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.

#### § 302.15 Non-hearing procedures.

In cases where oral evidentiary hearing procedures will not be used, § 302.17 through § 302.37, relating to hearing procedures, shall not be applicable except to the extent that the DOT decisionmaker shall determine that the application of some or all of such rules in the particular case will be conducive to the proper dispatch of its business and to the public interest. References in these and other sections of this part to powers or actions by administrative law judges shall not apply.
#### In the Matter of Cecil C. Colbert et al., Appellants, against John H. Delaney et al., Constituting the Board of Transportation of the City of New York, et al, Respondents.

Argued March 8, 1937;

decided March 23, 1937.

*627
      *Albert De Roode*for appellants.

*PaulWindels, Corporation Counsel (Edmund L. Palmieri*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4492 

To provide the Food and Drug Administration with mandatory recall 

authority for all drug products. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 6, 2020 

Mr. PETERS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To provide the Food and Drug Administration with 

mandatory recall authority for all drug products. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe Drugs Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROVIDING FDA WITH MANDATORY RECALL AU6 THORITY. 

7 Section 569D of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos8 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–8d) is amended— 

9 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘CONTROLLED

10 SUBSTANCES’’ and inserting ‘‘DRUGS’’; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4492 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘controlled substance’’ each 

2 place such term appears and inserting ‘‘drug’’; and 

3 (3) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘controlled 

4 substances’’ and inserting ‘‘drugs’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### William Ruvinsky, Appellant, *v.*Philip Schonberg et al., Defendants, and Albert Stiefel, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Philip Schonberg, Respondent.

(Submitted October 5, 1936;

decided October 23, 1936.)

*599
      *Harry Malter*for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, unless undertaking is filed and served within ten days, in which event the motion is denied.
Exhibit 32.1



Section 1350 Certifications



---

Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as added by

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Pulaski Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: December 14, 2004 |  |        |  | /s/ William A. Donius                
|                        |  | Name:  |  | William A. Donius                    
|                        |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1216** 

JAMES R. BAILES , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Huntington

. Robert C. Chambers , District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv - 00146 )

Submitted : June 14, 2011 Decided: June 22, 2011

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affi rmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Todd A. Biddle, Melissa Eakle Leasure, BAILES, CRAIG & YON, PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Matthew J. Perry, LAMP, O’DELL, BARTRAM, LEVY, TRAUTWEIN & PERRY, P.L.L.C., Huntington, West Virginia, fo r Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James R. Bailes appeals the district court ’ s order s granting summary judgment for Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company (“Erie”) in Bailes’ declaratory judgm ent action seeking coverage on two insurance contracts. Bailes sought to determine whether polic ies issued by Erie provided coverage against claims arising from an accident al death as well as injuries to others in a rental property owned by Bailes and his brother

. Bailes also appeals the district court’s denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We review an award of summary judgment de novo. See PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk S. Cor p. , 559 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when “ there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U .S. 242, 247

- 48 (1986). In determining whether the moving party has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact, we must assess the factual evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non

- moving party. R obinson v. Clipse , 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010). We review the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment3 for abuse of discretion. Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc. , 616 F.3d 380, 388 (4th Cir. 2010)

. After reviewing the reco rd, we agree with the district court that the express terms of the Ultracover Home Protector insurance policy and the Personal Catastrophe Liability Endorsement exclude coverage for the claims asserted against Bailes that give rise to this litigation

. Acc ordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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
u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REcEIvED 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASIDNGTON, D. C. JUN 1 5 2015 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Complainant, 

HEARING DOCKET 

vs. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0045 

FAA Case No. 200980150216 

WORLDWIDE AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC. 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.233 ofthe Rules of Practice, Complainant, by and through the 

undersigned counsel, hereby files this Notice of Appeal. 

Respectfully submitted this 

WILLIAM VINES 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

dayof ~ , 2015. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been mailed as indicated below: 

Federal Aviation Administration (by certified mail JUN 1 0 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

East Building Ground Floor 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Michael A. Honeycutt 

Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. 

c/o JET I.C.U. 

2561 Rescue Way 

Brooksville, Florida 34604 

Telephone: (352) 796-2540 

Facsimile: (352) 796-2549 

JUN 1 0 20151 

Dated 

(bycertifiedmail JUN !]0 2~~ 

(by certified mail JUN 1 0 20~ ~
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Adams Electric Light Company, Appellant, *v.*Mark Graves et al., Constituting the State Tax Commission, Respondents.

Submitted December 4, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0058 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0058

**95/58/EC: Commission Decision of 2 March 1995 amending Decision 94/85/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorize imports of fresh poultrymeat (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 055 , 11/03/1995 P. 0041 - 0041 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 2 March 1995 amending Decision 94/85/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorize imports of fresh poultrymeat (Text with EEA relevance) (95/58/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/494/EEC of 26 June 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of fresh poultrymeat (1), as last amended by Directive 93/121/EC (2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas Commission Decision 94/85/EC (3), as last amended by Decision 94/453/EC (4), established a list of third countries from which importation of fresh poultrymeat is authorized;

Whereas further written assurances have been received from several countries, in particular Namibia and Slovenia; whereas examination of these assurances has shown that these countries satisfy the requirements of the Community;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Commission Decision 94/85/EC the following lines are inserted in accordance with the alphabetic order of the ISO-code:

"" ID="1">' > ID="2">NA> ID="3">Namibia> ID="4">×> ID="5">ostrich meat only:"> ID="2">SI> ID="3">Slovenia> ID="4">×> ID="6">'">

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 March 1995.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 March 1995.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 35.

(2) OJ No L 340, 31. 12. 1993, p. 39.

(3) OJ No L 44, 17. 2. 1994, p. 31.

(4) OJ No L 187, 22. 7. 1994, p. 11.
* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-30065

Summary Calendar

_____________________

KELLY KERVIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; JAMES SIMON,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(96-CV-1693)

_________________________________________________________________

January 8, 1999

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kelly Kervin appeals the adverse summary judgment in her

sexual harass ment action against General Motors (GM) and James

Simon.

Kervin was employed not by GM, but by the local union at GM’s

plant. Simon was employed by GM. (Kevin does not appeal the

dismissal of her claims against the local union and two of its

officials.)

Of course, we review a district court's grant of summary

judgment de novo

, applying the same standard as the district court.

E.g.

, OHM Remediation Services v. Evans Cooperage Co., Inc. , 116F.3d 1574, 1579 (5th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate

w here “there is no genuine issue of material fact and ... the

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." F ED

. R.

C IV

. P. 56(c).

Kervin claims that various acts by Simon consti tute sexual

harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e, for which GM is also responsible; that these acts

violate Louisiana anti-discrimination statutes (these state law

claims mirror the federal claims); and that the y constitute the

intentional infliction of emotional distress. Pursuant to our de

novo review of the record and review of the briefs, we find summary

judgment proper for essentially the reasons stated by the district

court. S ee Kervin v. General Motors Corp., et al.

, No. 3:96-1693,

slip op. (W.D.La. Dec. 16, 1997).

This decision is not affected by the intervening Supreme Court

decisions in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth

, 118 S.Ct. 2257

(1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton

, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (1998).

Th ose cases involved the scope of respondeat superior liability

borne by employers for intermediate supervisor’s acts, rather than

the existence of an employer/employee relationship, at issue here.

AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

People of MI v Mohammad Masroor 

DocketNo. 322280; 322281;322282 

LC No. 14-000869-FC; 14-000858-FC; 14-000857-FC 

Michael J. Talbot, C.J. 

Presiding Judge 

All Court of Appeals 

Judges 

The Court orders that the order issued December 17, 2015 convening a special panel in 

this matter is VACA TED, a clerical error having been made in the polling conducted pursuant to MCR 

7.215(1). 

The Court further orders that a special panel shall not be convened pursuant to MCR 

7.215(1) to resolve a conflict between this case and People of MI v Alexander Jeremy Steanhouse, _ 

Mich App_ (Docket No. 318329, issued October 22, 2015). 

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on 

DEC 1 8 2015 

Date
§ 414.41 Hearings in safety element approval actions. ( a ) The FAA will give the safety element approval applicant or holder, as appropriate, written notice stating the reason for issuing a denial or for modifying, suspending, or revoking a safety element approval under this part.
( b ) A safety element approval applicant or holder is entitled to a determination on the record after an opportunity for a hearing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES E. KARR,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 356 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of May, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
### NAICS:

541710

Research and Development in the Physical,

Engineering, and Life Sciences

Labor

Category: Formula Managerial Natural Science

Managers Technical Soil and

Plant

Scientists Biological

Scientists Biological

Technicians Clerical

Unloaded

Hourly Rate 1 = W $76.51 $78.17 $39.80 $33.90 $41.49 $22.97 $22.74

Benefits

Percentage 2 Lb = B/W 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3%

Benefits per

hour B = W*Lb $35.43 $36.20 $18.43 $15.70 $19.22 $10.64 $10.53

Loaded

Hourly Rate Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb) $111.94 $114.37 $58.23 $49.60 $60.71 $33.61 $33.27

Overhead

Percentage 3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Overhead

per hour OH = Wb*Lo $55.97 $57.19 $29.12 $24.80 $30.35 $16.80 $16.64

Fully

Loaded

Hourly Rate Wf = Wb + OH

= W + B + OH $167.92 $171.56 $87.35 $74.40 $91.06 $50.41 $49.91

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics5_541710.htm May 201 4 data

NAICS

- 541700 Research and Development in the Physical,

Engineering, and Life Sciences Updated

3 / 25 /1 5

Standard Occupational Codes:

Management: 11

- 0000, Management Occupations

Natural Science Managers 11

- 9121, Natural Science Managers

Technical: 19

- 0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations

Soil and Plant Scientists: 19

- 1013, Soil and Plant Scientists

Biological Scientists: 19

- 1029, Biological Scientists, All Others

Biological Technicians: 19

- 4021, Biological Technicians

Clerical: 43

- 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. The average for non farm, non federal civilian workers.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition , EPA

452

- 02

- 001, January 2002, pg. 2

- 34. The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20

- 70% of the

load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
#### John H. Clark, Jr., Respondent, *v.*Fiorello H. LaGuardia, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Argued March 10, 1937;

decided March 25, 1937.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Joseph L. Weiner, Herman Horowitz*and *Arthur A. Segall*of counsel), for appellants.

*John Holley Clark, Jr.,*in person, respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Exhibit 10.29


              COMPENSATION FOR NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS OF KEYSPAN
              ----------------------------------------------------


The  non-management  Directors  of KeySpan  Corporation  receive  the  following
compensation:

                           $43,500 annual retainer;
                           $2,000 committee meeting fee;
                           $5,000 committee chairman retainer;
                           $10,000 audit committee chairman retainer;
                           $10,000 Lead Director retainer; and
                           $64,000 in common stock equivalents granted under the
                                   Directors' Deferred Compensation Plan.

Employee  directors receive no additional  compensation for serving on the Board
or its committees.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          51,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,357
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,311)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,736
<PP&E>                                          37,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,117)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,865
<BONDS>                                          8,025
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           265
<OTHER-SE>                                     129,292
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,557
<SALES>                                         18,481
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,481
<CGS>                                           12,152
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,152
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,593
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,338)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,338)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.55)


</TABLE>
§ 450.47 Environmental review. ( a ) *General.* The FAA is responsible for complying with the procedures and policies of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable environmental laws, regulations, and Executive Orders prior to issuing a launch or reentry license. An applicant must provide the FAA with information needed to comply with such requirements. The FAA will consider and document the potential environmental effects associated with issuing a launch or reentry license consistent with paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment.* When directed by the FAA, an applicant must— ( 1 ) Prepare an Environmental Assessment with FAA oversight;
( 2 ) Assume financial responsibility for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement by an FAA-selected and -managed consultant contractor; or
( 3 ) Submit information to support a written re-evaluation of a previously submitted Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.
( c ) *Categorical exclusion.* The FAA may determine that a categorical exclusion is appropriate upon receipt of supporting information from an applicant.
( d ) *Application requirements.* An application must include an approved FAA Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Statement, categorical exclusion determination, or written re-evaluation, which should address compliance with any other applicable environmental laws, regulations, and Executive Orders covering all planned licensed activities in compliance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA.
#### § 450.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes requirements for obtaining and maintaining a license to launch, reenter, or both launch and reenter, a launch or reentry vehicle.
§ 33.70 Engine life-limited parts. By a procedure approved by the FAA, operating limitations must be established which specify the maximum allowable number of flight cycles for each engine life-limited part. Engine life-limited parts are rotor and major static structural parts whose primary failure is likely to result in a hazardous engine effect. Typically, engine life-limited parts include, but are not limited to disks, spacers, hubs, shafts, high-pressure casings, and non-redundant mount components. For the purposes of this section, a hazardous engine effect is any of the conditions listed in § 33.75 of this part. The applicant will establish the integrity of each engine life-limited part by: ( a ) An engineering plan that contains the steps required to ensure each engine life-limited part is withdrawn from service at an approved life before hazardous engine effects can occur. These steps include validated analysis, test, or service experience which ensures that the combination of loads, material properties, environmental influences and operating conditions, including the effects of other engine parts influencing these parameters, are sufficiently well known and predictable so that the operating limitations can be established and maintained for each engine life-limited part. Applicants must perform appropriate damage tolerance assessments to address the potential for failure from material, manufacturing, and service induced anomalies within the approved life of the part. Applicants must publish a list of the life-limited engine parts and the approved life for each part in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness as required by § 33.4 of this part.
( b ) A manufacturing plan that identifies the specific manufacturing constraints necessary to consistently produce each engine life-limited part with the attributes required by the engineering plan.
( c ) A service management plan that defines in-service processes for maintenance and the limitations to repair for each engine life-limited part that will maintain attributes consistent with those required by the engineering plan. These processes and limitations will become part of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
[Amdt. 33-22, 72 FR 50860, Sept. 4, 2007]