alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 417.311 Flight safety crew roles and qualifications. ( a ) A flight safety crew must operate the flight safety system hardware. A flight safety crew must document each flight safety crew position description and maintain documentation on individual crew qualifications, including education, experience, and training as part of the personnel certification program required by § 417.105.
( b ) A flight safety crew must be able to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to operate the flight safety system hardware in accordance with § 417.113. ( 1 ) A flight safety crew must have knowledge of: ( i ) All flight safety system assets and responsibilities, including: ( A ) Communications systems and launch operations procedures;
( B ) Both voice and data systems;
( C ) Graphical data systems;
( D ) Tracking; and
( E ) Telemetry real time data;
( ii ) Flight termination systems; and
( iii ) Contingency operations, including hold, recycle and abort procedures.
( 2 ) An individual who monitors vehicle performance and performs flight termination must have knowledge of and be capable of resolving malfunctions in: ( i ) The application of safety support systems such as position tracking sources;
( ii ) Digital computers;
( iii ) Displays;
( iv ) Command destruct;
( v ) Communications;
( vi ) Telemetry;
( vii ) All electrical functions of a flight termination system;
( viii ) The principles of radio frequency transmission and attenuation;
( ix ) The behavior of ballistic and aerodynamic vehicles in flight under the influence of aerodynamic forces; and
( x ) The application of flight termination rules.
( 3 ) An individual who operates flight safety support systems must have knowledge of and be capable of resolving malfunctions in: ( i ) The design and assembly of the flight safety support system hardware;
( ii ) The operation of electromechanical systems; and
( iii ) The nature and inherent tendencies of the flight safety system hardware being operated.
( 4 ) An individual who performs flight safety analysis must have knowledge of orbital mechanics and be proficient in the calculation and production of range safety displays, impact probabilities, and casualty expectations.
( c ) Flight safety crew members must complete a training and certification program to ensure launch site familiarization, launch vehicle familiarization, flight safety system functions, equipment, and procedures related to a launch before being called upon to support that launch. Each flight safety crew member must complete a preflight readiness training and certification program. This preflight readiness training and certification program must include: ( 1 ) Mission specific training programs to ensure team readiness.
( 2 ) Launch simulation exercises of system failure modes, including nominal and failure modes, that test crew performance, flight termination criteria, and flight safety data display integrity.
#### Eureka Productions, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Intimate Theatres, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Metropolis Film Exchange et al., Respondents.

(Submitted October 23, 1936;

decided November 24, 1936.)

*640
      *Henry Pearlman*for appellant.

*Elias Lieberman, Nathaniel H. Janes*and *Irving E. Meller*for Metropolis Film Exchange et al., respondents.

*Alfred S. Krellberg*and *Arthur J. Homans*for Joan of Arc Pictures, Inc., et ah, respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ. .
#### Erick Dressler et al., Appellants, *v.*Merkel, Inc., Respondent, Impleaded with Another.

(Argued October 6, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*575
      *Herbert W. Ziegler*and *Julian D. Heath*for appellants.

*Daniel Mungall*and *Edwin C. Market*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ. Taking no part, O’Brien, J.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4096 

To extend the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program of the 

Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2020 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. PETERS, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. 

INHOFE, and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To extend the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards 

Program of the Department of Homeland Security, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TER4 RORISM STANDARDS PROGRAM OF THE DE5 PARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. 

6 Section 5 of the Protecting and Securing Chemical 

7 Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014 (Public Law 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4096 IS

1 113–254; 6 U.S.C. 621 note) is amended by striking ‘‘July 

2 23, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘July 27, 2023’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 32.0
 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
with respect to the annual report on Form 10-K
for the Year Ended December 31, 2006
  1.
    
    The Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, (the Form
10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act); and
 2.
    
    Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:
    
    March 1, 2007
    
    
    
    /s/ Thomas S. WuThomas S. WuChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
 Date:
    
    March 1, 2007
    
    
    
    /s/ Dennis WuDennis WuDirector, Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 294

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 294 appear at 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 294.86 Industrial/agricultural/other nontransport air operations prohibited.

A registrant shall not engage in flights for the purpose of industrial or agricultural operations (e.g., crop dusting, pest control, pipeline patrol, mapping, surveying, banner towing, skywriting, aerial photography) within the United States unless it has obtained a permit from the Department under part 375 of this chapter.
§ 29.953 Fuel system independence. ( a ) For category A rotorcraft— ( 1 ) The fuel system must meet the requirements of § 29.903(b); and
( 2 ) Unless other provisions are made to meet paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the fuel system must allow fuel to be supplied to each engine through a system independent of those parts of each system supplying fuel to other engines.
( b ) Each fuel system for a multiengine category B rotorcraft must meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. However, separate fuel tanks need not be provided for each engine.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-3907

___________

Dedrick Williams, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Ecolab, Inc., * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Defendant-Appellee, * District of Arkansas.

*

DBS Manufacturing, Incorporated, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant, *

*

Zurich Insurance Company, *

*

Intervenor Below. *

___________

Submitted: September 9, 2002

Filed: September 26, 2002 

___________

Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, LAY and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a product liability case; federal jurisdiction exists by reason

of diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). In December 1999,
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

2

Sitting by designation in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

3

Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial fails to set out any ground relating to the

recantation of the defense witness’ testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b). However, it appears the district court was cognizant of the 60(b) filing and the

attached affidavit, although the court did not expressly discuss the claim. Under such

-2-

Dedrick Williams, a citizen of Arkansas, suffered a debilitating injury to his eyes

while using chemicals and cleaning equipment manufactured and distributed by

Ecolab, Inc., whose principal place of business was in St. Paul, Minnesota. A jury

trial ensued resulting in a verdict for Ecolab. Williams filed a motion for a new trial

and a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which the district

court denied.1

 Williams thereafter filed this timely appeal from the judgment of the

district court.

On appeal, Plaintiff asserts that he has new evidence by reason of the

recantation of an adverse witness. He also claims the trial judge erred by allowing

prejudicial expert testimony. 

The standard of review when considering a district court’s denial of a new trial

is abuse of discretion. Foster v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 250 F.3d 1189, 1194 (8th

Cir. 2001). As Justice Byron White2

 wrote in Pulla v. Amoco Oil Co.: “We have

made clear that district courts enjoy broad discretion in choosing whether to grant a

new trial, and thus, we accord great deference to their Rule 59 rulings.” 72 F.3d 648,

656 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing White v. Pence, 961 F.2d 776, 781 (8th Cir. 1992)). 

Upon review of the record, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying Mr. Williams’ request for a new trial and his motion for relief from the

judgment.3
circumstances, we need not discuss the procedural deficiencies of his motion for a

new trial.

-3-

The opinion of the district court is AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Clinton W. Paddock, Respondent, *v.*Hohneker Dairy, Inc., Appellant.

(Argued May 25, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*H. C. Stratton*and *V. D. Stratton*for appellant.

*Frank W. Barnes*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Httbbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION OF PATRICK KRON, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ALSTOM AND PHILIPPE JAFFRÉ, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER OF ALSTOM, PURSUANT TO SECTION 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 Alstom (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending 31 March 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify that to our knowledge:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |  |  |                                            
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: June 17, 2004 |  |  |  |    
|                    |  |  |  | By: |  |  |  | /s/    PATRICK KRON                        
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |  |  | Name: Patrick Kron                         
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |  |  | Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |  |  |                               
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  |  |  | ------------------------------
|Date: June 17, 2004 |  |  |  |    
|                    |  |  |  | By: |  |  |  | /s/    PHILIPPE JAFFRÉ        
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |  |  | Name: Philippe Jaffré         
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |  |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Export-Import Bank of the United States

# SUMMARY:

The Sub-Saharan African Advisory Committee was established by Pub. L. 105-121, November 26, 1997, to advise the Board of Directors on the development and implementation of policies and programs designed to support the expansion of the Bank's financial commitments in Sub-Saharan Africa under the loan, guarantee and insurance programs of the Bank. Further, the committee shall make recommendations on how the Bank can facilitate greater support by U.S. commercial banks for trade with Sub-Sahara Africa.

*Time and Place:*                         Thursday, May 25, 2000, at 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Export-Import Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20571.                    

*Agenda:*                         This meeting will include a discussion on telecommunications and technology in Sub-Saharan Africa.                    

*Public Participation:*                         The meeting will be open to public participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to May 19, 2000, Teri Stumpf, Room 1203, Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3502 or TDD (202) 565-3377.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, contact Teri Stumpf, Room 1203, 811 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3502.

John M. Niehuss,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00-11414  Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
§ 406.163 Record. ( a ) *Exclusive record.* The transcript of all testimony in the hearing; all exhibits received into evidence; the complaint, answer, and amendments thereto; all motions, applications, and requests, and responses thereto; and all rulings constitute the exclusive record for decision of the proceedings and the basis for the issuance of any orders in the proceeding.
( b ) A person may keep the original document, data, or other evidence, with the consent of the administrative law judge, by substituting a legible copy for the record.
Editorial Note on Part 399
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 399 appear at 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 399.88 Prohibition on post-purchase price increase. ( a ) It is an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 for any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, or of a tour (*i.e.,* a combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations), or tour component (*e.g.,* a hotel stay) that includes scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, to increase the ticket price of that air transportation, tour or tour component, or to raise the price for critical ancillary services as defined in § 399.85(a) to a consumer after the air transportation has been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee. A purchase is deemed to have occurred when the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer.
( b ) A seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States or a tour (*i.e.*, a combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations), or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that includes scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, must notify a consumer of the potential for a post-purchase price increase due to an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee and must obtain the consumer's written consent to the potential for such an increase prior to purchase of the scheduled air transportation, tour or tour component that includes scheduled air transportation. Imposition of any such increase without providing the consumer the appropriate notice and without obtaining his or her written consent of the potential increase constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712.
[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2010-0140, 76 FR 23167, Apr. 25, 2011, as amended by DOT-OST-2022-0109, 89 FR 34677, Apr. 30, 2024]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of 24/7 RealMedia, Inc. (the “**Company**”)on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, David J. Moore, Chairman andChief 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:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

April 9,2007
|        | /s/ David J. Moore                   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)        |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4522 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4522

 To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
 Policy Act of 1977 to authorize appropriations for the United States-
     Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            August 11, 2020

Mr. Hoeven (for himself and Ms. Baldwin) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
 Policy Act of 1977 to authorize appropriations for the United States-
     Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund.

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

SECTION 1. UNITED STATES-ISRAEL BINATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND 
              DEVELOPMENT FUND.

    Section 1458(e) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3291(e)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
            ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to the BARD Fund such sums as are 
        necessary to carry out activities under this subsection for 
        each fiscal year.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60850

Summary Calendar 

JUAN RAMON CARCAMO-CRUZ, 

Petitioner 

v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A201 116 463

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Juan Ramon Carcamo-Cruz petitions this court for review of an order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for statutory 

withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). He does not brief any 

challenge to the denial of withholding of removal under the Convention 

Against Torture. Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 11, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60850 Document: 00513947553 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2017
No. 15-60850

2 

324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (issues not briefed are considered 

abandoned). 

In his petition, Carcamo-Cruz contends that he is eligible for statutory 

withholding based on his membership in a particular social group (PSG), to 

wit, individuals who were part of a crowd of persons being robbed but were 

singled out, shot, and subsequently threatened by the MS-18 gang. He does 

not point to any evidence in the record or to any relevant legal authority that 

shows that his proposed PSG has a common immutable characteristic, 

particularity, or social distinction within the Salvadoran community. See 

Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-22 (5th Cir. 2012), as modified 

by Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786-87 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2016); 

see Bouchikhi v. Holder, 676 F.3d 173, 181 (5th Cir. 2012).

 The petition for review is DENIED. 

 Case: 15-60850 Document: 00513947553 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2017