or by any agent employed by such air carrier or foreign air carrier to sell tickets to passengers, a sign located so as to be clearly visible and clearly readable to the traveling public, which shall have printed thereon the following statement in boldface type at least one-fourth of an inch high: Notice—Overbooking of Flights Airline flights may be overbooked, and there is a slight chance that a seat will not be available on a flight for which a person has a confirmed reservation. If the flight is overbooked, no one will be denied a seat until airline personnel first ask for volunteers willing to give up their reservation in exchange for compensation of the airline's choosing. If there are not enough volunteers, the airline will deny boarding to other persons in accordance with its particular boarding priority. With few exceptions, including failure to comply with the carrier's check-in deadline (carrier shall insert either “of _ minutes prior to each flight segment” or “(which are available upon request from the air carrier)” here), persons denied boarding involuntarily are entitled to compensation. The complete rules for the payment of compensation and each airline's boarding priorities are available at all airport ticket counters and boarding locations. Some airlines do not apply these consumer protections to travel from some foreign countries, although other consumer protections may be available. Check with your airline or your travel agent.
( b ) Every carrier shall include with each ticket sold in the United States the notices set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, printed in at least 12-point type. The notice may be printed on a separate piece of paper, on the ticket stock, or on the ticket envelope. The last two sentences of the notice shall be printed in a type face contrasting with that of the rest of the notice.
( c ) It shall be the responsibility of each carrier to ensure that travel agents authorized to sell air transportation for that carrier comply with the notice provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) Any air carrier or foreign air carrier engaged in foreign air transportation that complies fully with this part for inbound traffic to the United States need not use the last two sentences of the notices required by paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3024-0018) [ER-1306, 47 FR 52985, Nov. 24, 1982, as amended by ER-1392, 49 FR 40401, Oct. 16, 1984; Doc. No. OST-01-9325, 73 FR 21035, Apr. 18, 2008]
#### BANK OF ODENVILLE, ET AL. v. AUTREY, ET AL.

(Decided June 1, 1916.)

Appeal from St. Clair Circfiit Court.

Heard before Hon. James E. Blackwood.

C. R. Robinson, for appellant. Embry & Embry, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed for want of assignment of error.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 26, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0380

Lower Tribunal No. F16-21853A

________________

Demarris Gregory Maloy,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, 

Judge.

Demarris Gregory Maloy, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
STRUCTURE ACTIVITY TEAM REPORT 12/09/03

CASE NUMBER: P04-0139

RELATED CASES:

CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSIONS

TYPE OF CONCERN: HEALTH ECOTOX

LEVEL OF CONCERN: 2 2

KEYWORDS: IRR/CORR-E,S,MM,L

LUNG DEVEL
AQUATOX

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT

FATE: Solid; ; Estimations for P-140 low MW274 LogKow = - 1.55(E)S = Disp.(ICB); H < 1.00E-8(E) MP (C) = 250(E); BP (C) > 400(E); VP @ 25C (mm) < 1.0E-6(E) LogKoc = 1.28(E); LogBCF = 0.50(E); POTW removal (%) = 139/40 : 90 via biodeg; P-139 OECD : 91.6%/28d; OECD 301E(Mod Screening): 71.5%/28d; P140 OECD 301B(Mod Sturm CO2 Ev): 77.5%/28d RB; 141 : 50 via sorption & biodeg; P-141 BOD5/COD=58.5%; OECD 301E(Mod Screening): 38.9%/28d NRB; OECD: 60%/28d; River Die AwayTest (5d/10d/15d/20d): 35%/59%/79%/90%; OECD 301D(Closed Bottle) 2 & 10mg/L:90.1 & 82.2%/28d. Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo PBT Potential: P1B1T2 Sorption to soils/sediments = low *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow - moderate

HEALTH: Absorption is poor from the skin, poor from the GI tract, and moderate from the lung (analog). Concern for surfactant effects on the lung; and irritation and possible corrosion to all tissues based on submitted test data. An analog, inner salt, was tested in 2 developmental toxicity studies. In an oral study in rats , delayed development was seen at 250 mg/kg/d and preimplantation loss was seen at 150 and 250 mg/kg/d; decreased maternal weight gain was noted at all doses (50, 150, 250 mg/kg/d). In a pilot dermal study in rabbits, fetal resorptions were seen at 40 mg/kg/d and greater; decreased litter size was seen at 100 mg/kg/d and greater; 3 of 8 maternal animals died at 100 and 200 mg/kg/d; skin irritation was noted at all dose levels; and partial paralysis and uncoordinated movement was seen at 40 mg/kg/d. The NOEL was 20 mg/kg/d for all effects but

skin irritation.

*CEB HEALTH: Moderate concern (Dermal, inhalation)

Test data: rabbit dermal LD

0 > 2000 mg/kg, erythema, corrosion, edema; moderate eye irritation in rabbits; moderate

skin irritation in rabbitsECOTOX: Predicted (P) and measured (M) toxicity values in mg/L (ppm) are:

fish 96-h LC50 < 4.7 P daphnid 48-h LC50 < 5.0 P green algal 96-h EC50 < 5.0 P
fish chronic value < 0.500 P daphnid ChV < 0.500 P algal ChV < 1.0 P Predictions are based on SAR-nearest analog method for -, RT96=3.3mg/L, with MW adjustment; SAR chemical

class = ; MW425; pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as; and TOC <2.0 mg/L; moderate concern for toxicity

assessment factor = 10.0 concern concentration = 0.050 mg/L (ppm)

*CEB ECOTOX: All releases to water

SAT Co-chair: Leonard Keifer 564-8916
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

 

PROMESA

Title III

Case No. 17-03283 (LTS)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR NOTICE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW, Universidad Interamericana, Inc., through the undersigned

attorney and very respectfully STATES and PRAYS:

Pursuant to United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Local 

Rule 9010-1 and United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Local Rule

83D(a), the undersigned counsel hereby notifies this Honorable Court and the parties to 

this action that we are appearing as counsel for unsecured creditor Universidad 

Interamericana, Inc. 

Our contact information is:

JAIME BRUGUERAS

USDC-PR No. 12089

MUÑOZ BENITEZ BRUGUERAS & CRUZ

P.O. Box 191979

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00919-1979

Tel. (787) 751-9040; Facsimile (787) 751-0910

Email: jbrugue@mbbclawyers.com

In Re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD OF PUERTO RICO,

as a representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

Debtor

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:317 Filed:06/13/17 Entered:06/13/17 11:55:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2 of 2

WHEREFORE, the appearing party respectfully requests that all future notices 

and pleadings in this case be provided to the undersigned attorney, and that the contact 

information be entered into the master address list of this case. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 

In San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 13, 2017

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this same date I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will send notification of 

such filing to the participants appearing in said record. 

/s/ JAIME BRUGUERAS

USDC12089

MUÑOZ BENITEZ BRUGUERAS

& CRUZ

P.O. Box 191979

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00919-1979

Tel. (787) 751-9040

Fax (787) 751-0910

jbrugue@mbbclawyers.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:317 Filed:06/13/17 Entered:06/13/17 11:55:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25713-25714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10957]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR95-18-002]


Duke Energy Intrastate Network, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

April 27, 2000.
    Take notice that on March 13, 2000, Duke Energy Intrastate Network, 
L.L.C. (DEIN) tendered for filing revised Statement of Operating 
Conditions (SOC) pursuant to the Commission's February 10, 2000 Letter 
Order.
    DEIN states that it has modified Article III of the SOC to remove 
the reference to the priority accorded to customers purchasing gas from 
DEIN. DEIN also states that it has added language to modify Article A-
XI, Section 11.4 to clarify that rates negotiated between transporter 
and shippers are discounted rates.
    Pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2)(ii), if the Commission does not 
act within

[[Page 25714]]

150 days of the filing date of Lee 8's Petition, Lee 8's rates for firm 
and interruptible storage services will be deemed to be fair and 
equitable. The Commission may within such 150 day period extend the 
time for action or institute a proceeding in which all interested 
parties will be afforded an opportunity for written comments and the 
oral presentation of views, data and arguments.
    Any person desiring to protest this rate proceeding must file a 
protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rule 211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All 
protest must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission on or before 
May 4, 2000. This petition for rate approval is on file with the 
Commission and is available for public inspection. This filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10957 Filed 5-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### WOODS v. THE STATE.

(Decided April 4, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. H. P. Heflin.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, P. J.

The record is regular and the time for signing bill of exceptions having expired, the cause is affirmed on the record.
#### GEO. W. PHALIN LUMBER CO. v. WILSON.

(Decided January 20, 1916.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Bernard Harwood.

H. A. & B. K. Jones, for appellant. Howard L. Smith, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed on motion of appellee.
§ 25.353 Rudder control reversal conditions. Airplanes with a powered rudder control surface or surfaces must be designed for loads, considered to be ultimate, resulting from the yaw maneuver conditions specified in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section at speeds from VMC to VC/MC. Any permanent deformation resulting from these ultimate load conditions must not prevent continued safe flight and landing. The applicant must evaluate these conditions with the landing gear retracted and speed brakes (and spoilers when used as speed brakes) retracted. The applicant must evaluate the effects of flaps, flaperons, or any other aerodynamic devices when used as flaps, and slats-extended configurations, if they are used in en route conditions. Unbalanced aerodynamic moments about the center of gravity must be reacted in a rational or conservative manner considering the airplane inertia forces. In computing the loads on the airplane, the yawing velocity may be assumed to be zero. The applicant must assume a pilot force of 200 pounds when evaluating each of the following conditions: ( a ) With the airplane in unaccelerated flight at zero yaw, the flightdeck rudder control is suddenly and fully displaced to achieve the resulting rudder deflection, as limited by the control system or the control surface stops.
( b ) With the airplane yawed to the overswing sideslip angle, the flightdeck rudder control is suddenly and fully displaced in the opposite direction, as limited by the control system or control surface stops.
( c ) With the airplane yawed to the opposite overswing sideslip angle, the flightdeck rudder control is suddenly and fully displaced in the opposite direction, as limited by the control system or control surface stops.
( d ) With the airplane yawed to the subsequent overswing sideslip angle, the flightdeck rudder control is suddenly and fully displaced in the opposite direction, as limited by the control system or control surface stops.
( e ) With the airplane yawed to the opposite overswing sideslip angle, the flightdeck rudder control is suddenly returned to neutral.
[Amdt. No. 25-147, 87 FR 71210, Nov. 22, 2022]
§ 27.973 Fuel tank filler connection. ( a ) Each fuel tank filler connection must prevent the entrance of fuel into any part of the rotorcraft other than the tank itself during normal operations and must be crash resistant during a survivable impact in accordance with § 27.952(c). In addition— ( 1 ) Each filler must be marked as prescribed in § 27.1557(c)(1);
( 2 ) Each recessed filler connection that can retain any appreciable quantity of fuel must have a drain that discharges clear of the entire rotorcraft; and
( 3 ) Each filler cap must provide a fuel-tight seal under the fluid pressure expected in normal operation and in a survivable impact.
( b ) Each filler cap or filler cap cover must warn when the cap is not fully locked or seated on the filler connection.
[Doc. No. 26352, 59 FR 50387, Oct. 3, 1994]