alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 0.737-11 Judicial review.

Any person found to have participated in a violation of 18 U.S.C. 207(a), (b), or (c) or the regulations at 5 CFR part 737 may seek judicial review of the administrative determination in an appropriate United States district court.
#### §§ 102.111-102.114 [Reserved]
ULTRAPETROL (BAHAMAS) LIMITED


                 STATEMENT OF RATIO OF EARNING TO FIXED CHARGES



 (dollars in thousands)
<TABLE>

                                                          Year Ended December 31,

                                         2001        2002           2003           2004           2005
                                         ----        ----           ----           ----           ----
<S>                                      <C>         <C>            <C>            <C>           <C>
Consolidated income (loss) before
Income tax and minority interest         $2,805    $  (-13,571)    $ (-10,000)          (406)    $ 25,151
Investment in affiliates                    692             45        (-3,140)        15,566(1)       497
Interest expense                         17,113         16,178         15,622(1)         568       18,104
Amortization of debt issue costs            585            585            585         22,649        1,037
                                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
         Earnings                        21,195          3,237          3,067                      44,789
                                      =======================================================================
                                                                                   (1)15,566       18,104
Interest expenses                        17,113         16,178      (1)15,622            568        1,037
Amortization of debt issue costs            585            585            585         16,134          ZZZ
                                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fixed Charges                    17,692         16,763         16,207            1.4       19,141
                                      =======================================================================
  Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges        1.2              - (2)          - (2)        1.4          2.3

</TABLE>

(1)  The interest expenses amounts presented in this exhibit do not include the
     Financial gain (loss) on extinguishments of debt amounting $ 1,782 and $
     (5,078) for the year ended December 31, 2003 and 2004, respectively.

(2)  In these fiscal years the earnings are inadequate to cover fixed charges.
#### BRESLER v FRIEDMAN et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9835.

Decided April 29, 1929

John A Cline, Cleveland, for Bresler.

Cannon, Speith & Taggert, Cleveland, for Friedman et.

*318VICKERY, PJ.

Now the question before us and the only question to which we need address our attention is: Was.this a question for the jury, or was it a question for the court? In other words, was the option so absolutely inconsistent with the prior contract that it would, as a matter of law, abrogate the former contract. Or, putting it in other words, w,as it possible to reconcile the option and the contract of April 11th, so that it would be a question for the jury on the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction as to whether the contract of April 11th had been .superseded ,and abrogated, or whether they should be construed together.

Now it must be noted that in both the contract of April 11th and the option of April 14th, a commission of $20,000 was to be the amount of compensation that Bresler was to receive. This would seem to indicate that Bresler was not expected to buy this property but was to sell it for Friedman and his commission was limited to $20,000.

We do not think that the language of this opinion is so clear that it precludes the existence and continued existence of the contract of April 11th.

We, therefore, think that the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant below and the defendant in error here, and for that reason the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded to the Common Pleas Court for a new trial.

Sullivan, J, concurs. Levine, J, not sitting.
#### PAYNE v GREEN CAB CO et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 8841.

Decided October 22, 1928

Messrs. Payer, Minshall, Karsh & Kerr, Cleveland, for Payne.

Messrs. McConnell, Blackmore & Cory, Cleveland, for Cab Co. et.

EPITOMIZED OPINION

An action for damages for personal injuries against one or more joint tort feasors, jointly and severally liable, is not barred by a judgment against a co-defendant, after ,a motion for a new trial has been overruled as to plaintiff, it appearing that such judgment is uncollectable, and in such case it is error for the court to grant judgment on the pleadings as against the plaintiff. To be a bar, the judgment first obtained must have been fully satisfied.' If only partially satisfied the joint and several liability is only discharged pro tanto, leaving a cause of action against the other tort feasors for the balance due.

Opinion by

SULLIVAN, PJ.

VICKERY & LEVINE, JJ, concur.
§ 27.603 Materials. The suitability and durability of materials used for parts, the failure of which could adversely affect safety, must— ( a ) Be established on the basis of experience or tests;
( b ) Meet approved specifications that ensure their having the strength and other properties assumed in the design data; and
( c ) Take into account the effects of environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity, expected in service.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424); and sec. 6(c) of the Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55469, Dec. 20, 1976; Amdt. 27-16, 43 FR 50599, Oct. 30, 1978]
§ 91.323 Increased maximum certificated weights for certain airplanes operated in Alaska. ( a ) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the Administrator will approve, as provided in this section, an increase in the maximum certificated weight of an airplane type certificated under Aeronautics Bulletin No. 7-A of the U.S. Department of Commerce dated January 1, 1931, as amended, or under the normal category of part 4a of the former Civil Air Regulations (14 CFR part 4a, 1964 ed.) if that airplane is operated in the State of Alaska by— ( 1 ) A certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter; or
( 2 ) The U.S. Department of Interior in conducting its game and fish law enforcement activities or its management, fire detection, and fire suppression activities concerning public lands.
( b ) The maximum certificated weight approved under this section may not exceed— ( 1 ) 12,500 pounds;
( 2 ) 115 percent of the maximum weight listed in the FAA aircraft specifications;
( 3 ) The weight at which the airplane meets the positive maneuvering load factor *n, where n*=2.1+(24,000/(W+10,000)) and W=design maximum takeoff weight, except that n need not be more than 3.8; or
( 4 ) The weight at which the airplane meets the climb performance requirements under which it was type certificated.
( c ) In determining the maximum certificated weight, the Administrator considers the structural soundness of the airplane and the terrain to be traversed.
( d ) The maximum certificated weight determined under this section is added to the airplane's operation limitations and is identified as the maximum weight authorized for operations within the State of Alaska.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989; Amdt. 91-211, 54 FR 41211, Oct. 5, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-253, 62 FR 13253, Mar. 19, 1997; Docket FAA-2015-1621, Amdt. 91-346, 81 FR 96700, Dec. 30, 2016]
Memorandum 

Subject: Meeting with the Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR) 

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC 

Date: February 9, 2011 

Participants: Chuck French, EPA 

Nathan Topham, EPA 

Russell Kemp, ENVIRON 

Mark DeLaquil, Baker Law 

Robert Steinwurtzel, Baker Law 

Mike Burr, ERG 

Donna Lazzari, ERG 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met via telephone with representatives of the 

Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the ongoing 

Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for the secondary lead smelting source category. The 

topics discussed and a brief summary of the key points is outlined below. 

1. Discussion of EPA’s risk assessment for the source category: 

• ABR asked for clarification on a number of the assumptions and parameters used 

to estimates of fugitive emissions for the secondary lead smelting facilities. 

• ABR asked for clarification on how the estimates of fugitive emissions will 

impact the rulemaking process. 

• ABR expressed concern over terminology used by EPA in developing fugitive 

emissions estimates for the source category. Specifically they are concerned 

about the use of the word “unenclosed” when describing the fugitive emissions 

control practices employed by a facility that is in compliance with the National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). 

• ABR asked for clarification on how stack testing data was used to develop 

emissions inputs for the risk assessment. 

• ABR requested to be able to review the inputs to as well as the results of the risk 

assessment as soon as possible. 

2. Discussion of rulemaking schedule: 

• EPA explained the process and different reviews that will take place before 

proposal. 

• EPA clarified that there will be no SAB review for this proposal. 

3. Current status of the revised NESHAP for the source category 
• ABR asked for clarification on how the language regarding startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction (SSM) will be written in the revised rule. They expressed 

concern over using emissions data obtained during normal operation to create 

limits for periods of SSM. 

• EPA asked for comments from ABR regarding a possible change to a production 

based lead emissions limit for the industry. ABR expressed that they would not 

support a production based limit and explained several reasons why. 

• ABR asked what forms of a fugitive emissions standard EPA was considering and 

expressed their support of an ambient lead monitoring approach. They also 

wished to point out that lead is a NAAQS pollutant, and that implementation of 

NAAQS is already underway.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 6D2023-1651 

Lower Tribunal No. 2022-MM-003186-A-O 

_____________________________ 

RACHEL MARIELY REYES,

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

Appeal from the County Court for Orange County. 

Faye L. Allen, Judge. 

July 30, 2024 

PER CURIAM. 

 AFFIRMED. 

STARGEL, SMITH and MIZE, JJ., concur. 

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4718 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4718

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulent dealings in 
       firearms and ammunition unlawful, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2020

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mr. Menendez) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulent dealings in 
       firearms and ammunition unlawful, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of 
Firearms Act''.

SEC. 2. FRAUDULENT DEALINGS IN FIREARMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) for any person--
                    ``(A) to import, manufacture, or sell a firearm or 
                ammunition by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, 
                representations, or promises; and
                    ``(B) to transmit or cause to be transmitted, by 
                means of wire, radio, or television communication in 
                interstate or foreign commerce, any communication 
                relating to the importation, manufacture, or sale 
                described in subparagraph (A).''.
    (b) Penalty.--Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, 
is amended by inserting ``(a)(10),'' before ``(f)''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 417.11 Continuing accuracy of license application; application for modification of license. ( a ) A launch operator must ensure the representations contained in its application are accurate for the entire term of the license. A launch operator must conduct a licensed launch and carry out launch safety procedures in accordance with its application.
( b ) After the FAA issues a launch license, a launch operator must apply to the FAA for modification of a launch license if— ( 1 ) A launch operator proposes to conduct a launch or carry out a launch safety procedure or operation in a manner that is not authorized by the license; or
( 2 ) Any representation contained in the license application that is material to public health and safety or safety of property would no longer be accurate and complete or would not reflect the launch operator's procedures governing the actual conduct of a launch. A representation is material to public health and safety or safety of property if it alters or affects the launch operator's launch plans or procedures, class of payload, orbital destination, type of launch vehicle, flight path, launch site, launch point, or any safety system, policy, procedure, requirement, criteria or standard.
( c ) A launch operator must prepare and file an application to modify a launch license under part 413 of this chapter. The launch operator must identify any part of its license or license application that a proposed modification would change or affect.
( d ) The FAA reviews all approvals and determinations required by this chapter to determine whether they remain valid in light of a proposed modification. The FAA approves a modification that satisfies the requirements of this part.
( e ) Upon approval of a modification, the FAA issues to a launch operator either a written approval or a license order modifying the license if a stated term or condition of the license is changed, added or deleted. A written approval has the full force and effect of a license order and is part of the licensing record.
( f ) The Administrator may determine that a modification to a license issued under this part must comply with the requirements in part 450 of this chapter. The Administrator will base the determination on the extent and complexity of the modification, whether the applicant proposes to modify multiple parts of the application, or if the application requires significant evaluation.
[Docket No. FAA-2000-7953, 71 FR 50537, Aug. 25, 2006, as amended by Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 417-6, 85 FR 79716, Dec. 10, 2020]
## Announcing an Open Meeting of the Board

                    TIME AND DATE:                     10:00 A.M., Wednesday, January 19, 2000.                 

                    PLACE:                     Board Room, Second Floor, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.                 

                    STATUS:                     The entire meeting will be open to the public.                 

                    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED DURING PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:                

- Final Rule: Reorganization of Finance Board Regulations

Proposed Rule: Calculation of REFCorp Obligation 

- Interim Final Rule: Amendments to Election Regulation

                    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:                     Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the Board, (202) 408-2837.                 

William W. Ginsberg, 

 Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 00-1167 Filed 1-13-00; 11:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6725-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4409 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4409

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 303 East Mississippi Avenue in Elwood, Illinois, as the ``Lawrence 
                  M. `Larry' Walsh Sr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LAWRENCE M. ``LARRY'' WALSH SR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 303 East Mississippi Avenue in Elwood, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Lawrence M. `Larry' Walsh Sr. Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lawrence 
M. `Larry' Walsh Sr. Post Office''.

            Passed the Senate December 3, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4409

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 303 East Mississippi Avenue in Elwood, Illinois, as the ``Lawrence 
                  M. `Larry' Walsh Sr. Post Office''.
```
EXHIBIT 99.3


                     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with this first amended annual report of Ultrapetrol
(Bahamas) Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December
31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

      This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, and not for any other purpose.


Date:  May 1, 2003


/s/ Felipe Menendez Ross
--------------------------------
Felipe Menendez Ross

Director, Chief Executive
Officer, and President

d401975_ex99-3.txt
J-S48013-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. SHAWN L. BURTON Appellant No. 1467 WDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order August 7, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0004017-1993 CP-02-CR-0004 276-1993

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DONOHUE, J., and WECHT, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 20, 2015 Appellant, Shawn L. Burton, appeals pro se from the PCRA court’s August 7, 2014 order denying his serial PCRA petiti on. We affirm. The PCRA court ultimately dismissed Appellant’s se rial PCRA petition as untimely; it should have dismissed the petition as premature . Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition while an appeal was pendi ng from the dismissal of Appellant’s prior PCRA petition, docketed at 1459 W DA 2013. See Commonwealth v. Burton , ___ A.3d ___, 2015 WL 5076284 (Pa. Super., filed August 25, 2015) ( en banc ). Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal in that case, filed on September 11, 2015, is curre ntly pending before our Supreme Court, docked in that Court at 367 WAL 2015

. It is well-settled that “when an appellant’s PCRA a ppeal is pending before a court, a subsequent PCRA petition cannot b e filed until theJ-S48013-15

- 2 -

resolution of review of the pending PCRA petition b y the highest state court in which review is sought, or upon the expiration o f the time for seeking such review.” Commonwealth v. Lark , 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000). Thus, Appellant’s serial PCRA petition was prematur ely filed and should have been dismissed as such. 1
Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/20/2015

____________________________________________
1 Appellant alleges in the current PCRA petition the newly discovered facts exception to the PCRA timebar – apparently based up on facts different than those alleged in his still pending petition. If App ellant chooses to pursue the instant petition after the resolution of review of his prior petition, the subsequent petition must be filed “within sixty days of the date of the order which finally resolves the previous PCRA petition, because this is the first ‘date the claim could have been presented.’” Larkin , 746 A.2d at 588 (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2)).
TRANSFER
      TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL CORP.




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 Transfer Technology International Corp.
      (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), I, Robert J. Calamunci, Chief Financial Officer and Chief
      Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(1)


The
      Report fully complies with 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/  Robert
                J. Calamunci
              Robert
                J. Calamunci
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              Chief
                Accounting Officer
              July
                28, 2008




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 furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.