alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 27.1585 Operating procedures. ( a ) Parts of the manual containing operating procedures must have information concerning any normal and emergency procedures and other information necessary for safe operation, including takeoff and landing procedures and associated airspeeds. The manual must contain any pertinent information including— ( 1 ) The kind of takeoff surface used in the tests and each appropriate climbout speed; and
( 2 ) The kind of landing surface used in the tests and appropriate approach and glide airspeeds.
( b ) For multiengine rotorcraft, information identifying each operating condition in which the fuel system independence prescribed in § 27.953 is necessary for safety must be furnished, together with instructions for placing the fuel system in a configuration used to show compliance with that section.
( c ) For helicopters for which a V*NE* (power-off) is established under § 27.1505(c), information must be furnished to explain the V*NE* (power-off) and the procedures for reducing airspeed to not more than the V*NE* (power-off) following failure of all engines.
( d ) For each rotorcraft showing compliance with § 27.1353 (g)(2) or (g)(3), the operating procedures for disconnecting the battery from its charging source must be furnished.
( e ) If the unusable fuel supply in any tank exceeds five percent of the tank capacity, or one gallon, whichever is greater, information must be furnished which indicates that when the fuel quantity indicator reads “zero” in level flight, any fuel remaining in the fuel tank cannot be used safely in flight.
( f ) Information on the total quantity of usable fuel for each fuel tank must be furnished.
( g ) The airspeeds and rotor speeds for minimum rate of descent and best glide angle as prescribed in § 27.71 must be provided.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, and 605 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424, and 1425); and sec. 6(c) of the Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Amdt. 27-1, 32 FR 6914, May 5, 1967, as amended by Amdt. 27-14, 43 FR 2326, Jan. 16, 1978; Amdt. 27-16, 43 FR 50599, Oct. 30, 1978; Amdt. 27-21, 49 FR 44435, Nov. 6, 1984]
# Úradný vestník C 68A/2011

| | ISSN 1725-5236
  doi:10.3000/17255236.CA2011.068.slo |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 68A |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Zväzok 543. marca 2011 |

ISSN 1725-5236

doi:10.3000/17255236.CA2011.068.slo

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 68A

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Zväzok 543. marca 2011

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Korigendá |
| 2011/C 068A/01 | Korigendum k oznámeniu o verejnom výberovom konaní EPSO/AST/112/10 – asistent (AST 3) (Ú. v. EÚ C 341 A, 16.12.2010) | 1 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

Korigendá

2011/C 068A/01

Korigendum k oznámeniu o verejnom výberovom konaní EPSO/AST/112/10 – asistent (AST 3) (Ú. v. EÚ C 341 A, 16.12.2010)

(Ú. v. EÚ C 341 A, 16.12.2010)

1

PREHĽAD VÝBEROVÝCH KONANÍ v Ú. v. EÚ C A

Pripojený je zoznam Ú. v. EÚ C A, ktoré boli vydané počas tohto roku.

Ak nie je uvedené inak, Ú. v. EÚ vyšli vo všetkých jazykoch.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |
| 68 | |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

68

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

Korigendá

| 3.3.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CA 68/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CA 68/1

---

Korigendum k oznámeniu o verejnom výberovom konaní EPSO/AST/112/10 – asistent (AST 3)

(
  Úradný vestník Európskej únie C 341 A zo 16. decembra 2010
  )

(2011/C 68 A/01)

Na strane 3 v oddiele IV.2:

namiesto:

| „Test d) | odborné schopnosti:


  správnosť a presnosť | hodnotenie: 0 až 20 bodov


  požadovaný minimálny počet bodov: 10 bodov |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Test e) | odborné schopnosti:


  schopnosť stanoviť si priority a zorganizovať prácu | hodnotenie: 0 až 20 bodov


  požadovaný minimálny počet bodov: 10 bodov“ |

„Test d)

odborné schopnosti:

správnosť a presnosť

hodnotenie: 0 až 20 bodov

požadovaný minimálny počet bodov: 10 bodov

Test e)

odborné schopnosti:

schopnosť stanoviť si priority a zorganizovať prácu

hodnotenie: 0 až 20 bodov

požadovaný minimálny počet bodov: 10 bodov“

má byť:

| „Test d) | odborné schopnosti:


  správnosť a presnosť | hodnotenie: 0 až 20 bodov |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Test e) | odborné schopnosti:


  schopnosť stanoviť si priority a zorganizovať prácu | hodnotenie: 0 až 20 bodov |
| | Požadovaný minimálny počet bodov je 20 bodov v testoch d) a e) spolu.“ |

„Test d)

odborné schopnosti:

správnosť a presnosť

hodnotenie: 0 až 20 bodov

Test e)

odborné schopnosti:

schopnosť stanoviť si priority a zorganizovať prácu

hodnotenie: 0 až 20 bodov

Požadovaný minimálny počet bodov je 20 bodov v testoch d) a e) spolu.“

---
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0270 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0270

**95/270/EC: Commission Decision of 30 June 1995 amending Decision 94/360/EC on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries **

*
Official Journal L 165 , 15/07/1995 P. 0024 - 0024 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 June 1995 amending Decision 94/360/EC on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) (95/270/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and particularly Article 8 (3) thereof,

Whereas in Decision 94/360/EC (2), as last amended by 95/54/EC (3), the Commission adopted measures on the reduction in frequency of physical checks of consignments of products to be imported from third countries; whereas these frequencies should apply from 1 July 1995, following a review of the frequencies on the basis of the results of all checks on imported consignments of products;

Whereas further progress is necessary on the harmonization of imported conditions on imported products;

Whereas further experience of Member States checks on consignments is necessary to carry out the review of the frequencies foreseen in Article 3 (3); whereas it is therefore necessary to defer the date of application of the frequencies to 1 February 1996;

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

Commission Decision 94/360/EC shall be amended as follows:

- In Article 3 (1), the date of '1 May 1995` is replaced by '1 December 1995`,

- In Article 3 (3), the date of '1 July 1995` is replaced by '1 February 1996`,

- In Article 7, the date of '1 July 1995` is replaced by '1 February 1996`.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 June 1995.

For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission
§ 406.167 Initial decision. ( a ) *Contents.* The administrative law judge must issue an initial decision at the conclusion of the hearing. In each oral or written decision, the administrative law judge must include findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the grounds supporting those findings and conclusions, upon all material issues of fact, the credibility of witnesses, the applicable law, any exercise of the administrative law judge's discretion, the amount of any civil penalty found appropriate by the administrative law judge, and a discussion of the basis for any order issued in the proceedings. The administrative law judge is not required to provide a written explanation for rulings on objections, procedural motions, and other matters not directly relevant to the substance of the initial decision. If the administrative law judge refers to any previous unreported or unpublished initial decision, the administrative law judge must make copies of that initial decision available to all parties and the FAA decisionmaker.
( b ) *Oral decision.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, at the conclusion of the hearing, the administrative law judge must issue the initial decision and order orally on the record.
( c ) *Written decision.* The administrative law judge may issue a written initial decision not later than 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing or submission of the last posthearing brief if the administrative law judge finds that issuing a written initial decision is reasonable. The administrative law judge must serve a copy of any written initial decision on each party.
#### § 35.38 Lightning strike.

The applicant must demonstrate, by tests, analysis based on tests, or experience on similar designs, that the propeller can withstand a lightning strike without causing a major or hazardous propeller effect. The limit to which the propeller has been qualified must be documented in the appropriate manuals. This section does not apply to fixed-pitch wood propellers of conventional design.

[Amdt. 35-8, 73 FR 63348, Oct. 24, 2008]
§ 65.77 Experience requirements. Each applicant for a mechanic certificate or rating must present either— ( a ) An authenticated document from a certificated aviation maintenance technician school in accordance with § 147.21 of this chapter; or
( b ) Documentary evidence, satisfactory to the Administrator, of— ( 1 ) At least 18 months of practical experience with the procedures, practices, materials, tools, machine tools, and equipment generally used in constructing, maintaining, or altering airframes or powerplants, appropriate to the rating sought; or
( 2 ) At least 30 months of practical experience concurrently performing the duties appropriate to both the airframe and powerplant ratings.
[Docket No. FAA-2021-0237; Amdt. No. 65-63, 87 FR 31415, May 24, 2022]
Sarah Meservey Arlington, Virginia

As a high school math teacher Itry to make some part ofevery unit Iteach relevant to the realworld and so I have sought out global data with patterns for students to analyze, and a while back Iwas struck bythe data published- and in some cases by the US government, on Co2 levels, global warming, ocean acidification, and loss of habitat and species extinction. It made forgreat linear and exponential regression projects. But it was alarming. Occasionally students doing these projects ask me what is being done about it. It's hard to say "not much" butthat is the truth.

My 16 year old son Max is in the Environmental Club at his high school and hetestified in front ofthe VAstate corporation commission last month aboutthe dangers ofco2 pollution, and about virginia being atop pollution creator and at the back ofthe pack for creating renewables. I told him to write a speech but he didn't. He just made some visuals and described the science behind the issues and talked aboutwhat needs to happen. I borrowed a couple of his charts to showyou as they are fairly telling. (show some pictures). So we need national standards and enforcement because it isn't happening in virginia.

He was so eloquent and Iwish he could be here instead of me butthe parting comment he left that commission with was

... Why can't we be nearthe top ofthe list. Why dowe haveto bring down the national average? And thatwas a good question forVirginia. And its relevant forthe US as well. Why do we haveto be creating the bulk ofthe C02 problem in the world and contributing less to the solution? Why can't we

### be our usual innovative selves and be up near the top ofthe list globally?And that's where the EPAcomes in.

I know it's out offashion to talk about being a good steward ofthe earth, doing the right thing, being ethical. let'sjust make money. Money andjobs

..Well amazingly we are at the confluence ofwhere doing right will also be doing the profitable thing. Study after study is showing that investment in renewables will bring unparalleledjobgrowth.

Look, we would not be in this fix right now ifwe had made industry and individuals pay fortheir pollution. If I drive downthe highway and I dump my trash out the window I'm going to get in trouble. Right? It's actually totally amazing that dirty power companies are allowed to pollute to the level they are, and ordinary citizens have been paying massive subsidies to them foryears.

In closing, my principal always says "no excused" ---like "don't tell methe kids are to lazy, inspirethem". Well that's what I'm saying here. We need results from our government and we need to bring down levels of C02 levels down drastically

- and we need that now. This agency is tasked with protecting the environment, and ordinary citizens like me expect itto do itsjob, no matterthe pressures. You need to put forth and enforcethe strongest Carbon Pollution Standards possible.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CFO CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC§1350, as adopted), Carter D. Hicks,the Chief Financial Officer of DigitalRiver, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

**1.****             **TheCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004,and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Annual Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

**2.****             **Theinformation contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company forthe periods presented therein.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 14th day of March2005.

 
|   | /s/ Carter D. Hicks     |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Carter D. Hicks         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Digital River, Inc. and will be retained by Digital River, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4679

_____________________________

TIFFANI HARRIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Robert R. Wheeler, Judge.

November 19, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender; Susannah Loumiet, Steven 

Seliger and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee,

for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS v CARPENTER, et al.

Case No. AP90-647 AY

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County

October 18, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

William Brant, Esquire, Brant & Baldwin, Peter J. Hurtzen, Esquire, Mark E. Zelek, Esquire, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, for petitioner.

No response filed for Respondent — Board of Trustees.

Rand Hoch, Esquire, and Gerald A. Rosenthal, Esquire, for respondent, Clark.

Before RODGERS, RAPP, OFTEDAL, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Nancy Clark is the widow of former Police Captain Ed Clark. Captain Clark has over thirteen years of credited service with the City of Palm Beach Gardens Police Department when, at age 57, he died of a heart attack before retiring. The Board of Trustees of the City of Palm Beach Gardens Police Officers’ Retirement Trust Fund (Board of *51Trustees) awarded Mrs. Clark death benefits under section 135.21, Florida Statutes rather than under the City’s Retirement Plan. The City maintains there is no authority for the payment of death benefits to Mrs. Clark under section 185.21, Fla. Stat.

The difference to Mrs. Clark is whether she receives a lump sum death payment or monthly payments over the next ten years that would total a higher payment.

We received no response from the Board of Trustees to the order to show cause. Based upon our review of the record, we find the provisions of section 185.21 do not apply. Mrs. Clark is entitled to those benefits under the City’s local plan which is a lump sum plus interest.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and remand to the Board of Trustees for a rehearing.

Further, Respondent Clark’s motion for attorney’s fees is denied.

RODGERS, RAPP, and OFTEDAL, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. S. C. F. Realty Corporation et al., Appellants, *v.*William J. Weise, as City Assessor of the City of White Plains, et al., Respondents.

(Submitted November 17,1936;

decided December 1, 1936.)

*David Tepp*for appellants.

*William B. Condit, Corporation Counsel (John H. Shetron*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 366 

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS 

No. CR-16-857

BILLY DAVIS JR.

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered: October 27, 2016

MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL

AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI

MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL 

GRANTED; PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF CERTIORARI TO COMPLETE 

AND LODGE THE RECORD 

WITHIN NINETY DAYS GRANTED

PER CURIAM

On March 1, 2016, a jury found Billy Davis Jr. guilty of aggravated robbery, firstdegree battery, and theft of property. A sentencing order was entered on March 2, 2016. 

There is nothing in the record to reflect that trial counsel was relieved. Counsel denies that 

appellant timely informed him that he desired to appeal; instead, Davis belatedly filed a pro 

se notice of appeal and affidavit of indigency on May 2, 2016. Now before us is counsel’s 

motion for belated appeal in which he also seeks a writ of certiorari to bring up the record 

and proceed with the appeal. 

Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 16 (2015) provides in pertinent part 

that trial counsel, whether retained or court appointed, shall continue to represent a 

convicted defendant throughout any appeal, unless permitted by the trial court or the 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 366 

appellate court to withdraw in the interest of justice or for other sufficient cause. We have 

held, however, that a defendant may waive his right to appeal by his failure to inform counsel 

of his desire to appeal within the thirty-day period allowed for filing a notice of appeal under 

Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 2(a)(4). Sanders v. State, 330 Ark. 851, 956 

S.W.2d 868 (1997) (per curiam); Jones v. State, 294 Ark. 659, 748 S.W.2d 117 (1988) (per 

curiam). It is clear that, regardless of whether Davis timely informed his counsel, he does, 

in fact, desire to appeal. He is entitled to a direct appeal of his conviction as a matter of 

right. Evans v. State, 356 Ark. 366, 151 S.W.3d 314 (2004) (per curiam) (citing Douglas v. 

California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963)). 

We grant the motion for belated appeal. Although Davis’s notice of appeal indicates 

that the complete transcript of the proceedings was ordered, only the partial record has been 

tendered to this court. Our clerk is directed to lodge the partial record. We issue the writ 

of certiorari to complete the record and have the entire record lodged within ninety days of 

this order. When the supplemental record is received, we direct the clerk to set an 

appropriate briefing schedule for the matter. 

Motion for belated appeal granted; writ of certiorari to complete and lodge the record 

within ninety days granted.
#### § 49.37 Claims for salvage or extraordinary expenses.

The right to a charge arising out of a claim for compensation for salvage of an aircraft or for extraordinary expenses indispensable for preserving the aircraft in operations terminated in a foreign country that is a party to the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft (4 U.S.T. 1830) may be noted on the FAA record by filing notice thereof with the FAA Aircraft Registry within three months after the date of termination of the salvage or preservation operations.
#### § 375.42 Transport operations—occasional planeload charters.

Occasional planeload charters may be authorized where, because of their limited nature and extent, special equipment or facilities utilized, or other circumstances pertaining to them, it appears that they are not within the scope of the applicant's normal holding out of transportation services to the general public. Such charters are normally limited to those in which the entire capacity of the aircraft is engaged by a single charterer, and since they are occasional in nature, should not exceed for any one applicant more than six flights during a calendar year. This part does not authorize operations that involve solicitation of the general public such as is usually involved in the transportation of individually-ticketed passengers or individually-waybilled cargo, or in which the charterer is a travel agent, a charter operator, a broker, an air freight forwarder or any other organization that holds itself out to the general public to provide transportation services. Carriage of cargo for the operator's own account is governed by the provisions of this section if the cargo is to be resold or otherwise used in the furtherance of a business other than the business of providing carriage by aircraft.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          55,474
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  184,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,949
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,837
<PP&E>                                         901,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                 218,320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,650,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          513,676
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       822,771
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,117,330)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,650,185
<SALES>                                      1,023,415
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,023,415
<CGS>                                          202,411
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,060
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             176,554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                163,914
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            163,914
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   163,914
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
#### §§ 435.24-435.30 [Reserved]