alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Soil Conservation Assessments

July 9, 1958.

John Sullivan, Deputy Attorney General, and Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General,

—You have requested an interpretation of section 9(10) of the Soil Conservation Law of May 15, 1945, P. L. 547, 3 PS §857, which provides, with respect to soil conservation districts, as follows:

“The directors of a soil conservation district shall have the following powers in addition to those granted in other sections of this act: . . .

> “ (10) Asa condition to extending any benefits under this act, or to the performance of work upon any lands not owned or controlled by the Commonwealth or any of its agencies, the board of directors may require contributions in money, services, materials or otherwise to any operations conferring such benefits and may require land occupiers to enter into and perform *648such agreements or covenants as to the long term use of such lands as will tend to prevent or control erosion thereon.”

You state that many farmers fear this language may commit them against their will, if they enter into the program, to make future contributions “in money, services, materials or otherwise”. They are also concerned that they may be required in the future to practice erosion control methods not now in effect.

It is our understanding that these contributions are not now required under the agreement the farmer signs, and have never been required in the 20 years that soil conservation districts have operated in Pennsylvania. Nor have farmers ever been required to adopt new conservation practices not provided for in the agreements which they signed.

The Soil Conservation Law in no manner authorizes soil conservation districts to require any contributions, or any changes in farming methods, beyond those which the farmer has agreed to in his contract with them. -What this particular section is designed to do is to permit the soil conservation district, if it finds such action necessary, ,to make new contracts with the farmer in which such contributions or farming changes will be required. This has no effect upon contracts already in existence. The farmer is not bound to enter into such new contract unless he wishes to do so. Unless he does so, of course, he will not receive any new advantages contained in the new contract.

We are of the opinion, and you are accordingly advised, that the farmer, therefore, may feel assured, in signing the form of contract now in effect, that he will not thereby be opening .the door under section 9(10) of the Act of May 15,1945, P. L. 547, 3 PS §857, to..assessment or a new set of rules. He is bound only to what.he has voluntarily agreed to do in return for the soil building aid he receives.
1 NO . 03

- 15

- 00076

- CR EVERTON ROXROY BAILEY § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS § v. § THIRD DISTRICT § STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN, TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF NOW COMES THE STATE OF TEXA S, Appellee, by and through her Assistant District At torney , John C. Prezas, and moves the Court, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(d), to extend the deadline for filing the State’s brief

. In support of its motion, the State would show the Court the following:
1. The State’s Brief in this case i s due on November 2, 2015.
2. No previous extensions of time have been requested by the State

. 3. Appellant’s brief was filed in this Court on October 1, 2015

. 4. Mr. Prezas gave oral argument before this Court on October 22, 2015 in 03

- 14

- 00622

- CR Greg Kelley vs. The State of Texas. 5. Mr. Prezas s pent time preparing to represent the State in a live hearing with multiple witnesses before a visiting judge on an application for habeas corpus on October 30, 2015, in 92

- 435

- K277A State vs. Troy Dale Mansfield

. This hearing was ultimately cancelled unexpectedly due to flooding preventing visiting Judge ACCEPTED 03-15-00076-CR 7644863 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/2/2015 3:39:18 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2 Shaver from attending the hearing.
6. Mr. Prezas expects to file t he State’s brief in State vs. Rex Allen Nisbett 03

- 14

- 00402

- CR on November 10, 2015.
7. Mr. Prezas expects to present a brief on November 17, 2015, and oral argument on November 19, 2015, on the constitutionality of the Penal Code section 33.021(c),(d) in res ponse to a pre

- trial writ of habeas corpus in 15

- 0431

- K368A

. 8. Mr. Prezas anticipates filing the State’s brief in 03

- 14

- 00585

- CR State vs. Leovardo Cantos prior to the November 19, 2015 , deadline.
9. Mr. Prezas anticipates filing the State’s brief in 03

- 14

- 0080 2

- CR State vs. Pedro Elizondo Martinez prior to the December 8, 2015, deadline.
10. Mr. Prezas anticipates being out of the off ice for portions of November and December due to the closure of childcare for his young children during the Thanksgiving and Christmas Holiday periods.
11. For the foregoing reasons, The State respectfully requests that the deadline for filing its brief in the above stated cause be extended for an add itional six ty four (64 ) days from the current due date of November 2, 2015 , to January 5 , 201 6

.3 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State of Texas respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion for an extension of time and extend the State’s deadli ne to file its brief to January 5 , 2016

. Respectfully submitted, Jana Duty District Attorney Williamson County, Texas /s/ John C. Prezas John C. Prezas Assistant District Attorney State Bar Number 24041722 405 Martin Luther King #1 Georgetown, Texas 7 8626 (512) 943

- 1248 (512) 943

- 1255 (fax) jprezas@wilco.org

Certificate of Service This is to certify that on November 2 , 2015 , a copy of the foregoing mot ion ha s been s ent to A ppellant ’ s attorney of record , D al Ruggles, 1103 Nueces St., Austin, TX, 78701 , by eservice at dal @ ruggleslaw .com . /s/ John C. Prezas John C. Prezas
§ 91.1429 CAMP: Required inspection personnel. ( a ) No person who maintains an aircraft under a CAMP may use any person to perform required inspections unless the person performing the inspection is appropriately certificated, properly trained, qualified, and authorized to do so.
( b ) No person may allow any person to perform a required inspection unless, at the time the work was performed, the person performing that inspection is under the supervision and control of the chief inspector.
( c ) No person may perform a required inspection if that person performed the item of work required to be inspected.
( d ) Each program manager must maintain, or must ensure that each person with whom it arranges to perform required inspections maintains, a current listing of persons who have been trained, qualified, and authorized to conduct required inspections. The persons must be identified by name, occupational title, and the inspections that they are authorized to perform. The program manager (or person with whom it arranges to perform its required inspections) must give written information to each person so authorized, describing the extent of that person's responsibilities, authorities, and inspectional limitations. The list must be made available for inspection by the Administrator upon request.
#### The People, *ex relatione*Coulter, *vs.*New-York C. P.

ALBANY,

June, 1838.

■In a suit against the maker and endorser of a promissory note, sued jointly under the statute, where a general verdict is found for the defendants, if on a motion for a new trial, the court are of opinion that the verdict is wrong as to the maker, but right as to the endorser, they should permit the verdict to stand as to the latter, and allow him to enter judgment thereon in his favor, and grant a new trial only as to the maker; and when instead of doing so, a court of common pleas set aside the verdict as to both defendants, this court awarded a mandamus directing the C. F. to vacate the order for a new trial as it regarded the endorser, and to proceed and render judgment in his favor.

Motion for *mandamus.*Prime brought an action in the New-York common pleas against Plympton, the maker, and Coulter, the endorser, of a promissory note. The defendants pleaded severally. The defence was *usury,*and the jury found a verdict for the defendants. On a case made by the plaintiff, the cotpmon pleas set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial,.on the ground that this was business paper, *and, valid against the maker,*notwithstanding the alleged usury in negotiating the note to the plaintiff. Coulter, the endorser, insists that the verdict, being right as to him, the court should have allowed it to stand, as it respected him, and only have ordered a new trial as against the maker; and on this ground he prays a *mandamus.*

*A. J. Colvin,*moved *ex parte.*

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

We have given a liberal construction to the statutes authorizing the holder to proceed against several parties to a bill or note in one action *119I think the court should have ordered a new trial as against the maker only, and allowed the endorser to proceed to judgment on the verdict in his favor. instead of bringing separate suits, as was necessary at the common law. Statutes, sess. of 1832, p. 489, and sess, of 1835, p. 248, The plaintiff may sever the action and proceed to judgment against one party, when an obstacle is interposed by another; and I think the statute should be so construed as to authorize the severance of the action whenever that course is necessary to protect the rights of one or more of the defendants. Had the indoi~ser been sued alone, the verdict in his favor would not have been disturbed. As I understand the opinion of the court below, the only ground for ordering a new trial so far as he is concerned is, that he was sued jointly with the maker, who made out no defence.

Alternative mandamus granted.
§ 437.59 Key flight-safety event limitations. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76727 , Sept. 19, 2024.
( a ) A permittee must conduct any key flight-safety event so that the reusable suborbital rocket's instantaneous impact point, including its expected dispersion, is over an unpopulated or sparsely populated area. At a minimum, a key flight-safety event includes: ( 1 ) Ignition of any primary rocket engine,
( 2 ) Any staging event, or
( 3 ) Any envelope expansion.
( b ) A permittee must conduct each reusable suborbital rocket flight so that the reentry impact point does not loiter over a populated area.
Exhibit 24.4

                               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 10th day of
March, 2004.





                                                     /s/James R. Jones
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30387

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AL–53–200019(B); FRL–6605–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Alabama:

Approval of Revisions to the Alabama

State Implementation Plan:

Transportation Conformity Interagency

Memorandum of Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a revision to the Alabama State

Implementation Plan (SIP) that contains

transportation conformity rules. If EPA

approves this transportation conformity

SIP revision, the State will be able to

implement and enforce the Federal

transportation conformity requirements

at the State level per regulations on

Conformity to State or Federal

Implementation Plans of Transportation

Plans, Programs, and Projects

Developed, Funded or Approved Under

Title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal Transit

Laws. EPA’s proposed action would

streamline the conformity process and

allow direct consultation among

agencies at the local levels. EPA’s

proposed approval is limited to certain

regulations on (Transportation

Conformity).

In the Final Rules Section of this

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

Alabama SIP revision, under sections

110(k) and 176 of the Clean Air Act, as

a direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial submittal and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to this action, no further

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this document. Any parties interested in

commenting on this document should

do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before June 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to Kelly Sheckler at the EPA,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Copies of the state submittal are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303–8960. Attn: Kelly Sheckler, (404)

562–9042.

Alabama Department of Natural

Resources, Environmental Protection

Division, Air Protection Division, 4244

International Parkway, Suite 136,

Atlanta, Georgia 30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly Sheckler at 404/562–9042, E-mail:

Sheckler.Kelly@epa.gov.

Dated: April 28, 2000.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 00–11814 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
sd

- 684572 Writer’s Direct Contact +1 (858) 720

. 7932 WOConnor @mofo.com 12531 HIGH BLUFF DRI VE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNI A 92130

- 2040

TELEPHONE: 858.720.5100 FACSIMILE: 858.720.5125

WWW.MOFO.COM M O R R I S O N & F O E R S T E R LLP B E I J I N G , B E R L I N , B R U S S E L S , D E N V E R , H O N G K O N G , L O N D O N , L O S A N G E L E S , N E W Y O R K , N O R T H E R N V I R G I N I A , P A L O A L T O , S A C R A M E N T O , S A N D I E G O , S A N F R A N C I S C O , S H A N G H A I , S I N G A P O R E , T O K Y O , W A S H I N G T O N , D

. C

.



### July 2 2 , 2016

Via First Class Mail

Director John S. Duncan Flight Standards Services Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591

Re: Airphrame, Inc., Exemption No. 12569, Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 2409

Dear Director Duncan : I am writing to inform you that in light of the August 29, 2016 effective date of Part 107, Airphrame Inc., holder of FAA Exemption Number 12569 (and 12569A), has discont inued commercial sUAS operations in order to make the necessary preparations to transition to Part 107. Therefore, to avoid any confusion as to the requirements for commercial operations, Airphrame hereby relinquishes and surrenders the above grant of exe mption by the FAA, effective immediately. No future commercial sUAS operations will be conducted under the exemption by Airphrame or any third party operator. Future commercial operations, if any, will be conducted by Airphrame pursuant to Part 107 after it goes into effect next month. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

William V. O’Connor
solo Technische Mitteilung 

Seite 1 von 2 Service Bulletin Kl.EINMOTOREN GMBH Page 1 of 2 Postfach 60 01 52 . D 71050 Sindelfinaen Nr. 4603 -13 

Kennblatt Nr. 

Type Certificate Data Sheet No. 

4603 Ausgabe 6 vom 23. September 2005 

4603 Issue 6, September 23rd, 2005 

Gegenstand 

Subjekt 

Dringlichkeit 

Urgency 

Vorgang 

Condition 

Maf1nahmen 

Actions 

Material 

Material 

Kontrolle der Achse 20 31 211 auf Risse und gegebenenfalls 

Austausch des T eils. 

Motoren 2 350 C Eingebaut in Flugzeuge DG 1 OOOT 

Check of the axle 20 31 211 for cracks and if necessary replacement 

of the part. 

Engines 2 350 C installed in aircrafts DG 1 000 T 

Bei nachster 25 Std Kontrolle jedoch spatestens 6 Monate nach 

Veroffentlichung der entsprechenden AD. 

With the next 25 h inspection but latest 6 month after release of the 

corresponding AD. 

In zwei Fallen trat ein Bruch der Exzenterachse des Riemengetriebes 

auf, der durch Materialfehler verursacht wurde. 

In two occasions the excentric axle of the reduction gear broke caused 

by material errors. 

Ausbau der kompletten Riemenscheibe mit der Achse und 

DurchfOhrung einer RissprOfung im Obergangsbereich der 

exzentrischen Achse. Wenn Risse erkennbar sind ist die komplette 

Baugruppe ins Werk zum Tausch der Achse einzusenden. 

Als RissprOfungsverfahren konnen eine Magnetpulver RissprOfung 

nach DIN EN ISO 9934 oder das Farbeindringverfahren nach EN ISO 

3452 angewendet werden. 

Removal of the complete pulley with the axle and carrying out a crack 

detection in the transition region of the eccentric shaft. If cracks can be 

found the compete module has to be sent to the manufacturer for 

replacing the axle. The crack detection can be a magnetic particle 

crack detection according to DIN EN ISO 9934 or a dye penetrant 

crack detection according to EN ISO 3452. 

Wenn erforderlich Achse 20 31 211 

Siehe Explosionszeichnung unten 

If necessary axle 20 31 211. See exploded view below 

ersetzte Ausgabe Verantw. Fachgebiet 

W. Emmerich 

MPL 

A. Hedrich 
solo Technische Mitteilung Seite 2 von 2 Service Bulletin KLEINMOTOREN GMBH Page 2 of 2 

Postfach 60 01 52 D 71050 Sindelflngen Nr. 4603-13 

Hinweis 

Note 

Pos Nr. Teil Nr. 

Pos No. Part No. 

1 20 15 220 

2 00 50110 

3 20 31211 

4 00 28143 

Die Maf1nahmen mOssen in einem zertifizierten lnstandhaltungsbetrieb 

durchgefOhrt werden. Alternativ kann die komplette Baugruppe zum 

Motorhersteller (SOLO) gesendet werden. 

The measures have to be performed in a certified maintenance 

organization. As alternative the complete module can be sent to the 

engine manufacturer (SOLO). 

4 2 2 3 

Menge Benennung 

Quantity Description 

Keilriemenscheibe 

1 belt pulley 

Kugellager - 25 x 52 x 15 - 6205 - 2 RS 

2 bearing 

Achse 

1 shaft 

GKT.MU. M20 x 1,5 937 

1 hex nut 

ersetzte Ausgabe Verantw. Fachgebiet 

W. Emmerich 

Anmerkung 

Annotation 

MPL 

A. Hedrich
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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, Brian D. Helman, Chief
Financial 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/ Brian D. Helman
-------------------------------
Brian D. Helman
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
§ 102.141 Notice of meetings; public announcement and publication. ( a ) A public announcement setting forth the time, place, and subject matter of meetings or portions of meetings closed to public observation pursuant to the provisions of § 102.139(a) will be made at the earliest practicable time.
( b ) Except for meetings closed to public observation pursuant to the provisions of § 102.139(a), the Agency will publicly announce each meeting to be held at least 7 days before the scheduled date of the meeting. The announcement will specify the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting, whether it is to be open to public observation or closed, and the name, address, and phone number of an Agency official designated to respond to requests for information about the meeting. The 7-day period for advance notice may be shortened only upon a determination by a majority of the Board Members who will participate in the meeting that Agency business requires that such meeting be called at an earlier date, in which event the public announcements will be made at the earliest practicable time. A record of the vote to schedule a meeting at an earlier date will be kept and made available to the public.
( c ) Within 1 day after the vote to close a meeting, or any portion of a meeting, pursuant to the provisions of § 102.139(b), the Agency will make publicly available a full written explanation of its action closing the meeting, or portion of a meeting, together with a list of all persons expected to attend the meeting and their affiliation.
( d ) If after public announcement required by paragraph (b) of this section has been made, the time and place of the meeting are changed, a public announcement will be made at the earliest practicable time. The subject matter of the meeting may be changed after the public announcement only if a majority of the Members of the Board who will participate in the meeting determine that Agency business so requires and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible. When such a change in subject matter is approved a public announcement of the change will be made at the earliest practicable time. A record of the vote to change the subject matter of the meeting will be kept and made available to the public.
( e ) All announcements or changes issued pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, or pursuant to provisions of § 102.140(d), will be submitted for publication in the Federal Register immediately following their release to the public.
( f ) Announcements of meetings made pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be made publicly available by the executive secretary.
§ 29.751 Main float buoyancy. ( a ) For main floats, the buoyancy necessary to support the maximum weight of the rotorcraft in fresh water must be exceeded by— ( 1 ) 50 percent, for single floats; and
( 2 ) 60 percent, for multiple floats.
( b ) Each main float must have enough water-tight compartments so that, with any single main float compartment flooded, the mainfloats will provide a margin of positive stability great enough to minimize the probability of capsizing.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-3, 33 FR 967, Jan. 26, 1968]
§ 1471.855 Who has the burden of proof in a debarment action? ( a ) We have the burden to prove that a cause for debarment exists.
( b ) Once a cause for debarment is established, you as a respondent have the burden of demonstrating to the satisfaction of the debarring official that you are presently responsible and that debarment is not necessary.