alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 29.1043 Cooling tests. ( a ) *General.* For the tests prescribed in § 29.1041(c), the following apply: ( 1 ) If the tests are conducted under conditions deviating from the maximum ambient atmospheric temperature specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the recorded powerplant temperatures must be corrected under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, unless a more rational correction method is applicable.
( 2 ) No corrected temperature determined under paragraph (a)(1) of this section may exceed established limits.
( 3 ) The fuel used during the cooling tests must be of the minimum grade approved for the engines, and the mixture settings must be those used in normal operation.
( 4 ) The test procedures must be as prescribed in §§ 29.1045 through 29.1049.
( 5 ) For the purposes of the cooling tests, a temperature is “stabilized” when its rate of change is less than 2 °F per minute.
( b ) *Maximum ambient atmospheric temperature.* A maximum ambient atmospheric temperature corresponding to sea level conditions of at least 100 degrees F. must be established. The assumed temperature lapse rate is 3.6 degrees F. per thousand feet of altitude above sea level until a temperature of −69.7 degrees F. is reached, above which altitude the temperature is considered constant at −69.7 degrees F. However, for winterization installations, the applicant may select a maximum ambient atmospheric temperature corresponding to sea level conditions of less than 100 degrees F.
( c ) *Correction factor (except cylinder barrels).* Unless a more rational correction applies, temperatures of engine fluids and powerplant components (except cylinder barrels) for which temperature limits are established, must be corrected by adding to them the difference between the maximum ambient atmospheric temperature and the temperature of the ambient air at the time of the first occurrence of the maximum component or fluid temperature recorded during the cooling test.
( d ) *Correction factor for cylinder barrel temperatures.* Cylinder barrel temperatures must be corrected by adding to them 0.7 times the difference between the maximum ambient atmospheric temperature and the temperature of the ambient air at the time of the first occurrence of the maximum cylinder barrel temperature recorded during the cooling test.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, and 605 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424, and 1425); and sec. 6(c) of the Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-12, 41 FR 55473, Dec. 20, 1976; Amdt. 29-15, 43 FR 2327, Jan. 16, 1978; Amdt. 29-26, 53 FR 34218, Sept. 2, 1988]
| Subsidiaries                         |         | Percentage of Ownership |         | Jurisdiction or State of Incorporation |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------------|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Pulaski      Bank (1)                     |         | 100%                              |         | United      States                                         |
| Pulaski      Service Corporation (1) (2)  |         | 100%                              |         | Missouri                                                   |
| Pulaski      Financial Statutory Trust I  |         | 100%                              |         | Connecticut                                                |
| Pulaski      Financial Statutory Trust II |         | 100%                              |         | Delaware                                                   |
| Priority      Property Holdings, LLC (2)  |    | 100%                              |    | Missouri                                                   |

----

| (1) | Are      included in the Registrant’s Consolidated Financial Statements contained      in the Annual Report toStockholders. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | Wholly-owned      by Pulaski Bank. |
|-----|------------------------------------|

----
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF PENTON MEDIA INC.


1.   Donohue Meehan Publishing Company, an Illinois corporation.

2.   Internet World Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its wholly-owned
     subsidiaries:
     A. Penton Business Media London Limited, a United Kingdom corporation;
     B. One, Inc., a Colorado corporation;
     C. Boardwatch Magazine, Incorporated, a Colorado corporation;
     D. Penton Internet, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
     E. Penton Media Australia Pty. Limited, an Australian corporation; and
     F. Penton Media Ireland Limited, an Ireland corporation.

3.  New Hope International Limited, a United Kingdom corporation.

4.  Penton Business Media (Holdings) London Limited, a United Kingdom
    corporation, and its wholly-owned subsidiaries:
    A. Equity Information Exchange Limited, a United Kingdom corporation;
    B. Penton Media (Europe) Limited, a United Kingdom corporation, and its
       wholly-owned subsidiary:
       a. Hillgate Communications Limited, a United Kingdom corporation, and
          its wholly-owned subsidiary:
          (1) Hillgate Custom Publishing, a United Kingdom corporation;
    C. Service Exhibitions Limited, a United Kingdom corporation;
    D. Penton Media International Limited, a United Kingdom corporation, and
       its 60% ownership subsidiary:
       a. Penton Media Spain S.A., a Spain corporation; and
    E. Lightspeed Integrated Media Limited, a United Kingdom corporation.

5.  Stardust.com, a California corporation.

6.  Streaming Media, Inc., a California corporation.

7.  Duke Investments, Inc, a Colorado corporation, and its wholly-owned
    subsidiary:
    A. Duke Communications International, Inc., a Colorado corporation, and its
       wholly owned subsidiary:
       a. Duke Communications Europe Limited, a United Kingdom corporation.

8.  PTS Delaware, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

9.  Tech Conferences, Inc., a Connecticut corporation.

10. Healthwell.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation.



<PAGE>


11. ComMunic GmbH Kongresse-Messen Seminare, a Germany corporation.

12. Penton Media, S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexico corporation.

13. Penton Media Asia Limited, a Hong Kong corporation.

14. Penton Media France (SAS), a France corporation.

15. Service Management Publication Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation.
#### Benny J. Santella et al., Respondents, v Jerome Andrews et al., Defendants, and Tri-State Newspaper Services, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[698 NYS2d 631]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered April 13, 1999, which denied the motions of defendants Tri-State Newspapers Services, Inc. and The New York Times for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously re*63versed, on the law, without costs, the motions granted, and the complaint dismissed as against said defendants. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint as against them.

Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained by them in a head-on collision between the vehicle in which they were riding and a vehicle driven by Donna Andrews, who was delivering New York Times newspapers on behalf of her husband, Jerome Andrews. Mr. Andrews entered into an Independent Contractor Deliverer Agreement with defendant Tri-State which, in turn, is under contract with defendant New York Times to distribute its publication. His agreement with Tri-State permits Mr. Andrews to hire his own employees and agents to assist him in delivering the New York Times.

On this record, defendant Tri-State cannot be said to exercise sufficient control over the delivery and distribution of newspapers by Mr. Andrews to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Tri-State should be held vicariously accountable for the acts of Mr. Andrews, his agents and employees *(Kleeman v Rheingold,*81 NY2d 270, 273-274; *Rosenberg v Equitable Life Assur. Socy.,*79 NY2d 663, 668). The requirement imposed by the agreement that newspapers be delivered by a certain hour does not create an employer-employee relationship. As this Court has stated, “the mere retention of general supervisory powers over independent contractors cannot be a basis for the imposition of liability for their acts” *(Lazo v Mak’s Trading Co.,*199 AD2d 165, 167, *affd*84 NY2d 896). The alleged tortfeasor, with whom Tri-State has no contractual relationship, was engaged by her husband and receives compensation and instruction only from him *(see, Matter of Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts],*66 NY2d 516, 521). Therefore, there is no relationship, contractual or otherwise, upon which a finding of vicarious liability against either Tri-State or the New York Times for theconduct of Donna Andrews might be predicated *(see, Kavanaugh v Nussbaum,*71 NY2d 535, 546-547; *Sawh v Schoen,*215 AD2d 291).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.
§ 93.103 Helicopter operations. ( a ) Unless otherwise authorized, each person piloting a helicopter along Long Island, New York's northern shoreline between the VPLYD waypoint and Orient Point, shall utilize the North Shore Helicopter route and altitude, as published.
( b ) Pilots may deviate from the route and altitude requirements of paragraph (a) of this section when necessary for safety, weather conditions or transitioning to or from a destination or point of landing.
**EXHIBIT23.2**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements No. 333-122809 on Form S-8, andNos. 333-127759 and 333-127760 on Form S-3 of FairPointCommunications, Inc. of our report relating to the financial statements ofOrange County-Poughkeepsie Limited Partnership as of December 31, 2005 and2004 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,2005, dated March 13, 2006, (which report expresses an unqualified opinionand includes an explanatory paragraph regarding affiliate revenues) appearingin this Annual Report on Form 10-K of FairPoint Communications, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Deloitte &Touche LLP

New York, New YorkMarch 13, 2006

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 
**- 1219** 

JOSEPH V. VEIGA, III; SUSAN M. VEIGA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MARY KENDALL ,
Plaintiffs

- Appellees ,

v.

SUNTRUST BANK ,
Defendant

– Appellee,

v.

AARON HOLSEY,

Movant

– Appellant.

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

. Paul W. Grimm , Magistrate Judge. ( 1:09

- cv
- 02815

- PWG )

Submitted : September 30, 2011 Deci ded: October 17, 2011

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Aaron Holsey, Appellant Pro Se. Harold G. Belkowitz, OBER, KALER, GRIMES & SHRIVER, PC, Washington, D.C. ; Diane Festino Schmitt, O BER, KALER, GRIMES & SHRIVER, PC, Baltimore , Maryland,2 for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Aaron Holsey appeals the order of the magistrate judge
approving the settlement of this class action lawsu it and
rejecting Holsey’s objection to the settlement . We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge

. Veiga v. Holsey , No. 1:09

- cv
- 02815

- PWG (D. Md. filed Feb. 23,

2011, e ntered Feb. 24, 2011) . 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
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. NO. 32,151

5 VICENTE CHAVEZ,

6 Defendant-Appellee.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF UNION COUNTY

8 John M. Paternoster, District Judge

9 Gary K. King, Attorney General

10 Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General

11 Albuquerque, NM

12 for Appellant

13 Alsup Law Office

14 Gary D. Alsup

15 Clayton, NM

16 for Appellee

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

1 CASTILLO, Chief Judge.

2 The State appeals from the district court order requiring the State to disclose the

3 identity of a confidential informant or in the alternative dismiss the case with

4 prejudice. This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to conclude that the State’s

5 appeal was premature and proposing to dismiss. The State has filed a response to this

6 Court’s calendar notice stating that it agrees with our notice of proposed disposition.

7 Accordingly, we dismiss.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 __________________________________

10 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge

11 WE CONCUR:

12 __________________________________

13 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

14 __________________________________

15 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
§ 450.119 Trajectory analysis for malfunction flight. ( a ) *General.* A flight safety analysis must include a trajectory analysis that establishes— ( 1 ) The vehicle's deviation capability in the event of a malfunction during flight,
( 2 ) The trajectory dispersion resulting from reasonably foreseeable malfunctions, and
( 3 ) For vehicles using flight abort as a hazard control strategy under § 450.108, trajectory data or parameters that describe the limits of a useful mission. The FAA does not consider the collection of data related to a failure to be a useful mission.
( b ) *Analysis constraints.* A malfunction trajectory analysis must account for each cause of a malfunction flight, including software and hardware failures, for every period of normal flight. The analysis for each type of malfunction must have sufficient temporal and spatial resolution to establish flight safety limits, if any, and individual risk contours that are smooth and continuous. The analysis must account for— ( 1 ) The relative probability of occurrence of each malfunction;
( 2 ) The probability distribution of position and velocity of the vehicle when each malfunction trajectory will terminate due to vehicle breakup, ground impact, or orbital insertion along with the cause of termination and the state of the vehicle;
( 3 ) The parameters with a significant influence on a vehicle's flight behavior from the time a malfunction begins to cause a flight deviation until the time each malfunction trajectory will terminate due to vehicle breakup, ground impact, or orbital insertion; and
( 4 ) The potential for failure of the flight safety system, if any.
( c ) *Application requirements.* An applicant must submit— ( 1 ) A description of the methodology used to characterize the vehicle's flight behavior throughout malfunction flight, in accordance with § 450.115(c).
( 2 ) A description of the methodology used to determine the limits of a useful mission, in accordance with § 450.115(c).
( 3 ) A description of the input data used to characterize the vehicle's malfunction flight behavior, including: ( i ) A list of each cause of malfunction flight considered;
( ii ) A list of each type of malfunction flight for which malfunction flight behavior was characterized; and
( iii ) A quantitative description of the parameters, including uncertainties, with a significant influence on the vehicle's malfunction behavior for each type of malfunction flight characterized.
( 4 ) Representative malfunction flight trajectory analysis outputs, including the position and velocity as a function of flight time for— ( i ) Each set of trajectories that characterizes a type of malfunction flight;
( ii ) The probability of each set of trajectories that characterizes a type of malfunction flight; and
( iii ) A set of trajectories that characterizes the limits of a useful mission as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
#### Mae M. Cope, Respondent, *v.*John Wanamaker of New York, Appellant.

Submitted January 11, 1937;

decided January 19, 1937.

*Benjamin Barondess*for motion.

*David Cohen*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Exhibit 21

PRINCIPAL OPERATING SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES

The Houston Exploration Company
1331 Lamar
Houston,  Texas

Gas Energy Inc.
Gas Energy Cogeneration Inc.
111 Livingston Street
Brooklyn, New York 11201

KeySpan Energy Services Inc.
300 First Stamford Place
Stamford, Connecticut 06902

KeySpan Energy Management Inc.
30 Jericho Executive Plaza
Center Wing
Jericho, New York 11753

KeySpan Energy Canada, Ltd.
4500 Banker's Hall East
655 Second Street, S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2P 4K7

KeySpan Energy Corporation
One MetroTech Center
Brooklyn, New York  11201-3850

The Brooklyn Union Gas Company
d/b/a Brooklyn Union
One MetroTech Center
Brooklyn, New York 11201

KeySpan Gas East Corporation
d/b/a Brooklyn Union of Long Island
175 East Old Country Road
Hicksville, New York 11801

KeySpan Energy Development Corporation
One MetroTech Center
Brooklyn, New York 11201


<PAGE>


KeySpan Energy Services Inc.
300 First Stamford Place
Stamford, Connecticut 06902

KeySpan Energy Management Inc.
30 Jericho Executive Plaza
Center Wing
Jericho, New York 11753

KeySpan Energy Solutions LLC
222-40 96th Avenue
Queens Village, New York 11429

KeySpan Generation LLC
175 East Old Country Road
Hicksville, New York 11801

Keyspan Electric Services LLC
175 East Old Country Road
Hicksville, New York 11801

KeySpan Energy Trading Services LLC
100 East Old Country Road
Hicksville, New York 11801
§ 431.25 Application requirements for policy review. In its RLV mission license application, an applicant must— ( a ) Identify the model, type, and configuration of any RLV proposed for launch and reentry, or otherwise landing on Earth, by the applicant.
( b ) Identify all vehicle systems, including structural, thermal, pneumatic, propulsion, electrical, and avionics and guidance systems used in the vehicle(s), and all propellants.
( c ) Identify foreign ownership of the applicant as follows: ( 1 ) For a sole proprietorship or partnership, identify all foreign ownership;
( 2 ) For a corporation, identify any foreign ownership interests of 10% or more; and
( 3 ) For a joint venture, association, or other entity, identify any participating foreign entities.
( d ) Identify proposed launch and reentry flight profile(s), including— ( 1 ) Launch and reentry site(s), including planned contingency abort locations, if any;
( 2 ) Flight trajectories, reentry trajectories, associated ground tracks, and instantaneous impact points for nominal operations, and contingency abort profiles, if any;
( 3 ) Sequence of planned events or maneuvers during the mission; and for an orbital mission, the range of intermediate and final orbits of the vehicle and upper stages, if any, and their estimated orbital life times.
Appendix D 

CAMERON INTERSTATE SITE-SPECIFIC PLANS FOR 

CONSTRUCTION NEAR RESIDENCES
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 0 2

- 00 407

- CR

Robert Morrison

, Appellant

v.
The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 9020022 , HONORABLE DON B. MORGAN , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Robert Morrison guilty of failing to appear in accordance with the
terms of his bail, for which it assessed a punishment of seven years = imprisonment. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. '
38.10 (West 1994). His court

- appointed attorney f iled a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by
presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be

advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State , 485 S.W.2d
553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of

counsel = s brief was delivered to Morrison, who was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and
to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.2 We have reviewed the record and counsel = s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of

conviction is affirmed.

Bea Ann Smith, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed
Filed: March 13, 2003

Do Not Publish
Le i: | | ,

DEPARTMENT OF | THE. I!
UNITED STATES GEOLOG SURVEY

166° 00'

“@ NOOSY

HORIZONTAL SCALE ----________1 63,360 «oq . .
ae
VERTICAL SCALE ON RECONNAISSANCE PROFILES AS SHOWN sees F_—_____+ 68? = CT
7 XN —
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 20 GAMMA 6 A —BORNE GEOI | IYS ICAL SURVEYS IN are) WAI ‘D
20 GAMMA CONTOUR________ ee = 7 SERPENTINE HOT SPRINGS
seas |g seas AREA
100 GAMMA CONTOUR_____ _ ____ sovcen
A A
a . ' : z 2 ES
MAGNETIC LOW_- 8 >) ° Z 2 MIL
——_ | a E I E L i: I E ]
MAGNETIC MAXIMUM/ MINIMUM x 947 seese ore
eses se
. < 7
SURVEY ALTITUDE -._-_----____ 2,500" ASL j 2 | SADEY LE Seog DETAILED \ 1969
; i
FLIGHT LINE... RECONNAISSANCE 2» 9. Uitte yor 4
SURVEY = ___ — = 7 Sy ed
MAGNETICS BASED ON ARBITRARY DATUM ear as LLL as 2
REGIONAL MAGNETIC GRADIENT NOT REMOVED ~ : 2nowe AREA
ESTIMATED TOTAL INTENSITY OF FIELD: 55,000 GAMMAS ° :
.
cass [NOME BEACH AREA ears

WEAN INCLINATION + 75° 6°3¢ 9 10,1] "sse0C eseRC
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000796229
<NAME>                        THE LESLIE FAY COMPANY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   JUL-05-1997
<CASH>                          35,065
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                   11,430
<ALLOWANCES>                     4,465
<INVENTORY>                     22,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                74,891
<PP&E>                             140
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  75,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           36,554
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                            34
<OTHER-SE>                      24,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    75,280
<SALES>                        203,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               203,519
<CGS>                          151,686
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   37,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               1,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 13,077
<INCOME-TAX>                       471
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             12,606
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                132,950
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                   145,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .02
        


</TABLE>