alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PRD Appendix A: Food/Feed & Non-Food/Non-Feed Uses Considered in Registration Review Work PlanningTralkoxydim (121000) - Note: This is an aggregate report of registered uses for this chemical. Label data for chemicals withmore than one pesticide product are presented in aggregate form (i.e. each line of data may be a combination of data from oneor more pesticide).

Food (F) / Non-food ( N )Use Site Formulation DescA. I. Max AppRate/AppMax # Apps /CCA. I. MaxAppRate/CCMax #Apps /YearA. I. Max AppRate/YearMinimumRetreatmentIntervalMinimumReentryInterval PGI / PHI / PSI Allow Geo RestrictionsDisAllow GeoRestrictions LimitationsFBARLEYEMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE .24 lb / a NS .2504lb / a NS NS NS12 hrG01(30) || G83(45) || H01(60) ||H26(30) No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CPE || CSA(10) || CSV(2) || CWG || CWH || CWLG01(30) || G83(45) || H01(60) ||Current As Of Date : 01/14/2011FBARLEYGRANULAR .24 lb / a NS .25lb / a NS NS NS12 hrG01(30)||G83(45)||H01(60)||H26(30) No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CPE || CSA(10) || CSV(2) || CWG || CWH || CWLFTRITICALEEMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE .24 lb / a NS .2504lb / a NS NS NS12 hrG01(30) || G83(45) || H01(60) ||H26(30) No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CPE || CSA(10) || CSV(2) || CWG || CWH || CWLFWHEATEMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE .24 lb / a NS .2504lb / a NS NS NS12 hrG01(30) || G83(45) || H01(60) ||H26(30) No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CPE || CSA(10) || CSV(2) || CWG || CWH || CWLFWHEATGRANULAR .24 lb / a NS .25lb / a NS NS NS12 hrG01(30) || G83(45) || H01(60) ||H26(30) No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CPE || CSA(10) || CSV(2) || CWG || CWH || CWLNot SpecifiedLimitation Code Limitation DescriptionC (46)Do not apply through any type of irrigation systemG (01) __ day(s) pregrazing interval.C (SA) Do not apply when wind velocity is _____ mph or greater.C (SV) Do not apply when wind velocity is ___ mph or less.C (WG)G(83)__ day(s)prefeedinginterval.C (CB) __ months rotational/plant back crop restriction.C(46)Donotapplythroughanytypeofirrigationsystem.C (AU) Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below theDo not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal.C (DC) Do not apply when drift is likely to occur.C (PE) PPE (Protective Personal Equipment) language is found on the label. Please see issues report to readC (WH) Do not contaminate water by cleaning of equipment or disposal of equipment wash waters.Drift and runoff may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in neighboring areas.C (WL)( )y( ) gH (01) __ day(s) preharvest interval.H (26) __ day(s) preharvest interval (forage).Page 1 of 1
#### § 63.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes the requirements for issuing flight engineer and flight navigator certificates and the general operating rules for holders of those certificates.
#### Loomis *ads. -.*

ALBANY,

March, 1839.

Where, after the commencement of a suit and service of papers on the law agent of the defendant an attorney of this court, the latter makes a new appointment of another person as agent without apprising the agent first appointed of the second appointment, and the plaintiff subsequently serves papers on the agent first appointed, such service is good, and binding upon the defendant.

Motion by defendant to set aside report of referees, on the ground that neither a *replication*to a plea of payment, or a *notice of hearing*had been served. The defendant, who is an attorney, defends in person. Pending the suit he appointed' a new law agent in Albany, without notice to the first agent that his services were no longer required. The plaintiff’s attorney not being informed of the change, continued to serve papers on the old agent, who being also ignorant of the change, received and forwarded papers as usual, and among others, received the replication and notice of hearing in question. These papers, though forwarded did not reach the defendant.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

Parties are not bound to search the agency book *every time*they serve a paper. When these proceedings were commenced, Mr. Dean was the defendant’s law agent, and the plaintiff’s attorney was regular in continuing to serve papers upon him, so long as he acted as agent. If the defendant had advised Mr. Dean *642that he had appointed a new agent and no longer desired his gerv]-ceg> jy[ti Dean would not have received the papers, and would have told the plaintiff’s attorney of the change. The accident which has happened is chargeable to the defendant’s own neglect. But he swears to merits, and must be relieved on payment of costs.

Ordered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4281 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4281

 To require a report to Congress on certain efforts in connection with 
     the financial management systems of the Department of Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 22, 2020

 Mr. Grassley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require a report to Congress on certain efforts in connection with 
     the financial management systems of the Department of Defense.

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

SECTION 1. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON CERTAIN EFFORTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
              FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
              DEFENSE.

    (a) Report Required.--No later than 120 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
Congress a report on the progress of the Department of Defense in 
modernizing its financial management enterprise.
    (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall include 
following:
            (1) A description of the actions taken by the Department of 
        Defense as part of the implementation of the Digital 
        Modernization Strategy to modernize the data, architecture, and 
        systems comprising its financial management enterprise.
            (2) The name of each financial management system in use by 
        the Department, and an annotation of the data for which such 
        system is the official system of record.
            (3) The anticipated date of retirement for each system 
        named pursuant to paragraph (2) that is planned to be retired.
            (4) A summary of the retirement plan for any system that 
        will be retired, including the manner in which data in such 
        system will be transferred to a different system.
            (5) In the case of a system that is not planned for 
        retirement, a justification of the determination not to retire 
        such system.
            (6) The amount spent by the Department on operating and 
        maintaining financial management systems during the 5 fiscal 
        years ending with fiscal year 2020.
            (7) The amount spent by the Department on acquiring or 
        developing new financial management systems during such 5 
        fiscal years.
                                 <all>
```
#### Dixon *(an alleged slave) vs.*Allender *(claimant.)*

Question on the writ *de homine replegiando,*in the case of a *slave*escaped from the service of his master; and as to the proof necessary to be exhibited.

A writ *de homine replegiando*was sued out in this case by the alleged slave, and a motion was now made by the claimant to *quash*the writ, on the strength of the decision of this court in the case of *Jack, a negro man,*v. *Martin,*(12 *Wendell,*311.)

[679] *H. Dresser,*in opposition to the motion,

insisted that the certificate granted by the recorder in this case, to the claimant, was granted without such proof having been adduced as is required by the statute on this subject, *(Laws of the U. S. vol.*2, *p.*165, *passed 12th February,*1793,) and that therefore the question of the constitutionality of the act of this state allowing the suing out of a writ *de homine replegiando,*did not arise. The proof exhibited to the recorder was not taken before and certified by a magistrate of the state from whence the alleged slave was said to have escaped. This he contended was necessary, and without a certificate could not legally be granted. The language .of the *third section*of the act is, “ upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any such state or territory, that the person so seized or arrested doth, under the laws of the state or territory from which he or she fled, owe ser*357vice,” &c., it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate, &c. Language, he argued, could not be more explicit, requiring the proof to be taken *before*and certified *by*a magistrate of the state from which the alleged slave had escaped. In the case *offugitivesfromjustice,*provided for by the *first section*of the same act, it had never been doubted that the *affidavit*charging the offence alleged to have been committed, must be made *before*a magistrate of the state or territory from which the party was alleged to have fled; and the uniform construction had been, that the affidavit must be so taken; and he insisted that the phraseology of the third section demanded the same construction. If right in his construction of the statute, the writ *de homine replegiando,*he contended, ought not to be quashed.

The Court,

Nelson, Ch. J.

[680] presiding, directed the motion to he suspended until the next special term; in the mean time the attorney for the plaintiff to have leave to prepare and serve his declaration, and the attorney for the defendant to have leave to plead the proceedings had before the recorder under the act of congress, to which the plaintiff may *demur,*with the view to enter the formal judgment of this court, so that the cause may be removed to the court of dernier resort in this state, for a final decision upon the constitutional question involved in the motion now made; he further directed that a record be made up and presented to him for settlement previous to the entry of judgment thereon.
§ 406.133 Amendment of pleadings. ( a ) *Time.* A party must file with the Federal Docket Management System and serve on each other party any amendment to a complaint or an answer as follows: ( 1 ) Not later than 15 days before the scheduled date of a hearing, a party may amend a complaint or an answer without the consent of the administrative law judge.
( 2 ) Less than 15 days before the scheduled date of a hearing, the administrative law judge may allow amendment of a complaint or an answer only for good cause shown in a motion to amend.
( b ) *Responses.* The administrative law judge must allow a reasonable time, but not more than 20 days from the date of filing, for other parties to respond to an amendment to a complaint or answer.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-8607, 66 FR 2180, Jan. 10, 2001, as amended at 72 FR 68477, Dec. 5, 2007]
#### § 10.7 Waiver of rights.

Workers cannot waive, nor may contractors induce workers to waive, their rights under Executive Order 13658 or this part.
#### § 102.166 Additional administrative collection action.

Nothing contained in this subpart is intended to preclude the Agency from utilizing any other administrative or legal remedy which may be available.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11938]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Application

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application.

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

    The following applicant has applied for a permit to conduct certain 
activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to 
section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).

Permit Number TE 026515

    Applicant: Glen R. Gill, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, 
Michigan.
    The applicant requests a permit to take (harass) the Karner Blue 
Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) in southwestern Michigan within 
the Huron-Manistee National Forest. Activities are for in situ 
measurements of larvae to determine cohort survival rates to pupation. 
Results will aid in the enhancement of survival of the species in the 
wild.
    Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services 
Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, and 
must be received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
    Documents and other information submitted with this application are 
available for review by any party who submits a written request for a 
copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, 
Minnesota 55111-4056. Telephone: (612/713-5343); FAX: (612/713-5292).

    Dated: May 4, 2000.
Charles M. Wooley,
Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort 
Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. 00-11938 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
#### § 91.603 Aural speed warning device.

No person may operate a transport category airplane in air commerce unless that airplane is equipped with an aural speed warning device that complies with § 25.1303(c)(1).
#### § 29.391 General.

Each auxiliary rotor, each fixed or movable stabilizing or control surface, and each system operating any flight control must meet the requirements of §§ 29.395 through 29.399, 29.411, and 29.427.

[Amdt. 29-26, 55 FR 8002, Mar. 6, 1990, as amended by Amdt. 29-41, 62 FR 46173, Aug. 29, 1997]
#### Karl Sturz, Appellant and Respondent, *v.*Michael J. Leo, Respondent and Appellant.

Argued January 20, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*551
      *Talbot M. Malcolm*and *Earl A. Darr*for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.

*James C. Sweeney*and *James H. Cavanaugh*for defendant, respondent and appellant.

*552Judgment of the Appellate Division modified by striking out the items of $1,200 and $564.62, aggregating $1,764.62, with interest from July 1, 1932, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs. The Appellate Division had no power to increase a verdict reduced by stipulation of the plaintiff. Appeal by plaintiff dismissed, without costs. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Hubbs, J.
Notice: This opinion is su bject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and

Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COU RT OF APPEALS

No. 16

- BG

- 182

IN RE: RICHARD M. GUMMERE, Respondent. Bar Registration No. 421206 DDN: 34

- 16

BEFORE: Blackburne

- Rigsby, Associate Judge, and Farrell and Nebeker, Senior Judges.

ORDER (FILED

- May 12, 2016)

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction by consent, this

court ’ s March 16, 2016, order directing respondent to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed, the statement of respondent wherein he states he does not oppose the imposition of reciprocal discipline, and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has f ailed to file an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g), it is

ORDERED that Richard M. Gummere is hereby disbarred from the practice

of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010),

and In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent ’ s period of disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).

PER CURIAM 5/ 12 /16
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Alvah Hunter and George Fremmer, Appellants.

Submitted January 4, 1937;

decided January 12, 1937.

*Bernard W. Kearney, District Attorney,*for motion.

*Alvah Hunter*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.
AAM-10-294-E

Jun 23 2010

Exem ption No. Regul atory Docket No. FAA-2010-0579

Ms. Ann G. Rychlik Drug Program Manager American Helicopters, Inc.

10503 Wakeman Drive Manassas, VA 20110

Dear Ms. Rychlik:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted y our request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the con ditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 21, 2010, you petitioned the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of American Helicopters, Inc. ( American Hel icopters), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow American Helicopters, which is operating under sepa rate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing progra m.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for n ot publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register

because the requested exemption would not set a pr ecedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detriment al to American Helicopters.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumst ances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exem ption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operation s were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maint ain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separ ate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exem ption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the encl osed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 an d 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant American Helico pters, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow American Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive empl oyees under one testing program, subject to

the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of American Helicopters are subject to th e drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implem ented under the auspices of the American Helicopters part 135 operation, not un der part 91.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Dr. Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 NEON Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Louis R. Woodhill,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350,
as adopted pursuant to (S)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 result of operations of the
     Company.

/s/ Louis R. Woodhill
-------------------------------
Louis R. Woodhill
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
§ 29.613 Material strength properties and design values. ( a ) Material strength properties must be based on enough tests of material meeting specifications to establish design values on a statistical basis.
( b ) Design values must be chosen to minimize the probability of structural failure due to material variability. Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, compliance with this paragraph must be shown by selecting design values that assure material strength with the following probability— ( 1 ) Where applied loads are eventually distributed through a single member within an assembly, the failure of which would result in loss of structural integrity of the component, 99 percent probability with 95 percent confidence; and
( 2 ) For redundant structures, those in which the failure of individual elements would result in applied loads being safely distributed to other load-carrying members, 90 percent probability with 95 percent confidence.
( c ) The strength, detail design, and fabrication of the structure must minimize the probability of disastrous fatigue failure, particularly at points of stress concentration.
( d ) Design values may be those contained in the following publications (available from the Naval Publications and Forms Center, 5801 Tabor Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19120) or other values approved by the Administrator: ( 1 ) MIL—HDBK-5, “Metallic Materials and Elements for Flight Vehicle Structure”.
( 2 ) MIL—HDBK-17, “Plastics for Flight Vehicles”.
( 3 ) ANC-18, “Design of Wood Aircraft Structures”.
( 4 ) MIL—HDBK-23, “Composite Construction for Flight Vehicles”.
( e ) Other design values may be used if a selection of the material is made in which a specimen of each individual item is tested before use and it is determined that the actual strength properties of that particular item will equal or exceed those used in design.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424), sec. 6(c), Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-17, 43 FR 50599, Oct. 30, 1978; Amdt. 29-30, 55 FR 8003, Mar. 6, 1990]