alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 29.1393 Minimum intensities in any vertical plane of forward and rear position lights.

Each position light intensity must equal or exceed the applicable values in the following table:

| Angle above or below the horizontal plane | Intensity, *I* |
| --- | --- |
| 0° | 1.00 |
| 0° to 5° | .90 |
| 5° to 10° | .80 |
| 10° to 15° | .70 |
| 15° to 20° | .50 |
| 20° to 30° | .30 |
| 30° to 40° | .10 |
| 40° to 90° | .05 |
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30409-30410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11783]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than May 25, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Stephen Panepinto, Plaquemine, Louisiana; to acquire additional 
voting shares of Plaquemine Bancshares Corporation, Plaquemine, 
Louisiana, and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of 
Plaquemine Bank & Trust Company, Plaquemine, Louisiana.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 
64198-0001:
    1. Robert E. Ehrlich, Milliken, Colorado; to acquire voting shares 
of First Gothenburg Bancshares, Inc., Gothenburg, Nebraska, and thereby 
indirectly acquire voting shares of First State Bank, Gothenburg, 
Nebraska.
    C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Robert B. Mathieu, Delhi, Louisiana; to acquire additional 
voting shares of Delhi Bancshares, Inc., Delhi, Louisiana, and thereby 
indirectly

[[Page 30410]]

acquire additional voting shares of Guaranty Bank & Trust Company of 
Delhi, Delhi, Louisiana.

    Dated: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 5, 
2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-11783 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
130 STAT. 286 PUBLIC LAW 114–127—FEB. 29, 2016 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 487: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114–250 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 114–205 (Comm. on Indian Affairs). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 161 (2015): Sept. 16, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 162 (2016): Feb. 11, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–127 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lease or transfer certain lands. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED TO VALIDATE LAND TRANSACTIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

without further approval, ratification, or authorization by the 

United States, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma may lease, sell, convey, 

warrant, or otherwise transfer all or any part of its interests in 

any real property that is not held in trust by the United States 

for the benefit of such tribe. 

(b) TRUST LAND NOT AFFECTED.—Nothing in this section shall— 

(1) authorize the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lease, sell, 

convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all or any part of an 

interest in any real property that is held in trust by the 

United States for the benefit of such tribe; or 

(2) affect the operation of any law governing leasing, 

selling, conveying, warranting, or otherwise transferring any 

interest in such trust land. 

Approved February 29, 2016. 

Feb. 29, 2016 

[H.R. 487] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-04-00778- CR
Ant oni o C isne r os , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 331ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 20426 64, H ONO RAB LE BO B PERK INS, JUDGE P RESIDING

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Antonio Cisneros seeks to appe al from a judgme nt of conviction for f elony driving while intox icated. Sente nce was suspended and Cisneros was place d on community supervision on September 17, 2004. On the same day , Cisneros signe d a written waiver of appe al. On Nove mber 23, 2004, Cisneros filed a pr o se notice of out-of-time appeal. Be cause the not ice of appea l was not timely , we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purporte d appea l in any manner other than by dismiss ing it for want of

jurisdiction. Se eSla ton v . S tate , 981 S.W .2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Ol iv o v . S tate , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522-23 (Te x . Crim. App. 1996); Tex. R . App. P. 26.2(a)( 1).2 The a ppeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

18, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
November 24, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EX PARTE STACEY LOVINGS, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00425-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.708 Invocation of procedure. ( a ) Conferences between DOT employees, representatives of air carriers, the U.S. Postal Service and other interested persons may be called by DOT employees for the purpose of considering and clarifying issues and factual material in pending proceedings for the establishment of rates for the transportation of mail.
( b ) At the commencement of an informal mail rate conference pursuant to this section, the authorized DOT employees conducting such conference shall issue to each person present at such conference a written statement to the effect that such conference is being conducted pursuant to this section and stating the time of commencement of such conference; and at the termination of such conference the DOT employees conducting such conference shall note in writing on such statement the time of termination of such conference.
#### Frederick J. Schneider, Appellant, *v.*Lillian F. Swartele et al., Defendants, and William Weible et al., Respondents.

Argued March 15, 1937;

decided April 20, 1937.

*663
      *Harold G. Hutchens*for appellant.

*Frederick*A. *Mann*for William Weible, respondent.

*Carroll M. Roberts*for George Schnackel, respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ. Taking no part, Rippey, J.
June 2, 2015

Mr. Guillermo Mercado

Mercado Consultants 17830 New Hampshire Avenue Ashton, MD 20861

Dear Mr. Mercado:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 5, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1424), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Merrett *et al. v.*Vance *et al.*

On exceptions to a motion to quash a forthcoming bond for a variance between the original judgment and the bond or other defect, both the judgment, the executions, and the bond must be embraced in a bill of exceptions, or they will not be of record.

It is too late to move to quash a forthcoming bond for irregularities after the return term.

IN ERROR from the circuit court of the county of Yazoo.

Wilkinson and Miles, for plaintiffs in error.

Gibbs and Holt, contra.

*Per Curiam.*

*A*suit was instituted in the circuit court of Yazoo county against Yance and Woods, as makers, and Dorsey as indorser of a promissory note, and judgment recovered. Execution process emanated on this judgment, and several terms after the rendition of the original judgment, to wit, at May term, 1841, a motion was made by the plaintiffs to quash the original *fieri facias,*the forthcoming bond which had been taken thereon, and all subsequent proceedings, because of a variance between the judgment and *fieri facias.*The motion was overruled, and to reverse this judgment this writ of error is prosecuted.

It appears by the bill of exception that the plaintiff in support of his motion introduced the original judgment, and also the *fieri facias*and bond, and also the subsequent *fieri facias*which issued on the forfeited bond, and closed his evidence. These matters of evidence are prefixed to, or inserted in the record of proceedings, but they are not incorporated in the bill of exceptions. Of themselves they constitute no part of the record in the proceedings on *499this motion, and they should have been placed on the record by bill of exceptions. Whatever is not a part of the record proper, cannot be regarded as part of the record unless made so by bill of exceptions. We can only know what evidence was introduced below by having it certified to us by the bill of exceptions. Its identity then becomes unquestionable. This defect in the record is insisted on by the counsel for defendants, and the objection must be sustained. This point has been uniformly and repeatedly so ruled by this court.

It is also objected, that the motion to quash should have been made at the return term of the bond, and so it was ruled in 4 Howard, 369. Judgment affirmed.
#### Bertha F. Earl, on Behalf of Herself and Other Stockholders of Standard Furniture Company et al., Appellants and Respondents, *v.*Sheldon M. Brewer et al., Individually and as Directors of Standard Furniture Company et al., Respondents and Appellants.

Argued March 11, 1937;

decided April 20, 1937.

*671Gay *H. Brown*and *Ernest P. Felt*for plaintiffs, appellants and respondents.

*James F. Hubbell*for Sheldon M. Brewer et al., defendants, respondents and appellants.

*Thayer Burgess*for Irving G. Will, defendant, respondent and appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order dismissed, with costs, on ground it is not a final order. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, J.
#### § 417.225 Debris risk analysis.

A flight safety analysis must demonstrate that the risk to the public potentially exposed to inert and explosive debris hazards from any one flight of a launch vehicle satisfies the public risk criterion of § 417.107(b) for debris. A debris risk analysis must account for risk to populations on land, including regions of launch vehicle flight following passage through any gate in a flight safety limit established as required by § 417.217. A debris risk analysis must account for any potential casualties to the public as required by the debris thresholds and requirements of § 417.107(c).
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 23.1


Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 No. 333-44680 dated August 28, 2000 pertaining to the Employee Stock
Purchase Plan and Form S-8 No. 333-50498 dated November 22, 2000 pertaining to
the Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan and the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of
ServiceWare Technologies, Inc., of our report dated January 25, 2002, except for
Note 18 as to which the date is April 1, 2002, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of ServiceWare Technologies, Inc., included in this Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.



                                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
April 1, 2002
§ 65.111 Certificate required. ( a ) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any personnel-carrying parachute intended for emergency use in connection with civil aircraft of the United States (including the reserve parachute of a dual parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping) unless that person holds an appropriate current certificate and type rating issued under this subpart and complies with §§ 65.127 through 65.133.
( b ) No person may pack any main parachute of a dual-parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping in connection with civil aircraft of the United States unless that person— ( 1 ) Has an appropriate current certificate issued under this subpart;
( 2 ) Is under the supervision of a current certificated parachute rigger;
( 3 ) Is the person making the next parachute jump with that parachute in accordance with § 105.43(a) of this chapter; or
( 4 ) Is the parachutist in command making the next parachute jump with that parachute in a tandem parachute operation conducted under § 105.45(b)(1) of this chapter.
( c ) No person may maintain or alter any main parachute of a dual-parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping in connection with civil aircraft of the United States unless that person— ( 1 ) Has an appropriate current certificate issued under this subpart; or
( 2 ) Is under the supervision of a current certificated parachute rigger;
( d ) Each person who holds a parachute rigger certificate shall present it for inspection upon the request of the Administrator or an authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board, or of any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.
( e ) The following parachute rigger certificates are issued under this part: ( 1 ) Senior parachute rigger.
( 2 ) Master parachute rigger.
( f ) Sections 65.127 through 65.133 do not apply to parachutes packed, maintained, or altered for the use of the armed forces.
[Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-9, 31 FR 13524, Oct. 20, 1966; 32 FR 5769, Apr. 11, 1967; Amdt. 65-42, 66 FR 23553, May 9, 2001; Amdt. 65-54, 75 FR 31285, June 3, 2010]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4319 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4319

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily expand the 
         deduction for business meals provided at a restaurant.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2020

 Mr. Scott of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily expand the 
         deduction for business meals provided at a restaurant.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting America's Restaurant 
Workers Act''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY ALLOWANCE OF FULL DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS MEALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 274(n)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by 
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C)(iv) and inserting 
``, or'', and by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(D) such expense is--
                            ``(i) for food or beverages provided by a 
                        restaurant, and
                            ``(ii) paid or incurred before January 1, 
                        2021.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
AFS-11-112-E 

Jan 20 2011 

 Exemption No. 8469C 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2004-19868 

Mr. William R. Riesen Jr. 

21 Corte Del Sol 

Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 

Dear Mr. Riesen: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 8469, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated December 20, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) for an extension of Exemption No. 8469, as amended. That exemption from 

§ 91.109(a) and (b)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows you to conduct certain 

flight instruction and simulated instrument flights to meet the recent experience requirements 

in Beechcraft airplanes equipped with a functioning throwover control wheel. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to you. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8469, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 
 2

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8469, as amended, to 

January 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8469, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8469. 

Sincerely, 

 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v LOVE

Case No. 90-156 AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

April 8, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellant.

Kirk W. Munroe, Esquire, for appellee.

Before ROBINSON, BLOOM, FIERRO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FIERRO, EUGENE J., J.

This is an appeal that arises from the granting of the Defendant’s (Appellee) Motion to Dismiss the State’s Information wherein the Defendant asserted that the Information which charged the Defendant with unlawful possession of a blackjack table in violation of Section 849.231, Florida Statutes, did not allege that the Defendant was using the device for gambling, nor that he intended to do so.

As such, the Defendant argued, the Information failed to state a cause of action because it omitted an essential element of the crime, *49scienter (i.e., that gambling occurred or that there was any intent to do so).

On its face the statute does not state whether or not “scienter” is an essential element to be either alleged or proved. The appellant argues that whereas the statute denounces the doing of an act as criminal without specifically requiring criminal intent, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the commission of such act was accompanied by criminal intent.

The appellee argues that, under the statute, even the mere possession of a “souvenir” such as a “croupier’s stick from Las Vegas” would be a violation of the statute. He cites *Schultz v State,*361 So.2d 416 (Fla. 1978) in support of his contention that scienter is or should be required.

We note that the Supreme Court in *Schultz*finds the statute constitutional. The appellee’s argument is somewhat compelling and while a blackjack table could be used or designed to be used for a legal purpose, as well as an illegal purpose, it is not for this Court to inquire into the legislature’s intent in drafting the statute in question. The statute on its face clearly does not require scienter.

We concur that the Information filed against the Defendant was improperly dismissed by the trial court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

(Robinson and Bloom, JJ., concur)
§ 60.2 Applicability of sponsor rules to persons who are not sponsors and who are engaged in certain unauthorized activities. ( a ) The rules of this part that are directed to a sponsor of an FSTD also apply to any person who uses or causes the use of an FSTD when— ( 1 ) That person knows that the FSTD does not have an FAA-approved sponsor; and
( 2 ) The use of the FSTD by that person is nonetheless claimed for purposes of meeting any requirement of this chapter or that person knows or should have known that the person's acts or omissions would cause another person to mistakenly credit use of the FSTD for purposes of meeting any requirement of this chapter.
( b ) A situation in which paragraph (a) of this section would not apply to a person would be when each of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The person sold or leased the FSTD and merely represented to the purchaser or lessee that the FSTD is in a condition in which it should be able to obtain FAA approval and qualification under this part;
( 2 ) The person does not falsely claim to be the FAA-approved sponsor for the FSTD;
( 3 ) The person does not falsely make representations that someone else is the FAA-approved sponsor of the FSTD at a time when that other person is not the FAA-approved sponsor of the FSTD; and
( 4 ) The person's acts or omissions do not cause another person to detrimentally rely on such acts or omissions for the mistaken conclusion that the FSTD is FAA-approved and qualified under this part at the time the FSTD is sold or leased.
EXHIBIT 99.2

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 Annual Report of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David J. Moore, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



March 31,
2003

| |  | /s/NORMAN M. BLASHKA Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks