alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 25.103 Stall speed. ( a ) The reference stall speed, VSR, is a calibrated airspeed defined by the applicant. VSR may not be less than a 1-g stall speed. VSR is expressed as: where: VCL MAX = Calibrated airspeed obtained when the load factor-corrected lift coefficient is first a maximum during the maneuver prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. In addition, when the maneuver is limited by a device that abruptly pushes the nose down at a selected angle of attack (e.g., a stick pusher), VCL MAX may not be less than the speed existing at the instant the device operates; nZW = Load factor normal to the flight path at VCL MAX W = Airplane gross weight; S = Aerodynamic reference wing area; and q = Dynamic pressure.
( b ) VCL MAX is determined with: ( 1 ) Engines idling, or, if that resultant thrust causes an appreciable decrease in stall speed, not more than zero thrust at the stall speed;
( 2 ) Propeller pitch controls (if applicable) in the takeoff position;
( 3 ) The airplane in other respects (such as flaps, landing gear, and ice accretions) in the condition existing in the test or performance standard in which VSR is being used;
( 4 ) The weight used when VSR is being used as a factor to determine compliance with a required performance standard;
( 5 ) The center of gravity position that results in the highest value of reference stall speed; and
( 6 ) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed selected by the applicant, but not less than 1.13VSR and not greater than 1.3VSR.
( c ) Starting from the stabilized trim condition, apply the longitudinal control to decelerate the airplane so that the speed reduction does not exceed one knot per second.
( d ) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, when a device that abruptly pushes the nose down at a selected angle of attack (e.g., a stick pusher) is installed, the reference stall speed, VSR, may not be less than 2 knots or 2 percent, whichever is greater, above the speed at which the device operates.
[Doc. No. 28404, 67 FR 70825, Nov. 26, 2002, as amended by Amdt. 25-121, 72 FR 44665, Aug. 8, 2007]
§ 23.2255 Protection of structure. ( a ) The applicant must protect each part of the airplane, including small parts such as fasteners, against deterioration or loss of strength due to any cause likely to occur in the expected operational environment.
( b ) Each part of the airplane must have adequate provisions for ventilation and drainage.
( c ) For each part that requires maintenance, preventive maintenance, or servicing, the applicant must incorporate a means into the airplane design to allow such actions to be accomplished.
[Doc. No. FAA-2015-1621, Amdt. 23-64, 81 FR 96689, Dec. 30, 2016, as amended by Doc. No. FAA-2022-1355, Amdt. 23-65, 87 FR 75710, Dec. 9, 2022]
#### Therese PETERS and Thomas Peters, Plaintiffs, v. QUALITY LATEX, INC.; Quantum Labs, Inc.; Sime Darby Berhad; Veratex Corporation; Dental and Physicians Supply; Abbott Laboratories, Inc.; Abbott Laboratories/Ashland, Inc.; Smart Practice, Inc.; Henry Schein, Inc.; Baxter Healthcare Corporation; Baxter International, Inc.; Baxter Healthcare, S.A.; Allegiance Corporation; Allegiance Healthcare Corporation; Allegiance Healthcare, SDN BHD; and John Does 1-10, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 98-C-929.

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

Oct. 23, 1998.

*928Earl Gray, Paul Applebaum, and Patrick Flanagan, St. Paul, MN, for plaintiffs.

Charles D. Koehler, Herrling, Clark, Hart-zheim & Siddall, Appleton, WI, for Dental & Physician Supply.

Roeke A. Calvelli, Quale, Feldbrnegge, Calvelli, Thom & Croke, Milwaukee, WI, for Quantum Labs.

Gerardo H. Gonzalez, Paul Voelker, Aryka Steele Radke, Gonzalez, Saggio, Birdsall & Harlan, Milwaukee, WI, for Abbott Laboratories.

Frank L. Steeves, Crivello, Carlson, Ment-kowski & Steeves, Milwaukee, WI, for Quality Latex.

Ralph A. Weber, Sandra R. Botcher, Rein-hart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Norris & Riesel-bach, Milwaukee, WI, for SmartHealth d/b/a Smart Practice.

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO DEMONSTRATE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

REYNOLDS, District Judge.

This is a products liability action regarding latex gloves. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that this court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which statute requires diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy which exceeds $75,-000. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs are Wisconsin citizens, and that all defendants, with one exception, are citizens of states other than Wisconsin. As it now reads, the complaint does not sufficiently demonstrate that this court has subject matter jurisdiction.

With respect to defendant Dental and Physicians Supply, the complaint alleges that it “is a Wisconsin business with its principal place of business in Wisconsin” and it “is not registered or qualified to do business in Wisconsin.” (Sept. 17, 1998 Compl. ¶ 8.) If Dental and Physicians Supply is a corporation, its place of incorporation and principal place of business determine citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). If unincorporated, Dental and Physicians Supply is considered a citizen “of every jurisdiction in which any equity investor or member is a citizen.” *Indiana Gas Co. v. Home Ins. Co.,*141 F.3d 314, 316 (7th Cir.1998). If Dental and Physicians Supply is deemed a Wisconsin citizen, there is no diversity of citizenship.

On or before October 30, 1998, plaintiffs Therese Peters and Thomas Peters shall serve and file an appropriate submission to demonstrate that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

On or before November 13, 1998, any defendant who objects to plaintiffs’ submission may serve and file a response.
Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:274-1   Filed:06/08/17   Entered:06/08/17 11:42:15    Desc:Exhibit Payment Receipt   Page 1 of 1
##### 



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






|   |                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
    section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.

|              |  |                                                                                                
|------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|June 30, 2005 |  | /s/ John D. Sheehan                                                                            
|              |  |                                                                                                
|              |  | John D. Sheehan
    Acting Chief Financial Officer,
    Chief Accounting Officer and Controller
§ 29.831 Ventilation. ( a ) Each passenger and crew compartment must be ventilated, and each crew compartment must have enough fresh air (but not less than 10 cu. ft. per minute per crewmember) to let crewmembers perform their duties without undue discomfort or fatigue.
( b ) Crew and passenger compartment air must be free from harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases or vapors.
( c ) The concentration of carbon monoxide may not exceed one part in 20,000 parts of air during forward flight. If the concentration exceeds this value under other conditions, there must be suitable operating restrictions.
( d ) There must be means to ensure compliance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section under any reasonably probable failure of any ventilating, heating, or other system or equipment.
§ 17.39 Confidentiality of ADR. ( a ) The provisions of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 571, *et seq.,* shall apply to ODRA ADR proceedings.
( b ) The ODRA looks to the principles of Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence in deciding admissibility issues related to ADR communications.
( c ) ADR communications are not part of the administrative record unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
Exhibit 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


       We, Larry W. Singleton, Chief Executive Officer of Raytech Corporation
(the "Company") and John B. Devlin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as
follows:

         1.     The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
                ended September 26, 2004 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 such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                accordance with United States generally accepted accounting
                principles, in all material respects, the financial condition
                and results of operations of the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have executed this Certification this 10th day
of November, 2004.


                                         /s/ LARRY W. SINGLETON
                                         ----------------------------
                                         Larry W. Singleton
                                         President and
                                         Chief Executive Officer


                                         /s/ JOHN B. DEVLIN
                                         ----------------------------
                                         John B. Devlin
                                         Vice President, Treasurer
                                         and Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-36,874]

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on November 19, 1999 applicable to workers of Fashions Apparel Corporation, El Paso, Texas. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 28, 1999 (64 FR 72691).                

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings show that the Department incorrectly identified the subject firm name in its entirety. The Department is amending the certification determination to correctly identify the subject firm title name to read “Fahnos Apparel, Inc.”.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-36,874 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Fahnos Apparel, Inc., El Paso, Texas who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 10, 1998 through November 19, 2001 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 20th day of April 2000.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-11110  Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6939

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH MCCOY POWELL,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (2:93-cr-00004-BO-1)

Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lonnie Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf 

A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph McCoy Powell appeals the district court’s order

granting his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Powell, 

No. 2:93-cr-00004-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. July 7, 2010). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5093 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAMUEL NEAL HART,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-05-44)

Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 26, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States

Attorney, Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Neal Hart pled guilty to possession of ammunition

by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and was

sentenced as an armed career criminal to the mandatory minimum term

of 180 months imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West

2000 & Supp. 2005). Hart appeals his sentence, contending that,

under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Shepard v.

United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), the sentence was imposed in

violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. We affirm.

Hart’s criminal record included felony convictions for

multiple incidents of breaking and entering and arson committed in

1997; breaking and entering in 2003; and both kidnaping and assault

with a deadly weapon in 2004. Hart does not dispute that he

qualified for sentencing as an armed career criminal, but asserts

that the sentence is unconstitutional because the indictment did

not charge that he had three qualifying prior convictions committed

on occasions different from one other, and because the necessary

facts were neither proved by the government beyond a reasonable

doubt nor admitted by him. Hart acknowledges that his arguments

are foreclosed by United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 281-83

(4th Cir. 2005) (holding that judicial armed career criminal

designation does not violate Fifth or Sixth Amendment under Booker

or Shepard if “the facts necessary to support the enhancement
- 3 -

inhere in the fact of [the] conviction[s]”), cert. denied, 126 S.

Ct. 1463 (2006).

We therefore conclude that no error occurred and that the

sentence was reasonable. We affirm the sentence imposed by the

district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 American Plumbing &
Mechanical, 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, Robert M. Nagel, Executive Vice President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (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 represents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.



Date: August 14, 2003                          /s/ Robert M. Nagel
                                               ------------------------
                                               Robert M. Nagel,
                                               Executive Vice President



                                       36
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:37 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:11:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:37 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:11:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:37 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:11:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:37 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:11:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:37 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:11:54 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19825-1 Filed:01/18/22 Entered:01/19/22 15:56:06 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 1
§ 29.1547 Magnetic direction indicator. ( a ) A placard meeting the requirements of this section must be installed on or near the magnetic direction indicator.
( b ) The placard must show the calibration of the instrument in level flight with the engines operating.
( c ) The placard must state whether the calibration was made with radio receivers on or off.
( d ) Each calibration reading must be in terms of magnetic heading in not more than 45 degree increments.
§ 27.1 Applicability. ( a ) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for normal category rotorcraft with maximum weights of 7,000 pounds or less and nine or less passenger seats.
( b ) Each person who applies under Part 21 for such a certificate or change must show compliance with the applicable requirements of this part.
( c ) Multiengine rotorcraft may be type certified as Category A provided the requirements referenced in appendix C of this part are met.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-33, 61 FR 21906, May 10, 1996; Amdt. 27-37, 64 FR 45094, Aug. 18, 1999]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NINE MONTHS
ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         297,837
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  756,357
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    676,304
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,757,049
<PP&E>                                       1,975,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,873,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,863,244
<BONDS>                                      1,009,007
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,955
<OTHER-SE>                                     996,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,873,065
<SALES>                                      5,775,986
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,775,986
<CGS>                                        4,034,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,034,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,101,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              74,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                565,644
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (107,085)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            458,559
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                635,134
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,093,693
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT
3.2
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
 BY-LAWS OF
ARCADIA RESOURCES, INC.
 ARTICLE I
 MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS




---



##### 








---



##### 



1.
    
    Reading and approval of the Minutes of previous meeting or meetings;2.
    
    Reports of the Board of Directors, the President, Treasurer and Secretary of
the Company in the order named;3.
    
    Reports of Committees;4.
    
    Election of Directors;5.
    
    Unfinished Business;6.
    
    New Business;7.
    
    Adjournment
 ARTICLE II
 DIRECTORS AND THEIR MEETINGS




---



##### 








---



##### 



1.
    
    Reading and approval of the minutes of any previous meeting or meetings;2.
    
    Reports of officers and committeemen;3.
    
    Election of officers;4.
    
    Unfinished business;5.
    
    New business;6.
    
    Adjournment.




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
 OFFICERS AND THEIR DUTIES




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE IV
 CAPITAL STOCK




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
 OFFICES AND BOOKS
   ARTICLE VI
 MISCELLANEOUS




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE VII
 AMENDMENT OF BY-LAWS
  ARTICLE VIII
 ACQUISITION OF CONTROLLING INTEREST
#### § 25.1503 Airspeed limitations: general.

When airspeed limitations are a function of weight, weight distribution, altitude, or Mach number, limitations corresponding to each critical combination of these factors must be established.
#### BROWNELL v. INDIAN REFINING CO.

(Decided November 23, 1915.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Coúrt.

Heard before Hon. H. *B.*Foster.

Clarkson & Morisette, for appellant. Oliver, Verner & Rice, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 302.504 Dismissal of petition or complaint.

If the Department is of the opinion that a petition or complaint does not state facts that warrant an investigation or action on its part, it may dismiss such petition or complaint without hearing.