alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 27.235 Taxiing condition.

The rotorcraft must be designed to withstand the loads that would occur when the rotorcraft is taxied over the roughest ground that may reasonably be expected in normal operation.
#### § 1245.118 Record of decisions.

The findings of fact and recommendations made to the Administrator by the Board with respect to each petition for waiver shall be recorded by the Board and be available to the public.
[Nos. 27836-7-II; 27896-1-II; 27966-5-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William B. Oestreich, *Appellant.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Pierce County, Nos. 99-1-02307-4 and 93-1-03569-3, Sergio Armijo, J., entered August 17, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Bridgewater, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

                        CERTIFICATION

I, Craig D. Stratton, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q  of
Allstates WorldCargo,    Inc.;

2.    Based  on my knowledge, this report does not contain any  untrue
statement  of  a  material  fact or omit  to  state  a  material  fact
necessary  to  make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect  to
the period covered by this report;

3.    Based  on  my  knowledge, the financial  statements,  and  other
financial information included in this report, fairly present  in  all
material  respects the financial condition, results of operations  and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented  in
this report;

4.     The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and   I   are
responsible  for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls  and
procedures  (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
for the registrant and have:

  (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
       disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
       supervision,  to  ensure  that  material information relating to
       the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
       made  known to us by others within those  entities, particularly
       during  the  period  in  which  this  report  is  being prepared;

  (b)  Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's disclosure
       controls and procedures and presented in this report our
       conclusions  about the effectiveness of the  disclosure controls
       and procedures, as of the end of the period covered  by this
       report based on such evaluation; and

  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
       control  over financial reporting that occurred  during the
       registrant's   most   recent  fiscal  quarter  (the registrant's
       fourth  fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
       has  materially  affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
       affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and  I   have
disclosed,  based  on our most recent evaluation of  internal  control
over  financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the  audit
committee   of  the  registrant's  board  of  directors  (or   persons
performing the equivalent functions):

  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
      or   operation  of  internal  control  over  financial reporting
      which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
      registrant's ability to record, process, summarize  and report
      financial information; and

  (b) Any  fraud,  whether  or not material,  that  involves management or
      other employees who have a significant role in the
      registrant's internal control over financial reporting.


February 14, 2007

/s/ Craig D. Stratton
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer
#### § 405.1 Monitoring of licensed, permitted, and other activities.

Each licensee or permittee must allow access by and cooperate with Federal officers or employees or other individuals authorized by the Associate Administrator to observe licensed facilities and activities, including launch sites and reentry sites, as well as manufacturing, production, testing, and training facilities, or assembly sites used by any contractor, licensee, or permittee to produce, assemble, or test a launch or reentry vehicle and to integrate a payload with its launch or reentry vehicle. Observations are conducted to monitor the activities of the licensee, permittee, or contractor at such time and to such extent as the Associate Administrator considers reasonable and necessary to determine compliance with the license or permit or to perform the Associate Administrator's responsibilities pertaining to payloads for which no Federal license, authorization, or permit is required.

[Doc. No. FAA-2006-24197, 72 FR 17016, Apr. 6, 2007]
Material Safety Data Sheet 1

Sanitized
Order entered May 11, 2021 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00127-CV 

IN RE PAUL RUDNICKI, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-00644 

ORDER 

Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus. 

 

/Dennise Garcia/ 

DENNISE GARCIA 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Quarterly report of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("the
Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Larry
L. Richards, Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) 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.

                                         /s/ Larry L. Richards

                                         ----------------------------------
                                         Larry L. Richards
                                         Controller (Principal Financial and
                                         Accounting Officer) August 13, 2004

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
      been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
      forwarded to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.

                                       36
§ 67.109 Neurologic. Neurologic standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are: ( a ) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following: ( 1 ) Epilepsy;
( 2 ) A disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory medical explanation of the cause; or
( 3 ) A transient loss of control of nervous system function(s) without satisfactory medical explanation of the cause.
( b ) No other seizure disorder, disturbance of consciousness, or neurologic condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds— ( 1 ) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
( 2 ) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
#### WASHINGTON v. THE STATE.

(Decided May 11, 1916.)

Appeal from Autauga Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  following  Registration
Statements:

(1)  Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-3212)  pertaining to the Columbus
     McKinnon  Corporation  1995  Incentive  Stock  Option  Plan,  the  Columbus
     McKinnon Corporation Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, the Columbus McKinnon
     Corporation  Restricted  Stock Plan and the Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation
     Employee  Stock  Ownership  Plan  Restatement  Effective  April 1,  1989 of
     Columbus McKinnon Corporation,

(2)  Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-81719)  pertaining to the Options
     assumed by Columbus McKinnon  Corporation  originally  granted under the GL
     International,  Inc.  1997  Stock  Option  Plan  and the  Larco  Industrial
     Services Ltd. 1997 Stock Option Plan,

of our reports dated June 1, 2006,  with respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements  and schedule of Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation,  Columbus  McKinnon
Corporation  management's  assessment of the  effectiveness  of internal control
over  financial  reporting,  and the  effectiveness  of  internal  control  over
financial  reporting of Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation,  included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2006.

                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

June 7, 2006
Buffalo, New York




                                       41
#### In the Matter of David Mayberg, Respondent, against Harris H. Murdock et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

(Argued October 6, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*of counsel), for Board of Standards and Appeals, appellant.

*Joseph E. Kinsley, August P. Klein*and *Elizabeth M. Duffy*for The Bronx Savings Bank, appellant.

*I. Maurice Wormser*and *Bernard Cohen*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion. (See 272 N. Y. C41.)

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



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Paul E. Martin, the Interim Co-Chief Financial Officer of Renaissance Media Group LLC,
Renaissance Media (Louisiana) LLC, Renaissance Media (Tennessee) LLC and Renaissance Media Capital
Corporation (the Company) in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission:  
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Paul E. Martin
Paul E. Martin
Interim Co-Chief Financial Officer
(Co-Principal Financial Officer)
March 31, 2005
CERTIFIED MAIL- RRR 

Cert_ No, 7010 3090 0002 9111 7494 

Mct.(t·W·--fi: SoT 

1>!XCHUI-K 

REGULAR MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration Copy: A_ Lester Haizlip 

800 Independence Avenue 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

Acting Regional Counsel 

901Locust St. 

Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

Complaint- Request for Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge 

RE: EIR 2014CE050039 -Final Notice of Proposed Penalty 

To Whom It May Concern: 

April 6, 2015 

RECEIVED 

APR 1 4 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

Jet Midwest Technik received the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (FNPCP) referenced above in 

the office of the Accountable Manager on April 8, 2015_ Jet Midwest Technik reviewed our data again 

in light of the outdated materials brought to our attention by the Local FSDO surveillance team as they 

continued to investigate the matter after our initial response to ACE-7 2014CE050039_ Since our last 

contact with our PMI concerned the inconsistency of the data your "FAA principals" were presenting 

we were under the impression there would be further discussion until all the facts were certain. The 

take away from the last discussion /meeting was to validate the technical data in question. 

After careful review of our data with the manufacturer and the lack of option for an informal 

conference with an FAA Attorney and pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.16(g)(2)(i) this is our notice of request 

for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. 

In summary we feel the proposed civil penalty is unjustified by factual evidence. 

Cc: Patrick Kraus- President JMT, A Haizlip- FAA Acting Regional Counsel 

MRR 

9200 NW 112'' Street, Kansas City, MO 64153 

phone: 816.399.5096 fax: 816.527.8096 

FAA Repair Station : #5JMR702B 

www.jetmidwesttechnik.com
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-59959 and 333-73015) pertaining to the Actuate Corporation
1998 Equity Incentive Plan, Actuate Corporation 1998 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan and Actuate Corporation 1998 Non-Employee Directors Option Plan and we also
consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-34410) of Actuate Corporation and in the related
prospectus of our report dated January 11, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Actuate Corporation included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 8, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-116567-99]
RIN 1545-AX67


Definition of Hyperinflationary Currency for Purposes of Section 
988; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public 
hearing on proposed regulations relating to hyperinflationary currency 
for purposes of section 988.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Wednesday, May 17, 
2000, at 10 a.m., is canceled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy Traynor of the Regulations Unit, 
Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free 
number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on January 13, 
2000, (65 FR 2084), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for 
May 17, 2000 at 10 a.m., in room 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public 
hearing is proposed regulations under section 988, of the Internal 
Revenue Code. The deadline for requests to speak and outlines of oral 
comments expired on April 20, 2000.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, 
instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to 
submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. 
As of April 24, 2000, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the 
public hearing scheduled for May 17, 2000, is canceled.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 00-11343 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
1 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

January 7 , 2016

PC Code: 034805

MEMORANDUM DP Barcode s : 4 30915

SUBJECT : Ziram : Response to Comments on the EFED Problem Formulation for Registration

Review

FROM: Elyssa Arnold, Risk Assessment Process Leader

Ron Parker, Senior Environmental Engineer

Environmental Risk Branch 2

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH : Brian Anderson , Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 2

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P )

TO: Khue Nguyen

, Chemical Revie w Manager

Melissa Grable, Team Leader

Neil Anderson , Branch Chief

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 1

Pesticide Re

- Evaluation Division (7508P)

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) reviewed a comment from the San Francisco Bay

Regional Water Quality Control Board on the “ Registration Review: Preliminary Problem Formulation

for Environmental Fate, Ecological Risk, Endangered Species, and Human Health Drinking Water

Exposure Assessments for Ziram ” ( DP427965, Docket ID EPA

– HQ

– OPP

– 2015

– 0568 ). The purpose of

this memorandum is to respond to th is comme nt

.

Comment summary: The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Co ntrol Board (Water Board)

notes that ziram

- containing products could leach zinc into urban runoff. Z inc is not recognized as a

degradate in the Preliminary Problem Formulation and the document states that ziram is not a cause of

water quality impairment an d there are no relevant §303(d) listings or TMDLs. However, ziram is a zinc

compound, and there are numerous §303(d) listings and TMDLs for zinc.

The Water Board r equest s that OPP update its procedure for reviewing the §303(d) list and TMDLs

related to p esticides as follows:

• In all cases, search “all” 303(d) listings, not just “pesticides” listings; and

• Include all degradates and metals in the pesticide.

EFED response: OPP appreciates the comment from the Water Board

. EFED routinely assesses all

pes ticide degradates of concern and will continue to add them to our query of the list of impaired2 waters. When the active ingredient (or its degradate of concern) is a metal, OPP will focus on metal

impaired waters which are within the use areas of such act ive ingredients. This will be determined with

land

- cover data indicating that the active ingredient’s use a reas are within the watershed. The relevance

of 303d listings and TMDLs for metals outside the active ingredient’s use areas is uncertain due to

na tural occurrences or other anthropogenic activities (such as mining, etc.).
#### § 431.21 General.

The FAA issues a policy approval to an RLV mission license applicant upon completion of a favorable policy review. A policy approval is part of the licensing record on which the licensing determination is based.
[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:****Desolation Butte quadrangle,Oregon : 7.5-minute series (topographic)**
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:44118-G 6/
Item Number:0080-G-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000932020
 
January 24, 2018
§ 29.979 Pressure refueling and fueling provisions below fuel level. ( a ) Each fueling connection below the fuel level in each tank must have means to prevent the escape of hazardous quantities of fuel from that tank in case of malfunction of the fuel entry valve.
( b ) For systems intended for pressure refueling, a means in addition to the normal means for limiting the tank content must be installed to prevent damage to the tank in case of failure of the normal means.
( c ) The rotorcraft pressure fueling system (not fuel tanks and fuel tank vents) must withstand an ultimate load that is 2.0 times the load arising from the maximum pressure, including surge, that is likely to occur during fueling. The maximum surge pressure must be established with any combination of tank valves being either intentionally or inadvertently closed.
( d ) The rotorcraft defueling system (not including fuel tanks and fuel tank vents) must withstand an ultimate load that is 2.0 times the load arising from the maximum permissible defueling pressure (positive or negative) at the rotorcraft fueling connection.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-12, 41 FR 55473, Dec. 20, 1976]
§ 61.59 Falsification, reproduction, or alteration of applications, certificates, logbooks, reports, or records. ( a ) No person may make or cause to be made: ( 1 ) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any application for a certificate, rating, authorization, or duplicate thereof, issued under this part;
( 2 ) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or exercise of the privileges of any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part;
( 3 ) Any reproduction for fraudulent purpose of any certificate, rating, or authorization, under this part; or
( 4 ) Any alteration of any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part.
( b ) The commission of an act prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for suspending or revoking any airman certificate, rating, or authorization held by that person.
#### Bank of Monroe *vs.*Brockway.

A *special verdict*in a personal action as well as a bill of exceptions, or case made, must in the first instance be heard and decided by the circuit judge, unless he direct otherwise.

The question in this case was, whether where a *special verdict*is taken at the circuit, the cause must in the first instance be heard before the circuit judge, or whether it may be directly brought before this court without any order to that effect from the circuit judge.

*By the Court,*

Nelson, Ch. J.

A *special verdict*is not enumerated in the act of 1832, but it is in the act of 1833. *(Statutes, session of*1832, *p.*188, and *session of*1833, *p.*305.) These acts are *in pari materia ;*a special verdict, therefore, as well as a bill of exceptions or case made, must, in the first instance, be heard and decided before the circuit judge, unless he in his. discretion direct that it be carried immediately to this court.