alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 27.621 Casting factors. ( a ) *General.* The factors, tests, and inspections specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section must be applied in addition to those necessary to establish foundry quality control. The inspections must meet approved specifications. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section apply to structural castings except castings that are pressure tested as parts of hydraulic or other fluid systems and do not support structural loads.
( b ) *Bearing stresses and surfaces.* The casting factors specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section— ( 1 ) Need not exceed 1.25 with respect to bearing stresses regardless of the method of inspection used; and
( 2 ) Need not be used with respect to the bearing surfaces of a part whose bearing factor is larger than the applicable casting factor.
( c ) *Critical castings.* For each casting whose failure would preclude continued safe flight and landing of the rotorcraft or result in serious injury to any occupant, the following apply: ( 1 ) Each critical casting must— ( i ) Have a casting factor of not less than 1.25; and
( ii ) Receive 100 percent inspection by visual, radiographic, and magnetic particle (for ferromagnetic materials) or penetrant (for nonferromagnetic materials) inspection methods or approved equivalent inspection methods.
( 2 ) For each critical casting with a casting factor less than 1.50, three sample castings must be static tested and shown to meet— ( i ) The strength requirements of § 27.305 at an ultimate load corresponding to a casting factor of 1.25; and
( ii ) The deformation requirements of § 27.305 at a load of 1.15 times the limit load.
( d ) *Noncritical castings.* For each casting other than those specified in paragraph (c) of this section, the following apply: ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section, the casting factors and corresponding inspections must meet the following table: Casting factor
Inspection 2.0 or greater
100 percent visual. Less than 2.0, greater than 1.5
100 percent visual, and magnetic particle (ferromagnetic materials), penetrant (nonferromagnetic materials), or approved equivalent inspection methods. 1.25 through 1.50
100 percent visual, and magnetic particle (ferromagnetic materials). penetrant (nonferromagnetic materials), and radiographic or approved equivalent inspection methods.
( 2 ) The percentage of castings inspected by nonvisual methods may be reduced below that specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section when an approved quality control procedure is established.
( 3 ) For castings procured to a specification that guarantees the mechanical properties of the material in the casting and provides for demonstration of these properties by test of coupons cut from the castings on a sampling basis— ( i ) A casting factor of 1.0 may be used; and
( ii ) The castings must be inspected as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section for casting factors of “1.25 through 1.50” and tested under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-34, 62 FR 46173, Aug. 29, 1997]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned officers of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.
(the Company) hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    JAMES R.
SULAT                                                                       
|JAMES R. SULAT President & Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)            
|                                                                                            
|March 30, 2007                                                                              
|                                                                                            
|/s/    JOSEPH M.
DONABAUER                                                                  
|JOSEPH M. DONABAUER Vice President & Controller (Principal Accounting and Financial
Officer)
|                                                                                            
|March 30, 2007                                                                              

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has
been provided to Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. and will be retained by Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This written statement accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will not be incorporated by reference into any filing of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, irrespective
of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### § 36.101 Noise measurement and evaluation.

For transport category large airplanes and jet airplanes, the noise generated by the airplane must be measured and evaluated under appendix A of this part or under an approved equivalent procedure.

[Amdt. 36-54, 67 FR 45212, July 8, 2002]
#### § 325.14 Conformity with subpart A of part 302.

Except where they are inconsistent, the provisions of subpart A of part 302 of this chapter shall apply to proceedings under this part.
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.724 Petitions for reconsideration.

Except in the case of a Department determination to disapprove a contract, no petitions for reconsideration of any Department determination pursuant to this subpart shall be entertained.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. Cir. Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. Cir. Cir. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 9 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

MORRIS D. HAUGHTON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 96-6333

KATHLEEN M. HAWK, Director U.S.

Bureau of Prisons, and RON G. 

THOMPSON, Warden,

Respondents-Appellees.

(D.C. No. 96-CV-25-R)

(W. D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

 

Petitioner-Appellant Morris D. Haughton appeals the district court’s entry of

summary judgment against him on his claim that his constitutional rights were violated
1 While it is true that we need not apply the procedural bar when the interests

of justice so dictate, see Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991),

Appellant advances no argument, and we see no reason, why this is such a case.

2

when the Bureau of Prisons refused to reduce his sentence after he participated in a

substance abuse program because the crime of which he was convicted was a crime of

violence. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. However,

as Appellant has waived his claims, we will not address the merits of his appeal.

This circuit predicates a petitioner’s right to appeal the factual and legal issues

found by a magistrate and adopted by a district court upon his compliance with the

procedural requirement that he file a timely and specific objection to the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation. See United States v. One Parcel, 73 F.3d 1057,

1060 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, Hobbs v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 271 (1996). As the

docket sheet and district court order for this matter make quite clear, Appellant filed no

such objection. His failure waived his right to contest those findings. See Moore v. 

United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, after careful review of

the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court’s order, the briefs,

and the record, we affirm the district court without reaching the merits of the dispute.1 

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
#### § 125.323 Reporting mechanical irregularities.

The pilot in command shall ensure that all mechanical irregularities occurring during flight are entered in the maintenance log of the airplane at the next place of landing. Before each flight, the pilot in command shall ascertain the status of each irregularity entered in the log at the end of the preceding flight.
#### Orville Gerhardt, Respondent, *v.*Helen M. Norton, Defendant, and Marie H. Maeder, Appellant.

(Argued May 25, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*418
      *Oscar J. Brown*for appellant.

*James E. Cuff*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### Rogers *vs.*Beach, impleaded, &c.

Where a plea was served on the plaintiff’s attorney, and a default for not pleading was entered by his *agent on the same day,*and there was evidence that the object of the defendant in keeping back the plea was *delay,*the court refused to set aside the default, although it was not in fact entered until an hour *after*the delivery of the plea; the fractions of a day are regarded only to promote the ends of justice.

Motion to set aside a default. The rule to plead expired on the *twenty-second*day of February. On the next day, before 8 o’clock A, M., a plea was delivered to the plaintiff’s attorney, who refused to receive it, saying that a default had been or would be entered that morning, he having written his agent to do so. The default was entered that morning, but not until nine o’clock A. M. It appeared that the object of the defendant was delay. The plaintiff offered to accept the plea if the defendant would take short notice of trial for the next circuit, ■which might have been served in time had the plea been delivered on the *twenty-second.*The defendant’s attorney refused to take short notice of trial, and gave notice of this motion.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

[534] The defendant says the default was irregular, because it was not entered until an hour or more had elapsed after the service of a plea. As a general rule, the law does not regard the fractions of a day; and where the ends of justice do not demand it, the court will not inquire at what particular hour the process, pleadings, or notices in a cause were served. *(Columbia Turnpike*v. *Haywood,*10 *Wendell,*422.) In *Small*v. *McChesney,*(3 *Cowen,*19,) an execution had been issued and levied *twelve hours*before the judgment record was filed, and yet the court refused to set it aside. They said they would not divide the day into fractions, unless it was necessary for the purpose of guarding against injustice; that the objection of the defendant was merely technical, and the technical answer was enough where there had been no injury from the proceeding. This is a stronger case than tha one before the court. Here the defendant has suffered no injury. It is admitted that he has no defence; and he withheld his plea until after the day when it should have been delivered, for the acknowledged purpose of getting the cause over the circuit. The court will not aid this effort tor delay, by inquiring which of two things, both done on the same day, was first in the order of time. The motion must be denied, with costs.
§ 35.17 Materials and manufacturing methods. ( a ) The suitability and durability of materials used in the propeller must: ( 1 ) Be established on the basis of experience, tests, or both.
( 2 ) Account for environmental conditions expected in service.
( b ) All materials and manufacturing methods must conform to specifications acceptable to the Administrator.
( c ) The design values of properties of materials must be suitably related to the most adverse properties stated in the material specification for applicable conditions expected in service.
[Amdt. 35-8, 73 FR 63347, Oct. 24, 2008]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 11, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 11, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0002. WALTER ISREAL III v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: ST20CR0850
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001072293
<NAME> ALLSTATES WORLDCARGO, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         388,169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,212,408
<ALLOWANCES>                                   270,554
<INVENTORY>                                     40,509
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,788,028
<PP&E>                                       1,621,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                 886,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,234,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,053,727
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,251
<OTHER-SE>                                   (446,263)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,234,772
<SALES>                                     23,121,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,121,936
<CGS>                                       13,919,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,175,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,890)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (3,260)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             156,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (123,179)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (44,824)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (78,355)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (78,355)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32(b)


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


10-Q




|   |                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.

|                |  |  |  |                                                     
|--------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|               
|August 15, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert J. Dellinger                             
|                |  |  |  |                                                     
|                |  |  |  | Robert J. Dellinger                                 
|                |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Robert Rogerson *versus*Nathan W. Neal *et al.*

Where the liability of the defendants in an action upon a promissory note had tieea tried on the merits in a former action against them in the name of the plaintiff’s agent, upon the same note, and the note had been put upon the clerk’s files, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, would not permit the plaintiff to take the note from the files in order to produce it in evidence in the subsequent action, nor allow him to give secondary evidence of its contents.

Assumpsit on two promissory notes alleged to have been made by the defendants, one of them being payable to J. W. Paige or order, the other, to G. Searle or order, and to have been indorsed to the plaintiff. Plea, the general issue.

At the commencement of this term, the plaintiff and Paige and Searle presented a petition for liberty to take the notes from the files of the Court, the same having been read in evidence and submitted to the jury by one French, at a former term, on the trial of an action by French against some of the same defendants, in which a verdict was rendered for the defendants, and the notes were filed in the usual manner. The petitioners alleged, that the notes were never indorsed to French except as their agent, nor in any manner so as to pass the property or title to him, or enable him to sue or recover upon them in his own name ; and that the notes were not legally included in or bound by the judgment in the action of French.

Upon the opening of this case, the plaintiff moved for liberty to take the notes from the files with leave to offer the same in evidence in this suit. But *Wilde*J., before whom the case was tried, refused to permit them to be taken from the files, on the ground that the merits of this case had been tried in the former suit.

The plaintiff then offered to give evidence that the notes were impounded, so that they could not by law be obtained to be produced in evidence in this suit, and he proposed to give secondary evidence of their contents, and of his title to the notes, and that they were unpaid and had never been indorsed to French. But the judge refused to admit this evidence.

Whereupon the plaintiff became nonsuit, subject to the opinion of the whole Court.

*371If the ruling of the judge was wrong in either of the above particulars, a new trial was to be granted ; otherwise the non-suit was to stand.

Fletcher, for the plaintiff.

*S. Hubbard*and C. *P. Curtis,*for the defendants.

*Per Curiam.*

Whether a paper on the files of the Court shall be withdrawn, is always a matter of discretion with the Court. There are many cases in which an application for that purpose would be refused. The liability of these defendants upon the notes in question, was tried in the former suit, and upon the merits, and under circumstances favorable for the plaintiff, and it would be improper to grant him an opportunity to try the question over again. It is no answer to say that the defendants could avail themselves of the judgment in that suit, in defence to the present action.

*Nonsuit to stand*
###### Editorial Note on Part 380

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 380.43 Cancellations by direct air carriers.

The direct air carrier shall not cancel any charter under this part less than 10 days before the scheduled departure date, except for circumstances that make it physically impossible to perform the charter trip.
OKLAHOMA 

OEPARTMENI Of ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

STEVEN A.THOMPSON 	 BRAD HENRY 

Executive Di OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 	 Governor rector 

February 22, 2008 

Lafarge Building Materials 


Attn: Ms. Pamela Bennett 


2609 N. l45th East Avenue 


Tulsa, OK 74116 


Subject: 	 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Waiver 


Lafarge - Tulsa Cement Plant . 


Dear Ms. Bennett: . 

. 	 . 

The Oklahoma Department o(Environmental Quality (ODEQ) received a BART Waiver 

request for the Lafarge Tulsa Cement Plant on December 1, 2006. 

ODEQ requested, in a letter dated December 12; 2007, that Lafarge review modeled 

emission rates and the status ofKiln #1. As of this date, ODEQ has received clarification 

regarding the s~atus of ;Kiln #1 and some g~eral comments related to the modeled 

emission rates. However, final modeling has not been received. 

In order to complete this review, please provide the updated modeling as soon as 

possible.' Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If we may be of further service, 

please contact Phillip Fielder (405) 702-4100 .. 

Sincerely, 

Phillip 

AA~ Fielder, Engineering and Permits Section Manager 

AIR QUALITY DIVISION 

707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 16n, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73101-1677 

printed on recycled paper with soy Ink 

o
#### § 31.83 Conspicuity.

The exterior surface of the envelope must be of a contrasting color or colors so that it will be conspicuous during operation. However, multicolored banners or streamers are acceptable if it can be shown that they are large enough, and there are enough of them of contrasting color, to make the balloon conspicuous during flight.
#### 4 East 72nd Street Corporation, Respondent, *v.*Cathleen V. Lowman, Appellant.

(Argued May 29, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*452
      *Horace R. Lamb*and *Thomas F. Fennell, II,*for appellant.

*Isaac Oluckman*and *Stanley S. Casden*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 25.1715 Electrical bonding and protection against static electricity: EWIS. ( a ) EWIS components used for electrical bonding and protection against static electricity must meet the requirements of § 25.899.
( b ) On airplanes having grounded electrical systems, electrical bonding provided by EWIS components must provide an electrical return path capable of carrying both normal and fault currents without creating a shock hazard or damage to the EWIS components, other airplane system components, or airplane structure.