alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 29.1359 Electrical system fire and smoke protection. ( a ) Components of the electrical system must meet the applicable fire and smoke protection provisions of §§ 29.831 and 29.863.
( b ) Electrical cables, terminals, and equipment, in designated fire zones, and that are used in emergency procedures, must be at least fire resistant.
( c ) Insulation on electrical wire and cable installed in the rotorcraft must be self-extinguishing when tested in accordance with Appendix F, Part I(a)(3), of part 25 of this chapter.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-42, 63 FR 43285, Aug. 12, 1998]
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 2320** 

WILLIAM A. HAWKINS, by his next friend, Ida Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated , Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.
CITICORP CREDIT SERVICE S, INCORPORATED (USA); MARGOLIS, PRITZKER, EPSTEIN & BLATT, PA , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Frederick Motz , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cv - 01122

- JFM )

Submitted : November 19 , 2010 Decided: December 21 , 2010

Before KING , KEENAN , and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jason Ostendorf, LAW OFFICE OF JASON OSTENDORF, LLC , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Julia B. Strickland , Marcos D. Sasso, STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP, Los Angeles, California; J. Preston Turner, Baltimore, Maryland; Jeffrey N. Pritzker, Randolph Baker, MARGOLIS, PRITZKER, EPSTEIN & BLATT, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
William A. Hawkins appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), his civil action asserting claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act as well as t he Maryland Consumer Debt Collection

Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Hawkins v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc. , No. 1:09

- cv 01122

- JFM (D. Md. filed Oct. 23, 2009 & entered Oct. 26, 2009)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to December 3, 2019)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

A-19-322 State v. Livingston

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
### ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY EVALUATION

Regulatory Evaluation Form , Revision 2
. 5 Page 1 of 1 1/15/10 

### AD Title: GE90 Growth HPC 2
- 5 Spool I nter s tage 1 Seal Docket No. FAA
- 2011
- 0278 Directorate Identifier: 2010
- NE
- 10
- AD **Costs:** Costs per **Product** (e.g., engine, propeller) Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work
h ours Labor cost ( @ $8 5 /hour) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U
. S
. Fleet Inspection 2.0 $ 170.00 $0 $ 170.00 19 $ 3,230 Interstage 1 seal $ 0.00 $9,857 $ 9,857.00 19 $ 187,283 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0



### Total Cost s of compliance for U
. S
. fleet: $ 190,513



### Costs covered under warranty **Special considerations for Econom**  **ic Analysis :**  

### Executive Ord **er 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES explain below NO **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES explain below NO **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES explain below NO **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation i n Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES explain below NO 

### Explanation:
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0390 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0390

**96/390/EC: Commission Decision of 18 June 1996 approving the plan for the monitoring and control of salmonella in fowl presented by Finland (Only the Finnish text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 155 , 28/06/1996 P. 0061 - 0061 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 18 June 1996 approving the plan for the monitoring and control of salmonella in fowl presented by Finland (Only the Finnish text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (96/390/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/117/EEC of 17 December 1992 concerning measures for protection against specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal origin in order to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and intoxications (1), as amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 8 (3) thereof,

Whereas, in accordance with Article 8 (2) of Directive 92/117/EEC, Finland forwarded, by letters dated 3 April and 24 May 1996, a plan for the monitoring and control of salmonella in fowl in Finland;

Whereas the abovementioned plan satisfies the Community requirements on the subject, in particular those set out in Article 8 (2) of Directive 92/117/EEC, and must therefore be approved;

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

The plan for the monitoring and control of salmonella in fowl presented by Finland is hereby approved.

Article 2

Finland shall bring into force by 30 June 1996 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Finland.

Done at Brussels, 18 June 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 62, 15. 3. 1993, p. 38.
#### In the Matter of George Blondheim, Appellant, against S. Howard Cohen et al., as Commissioners of the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.

(Argued September 28, 1936;

decided October 13, 1936.)

*Reginald Field, Frank Harvey Field*and *Leon P.*Cala*fiura*for appellant.

*521
      *John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Henry Epstein, Patrick H. Clune*and *John F. X. McGohey*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 29, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00205

- CV

Carlos A. Gonzalez, Appellant

v.

Brooke Randel, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUS TICES GOODWIN AND FI ELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from an order signed by the tr i a l court on March 4, 2015. Having reviewe d the

record , it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the C ourt

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this

appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the matter of J.H.N., * From the 70 th District Court

of Ector County

Trial Court No. B

- 30,621.

No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 0 43

- C V * February 28 , 201 9

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C. J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J.,

Stretcher, J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Walter Downs, as Administrator of the Estate of Henry C. Downs, Deceased, Appellant; Grace I. Downs, Respondent.

(Argued November 18, 1936;

decided December 4, 1936.)

*Jonas J. Shapiro*and *Joseph P. Walsh*for appellant.

*Daniel G. Brennan*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs payable out of the estate; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 382.61 What are the requirements for movable aisle armrests? ( a ) As a carrier, you must ensure that aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats on which passenger aisle seats have armrests are equipped with movable aisle armrests on at least one-half of the aisle seats in rows in which passengers with mobility impairments are permitted to sit under FAA or applicable foreign government safety rules.
( b ) You are not required to provide movable armrests on aisle seats of rows which a passenger with a mobility impairment is precluded from using by an FAA safety rule.
( c ) You must ensure that these movable aisle armrests are provided proportionately in all classes of service in the cabin. For example, if 80 percent of the aisle seats in which passengers with mobility impairments may sit are in coach, and 20 percent are in first class, then 80 percent of the movable aisle armrests must be in coach, with 20 percent in first class.
( d ) For aircraft equipped with movable aisle armrests, you must configure cabins, or establish administrative systems, to ensure that passengers with mobility impairments or other passengers with a disability can readily identify and obtain seating in rows with movable aisle armrests. You must provide this information by specific seat and row number.
( e ) You are not required to retrofit cabin interiors of existing aircraft to comply with the requirements of this section. However, if you replace any of an aircraft's aisle seats with newly manufactured seats, the new seats must include movable aisle armrests as required by this section. However, an aircraft is never required to have movable aisle armrests on more than one half of the aisle seats.
( f ) As a foreign carrier, you must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section with respect to new aircraft you operate that were initially ordered after May 13, 2009 or which are delivered after May 13, 2010. As a U.S. carrier, the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this section applies to you with respect to new aircraft you operate that were initially ordered after April 5, 1990, or which are delivered after April 5, 1992. As a U.S. carrier, paragraph (c) of this section applies to you with respect to new aircraft you operate that were initially ordered after May 13, 2009 or which were delivered after May 13, 2010.
( g ) As a foreign carrier, you must comply with the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section with respect to seats ordered after May 13, 2009.
§ 415.1 Applicability and scope. ( a ) *Applicability.* This part applies to the following: ( 1 ) Licenses issued under this part before June 8, 2021; and
( 2 ) Licenses issued on or after June 8, 2021, if the FAA accepted the application under § 413.11 of this chapter before that date.
( b ) *Scope.* This part prescribes requirements for obtaining a license to launch an expendable launch vehicle and post-licensing requirements with which a licensee must comply to remain licensed. Requirements for preparing a license application are in part 413 of this subchapter.
[Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 415-7, 85 FR 79715, Dec. 10, 2020]
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1031 CAF 10-00645 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF KIMBERLY MARVIN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JEFFREY L. KILMER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

---------------------------------------- IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY L. KILMER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V

KIMBERLY MARVIN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

ROSEMARIE RICHARDS, GILBERTSVILLE, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT AND PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), entered March 16, 2010. The order, among other things, held Jeffery L. Kilmer in contempt of court.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Family Court properly found respondent-petitioner (father) in contempt of court based upon his willful violation of a prior order directing the return of the parties’ son to the custody of petitioner-respondent (mother). “A careful review of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, fully supports [the court’s finding that the father willfully] violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court” ( Labanowski v Labanowski , 4 AD3d 690, 694). The evidence establishes that the father was aware of the terms of the prior order and, in the court’s words, “he put in motion the events which resulted in the child being removed from [the mother’s] home and placed in [the father’s] home” ( see Matter of Daniels v Guntert , 256 AD2d 940, 942). We reject the father’s further contention that the court erred in conducting a confidential interview with the parties’ daughter ( see generally Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln , 24 NY2d 270, 272) and, in any event, there is no indication that the court relied on that interview in rendering its decision herein ( see Matter of Bernelle P ., 45 NY2d 937, 938).

Entered: October 5, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
§ 29.851 Fire extinguishers. ( a ) *Hand fire extinguishers.* For hand fire extinguishers the following apply: ( 1 ) Each hand fire extinguisher must be approved.
( 2 ) The kinds and quantities of each extinguishing agent used must be appropriate to the kinds of fires likely to occur where that agent is used.
( 3 ) Each extinguisher for use in a personnel compartment must be designed to minimize the hazard of toxic gas concentrations.
( b ) *Built-in fire extinguishers.* If a built-in fire extinguishing system is required— ( 1 ) The capacity of each system, in relation to the volume of the compartment where used and the ventilation rate, must be adequate for any fire likely to occur in that compartment.
( 2 ) Each system must be installed so that— ( i ) No extinguishing agent likely to enter personnel compartments will be present in a quantity that is hazardous to the occupants; and
( ii ) No discharge of the extinguisher can cause structural damage.
#### § 31.21 Loads.

Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads, that are the maximum load to be expected in service, and ultimate loads, that are limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety. Unless otherwise specified, all prescribed loads are limit loads.
§ 417.403 General. ( a ) *Public safety.* A launch operator must ensure that each hazard control is in place to protect the public from each potential hazard associated with launch processing and post-launch operations.
( b ) *Ground safety analysis.* A launch operator must perform and document a ground safety analysis that satisfies § 417.405 and appendix J of this part.
( c ) *Local agreements.* A launch operator must coordinate and perform launch processing and post-launch operations that satisfy local agreements to ensure the responsibilities and requirements in this part and § 420.57 of this chapter are met. A launch operator, when using a launch site of a licensed launch site operator, must coordinate the launch operator's operations with the launch site operator and with any agreements that the launch site operator has with local authorities that form a basis for the launch site operator's license.
( d ) *Launch operator's exclusive use of a launch site.* For a launch conducted from a launch site exclusive to its own use, a launch operator must satisfy the requirements of this subpart and of part 420 of this chapter, including subpart D of part 420.
The State of TexasAppellee/s 

# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** March 17, 2014 N o s . 04 - 14 - 00136 - CR , 04 - 14 - 00137 - CR, 04 - 14 - 00138 - CR, & 04 - 14 - 00139 - CR Billy Edward GONZALEZ , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas Trial Court No s . 12 - CR - 611 , 12 - CR - 615, 12 - CR - 613, & 12 - CR - 609 Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding 

### ORDER In the interest of the efficient administration of the court ’ s docket, we order Appeal Nos. 04 - 14 - 00136 - CR , 04 - 14 - 00137 - CR , 04 - 14 - 00138 - CR , and 04 - 14 - 00139 - CR consolidated. The parties must file motions, briefs, and other pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both appeal numbers in the style of the case. However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each case will remain separate and, if supplementatio n of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material must be filed in the appeal to which it applies. The cases must be argued together in one brief, as in a single appeal, and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be arg ued as a single appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a party in a single appeal. The court will dispose of both appeals in the same judgment, opinion, and mandate. We order the clerk of this court to serv e copies of this order on all counsel, the district clerk, and the court reporter.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 17th day of March, 2014 .

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
§ 29.395 Control system. ( a ) The reaction to the loads prescribed in § 29.397 must be provided by— ( 1 ) The control stops only;
( 2 ) The control locks only;
( 3 ) The irreversible mechanism only (with the mechanism locked and with the control surface in the critical positions for the effective parts of the system within its limit of motion);
( 4 ) The attachment of the control system to the rotor blade pitch control horn only (with the control in the critical positions for the affected parts of the system within the limits of its motion); and
( 5 ) The attachment of the control system to the control surface horn (with the control in the critical positions for the affected parts of the system within the limits of its motion).
( b ) Each primary control system, including its supporting structure, must be designed as follows: ( 1 ) The system must withstand loads resulting from the limit pilot forces prescribed in § 29.397;
( 2 ) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3) of this section, when power-operated actuator controls or power boost controls are used, the system must also withstand the loads resulting from the limit pilot forces prescribed in § 29.397 in conjunction with the forces output of each normally energized power device, including any single power boost or actuator system failure;
( 3 ) If the system design or the normal operating loads are such that a part of the system cannot react to the limit pilot forces prescribed in § 29.397, that part of the system must be designed to withstand the maximum loads that can be obtained in normal operation. The minimum design loads must, in any case, provide a rugged system for service use, including consideration of fatigue, jamming, ground gusts, control inertia, and friction loads. In the absence of a rational analysis, the design loads resulting from 0.60 of the specified limit pilot forces are acceptable minimum design loads; and
( 4 ) If operational loads may be exceeded through jamming, ground gusts, control inertia, or friction, the system must withstand the limit pilot forces specified in § 29.397, without yielding.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-26, 55 FR 8002, Mar. 6, 1990]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7322

ANDRE K. WATERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (7:08-cv-00555-gec-mfu)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 3, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre K. Waters, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andre K. Waters, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Waters v. United States, No. 7:08-cv00555-gec-mfu (W.D. Va. July 9, 2009). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED