alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Flood-inundation maps for theWabash and Eel Rivers at Logansport, Indiana**
 
Report
 
Map Sheets:
 
*jpegs
*PDFs
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet01
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet02
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet03
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet04
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet05
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet06
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet07
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet08
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet09
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet01
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet02
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet03
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet04
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet05
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet06
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet07
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet08
 
 
[if !vml]>[endif]>
sheet09
 
 
 
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.91/3:3293
Item Number:0619-G-33 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000964655
 
October 23, 2017
 **
[No. 50014-7-I.

Division One.

January 6, 2003.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. John A. Bush, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-02700-6, George T. Mattson, J., entered Febuary 15, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Appelwick and Schindler, JJ.
§ 145.103 Housing and facilities requirements. ( a ) Each certificated repair station must provide— ( 1 ) Housing for the facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel consistent with its ratings and limitations.
( 2 ) Facilities for properly performing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations of articles or the specialized service for which it is rated. Facilities must include the following: ( i ) Sufficient work space and areas for the proper segregation and protection of articles during all maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations.
( ii ) Segregated work areas enabling environmentally hazardous or sensitive operations such as painting, cleaning, welding, avionics work, electronic work, and machining to be done properly and in a manner that does not adversely affect other maintenance or alteration articles or activities;
( iii ) Suitable racks, hoists, trays, stands, and other segregation means for the storage and protection of all articles undergoing maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations, and;
( iv ) Space sufficient to segregate articles and materials stocked for installation from those articles undergoing maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations to the standards required by this part.
( v ) Ventilation, lighting, and control of temperature, humidity, and other climatic conditions sufficient to ensure personnel perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations to the standards required by this part.
( b ) A certificated repair station may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on articles outside of its housing if it provides suitable facilities that are acceptable to the FAA and meet the requirements of § 145.103(a) so that the work can be done in accordance with the requirements of part 43 of this chapter.
[Docket FAA-2016-8744, Amdt. 145-31, 81 FR 49163, July 27, 2016]
§ 382.67 What is the requirement for priority space in the cabin to store passengers' wheelchairs? ( a ) As a carrier, you must ensure that there is priority space (i.e., a closet, or a row of seats where a wheelchair may be strapped using a strap kit that complies with applicable Federal Aviation Administration or applicable foreign government regulations on the stowage of cargo in the cabin compartment) in the cabin of sufficient size to stow at least one typical adult-sized folding, collapsible, or break-down manual passenger wheelchair, the dimensions of which are 13 inches by 36 inches by 42 inches or less without having to remove the wheels or otherwise disassemble it. This section applies to any aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats and this space must be other than the overhead compartments and under-seat spaces routinely used for passengers' carry-on items.
( b ) If you are a carrier that uses the seat-strapping method to stow a manual passenger wheelchair, you must ensure that there is priority space for at least two such wheelchairs, if stowing the second passenger wheelchair would not displace passengers.
( c ) If you are a carrier that uses a closet as the priority space to stow a manual passenger wheelchair, you must install a sign or placard prominently on the closet indicating that such wheelchairs and other assistive devices are to be stowed in this area with priority over other items brought onto the aircraft by other passengers or crew, including crew luggage, as set forth in § 382.123.
( d ) If passengers holding confirmed reservations are not able to travel on a flight because their seats are being used to stow a passenger's wheelchair as required by paragraph (a) of this section, carriers must compensate those passengers in an amount to be calculated as provided for in instances of involuntary denied boarding under 14 CFR part 250, where part 250 applies.
( e ) As a carrier, you must never request or suggest that a passenger not stow his or her wheelchair in the cabin to accommodate other passengers (e.g., informing a passenger that stowing his or her wheelchair in the cabin will require other passengers to be removed from the flight), or for any other non-safety related reason (e.g., that it is easier for the carrier if the wheelchair is stowed in the cargo compartment).
( f ) As a carrier, you must offer pre-boarding to a passenger stowing his or her wheelchair in the cabin.
( g ) As a foreign carrier, you must meet the requirement of this section for new aircraft ordered after May 13, 2009, or delivered after May 13, 2010. As a U.S. carrier, this section applies to you with respect to new aircraft you operate that were ordered after April 5, 1990, or which were delivered after April 5, 1992.
[78 FR 67923, Nov. 12, 2013]
##### 



Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.      www.memorypharma.com
  
  Company
 Position
 Starting Date/Nature of Relationship Start Date
 Compensation
  NASDAQ
 Benefits




---



##### 



Commuting Expenses
 Confidentiality Exhibit A Confidentiality Agreement
 General




---



##### 



Sincerely,Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.By:
    
    /s/ Jonathan FlemingName:
    
    Jonathan FlemingChairman of the Board
  /s/ Vaughan M. Kailian




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 
 Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.      www.memorypharma.com
 FORM
OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
  
  Company Agreement
 Protected Information Confidential Information




---



##### 



Ownership of Ideas, Copyrights and Patents
 Property of the Company Term Inventions
 Cooperation
 Survival of Acknowledgments and Agreements
 Disclosure to Future Employers
 Records
 No Conflicting Agreements




---



##### 



General
 Notices
 If to the Company:
    
    Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.100 Philips ParkwayMontvale, New Jersey 07645Attention: President and Chief Executive OfficerWith a copy to:
    
    Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross, P.C.One Riverfront PlazaNewark, New Jersey 07102Attention: Ira A. Rosenberg, Esq.If to Employee:Vaughn M. Kailian[address]
  Entire Agreement
 Modifications and Amendments
 Waivers and Consents
 Assignment




---



##### 



Benefit
 Governing Law
 Jurisdiction and Service of Process
 Severability blue-pencilling
 Interpretation
 Headings and Captions
 Injunctive Relief
 No Waiver of Rights, Powers and Remedies




---



##### 



Expenses
 Counterparts
  Very truly yours,MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.By:Name:
    
    Jonathan FlemingTitle:
    
    Chairman of the Board
  Vaughn M. Kailian




---



##### 



PRIOR INVENTIONS AND/OR OTHER AGREEMENTS
§ 27.997 Fuel strainer or filter. There must be a fuel strainer or filter between the fuel tank outlet and the inlet of the first fuel system component which is susceptible to fuel contamination, including but not limited to the fuel metering device or an engine positive displacement pump, whichever is nearer the fuel tank outlet. This fuel strainer or filter must— ( a ) Be accessible for draining and cleaning and must incorporate a screen or element which is easily removable;
( b ) Have a sediment trap and drain except that it need not have a drain if the strainer or filter is easily removable for drain purposes;
( c ) Be mounted so that its weight is not supported by the connecting lines or by the inlet or outlet connections of the strainer or filter itself, unless adequate strength margins under all loading conditions are provided in the lines and connections; and
( d ) Provide a means to remove from the fuel any contaminant which would jeopardize the flow of fuel through rotorcraft or engine fuel system components required for proper rotorcraft fuel system or engine fuel system operation.
[Amdt. 27-9, 39 FR 35461, Oct. 1, 1974, as amended by Amdt. 27-20, 49 FR 6849, Feb. 23, 1984; Amdt. 27-23, 53 FR 34213, Sept. 2, 1988]
#### Nassau County Trust Company, as Administrator of the Estate of Shaheenie Saleeby, Deceased, et al., Appellants, *v.*Nazura D. Saleeby et al., Individually and as Heirs at Law and Next of Kin of Shaheenie Saleeby, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Argued March 1, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*586
      *John R. Jones*for motion.

*Vito F. Lanza*opposed.

Motion denied, with leave to renew on argument of appeals.
#### § 135.120 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.

No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.

[Doc. No. FAA-1998-4954, 64 FR 1080, Jan. 7, 1999]
#### Janet DeRosa, Appellant, v Dick Enterprises, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, and Schlissel Plumbing and Heating, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Monsey Excavating, Inc., Third-Party Defendant; KSW Mechanical Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 498]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, *257Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated October 19, 1998, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff Schlissel Plumbing and Heating which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the defendant second third-party plaintiff Dick Enterprises, Inc., separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as granted (1) that branch of the motion of Schlissel Plumbing and Heating as was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims against it, and (2) the cross motion of the second third-party defendant KSW Mechanical Services, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

It is well settled that where, as here, a moving party has made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact which requires a trial of the action (see, *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324; *Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co.,*103 AD2d 252, 261-262). The appellants’ submissions failed to create a material issue of fact with respect to whether or not the defendant third-party plaintiff Schlissel Plumbing and Heating was the last entity to perform work at the site of the accident *(see, Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp.,*34 NY2d 338; *Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.,*3 NY2d 395, 404). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment by Schlissel Plumbing and Heating.

The Supreme Court also properly granted the cross motion for summary judgment by the second third-party defendant KSW Mechanical Services, Inc. *(see, Paone v Westwood Vil.,*178 AD2d 518). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, S. Miller and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
#### O. K. FRENCH DRY CLEANING CO. v. MONTGOMERY.

(Decided January 20, 1916.

Rehearing denied February 5, 1916.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. C. W. Ferguson. •

Clyde Randall, for appellant. W. S. Brower, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed for want of assignment of error.
§ 382.11 What is the general nondiscrimination requirement of this part? ( a ) As a carrier, you must not do any of the following things, either directly or through a contractual, licensing, or other arrangement: ( 1 ) You must not discriminate against any qualified individual with a disability, by reason of such disability, in the provision of air transportation;
( 2 ) You must not require a qualified individual with a disability to accept special services (including, but not limited to, preboarding) that the individual does not request. However, you may require preboarding as a condition of receiving certain seating or in-cabin stowage accommodations, as specified in §§ 382.83(c), 382.85(b), and 382.123(a) of this part.
( 3 ) You must not exclude a qualified individual with a disability from or deny the person the benefit of any air transportation or related services that are available to other persons, except where specifically permitted by this Part. This is true even if there are separate or different services available for individuals with a disability, except when specifically permitted by another section of this Part; and
( 4 ) You must not take any adverse action against an individual (e.g., refusing to provide transportation) because the individual asserts, on his or her own behalf or through or on behalf of others, rights protected by this part or the Air Carrier Access Act.
( b ) As an indirect carrier, you must comply with §§ 382.17 through 382.157 of this part when providing facilities or services to passengers that would have otherwise been provided by a direct air carrier.
[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2004-19482, 73 FR 27665, May 13, 2008, as amended at 75 FR 44887, July 30, 2010]
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, *v.*Salvatore Cambareri, Respondent.

(Submitted November 25, 1936;

decided December 4, 1936.)

*Howard B. Donaldson, District Attorney,*for appellant.

*Salvador J. Capecelatro*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPTEMBER 9, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-11532 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-02523-VMC-TBM

CRYSTAL BLAKE, 

individually, and on behalf of all

others similarly situated,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF OF POLK COUNTY,

in his official capacity,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(September 9, 2010)

Before BLACK, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
After review of the briefs and the record, the Court affirms the district

court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. 

AFFIRMED.

2
§ 415.2 Licenses issued under this part. ( a ) *Definitions.* For the purposes of this part, the definitions of § 401.5 of this chapter apply.
( b ) *Compliance with part 450 of this chapter .* Operations under this part must comply with launch and reentry collision avoidance requirements in § 450.169 of this chapter and critical asset protection requirements in §§ 450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4) of this chapter.
[Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 415-7, 85 FR 79715, Dec. 10, 2020]
§ 5.19 Implementation plan. ( a ) An implementation plan filed under this part must be based on the organizational system description as defined in § 5.17 and describe the means of compliance (including, but not limited to, new or existing policies, processes, or procedures) used to meet the requirements of this part.
( b ) A person required to submit an implementation plan under this part must make available to the Administrator, upon request, all necessary information and data that demonstrates that the SMS has been or will be implemented in accordance with the implementation plan.
#### § 437.35 Agreements.

An applicant must enter into the agreements required by § 437.63, and provide a copy to the FAA.
§ 33.93 Teardown inspection. ( a ) After completing the endurance testing of § 33.87 (b), (c), (d), (e), or (g) of this part, each engine must be completely disassembled, and ( 1 ) Each component having an adjustment setting and a functioning characteristic that can be established independent of installation on the engine must retain each setting and functioning characteristic within the limits that were established and recorded at the beginning of the test; and
( 2 ) Each engine part must conform to the type design and be eligible for incorporation into an engine for continued operation, in accordance with information submitted in compliance with § 33.4.
( b ) After completing the endurance testing of § 33.87(f), each engine must be completely disassembled, and ( 1 ) Each component having an adjustment setting and a functioning characteristic that can be established independent of installation on the engine must retain each setting and functioning characteristic within the limits that were established and recorded at the beginning of the test; and
( 2 ) Each engine may exhibit deterioration in excess of that permitted in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, including some engine parts or components that may be unsuitable for further use. The applicant must show by inspection, analysis, test, or by any combination thereof as found necessary by the FAA, that structural integrity of the engine is maintained; or
( c ) In lieu of compliance with paragraph (b) of this section, each engine for which the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings are desired, may be subjected to the endurance testing of §§ 33.87 (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this part, and followed by the testing of § 33.87(f) without intervening disassembly and inspection. However, the engine must comply with paragraph (a) of this section after completing the endurance testing of § 33.87(f).
[Doc. No. 26019, 61 FR 31329, June 19, 1996, as amended by Amdt. 33-25, 73 FR 48124, Aug. 18, 2008]
#### HARRINGTON, ALIAS, v. THE STATE.

(Decided May 18, 1916.)

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. Armstead Brown.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

BROWN, J.

No bill of exceptions, and no error of record. Affirmed.
#### MANCINI v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 88-102AC10 (County Court Case No. 88-850MM)

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County

October 29, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Catherine Keuthan, Chief Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Dale Alan Bruschi, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

Before STANTON S. KAPLAN, Circuit Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the appeal of the judgment of conviction of the Appellant-defendant below.

*87The initial matter this Court must consider is whether the Appellant properly preserved the issues on appeal. In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, specific legal argument or grounds upon which it is based must be presented to the trial Court. *Bertolotti v Dugger,*514 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 1987) citing *Tillman v State,*471 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1985).

In the case at bar, the issue of alleged improper comments made by the prosecutor regarding the appellant’s post-Miranda silence was not preserved for appeal. No objection regarding the improper comments was made at all.

The error alleged is not fundamental, therefore in order for this Court to address it, the asserted error must amount to a denial of due process through a denial of a fair trial. *Tillman*v *State,*471 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1985); *Ross v State,*386 So.2d 1191 (Fla.1980).

When examining the record in the case at bar, the error alleged does not rise to this level. Reaching the merits, however, the comments were not prejudicial.

The issue of whether these failures on counsel’s part amounted to an ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit. The defendant has failed to overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy. *Michel v New York,*350 U.S. 91, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83.

The record reflects the alleged errors could be a legitimate trial strategy that was unsuccessful. See *Downs v State,*453 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1984); *Lara v State,*528 So.2d 984 (Fla.3rd DCA 1988); *Stewart v State,*420 So.2d 862 (Fla. 1982); *Gonzales v State,*510 So.2d 633 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987); *Gordon v State,*469 So.2d 795 (Fla.4th DCA 1985).

Accordingly, it is hereby,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.

DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Broward County Courthouse, 201 S.E. Sixth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33301, this 29th day of October, 1991.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4463 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include certain over-thecounter dietary supplement products as qualified medical expenses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 6, 2020 

Mr. CRAMER 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 include 

certain over-the-counter dietary supplement products as 

qualified medical expenses. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENT PROD4 UCTS AS QUALIFIED MEDICAL EXPENSES. 

5 (a) HSAS.—Section 223(d)(2) of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘or dietary supplement prod8 ucts’’ after ‘‘menstrual care products’’ in the last 

9 sentence of subparagraph (A); and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4463 IS

1 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub2 paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(E) DIETARY SUPPLEMENT PRODUCT.— 

4 For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘die5 tary supplement product’ means a nutritional 

6 product that is labeled with— 

7 ‘‘(i) a statement describing how the 

8 product is intended to affect the structure 

9 or function of the human body, or 

10 ‘‘(ii) a statement characterizing the 

11 mechanism by which the product acts to 

12 maintain such structure or function.’’. 

13 (b) ARCHER MSAS.—The last sentence of section 

14 220(d)(2)(A) of such Code is amended by inserting ‘‘or 

15 dietary supplement products (as defined in section 

16 223(d)(2)(E))’’ after ‘‘menstrual care products (as defined 

17 in section 223(d)(2)(D))’’. 

18 (c) HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING ARRANGEMENTS

19 AND HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENTS.—Sec20 tion 106(f) of such Code is amended— 

21 (1) by inserting ‘‘or dietary supplement prod22 ucts (as defined in section 223(d)(2)(E))’’ after 

23 ‘‘menstrual care products (as defined in section 

24 223(d)(2)(D))’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4463 IS

1 (2) in the heading, by inserting ‘‘AND DIETARY

2 SUPPLEMENT PRODUCTS’’ after ‘‘MENSTRUAL CARE

3 PRODUCTS’’. 

4 (d) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

5 (1) DISTRIBUTIONS FROM SAVINGS AC6 COUNTS.—The amendment made by subsections (a) 

7 and (b) shall apply to amounts paid after December 

8 31, 2019. 

9 (2) REIMBURSEMENTS.—The amendment made 

10 by subsection (c) shall apply to expenses incurred 

11 after December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS