alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 27.1389 Position light distribution and intensities. ( a ) *General.* the intensities prescribed in this section must be provided by new equipment with light covers and color filters in place. Intensities must be determined with the light source operating at a steady value equal to the average luminous output of the source at the normal operating voltage of the rotorcraft. The light distribution and intensity of each position light must meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Forward and rear position lights.* The light distribution and intensities of forward and rear position lights must be expressed in terms of minimum intensities in the horizontal plane, minimum intensities in any vertical plane, and maximum intensities in overlapping beams, within dihedral angles *L, R,* and *A,* and must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) *Intensities in the horizontal plane.* Each intensity in the horizontal plane (the plane containing the longitudinal axis of the rotorcraft and perpendicular to the plane of symmetry of the rotorcraft) must equal or exceed the values in § 27.1391.
( 2 ) *Intensities in any vertical plane.* Each intensity in any vertical plane (the plane perpendicular to the horizontal plane) must equal or exceed the appropriate value in § 27.1393, where *I* is the minimum intensity prescribed in § 27.1391 for the corresponding angles in the horizontal plane.
( 3 ) *Intensities in overlaps between adjacent signals.* No intensity in any overlap between adjacent signals may exceed the values in § 27.1395, except that higher intensities in overlaps may be used with main beam intensities substantially greater than the minima specified in §§ 27.1391 and 27.1393, if the overlap intensities in relation to the main beam intensities do not adversely affect signal clarity. When the peak intensity of the forward position lights is greater than 100 candles, the maximum overlap intensities between them may exceed the values in § 27.1395 if the overlap intensity in Area A is not more than 10 percent of peak position light intensity and the overlap intensity in Area B is not more than 2.5 percent of peak position light intensity.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Annual Report of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David J. Moore, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



March 24,
2004

| |  | /s/DAVID J. MOORE Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 23636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09926]

[[Page 23636]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 9112]

In the Matter of the Designation of Christodoulos Xiros as a 
Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of 
Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of E.O. 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by E.O. 13268 of July 
2, 2002, and E.O. 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that 
the individual known as Christodoulos Xiros committed, or poses a 
significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the 
security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or 
economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of E.O. 13224 that 
``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who 
might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render 
ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order 
because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I determine 
that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this 
determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United 
States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures 
authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: April 20, 2015.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-09926 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v LANGHAM, et al.

Case No. 90-63AC10

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County

April 16, 1991

Before ROBERT W. TYSON, Circuit Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on appeal from the Circuit Court, and the Court having read the file, briefs and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, finds as follows and enters this opinion:

*361. The lower court has itself admitted error.

2. At least one Appellee, Mr. Marroquin, in his Response Brief has alleged that although there is error, it is but harmless error.

3. The lower court’s procedure complained of by the State has already been remedied and this Court is aware of no present objection that the State harbors with the current remedied procedure.

4. In not one instance has the State complained of any substantive harm nor has any substantive harm been definitively alleged by the Appellant.

Therefore this Court returns this case to the trial court so that:

1. The parties may amicably resolve the matter without further undue appeal process;

2. The State may supplement their pleadings to show substantive harmful error;

3. The State’s Counsel may advise this Court as to whether *amicus curiae*should be appointed for the Defendants to aid in the further filing of briefs.

WHEREUPON if nothing further is filed in this case within a period of 30 days from the date below, this order shall act as a dismissal of this appeal.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of April, 1991.
§ 260.9 Notification to consumers. ( a ) Upon the occurrence of a flight cancellation or a significant delay or change, a covered carrier must timely notify affected consumers about the cancellation or significant delay or change, and the information relating to any alternative to refund as provided in § 260.6(c).
( b ) Covered air carriers must ensure that their passenger notification systems notify passengers owed a refund pursuant to § 260.6(a) and (b) of their right to receive a refund. Covered carriers that provide notification subscription services to passengers must ensure notifications under this paragraph be provided through media that the carriers offer and the subscribers choose, including emails, text messages, and push notices from mobile apps.
[DOT-OST-2022-0089, 89 FR 65538, Aug. 12, 2024]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 23, 2009 

p1116 

Order 

 

November 23, 2009 

139162 & (99) 

 

DAVID SCHIED, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139162 

 COA: 282804 

Ingham CC: 07-001256-AW 

STATE OF MICHIGAN, ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT & 

BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS, 

MICHIGAN STATE POLICE, WASHTENAW 

COUNTY PROSECUTORS, LINCOLN 

CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, SANDRA HARRIS, 

NORTHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, SCOTT SNYDER, KATY 

PARKER, DAVID BLITHO, LEONARD 

REZMIERSKI, KELLER THOMA LAW FIRM, 

WAYNE COUNTY REGIONAL EDUCATION 

SERVICES AGENCY, MARLENE DAVIS, 

KEVIN MAGIN, DAVID SOEBBING, and 

NORTHVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 19, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for 

miscellaneous relief is DENIED.
Notice: This opin ion is subject to form al revision before publication in the Atl antic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal

errors so that correc tions m ay be made before the boun d volum es go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF AP P EALS

No. 1 5- BG- 29 5

IN RE: RIC HARD A. JULIANO, Pet it io ne r. Ba r Reg is tra tio n No. 4 65 76 1 BDN: 2 9- 15

BEFORE: Gli ck m an an d Th om ps on , Ass oc ia te Ju dg es , and Rei d, Se ni or Ju dg e.

ORDER (FILED - Apr il 2, 2 01 5)

On co ns id erat io n of Bar Co u n s el ’s rep or t reg ard in g pe ti ti on er’s pe ti ti on fo r rei ns ta te m en t whe rei n Bar Co un se l in fo rm s th e co ur t th at Mr

. J u l i a no ha s de m on st rat ed th at he is fit to res ume t h e pr act ic e of la w, an d it ap pe ari ng th at
pe ti ti on er is el ig ib le to fil e th e pe ti ti on fo r rei ns ta te m en t, se e In re Ju li an o , 91 2 A.2d 55 3 (D.C. 20 06 ), an d it fu rth er ap pe ari ng th at Mr. Ju li an o ha s be en rei ns ta te d by th e st at e o f Il li no is , it is

ORDERED th at pe ti ti on er’s p et it io n fo r rei ns ta te m en t i s g ran te d. It is

FURTHER ORDERED th at Ri ch ard A. Ju li an o is he reb y rei ns ta te d to th e Bar of th e Dis tri ct of C ol um

bi a.

PER CURIAM
**CertainTeed Corporation**  750 E. Swedesford Road • PO Box 860 • Valley Forge, PA 19482 • USA • Tel: (610) 341
-7000 •www.certainteed.com April 20, 2011 Dear CertaSprayTM Customer: Safety is a priority for CertainTeed and the Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) industry. As you may know, both OSHA and EPA have been inspecting SPF chemicals and installation practice, and working closely with the SPF industry to create an awareness of the safety risks associated with improper SPF installation practices. The result of this work was the creation, in late 2010, of the American Chemistry Council’s website, www.spraypolyurethane.org
. In addition to being a reference for health and safety matters, the website offers an online training module and a corresponding test that all professional SPF applicators should take. The training and test are free and takes less than two hours to complete. After successful completion of the test, the ACC issues a “recognition of completion” card to applicators who successfully pass the test. The training module and test will soon be available in Spanish as well. As part of our commitment to safety for contractors, applicators and homeowners, starting May 1st, 2011, CertainTeed will launch a safety policy to require that all CertaSpray TM applicators complete the training, pass the ACC test and hold a valid ACC SPF Saf ety Card. The card is valid for two years from the date of issuance. CertainTeed reserves the right to verify compliance with this requirement at any time. CertaSprayTM distributors should forward this letter to all CertaSprayTM contractors, in order to ensure they comply with CertainTeed’s safety policy as well. We thank you for your compliance with CertainTeed’s safety policy. Together we will grow the SPF market safely. Sincerely, Lionel Rossignol Product Manager CertainTeed Corp, Insulation Group PS: Please forward copy of ACC Safety Card and contact information to Denise Mattioli via email to Denise.B.Mattioli@Saint-Gobain.com or via fax to 610-341-7632.
### Summary of Analy tical Results 662 - April 2012

**Sample ID** 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB **Date** 4/2/12 4/9/12 4/16/12 4/23/12 4/30/12 **Top (ft)** 0 0 0 0 0 **Total (T)/ Bottom (ft)**  0 0 0 0 0 **An aly**  **te units** **Diss. (D) Duplicate #**  1 1 1 1 1 PFOA ug/L T 2.26 2.28 1.36 1.69 1.73

ug/L = micrograms per liter or parts per billion (ppb) ND = not detected (shown as <LOD) NQ = not quantifiable (shown as <LOQ) ND<LOD<NQ<LOQ LOD - limit of detection LOQ = limit of quantification

Samples were analyzed by Critical Path Services LLC. Reported results represent a single analysis, except for the sample collected on 4/2/12. Acceptable precision was obtained and the reported result for the sample collected on 4/2/12 represents the average of lab duplicate results.

The NJDEP lab certification number for Critical Path Services LLC is PA072. PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acid ug/L = micrograms per Liter

< and ND = Non detect at stated reporting limit Page 1 of 1 09000064810e6d84.xlsx:Sheet1 8/21/2012 2:11 PM
§ 91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections. ( a ) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR unless— ( 1 ) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Except for the use of system drain and alternate static pressure valves, following any opening and closing of the static pressure system, that system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with paragraph (a), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter; and
( 3 ) Following installation or maintenance on the automatic pressure altitude reporting system of the ATC transponder where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system has been tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter.
( b ) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted by— ( 1 ) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests and inspections are to be performed;
( 2 ) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those functions and holding— ( i ) An instrument rating, Class I;
( ii ) A limited instrument rating appropriate to the make and model of appliance to be tested;
( iii ) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed;
( iv ) An airframe rating appropriate to the airplane, or helicopter, to be tested; or
( 3 ) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure system tests and inspections only).
( c ) Altimeter and altitude reporting equipment approved under Technical Standard Orders are considered to be tested and inspected as of the date of their manufacture.
( d ) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR at an altitude above the maximum altitude at which all altimeters and the automatic altitude reporting system of that airplane, or helicopter, have been tested.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-269, 66 FR 41116, Aug. 6, 2001; 72 FR 7739, Feb. 20, 2007]
V nt of f1and:ini US I )enicd, Opiiiioii issued Septem bvr2i 201 2

In The

(tuirt uf Aipiak

.±Fittl! Jitrict iif xai tt Jatht&

No. 05-12-01 225-CV

IN RE lAKEITII AMIR-SIIARIF, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas Countv Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-09-13818-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Morris. Richter. and Lang-Miers

Opinion by Justice Lang—Miers

Relator contends the trial judge failed to rule on certain motions he filed. The facts and

issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record before

us. we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. See TEX. R. APP. P.

528(a); Walker v Packer, 827 S.\V.2d 833. 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly.

we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

I i— ‘

ELIZABETI-I LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
#### Thomas J. Hayes & Associates, L. L. C., Respondent, v Island Jeep Eagle, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[698 NYS2d 161]

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated June 22, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the first, second, and fourth causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the first, second, and fourth causes of action is granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

The Supreme Court improperly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the first, second, and fourth causes of action. The brokerage agreement at issue provided for the payment of a commission to the plaintiff if “the transaction is in fact consummated”; that is, “when, as and if title and the business transaction actually close”. Although the plaintiff produced a prospective buyer for the purchase of the defendants’ business, the defendants and the prospective buyer never entered into a contract for the sale. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any commission *(see, Graff v Billet,*101 AD2d 355, *affd*64 NY2d 899; *Maurice B. Cunningham, Inc. v Nugent St. Corp.,*202 AD2d 649; *Friedland Realty v Modern Cabinets Corp.,*194 AD2d 657; *Cook/Pony Farm Real Estate v Spartan Enters.,*157 AD2d 766; *see also, Eastern Consol. Props. v Adelaide Realty Corp.,*261 AD2d 225). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 24.7


                               KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint GERALD LUTERMAN, JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J. TAUNTON, and each of
them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with power to execute in my name and
place, and in my capacity as a director of KeySpan Corporation, said Report, any
amendment  to said  Report  and  any  other  documents  required  in  connection
therewith, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney
this 24th day of February, 2005.



                                                     /s/Stephen W. McKessy
#### SEEBERG S. S. LINE v. WILLIS.

(Decided April 6, 1916.)

Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. S. B. BROWNE.

No counsel marked for appellant. FRANCIS J. INGE, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal.dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### Royal Italian Government, Appellant, *v.*International Committee of Young Men’s Christian Associations, Respondent.

Submitted January 11, 1937;

decided January 19, 1937.

Motion to amend remittitur denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 273 N. Y. 468.)
#### §§ 460.20-460.40 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.1

                       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 Allstates  WorldCargo,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March  31,
2005  as  filed  with  the  Securities and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"), I, Sam DiGiralomo, Chief Executive Officer of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


  (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 consolidated financial condition of the
      Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
      operations of the Company for the periods presented.


Dated: May 16, 2005

/s/ Sam DiGiralomo
President and Chief Executive Officer


This  certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section  906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-11-0001085 09-FEB-2012 11:42 AM

NO. SCPW-11-0001085 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
BENJAMIN ACUNA, Petitioner,

vs. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.) Upon review of the letters to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices submitted by Petitioner Benjamin Acuna concerning the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and Petitioner Acuna’s counsel Emmanuel V. Tipon, which we consider as a petition for a writ of mandamus, materials submitted by ODC in response to our December 27, 2011 order, and the record, it appears that ODC did not abuse its discretion in the matter. See In re Disciplinary Board of the Hawai ' i Supreme Court , 91 Hawai ' i 363, 368, 370-71, 984 P.2d 688, 693, 695-96 (1999). It further appears that Petitioner Acuna’s request regarding the files in the possession of attorney Tipon is moot. Therefore,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i , February 9, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v UMANA

Case No. 90-096-AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

May 24, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Angelica D. Zayas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Roger S. Elkind, Esquire, for appellee.

Before GREENBAUM, GERSTEN, DAVIS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Trial Court dismissed the information upon the Appellee’s claim that he was not personally served with amended process.

The Appellee was cited for driving under the influence in violation of Florida Statute 316.193 and 316.1925 driving on the sidewalk and violating Florida Statute 316.614 for not using a seatbelt. Subsequently *38the charges were refiled by the State and new citations were issued for numbering purposes only.

The Appellee moved to dismiss the amended information claiming the Court was without jurisdiction of his person because he had not been personally served with the amended information.

There was no dispute to the fact that service was effected at the residence of the Appellee to a member of the family, his brother, who is over the age of 15 years. The Court improperly interpreted Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.030(b) by dismissing the case.

Rule 3.030(b) states inter alia. . .“leaving it at his usual place of abode with some person of his family above fifteen years of age”. . .“service by mail shall be deemed complete upon mailing.”

Based upon the foregoing, this Order of Dismissal is REVERSED and REMANDED for trial.
From: Fisher, Brian To: "aaron_L_szabo@omb.eop.gov" Cc: Risley, David Subject: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: 2008 O3 NAAQS CSAPR Update 2060 AS05 NPRM FRN_2015 1030 RIA Chapters 5 and 6 (redline) Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:20:00 AM Attachments: EO 12866_2008 O3 NAAQS CSAPR Update 2060 AS05 NPRM FRN_20151030 RIA chapter5 (redline).docx EO12866_2008 O3 NAAQS CSASPR Update 2060 AS05 NPRM FRN_20151030 RIA chapter 6 (redline).docx



## Hi Aaron,

Please find attached the updated chapters five and six of the RIA reflecting updates made in response to interagency comment.

Thank you,

Brian Fisher Policy Analyst Clean Air Markets Division (202) 343-9633