alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Educational Systemic Reform (1765).                    

*Date and Time:*                         May 11-12, 2000; 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         Room 370, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kathleen Bergin or Celeste Pea, Program Directors, Division of Educational Systemic Reform, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 875 Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1682.                              ( print page 26241)    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate proposals for the Urban Systemic Program as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 2, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-11268  Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
### Support Block Basic Issue of Appendix 2: Sep 26/2013 

# A601-0627 Page 1 of 1 

### APPENDIX 2 The following data is required to manufact ure the Support Block tool if necessary, for bushing removals.
###### Editorial Note on Part 21

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

#### § 21.120 Responsibility of supplemental type certificate holders to provide written permission for alterations.

A supplemental type certificate holder who allows a person to use the supplemental type certificate to alter an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller must provide that person with written permission acceptable to the FAA.

[Doc. No. FAA-2003-14825, 71 FR 52258, Sept. 1, 2006]
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12


                      BRAND SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES CALCULATION
                       (In thousands except ratio amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Year Ended December 31

                                                                   2001             2000            1999
                                                                -----------      -----------     -----------
<S>                                                             <C>              <C>             <C>
EARNINGS:
   Pretax income (loss)                                         $     9,836      $       816     $    (1,863)
   Fixed charges                                                     29,096           27,607          23,833
    Accretion of preferred stock dividends                           (7,308)          (6,338)         (5,497)
                                                                -----------      -----------     -----------
           Earnings                                                  31,624           22,085          16,473
                                                                -----------      -----------     -----------
FIXED CHARGES:
   Interest expense                                                  20,797           20,414          17,758
   Interest portion of rental expense                                   991              855             578
   Accretion of preferred stock dividends                             7,308            6,338           5,497
                                                                -----------      -----------     -----------
           Total fixed charges                                  $    29,096      $    27,607     $    23,833
                                                                ===========      ===========     ===========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock
   dividends (1)                                                     1.1x             0.8x            0.7x
</TABLE>



(1)  For the purposes of calculating the ratio of earnings to fixed charges and
     preferred stock dividends, earnings represent income (loss) before income
     taxes plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense on all
     indebtedness plus the interest portion of rental expense on noncancelable
     leases, amortization of debt issuance costs and accretion of preferred
     stock dividends. The deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges for the
     years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999 were $5,522 and $7,360,
     respectively.
§ 93.59 General rules: International segment. ( a ) No person may operate an aircraft at an altitude between 1,200 feet MSL and 2,000 feet MSL in that portion of this segment lying north of the midchannel of Knik Arm.
( b ) Each person operating an airplane at a speed of more than 105 knots within this segment (except that part described in paragraph (a) of this section) shall operate that airplane at an altitude of at least 1,600 feet MSL until maneuvering for a safe landing requires further descent.
( c ) Each person operating an airplane at a speed of 105 knots or less within this segment (except that part described in paragraph (a) of this section) shall operate that airplane at an altitude of at least 900 feet MSL until maneuvering for a safe landing requires further descent.
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 23

- 2540

___________________________
Gabriela Ansurez

- Chavez

Petitioner

v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

Respondent

____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

____________
Submitted: February 7 , 2024 Filed: February 12, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________
Before SHEPHERD
, STRAS , and KOBES , Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Gabriela Ansurez

- Chavez missed her immigration hearing and was ordered
removed in absentia in 2003. Although s he challenges the decision not to reopen
the case 18 years later , w e deny the petition for review.-2- Despite her arguments to the contrary, the Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that she received notice of her hearing back in 2003. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) ; Diaz v. Lynch , 824 F.3d 758, 760 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) ( reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen under an abuse

- of

- discretion standard ). The agency sent a n otice to a ppear by certified mail and follow

- up notices by regular
mail to the address she provided

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) (authorizing service by mail)

. An “unsupported denial of receipt ” does not rebut the presumption that they
were delivered. Patel v. Holder , 652 F.3d 962, 969 (8th Cir. 2011) ( citation omitted) (addressing certified mail); see also Diaz , 824 F.3d at 760 (addressing regular mail); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B) ( stating that an alien who fails to provide a current
address is not entitled to written notice ).

As for the other issues she raises, they are harmless, see Aguilar v. Garland

, 60 F.4th 401, 407 (8th Cir. 2023) ; waived, see Chay

- Velasquez v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) ; unexhausted, see Essel v. Garland , 89 F.4th 686, 691 (8th Cir. 2023) ; or unreviewable, see Vue v. Barr , 953 F.3d 1054, 105 7– 58 (8th Cir. 2020)

. We accordingly deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Diana Ward and Evelyn Preston, Appellants.

(Argued October 19, 1936;

decided November 17, 1936.)

*616
      *Osmond K. Fraenkel, Carol King*and *Sidney E. Cohn*for appellants.

*Edward C. Maguire*and *George J. Poynton*for Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York et al., *amici curise.*

*Elias Lieberman*and *Elias Gartman*for International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union et al., *amici curise.*

*Sidney Elliott Cohn, Irving Robert Feinberg*and *Leonard B. Boudin*for Furriers’ Joint Council of New York, A. F. of L., et al., *amici curise.*

*Milton Friedman, Samuel Null, Emil Schlesinger*and *Matthew M. Levy*for International Fur Workers’ Union of United States and Canada et al., *amici curise.*

*Arthur Newman, David Sloane, Harold Dublirer, Joseph R. Brodsky, Edward Kuntz, Abraham Unger, Louis Goldberg, Joseph Tauber, Frank Scheiner, Joseph Glass, Harry Sacher*and *Mendel Lurie*for Local 802, American Federation of Musicians, et al., *amici curise.*

*William F. X. Geoghan, District Attorney (Edward H. Levine*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ. Dissenting: Lehman, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
Argued April 16,

affirmed June 26, 1928.

#### ROSE AITKENHEAD *v.*ANNA L. HOLMES.

(268 Pac. 765.)

For appellant there was a brief over the names of *Mr. Allen H. McGn,rtain*and *Mr. Donald E. Long,*with an oral argument by *Mr. George W. Gearhart.*

For respondent there was a brief over the name of *Messrs. Davis & Harris,*with an oral argument by *Mr. Paul B. Harris.*

BEAN, J.

At the appropriate times defendant filed a motion for a nonsuit, a motion for a directed verdict and a motion to set aside the verdict and judgment, on the ground that there was no testimony to support the same. These motions all raise the same question.

At the time of the trial defendant was a widow of the age of sixty-three years. Plaintiff was fifty *9years of age, and Alexander Aitkenhead, her former husband from whom she was then divorced, was of the age of forty-six years. Plaintiff and Aitkenhead were married February 11, 1918, and were divorced May 12, 1926. This action was filed October 27, 1926. The trial was had in March, 1927.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that beginning with the year 1922, the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully contrived with the intention of injuring the plaintiff and depriving her of the comfort, society, aid, support and assistance of her husband Alexander Aitkenhead, and by all the arts and means within her power defendant sought to win the love and affection of plaintiff’s husband by displaying great love and affection toward him, and by frequently fondling and kissing said Aitkenhead, by promising him money, and by frequently visiting and by being with him at his home and in accompanying him to various places; and as a result of said acts, arts, influences and solicitations, of defendant, she acquired for herself the love and affections of plaintiff’s husband.

That at all times prior thereto the plaintiff and her husband had lived happily and contented together; that the conduct of the defendant caused plaintiff’s husband to become completely estranged from plaintiff and to secure a divorce from plaintiff in June, 1926.

The answer contains the denial of the material allegations of the compaint, to a portion of which we have referred. The testimony in the case tended strongly to support the allegations of the complaint and to show that the acts of the defendant were committed maliciously and from improper motives, and with the desire and intent to alienate the affections of plain*10tiff’s husband from her, and that such acts were the controlling cause which produced an estrangement between her and her husband: *Hugh*v. *Holman,*110 Or. 415, 429 (223 Pac. 730, 31 A. L. R. 1108); *Pugsley*v. *Smyth,*98 Or. 448, 467 (194 Pac. 686); *Roberts*v. *Cohen,*104 Or. 177, 189 (206 Pac. 295).

Only a question of fact is presented upon this appeal. The verdict is amply supported by the tes-1 timony so as to leave little room for argument. Un-¡ der these circumstances the court is not authorized! to disturb the verdict.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Appirmed.

Rand, C. J., and Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.
§ 25.975 Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor vents. ( a ) *Fuel tank vents.* Each fuel tank must be vented from the top part of the expansion space so that venting is effective under any normal flight condition. In addition— ( 1 ) Each vent must be arranged to avoid stoppage by dirt or ice formation;
( 2 ) The vent arrangement must prevent siphoning of fuel during normal operation;
( 3 ) The venting capacity and vent pressure levels must maintain acceptable differences of pressure between the interior and exterior of the tank, during— ( i ) Normal flight operation;
( ii ) Maximum rate of ascent and descent; and
( iii ) Refueling and defueling (where applicable);
( 4 ) Airspaces of tanks with interconnected outlets must be interconnected;
( 5 ) There may be no point in any vent line where moisture can accumulate with the airplane in the ground attitude or the level flight attitude, unless drainage is provided;
( 6 ) No vent or drainage provision may end at any point— ( i ) Where the discharge of fuel from the vent outlet would constitute a fire hazard; or
( ii ) From which fumes could enter personnel compartments; and
( 7 ) Each fuel tank vent system must prevent explosions, for a minimum of 2 minutes and 30 seconds, caused by propagation of flames from outside the tank through the fuel tank vents into fuel tank vapor spaces when any fuel tank vent is continuously exposed to flame.
( b ) *Carburetor vapor vents.* Each carburetor with vapor elimination connections must have a vent line to lead vapors back to one of the fuel tanks. In addition— ( 1 ) Each vent system must have means to avoid stoppage by ice; and
( 2 ) If there is more than one fuel tank, and it is necessary to use the tanks in a definite sequence, each vapor vent return line must lead back to the fuel tank used for takeoff and landing.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2014-0500, Amdt. No. 25-143, 81 FR 41207, June 24, 2016]
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company for the period ended September 30, 2004, I, Anthony J. Gould, ExecutiveVice President, Chief Financial and Chief Accounting Officer of  the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002  that:

 

(1)           such QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2004,fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           the informationcontained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the periodended September 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Western Sierra Bancorp.

 

 
| Dated: November 4, 2004 |                                    |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                    |
|                    | /s/ Anthony J. Gould                    |   |
|                    | Chief Financial and  Accounting Officer |   |
|                         |                                         |  |  |  |  |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund XII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                              
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive
Officer May 13, 2005





|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                              
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial
Officer May 13, 2005
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0360 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0360

**96/360/EC: Commission Decision of 5 June 1996 authorizing Ireland to adjust the method for calculating the somatic cell count in cows' milk (Only the English text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 138 , 11/06/1996 P. 0025 - 0026 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 5 June 1996 authorizing Ireland to adjust the method for calculating the somatic cell count in cows' milk (Only the English text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (96/360/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products (1), as last amended by Directive 94/71/EC (2), and in particular Annex A, Chapter IV, A (1) and (2) thereto,

Whereas pursuant to the terms of Directive 92/46/EEC, the method for calculating the geometric average of the somatic cell count in raw milk can be adjusted when the production level varies greatly during the low lactation period;

Whereas milk production is very low in Ireland from November to February, which results in an average somatic cell count during the period that exceeds the counts fixed by Directive 92/46/EEC; whereas these excesses have a physiological basis and cannot be ascribed to a disease of the udder;

Whereas the method for calculating the results should be adjusted to take account of this seasonal variation in production in Ireland;

Whereas Ireland has proposed an alternative calculation method that weights the geometric averages of the somatic cell count during the low lactation period; whereas this method ensures the quality of the milk collected in Ireland during this time of the year;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

During the period from November of one year to February of the following year, Ireland is hereby authorized to use for calculating the somatic cell count in raw cows' milk provided for in Annex A, Chapter IV, A (1) and (2) to Directive 92/46/EEC a calculation method that involves weighting each month's results by a coefficient. The coefficient is obtained by multiplying the milk production level recorded each month during the period by 50 % of the average monthly value of the milk production recorded from April to September prior to the start of the period in question.

Article 2

This Decision shall be reviewed two years following its adoption on the basis of a report presented to the Commission by the Irish authorities.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to Ireland.

Done at Brussels, 5 June 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 14. 9. 1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 368, 31. 12. 1994, p. 33.
#### BRAUN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

[80 C. Cls. 211; 295 U. S. 760]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court June 3, 1935.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ralph Perez, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 849]

—Judgment, Supreme *56Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered on or about March 6, 1997, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.
#### AMPLUS STORAGE BATTERY CO. v. UNITED STATES

[67 C.Cls. 711; 291 U.S. 683]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court March 19, 1934.