alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 63.37 Aeronautical experience requirements. ( a ) Except as otherwise specified therein, the flight time used to satisfy the aeronautical experience requirements of paragraph (b) of this section must have been obtained on an airplane— ( 1 ) On which a flight engineer is required by this chapter; or
( 2 ) That has at least three engines that are rated at least 800 horsepower each or the equivalent in turbine-powered engines.
( b ) An applicant for a flight engineer certificate with a class rating must present, for the class rating sought, satisfactory evidence of one of the following: ( 1 ) At least 3 years of diversified practical experience in aircraft and aircraft engine maintenance (of which at least 1 year was in maintaining multiengine aircraft with engines rated at least 800 horsepower each, or the equivalent in turbine engine powered aircraft), and at least 5 hours of flight training in the duties of a flight engineer.
( 2 ) Graduation from at least a 2-year specialized aeronautical training course in maintaining aircraft and aircraft engines (of which at least 6 calendar months were in maintaining multiengine aircraft with engines rated at least 800 horsepower each or the equivalent in turbine engine powered aircraft), and at least 5 hours of flight training in the duties of a flight engineer.
( 3 ) A degree in aeronautical, electrical, or mechanical engineering from a recognized college, university, or engineering school; at least 6 calendar months of practical experience in maintaining multiengine aircraft with engines rated at least 800 horsepower each, or the equivalent in turbine engine powered aircraft; and at least 5 hours of flight training in the duties of a flight engineer.
( 4 ) At least a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating and at least 5 hours of flight training in the duties of a flight engineer.
( 5 ) At least 200 hours of flight time in a transport category airplane (or in a military airplane with at least two engines and at least equivalent weight and horsepower) as pilot in command or second in command performing the functions of a pilot in command under the supervision of a pilot in command.
( 6 ) At least 100 hours of flight time as a flight engineer.
( 7 ) Within the 90-day period before he applies, successful completion of an approved flight engineer ground and flight course of instruction as provided in appendix C of this part.
(Sec. 6, 80 Stat. 937, 49 U.S.C. 1655)
[Doc. No. 6458, 30 FR 14559, Nov. 23, 1965, as amended by Amdt. 63-5, 31 FR 9047, July 1, 1966; Amdt. 63-17, 40 FR 32830, Aug. 5, 1975]
#### § 102.44 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 399

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 399 appear at 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 399.18 Maximum duration of fixed-term route authorization granted by exemption; renewal of such authority.

It is the policy of the Department to limit the duration of exemptions which authorize fixed-term route service to a maximum period of two years, and to entertain requests for renewal of such authority only when incorporated in a duly filed application for substantially equivalent certificate authority under section 401 of the Act. (See § 377.10(c) of this chapter (Special Regulations).)

[PS-21, 29 FR 1446, Jan. 29, 1964, as amended at 65 FR 6457, Feb. 9, 2000]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KIT LOCKLEAR,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

GREG MENDOZA, Governor; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15955

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01798-SLG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted September 23, 2014*** 

Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Kit Locklear appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action challenging his termination from his employment with the Gila River Indian

FILED

OCT 10 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for

the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

 *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Community Department of Rehabilitation and Supervision. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo questions of sovereign immunity and

subject matter jurisdiction. Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir.

2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul,

547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Although the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction over

Locklear’s constitutional claims, dismissal was proper because Locklear failed to

state claims and because the tribe was immune from suit. See R.J. Williams Co. v.

Fort Belknap Hous. Auth., 719 F.2d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[N]o action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 can be maintained in federal court for persons alleging

deprivation of constitutional rights under color of tribal law. Indian tribes are

separate and distinct sovereignties and are not constrained by the provisions of the

fourteenth amendment.” (internal citations omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-15955
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21
                          PARENTS AND SUBSIDIARIES

The Company and its subsidiaries* as of March 5, 2005 are as follows:



                                      State (Country)     Percentage of Voting
Name of Company                       of Incorporation    Securities Owned
---------------                       ----------------    --------------------
Kellwood Company                      Delaware            Parent
American Recreation Products, Inc.    Delaware            100%
Kellwood Asia Limited                 Hong Kong           100%
Smart Shirts Limited                  Hong Kong           100%
South Asia Garment Limited            Hong Kong           100%
Kellwood Trading, Ltd.                Hong Kong           100%
KWD Holdings, Inc.                    Delaware            100%
Robert Scott & David Brooks
   Outlet Stores, Inc.                Delaware            100%
Tri-W Corporation                     North Carolina      100%
Halmode Apparel, Inc.                 Delaware            100%
Koret of California, Inc.             California          100%
Koret Outlet Stores, Inc.             Delaware            100%
Biflex International, Inc.            New York            100%
Kellwood Financial Resources, Inc.    Tennessee           100%
Kellwood Shared Services, Inc.        Delaware            100%
Dorby Frocks, Ltd.                    New York            100%
Gerber Childrenswear, Inc.            Delaware            100%
Briggs New York, Inc.                 Delaware            100%
Phat Fashions, LLC                    New York            100%



<FN>
* Some of the above subsidiaries also have subsidiaries which are not listed
because, in the aggregate, they are not considered to be significant.
§ 93.176 Description of area. The Luke Air Force Base, Arizona Terminal Area is designated during official daylight hours Monday through Friday while Luke pilot flight training is underway, as broadcast on the local Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS), and other times by Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), as follows: ( a ) East Sector: ( 1 ) South section includes airspace extending from 3,000 feet MSL to the base of the overlaying Phoenix Class B airspace bounded by a line beginning at: Lat. 33°23′56′′ N; Long. 112°28′37′′ W; to Lat. 33°22′32′′ N; Long. 112°37′14′′ W; to Lat. 33°25′39′′ N; Long. 112°37′29′′ W; to Lat. 33°31′55′′ N; Long. 112°30′32′′ W; to Lat. 33°28′00′′ N; Long. 112°28′41′′ W; to point of beginning.
( 2 ) South section lower includes airspace extending from 2,100 feet MSL to the base of the overlaying Phoenix Class B airspace, excluding the Luke Class D airspace area bounded by a line beginning at: Lat. 33°28′00′′ N; Long. 112°28′41′′ W; to Lat. 33°23′56′′ N; Long. 112°28′37′′ W; to Lat. 33°27′53′′ N; Long. 112°24′12′′ W; to point of beginning.
( 3 ) Center section includes airspace extending from surface to the base of the overlaying Phoenix Class B airspace, excluding the Luke Class D airspace area bounded by a line beginning at: Lat. 33°42′22′′ N; Long. 112°19′16′′ W; to Lat. 33°38′40′′ N; Long. 112°14′03′′ W; to Lat. 33°27′53′′ N; Long. 112°24′12′′ W; to Lat. 33°28′00′′ N; Long. 112°28′41′′ W; to Lat. 33°31′55′′ N; Long. 112°30′32′′ W; to point of beginning.
( 4 ) The north section includes that airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at: Lat. 33°42′22′′ N; Long. 112°19′16′′ W; to Lat. 33°46′58′′ N; Long. 112°16′41′′ W; to Lat. 33°44′48′′ N; Long. 112°10′59′′ W; to Lat. 33°38′40′′ N; Long. 112°14′03′′ W; to point of beginning.
( b ) West Sector: ( 1 ) The north section includes that airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at: Lat. 33°51′52′′ N; Long. 112°37′54′′ W; to Lat. 33°49′34′′ N; Long. 112°23′34′′ W; to Lat. 33°46′58′′ N; Long. 112°16′41′′ W; to Lat. 33°42′22′′ N; Long. 112°19′16′′ W; to Lat. 33°39′27′′ N; Long. 112°22′27′′ W; to point of beginning.
( 2 ) The south section includes that airspace extending upward from the surface to 6,000 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at: Lat. 33°39′27′′ N; Long. 112°22′27′′ W; to Lat. 33°38′06′′ N; Long. 112°23′51′′ W; to Lat. 33°38′07′′ N; Long. 112°28′50′′ W; to Lat. 33°39′34′′ N; Long. 112°31′39′′ W; to Lat. 33°39′32′′ N; Long. 112°37′36′′ W; to Lat. 33°51′52′′ N; Long. 112°37′54′′ W; to point of beginning.
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

January 13, 2015

The Honorable Dana Aunkst

Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Rachel Carson State Office Building

P.O. Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

Dear Acting Secretary Aunkst:

On December 4, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a 

revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection. The SIP revision requests redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment, and approval of the maintenance plan of the Johnstown 1997 annual and the 2006 24-

hour PM2.5 area. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically

complete, and is reviewing it to prepare Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Rose Quinto, Office 

of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814-2182. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

 Sincerely, 

/s/

David L. Arnold, Acting Director

 Air Protection Division 

cc: Joyce E. Epps, Director, PADEP Bureau of Air Quality
§ 91.181 Course to be flown. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within controlled airspace under IFR except as follows: ( a ) On an ATS route, along the centerline of that airway.
( b ) On any other route, along the direct course between the navigational aids or fixes defining that route. However, this section does not prohibit maneuvering the aircraft to pass well clear of other air traffic or the maneuvering of the aircraft in VFR conditions to clear the intended flight path both before and during climb or descent.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-296, 72 FR 31679, June 7, 2007]
EXHIBIT 21.1

                          COLUMBUS MCKINNON CORPORATION

                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                             (AS OF MARCH 31, 2007)


CM Insurance Company, Inc. (US-NY)
Columbus McKinnon de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
Columbus McKinnon de Uruguay, S.A. (Uruguay)
Columbus McKinnon do Brazil Ltda. (Brazil)
Columbus McKinnon de Panama S.A. (Panama)
Crane Equipment & Service, Inc. (US-OK)
Societe d'Exploitation des Raccords Gautier (France)
Univeyor A/S (Denmark)
     Ejendomsselskabet Lupinvej 11 (Denmark)
     Univeyor Conveying Systems Ltd. (England)
Yale Industrial Products, Inc. (US-DE)
     Egyptian-American Crane Co. (40% Joint Venture) (Egypt)
     Spreckels Water Company, Inc. (US-DE)
         Spreckels Consolidated Industries, Inc. (US-CA)
     Audubon Europe S.a.r.l. (Luxembourg)
         Columbus McKinnon Limited (Canada)
         Yale Industrial Products Ltd. (England)
         Yale Industrial Products GmbH (Germany)
              Asia Hoist Co., Ltd. (Hong Kong)
              Columbus McKinnon Corporation Ltd. (England)
              Hangzhou LILA Lifting and Lashing Co. Ltd. (China)
              Yale Levage (France)
              Columbus McKinnon Italia S.r.l. (Italy)
              Yale Elevacion Iberica S.L. (Spain)
              Yale Hangzhou Industrial Products Co. Ltd. (China)
              Yale Industrial Products Asia (Thailand) Co. Ltd.
              Yale Industrial Products B.V. (The Netherlands)
              Yale Industrial Products GmbH (Austria)
              Yale Industrial Products Pty. Ltd. (South Africa)
              Yale Lifting & Mining Products (Pty.) Ltd.
                   (25% Financial Interest) (South Africa)
              Yale Industrial Products Kft. (Hungary)
              Click & Lift GmbH (Germany)



                                       41
#### Alen Kallman et al., by Mildred Kallman, Their Guardian ad Litem, et al. Appellants, *v.*Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Respondent.

(Argued November 16, 1936;

decided December 1, 1936.)

*649
      *Harold B. Medina, Leo E. Falkin*and *William Seligson*for appellants.

*Peter C. Mann*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the negative. No opinion.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES
CONTAINED IN THIS FILING AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         241,174
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      249
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               241,647
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 241,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,845
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                     230,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   241,647
<SALES>                                            249
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   249
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,246
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,721)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,721)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.28)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 88 (Friday, May 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11308]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6353-9]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared April 17, 2000 through April 
21, 2000 pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under 
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and section 102(2)(c) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA 
comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 
564-7167.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 09, 1999 (63 
FR 17856).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-DOE-E09806-TN Rating EC2, Treating Transuranic (TRU)/
Alpha Low-Level Waste at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Construct, 
Operate, and Decontaminate/Decommission of Waste Treatment Facility, 
Oak Ridge, TN.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the issue 
of process releases and the resulting risk to humans. EPA requested 
that additional information be provide on the risk issue and the 
preferred alternative.
    ERP No. D-TVA-E65054-TN Rating EC2, Tellico Reservoir Land 
Management Plan, Implementation of Seven Mainstream and Two Tributary 
Reservoirs, Blount, Loudon and Monroe, TN.
    Summary: EPA expressed concerns with aspects of some of the 
proposed zones, such as planned timber harvesting and certain 
commercial/industrial development. EPA suggested that the Plan be 
revised to eliminate or minimize timber harvesting of circumferential 
reservoir lands and islands and eliminate incompatible forms of 
commercial and industrial development.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-BIA-A65165-00 Programmatic EIS--Navajo Ten Year Forest 
Management Plan Alternatives, Implementation and Funding, AZ and NM.
    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

    Dated: May 2, 2000
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 00-11308 Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
#### § 1902.6 Consultation with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

The Assistant Secretary will consult, as appropriate, with the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health with regard to plans submitted by the States under this part.
#### § 1602.16 Penalty for making of willfully false statements on report.

The making of willfully false statements on Report EEO-2 is a violation of the U.S. Code, title 18, section 1001, and is punishable by fine or imprisonment as set forth therein.

[32 FR 10650, July 20, 1967]
§ 18.60 Interrogatories to parties. ( a ) *In general* — ( 1 ) *Number.* Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the judge, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with § 18.51.
( 2 ) *Scope.* An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under § 18.51. An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the judge may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a prehearing conference or some other time.
( b ) *Answers and objections* — ( 1 ) *Responding party.* The interrogatories must be answered: ( i ) By the party to whom they are directed; or
( ii ) If that party is a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who must furnish the information available to the party.
( 2 ) *Time to respond.* The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under § 18.54 or be ordered by the judge.
( 3 ) *Answering each interrogatory.* Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.
( 4 ) *Objections.* The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the judge, for good cause, excuses the failure.
( 5 ) *Signature.* The person who makes the answers must sign them, and the attorney or non-attorney representative who objects must sign any objections.
( c ) *Use.* An answer to an interrogatory may be used to the extent allowed by the applicable rules of evidence.
( d ) *Option to produce business records.* If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party's business records (including electronically stored information), and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by: ( 1 ) Specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could; and
( 2 ) Giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to December 3, 2019 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### A

- 19

- 322 State v. Livingston

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov: http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here: http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c cales/

.