alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 298.3 Classification. ( a ) There is hereby established a classification of air carriers, designated as “air taxi operators,” which directly engage in the air transportation of persons or property or mail or in any combination of such transportation and which: ( 1 ) Do not directly or indirectly utilize large aircraft in air transportation;
( 2 ) Do not hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity and do not engage in scheduled passenger operations as specified in paragraph (b) of this section;
( 3 ) Have and maintain in effect liability insurance coverage in compliance with the requirements set forth in part 205 of this chapter and have and maintain a current certificate of insurance evidencing such coverage on file with the Department;
( 4 ) If operating in foreign air transportation or participating in an interline agreement, subscribe to Agreement 18900 (OST Form 4523 or OST Form 4507) and comply with all other requirements of part 203 of this chapter; and
( 5 ) Have registered with the Department in accordance with subpart C of this part.
( b ) There is hereby established a classification of air carriers, designated as “commuter air carriers,” which directly engage in the air transportation of persons, property or mail, and which: ( 1 ) Do not directly or indirectly utilize large aircraft in air transportation;
( 2 ) Do not hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity;
( 3 ) Carry passengers on at least five round trips per week on at least one route between two or more points according to its published flight schedules that specify the times, days of the week, and places between which those flights are performed;
( 4 ) Have and maintain in effect liability insurance coverage in compliance with the requirements set forth in part 205 of this chapter and have and maintain a current certificate of insurance evidencing such coverage on file with the Department;
( 5 ) Have and maintain in effect and on file with the Department a signed counterpart of Agreement 18900 (OST Form 4523) and comply with all other requirements of part 203 of this chapter; and
( 6 ) Hold a Commuter Air Carrier Authorization issued in accordance with subpart E of this part.
( c ) A person who does not observe the conditions set forth in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section shall not be an air taxi operator or commuter air carrier within the meaning of this part with respect to any operations conducted while such conditions are not being observed, and during such periods is not entitled to any of the exemptions set forth in this part.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the use in this Annual Report [Form 40-F] of CGI Group Inc. [the Company] of our report dated November 27, 2012
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of September 30, 2012, 2011 and October 1, 2010 and for the years ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 included herein and our report dated November 27, 2012 with respect to
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2012.

We also consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statements [Form S-8 Nos. 333-112021, 333-13350, 333-66044, 333-74932, 333-146175 and 333-177013] pertaining to the Companys stock option plans of our reports dated November 27, 2012 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of the Company as of September 30, 2012, 2011 and October 1, 2010 and for the years ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 included herein and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as
of September 30, 2012.



|                  |  |  |                                    | 
|----------------- |  |  | ---------------------------------- | 
|Montréal, Canada  |  |  | Ernst & Young LLP                  | 
|December 20, 2012 |  |  | Chartered Professional Accountants |
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JASON CARL DASCOTT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3463

[December 26, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Daliah Weiss, Judge; 

L.T. Case Nos. 1998CF012923AXXXMB and 2016CF01410AXXXMB.

Jason C. Dascott, Wewahitchka, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 431.57 Information requirements for payload reentry review. A person requesting reentry review of a particular payload or payload class must identify the following: ( a ) Payload name or class and function;
( b ) Physical characteristics, dimensions, and weight of the payload;
( c ) Payload owner and operator, if different from the person requesting the payload reentry review;
( d ) Type, amount, and container of hazardous materials, as defined in § 401.5 of this chapter, and radioactive materials in the payload;
( e ) Explosive potential of payload materials, alone and in combination with other materials found on the payload or RLV during reentry;
( f ) Designated reentry site(s); and
( g ) Method for securing the payload on the RLV.
§ 25.755 Hulls. ( a ) Each hull must have enough watertight compartments so that, with any two adjacent compartments flooded, the buoyancy of the hull and auxiliary floats (and wheel tires, if used) provides a margin of positive stability great enough to minimize the probability of capsizing in rough, fresh water.
( b ) Bulkheads with watertight doors may be used for communication between compartments.
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 21st day of
February, 2007.


                                                       /s/Stephen W. McKessy
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40517

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL JOSEPH DERROW,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:98-CR-6-9

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Joseph Derrow, federal prisoner # 03199-286, seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his

motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000). Derrow also moves for the appointment of counsel. Derrow

previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, challenging his conviction and

sentence for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute crack cocaine and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-40517

2

possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. His § 2255 motion was

denied, and his motion for a certificate of appealability was denied by this court.

In order to obtain leave to proceed IFP, Derrow must show that he is a

pauper, and he must raise a nonfrivolous issue. See Jackson v. Dallas Police

Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). Derrow argues that his sentence is

unconstitutional under Apprendi, his counsel was ineffective in failing to raise

the issue on appeal, and the district court erroneously denied his motion.

Derrow’s motion filed in the district court was an unauthorized motion which the

district court was without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early,

27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Derrow’s appeal is without arguable merit and

is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, Derrow’s request for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. His

motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### ROCOUR v MILLER CARTAGE CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9429.

Decided June 10, 1929

Bernsteen & Bernsteen, Cleveland, for Racour.

Dustin, McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart, Cleveland for Cartage Co.

VICKERY, PJ.

Now while the defendant did not plead contributory negligence in the usual form, the doctrine of contributory negligence was brought into the case by the evidence, and under the authorities of this court and the Supreme Court, where contributory negligence is brought into a case either through the pleadings and evidence, or by the evidence alone, it is the duty of the trial court to charge on the question of contributory negligence; and so the court did charge on negligence and contributory negligence, and in the main the court properly charged. He told the jury that if the plaintiff’s evidence showed that he was guilty of contributory negligence, the burden was upon him to remove that presumption so they would start out equal and then he charged that the burden of proof to show contributory negligence was upon the part of the defendant and he must show that by the preponderance of the evidence.

It is claimed, however, that there were inconsistent charges submitted to the jury on the question of contributory negligence and on the question of negligence itself. But upon reading the whole charge together, we do not think that it could have misled the jury in any way. The court did charge the jury that in order to have contributory negligence operate as a de*440fense, it must be shown that the plaintiff’s negligence, however slight, contributed to the injury. We think that is the law, if such evidence tended proximately to help cause the injury, even though the defendant might have been guilty of negligence which proximately caused the injury. That is, if the two combined, if the two were concurrent, — the negligence of the plaintiff .and the negligence of the defendant,— both proximately caused the injury, why, then, of course the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover, and we think that was fairly submitted to the jury, although the court may have used a little unhappy language to express his ideas.

The jury found for the defendant, and we cannot say that there is such error in the charge that would warrant a reversal of this case, nor can we say that it is so manifestly against the weight of the evidence that we would be warranted in disturbing it.

The verdict of the jurv will, therefore, be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Nicholas Malavassi, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Joseph Romano, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*George Stoddard, Jr., Appellant.

Submitted November 23, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*Louis Baron*and *Henry Klauber*for appellants.

*Thomas J. Walsh, District Attorney (Thomas K. Hall*of counsel), for respondent.

In each case, order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             746
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       50
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,796
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           896
<OTHER-SE>                                         900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,796
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (366)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (366)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (366)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0361 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0361

**97/361/EC: Council Decision of 27 May 1997 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks **

*
Official Journal L 152 , 11/06/1997 P. 0015 - 0015 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 27 May 1997 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks (97/361/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof, in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228 (2),

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas the conclusion of the Agreement negotiated between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks will facilitate the improvement of the conditions for the marketing of spirit drinks on the respective markets of the European Community and the United Mexican States, in accordance with the principles of equality, mutual benefit and reciprocity; whereas it is therefore desirable to approve the said Agreement;

Whereas, in order to facilitate the implementation of certain provisions of the Agreement, the Commission should be authorized to make the necessary technical adjustments in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks (1),

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks and the Exchange of Letters relating thereto are hereby approved on behalf of the European Community.

The texts of the instruments referred to in the first paragraph are attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement.

Article 3

The President of the Council shall make the notification provided for in Article 22 (1) of the Agreement (2).

Article 4

For the purposes of Article 18 of the Agreement, the Commission is hereby authorized to conclude the necessary acts amending the Agreement, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89.

Article 5

The Commission, assisted by the representatives of the Member States, shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee referred to in Article 17 of the Agreement.

Article 6

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 27 May 1997.

For the Council

The President

W. SORGDRAGER

(1) OJ No L 160, 12. 6. 1989, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3378/94 (OJ No L 366, 31. 12. 1994, p. 1).

(2) The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
EXHIBIT 32.1 AND 32.2 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF FIRST CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SECTION 1350 OF 18 U.S.C. 63.
 
 
 I, Alex Genin, the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of First Capital International, Inc. hereby certify that First Capital International, Inc.'s periodic report on Form 10-Q and the financial statements contained therein fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d) and that information contained in the periodic report on Form 10-Q and the financial statements contained therein fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of First Capital International, Inc.
 
 
 Date:  August 4, 2009
/s/ Alex GeninChief Executive Officer andActing Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 73.1 Applicability.

The airspace that is described in subpart B and subpart C of this part is designated as special use airspace. These parts prescribe the requirements for the use of that airspace.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                 

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​. 

                    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 26, 2000.                           ( print page 30411)    

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston**                     (Richard Walker, Community Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02106-2204:                 

*1. Washington Trust Bancorp, Inc.,*                     Westerly, Rhode Island; to acquire Phoenix Investment Management Company, Inc., Providence, Rhode Island, and thereby engage in investment advisory services consistent with section 225.28(b)(6) of Regulation Y.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 8, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-11879 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### Johnnie STEPHENSON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5728

482 S.W. 2d 118

Opinion delivered July 3, 1972

*Louis W\„ Rostech,*for appellant.

*Ray Thornton,*Atty. Gen., by: *Milton Lueken,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Johnnie Stephenson, charged with the April 1, 1967, murder of Lee Jackson Palmer, pleaded guilty to second degree murder on July 22, 1968, and was sentenced to serve 21 years. In his petition under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, and in his testimony at the resultant hearing, appellant asserted that, “his attorney entered the plea of guilty without his approval, and thus denied him the right to a jury trial; that he was not in fact guilty of killing anyone at any time; that he was ignorant of what his attorney was doing in his behalf; and he was never consulted about pleading guilty.” From denial of the petition comes this appeal, urging that his right to a jury trial under the 14th Amendment was violated.

Appellant’s argument is primarily centered on the fact that appellant had only a third-grade education, could not read without glasses, was very hard of hearing, and thus, the assumption of an ability to comprehend *1001the discussions his attorney had with him prior to the guilty plea is purely speculative.

Review of his testimony at the Rule 1 hearing, (at which he stated that he wanted a "time-cut” and the court advised him that was not the purpose of the hearing, but to determine whether the conviction should be set aside), as well as the transcript of the hearing on his plea of guilty, an exhibit in the record, amply supports the trial court’s dismissal of the petition. For example, at the hearing on the guilty plea, the court offered to allow appellant to remain in the county jail until after August 2, when he was to receive his hearing aid from Rehabilitation Service, until appellant explained, “If I got time coming, I can’t get it through the Rehabilitation.” This testimony followed discovery by the court that it was not necessary to “holler” at appellant because he could read lips. After formal sentencing by the court as follows:

> “It is the judgment and sentence of this Court that you be taken by the Sheriff of this County and delivered to the Department of Correction, there to serve at hard labor for a period of 21 years. It is the further direction of this Court that you serve at least a third of that sentence, or seven years, before becoming eligible for parole.”

The Court then asked appellant, “Tell me what I said.” Appellant replied, “You said I would have at least seven years before I become eligible for parole on 21 years.” This pretty well demonstrates appellant’s comprehension of the proceedings.

Affirmed.