alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 91.513 Emergency equipment. ( a ) No person may operate an airplane unless it is equipped with the emergency equipment listed in this section.
( b ) Each item of equipment— ( 1 ) Must be inspected in accordance with § 91.409 to ensure its continued serviceability and immediate readiness for its intended purposes;
( 2 ) Must be readily accessible to the crew;
( 3 ) Must clearly indicate its method of operation; and
( 4 ) When carried in a compartment or container, must have that compartment or container marked as to contents and date of last inspection.
( c ) Hand fire extinguishers must be provided for use in crew, passenger, and cargo compartments in accordance with the following: ( 1 ) The type and quantity of extinguishing agent must be suitable for the kinds of fires likely to occur in the compartment where the extinguisher is intended to be used.
( 2 ) At least one hand fire extinguisher must be provided and located on or near the flight deck in a place that is readily accessible to the flight crew.
( 3 ) At least one hand fire extinguisher must be conveniently located in the passenger compartment of each airplane accommodating more than six but less than 31 passengers, and at least two hand fire extinguishers must be conveniently located in the passenger compartment of each airplane accommodating more than 30 passengers.
( 4 ) Hand fire extinguishers must be installed and secured in such a manner that they will not interfere with the safe operation of the airplane or adversely affect the safety of the crew and passengers. They must be readily accessible and, unless the locations of the fire extinguishers are obvious, their stowage provisions must be properly identified.
( d ) First aid kits for treatment of injuries likely to occur in flight or in minor accidents must be provided.
( e ) Each airplane accommodating more than 19 passengers must be equipped with a crash axe.
( f ) Each passenger-carrying airplane must have a portable battery-powered megaphone or megaphones readily accessible to the crewmembers assigned to direct emergency evacuation, installed as follows: ( 1 ) One megaphone on each airplane with a seating capacity of more than 60 but less than 100 passengers, at the most rearward location in the passenger cabin where it would be readily accessible to a normal flight attendant seat. However, the Administrator may grant a deviation from the requirements of this subparagraph if the Administrator finds that a different location would be more useful for evacuation of persons during an emergency.
( 2 ) On each airplane with a seating capacity of 100 or more passengers, one megaphone installed at the forward end and one installed at the most rearward location where it would be readily accessible to a normal flight attendant seat.
# EUR-Lex - 31997E0193 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997E0193

**97/193/CFSP: Common Position of 17 March 1997 defined by the Council on the basis of Article J.2 of the Treaty on European Union, on restrictive measures aimed at persons having perpetrated violent acts during the incidents in Mostar on 10 February 1997 **

*
Official Journal L 081 , 21/03/1997 P. 0001 - 0002 *

COMMON POSITION of 17 March 1997 defined by the Council on the basis of Article J.2 of the Treaty on European Union, on restrictive measures aimed at persons having perpetrated violent acts during the incidents in Mostar on 10 February 1997 (97/193/CFSP)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article J.2 thereof,

Whereas the European Union is committed to a policy of reconciliation and cooperation between the communities of Mostar and to the strengthening of the Federation;

Whereas the Council considers that the incidents which occurred in Mostar on 10 February 1997 threaten to jeopardize the implementation of this policy;

Whereas, in that context, the Council deems it appropriate to follow up the recommendations made by the Office of the High Representative in Sarajevo, according to which those who have been identified as the perpetrators of violence during the abovementioned incidents should be banned from travelling to Europe and overseas,

HAS DEFINED THE FOLLOWING COMMON POSITION:

1. The persons listed in the Annex shall be reported for purposes of non-admission in the territories of the Member States. The list shall be updated following the outcome of further investigations and judicial proceedings.

2. Member States shall take all measures necessary to give effect to the provisions referred to in point 1 as from the date of the definition of this Common Position.

3. This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal.

Done at Brussels, 17 March 1997.

For the Council

The President

G. ZALM

ANNEX

LIST OF PERSONS REFERRED TO IN POINT 1

HRKAC Ivan

PLANINIC Zeljko

PERIC Bozo
#### KALLAY v WEIZER et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9891.

Decided May 6, 1929

Knight & Miller, Cleveland, for Kallay.

A A Stephens, Cleveland, for Weizer, et.

VICKERY, PJ.

The petition shows that plaintiff’s husband was one of the joint contractors and that she has only a half interest in that contract, and so in order to adjust the rights of these parties, it was necessary to have the husband in this suit; and the plaintiff’s petition setting up that fact shows that there is. a non-joinder of parties plaintiff. We áre told that the husband had a separate suit that is now pending in the Common Pleas Court, in which he set up this same contract and claimed to be the only contracting, party with Gardner, and that a demurrer was interposed to that petition and the court overruled it. That might well be, so far as the petition is concerned, but he might fall down when he comes to prove his contract, as there might be a variance between the proof and the allegations of his petition. But that is not the case that is before this court now. This was a petition by Mrs. Kallay suing for damages in which she claims the sum of $10,000 because the defendant below prevented Gardner from carrying out a contract for the sale of real estate, the total consideration of which was $7500, and in which she had a half interest only.

We .think the court below was right in sustaining this demurrer on two grounds; First, there was a non-joinder of parties plaintiff, and that defect appears in the petition itself; and second, there was a misjoinder of causes of action, and for that reason we think the court was right, and the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
§ 1614.306 Referral of case to Special Panel. If the MSPB reaffirms its decision under 5 CFR 1201.162(a)(2) with or without modification, the matter shall be immediately certified to the Special Panel established pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7702(d). Upon certification, the Board shall, within five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays), transmit to the Chairman of the Special Panel and to the Chairman of the EEOC the administrative record in the proceeding including— ( a ) The factual record compiled under this section, which shall include a transcript of any hearing(s);
( b ) The decisions issued by the Board and the Commission under 5 U.S.C. 7702; and
( c ) A transcript of oral arguments made, or legal brief(s) filed, before the Board and the Commission.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and

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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 15

- BG

- 925

IN RE: EARL A. SMITH, Respondent. Bar Registration No. 392331 BDN: 180

- 15

BEFORE: Blackburne

- Rigsby, Associate Judge, and Newman and Ferren, Senior Judges.

O RDER

(FILED

- November 5, 2015)

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Smith , 116 A.3d 977 (Md. 2015), this court’s August 25, 2015, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a

response to this court’s order to show cause or an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g), it is

ORDERED that Earl A. Smith is hereby disbarred from the practice of law

in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and In r e Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

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

PER CURIAM
§ 383.1 Purpose and periodic adjustment. ( a ) *Purpose.* This part adjusts the civil penalty liability amounts prescribed in 49 U.S.C. 46301(a) for inflation in accordance with the Act cited in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Periodic adjustment.* DOT will periodically adjust the maximum civil penalties set forth in 49 U.S.C. 46301 and this part as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
#### BICK v TOLEDO EDISON CO.

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co.

No. 2119.

Decided Jan. 3, 1928.

M. A. Liles and A. G. Duer, Toledo, for Bick.

Denman, Miller & Wall, Toledo, for Toledo Edison Co.

*57BY THE COURT

We are of the opinion that the counterclaim was one connected with the subject of the action.

It is claimed, however, that the court below erred in charging the jury as follows:

> “If the jury find that the plaintiff was given notice by the county of Lucas that the defendant must examine the ground and satisfy himself of said facts and knowledge and conditions, and that- he failed to do so, or was mistaken in his conclusions, then he is liable in damages caused by his construction, and can not recover compensation or damage for extra labor from the plaintiff, unless the utility was so concealed that it could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence on the part of the defendant.”

It was the duty of the defendant to exercise ordinary care not to injure the conduits and cables of the plaintiff in the construction of the sewer, as the conduits and cables were in the street with the permission of the municipality. Portland Gas & Coke Co. vs. Giebisch, et al., 84 Ore 632; L R A 1917—E, 1092. We think that the charge quoted above was not improper for the reason that it involved the element of the exercise of reasonable diligence. We are of the opinion that the term “reasonable diligence” as it was used was the equivalent of “ordinary care,” in view of the other instructions given by the court.

We think the law as to estoppel has no application to the present case, especially in view of the fact that- the telephone conversation between the defendant and the office of the plaintiff company was not shown to have been with a person authorized to act on behalf of the plaintiff company.

As to the question of nuisance, we think the trial judge properly took the question of nuisance from the jury.

The application for rehearing is denied.

Richard, Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12288]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and 
Training


Secretary of Labor's Advisory Committee for Veterans' Employment 
and Training; Notice of Open Meeting

    The Secretary's Advisory Committee for Veterans' Employment and 
Training was established under section 4110 of title 38, United States 
Code, to bring to the attention of the Secretary, problems and issues 
relating to veterans' employment and training.
    Notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Labor's Advisory 
Committee for Veterans' Employment and Training will meet on Tuesday, 
June 6, 2000, at the U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Room S-2508, Washington, DC 20210, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Written comments are welcome and may be submitted by addressing 
them to: Ms. Polin Cohanne, Designated Federal Official, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-1313, 
Washington, DC 20210.
    The agenda is open.
    The meeting will be open to the public.
    Persons with disabilities needing special accommodations should 
contact Ms. Polin Cohanne at telephone number 202-693-4741 no later 
than May 24, 2000.

    Signed at Washington, DC this May 10, 2000.
Espiridion (Al) Borrego,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training.
[FR Doc. 00-12288 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-79-M
#### SMITH v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10188.

Decided October 14, 1929

Mr. Harold T. Gassaway, Cleveland, for Smith.

Mr. L. O. Payne, Cleveland, for State.

SULLIVAN, J.

It is claimed that there is no evidence of any traffic in liquor and therefore that under the authorities there can be no conviction for the mere possession of liquor, and no reasonable ground for the issuing of a search warrant but from a reading of the record it appears that plaintiff in error on three different occasions, before three different tribunals, was under process and hearing, for violation of the liquor laws and it further appears by the record, from the testimony of officers, that on various occasions parties were seen entering and departing from the suite of plaintiff in error in numbers and at such times as to arouse suspicion and there is a further' fact in the record that watching through the window, police officers saw men gathered around a table drinking although there is no evidence as to what they were drinking excepting from the circumstances of the case and the inquiries growing therefrom.

Thus we are of the opinion, from the record, that there are probable grounds for the issuing of the search warrant and also from the weight of the evidence we find there is sufficient testimony to support the charge made under the rules of criminal law, and thus holding we do not *666think that under the rulings of the Supreme Court that there is any right in the reviewing court to disturb the judgment.

Holding these views the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.

Vickery, PJ., and Levine, J, concur.
#### § 25.1155 Reverse thrust and propeller pitch settings below the flight regime.

Each control for reverse thrust and for propeller pitch settings below the flight regime must have means to prevent its inadvertent operation. The means must have a positive lock or stop at the flight idle position and must require a separate and distinct operation by the crew to displace the control from the flight regime (forward thrust regime for turbojet powered airplanes).

[Amdt. 25-11, 32 FR 6913, May 5, 1967]
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Centracan Incorporated, a Florida
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Ken Roberts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the
best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company, and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.











/s/ Ken RobertsKen
      RobertsChief
      Financial OfficerMay
      14, 2009
#### KIMPLE et v WILLEMS et

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas County

No 2175.

Decided Feb 25, 1929

Joseph A. Robie, Toledo, for Kimple.

Marion W. Bacome, Toledo, for Willems.

RICHARDS, J.

The trial court committed prejudicial error in dismissing the plaintiff’s petition. The evidence offered shows that judgment was taken for more than was due, and was ample to justify an entry suspending judgment. The plaintiffs should have been permitted to file their answers in the original case where the issues sought to be made can be tried.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.
#### § 102.28 Filing of answer or other participation in proceedings not a waiver of rights.

The right to make motions or to make objections to rulings upon motions will not be deemed waived by the filing of an answer or by other participation in the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge or the Board.
#### § 382.72 Must carriers allow a service animal to accompany a passenger with a disability?

You must allow a service animal to accompany a passenger with a disability. You must not deny transportation to a service animal based on the animal's breed or type or on the basis that its carriage may offend or annoy carrier personnel or persons traveling on the aircraft.

[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2018-0068, 85 FR 79774, Dec. 10, 2020]
TRANSFER
TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL CORP.




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 Annual Report of Transfer Technology International Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert J. Calamunci, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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 results
of operations of the Company.






/s/  Robert
J. Calamunci
 Robert J.
Calamunci
 Chief
Financial Officer
 Chief
Accounting Officer
 April 8,
2009


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



In connection with the Quarterly Report of NetMeasure Technology Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Laipnieks, President and acting CFO, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|Date: November 19, 2003 | By:/s/ PETER LAIPNIEKSName: Peter LaipnieksTitle: President and Acting CFO
|----------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### ROUSH et v MAYFIELD INVESTMENT CO

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No. 1590.

Decided Nov. 20, 1928

Donald Go'ttwald, Akron, for Roush.

Slabaugh, Seiberling, Huber & Guinther, Akron, for company.

*86PUNK, J.

If the agreement was as claimed by defendant, then plaintiffs are not entitled to an injunction and have waived their right thereto and are therefore estopped from making any complaint concerning the building now on said lot, which is perhaps 60% completed.

While there is some direct conflict in the evidence as to just what was said between 'the parties, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs in some particulars, including 'some of .the acts and conduct of the plaintiffs and their then attoreny, tend to corroborate the claim of the defendant.

A careful consideration of all the evidence taken in the court below and in this court, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, leads us to the conclusion that the plaintiffs did agree with the defendant to withdraw' any objection to the erection of the building now partially completed on the lot in question, and that the contentions of defendant are sustained by clear and unequivocal evidence.

We therefore find that, so far as the plaintiffs in this case are concerned, they are estopped from making any complaint concerning, the erection of the building now being constructed on the lot in question, because it is not strictly in accordance with the restrictions placed upon said lot.

A decree may be drawn accordingly.

Washburn, P J, and Pardee, J concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.1 FEE AGREEMENT WITH RICHARD O. WEED


                                 April 26, 2003

Mr. Gordon F. Lee Chief Executive Officer American IDC Corp.
11301 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 680
Los Angeles, CA 90064

         RE:      American IDC Corp.
                  Addendum to Fee Agreement

Dear Mr. Lee:

         This letter, when countersigned by you, will modify and amend the Fee
Agreement dated November 12, 2001 to add the following terms.

         "In exchange for services rendered, Client shall issue to Richard O.
Weed One Hundred Thousand (100,000) shares of Client's common stock. Further,
Client hereby grants Weed the right to purchase 100,000 shares of Client's
common stock at a price equal to $.50 per share and these stock options will
expire unless exercised on or before December 31, 2007. The options granted will
not be subject to dilution (i.e. no adjustment to the number of shares or the
exercise price) based upon any reverse split of the Client's common stock."

         All other terms and conditions of the fee agreement remain in full
force and effect.

                                             Very truly yours,


                                             /s/ Richard O. Weed
                                             Richard O. Weed
                                             Managing Director/Special Projects
Approved and Agreed
American IDC Corp.



By: /s/ Gordon F. Lee
Name: Gordon F. Lee
Title: Chief Executive Officer