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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23601]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 1602

RIN 3046-AA89

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Under Title VII, the 
ADA, and GINA

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: Cancellation of hearing.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Commission is cancelling the 
public hearing on the above proposed modifications of its recordkeeping 
and reporting provisions under title VII, the ADA, and GINA. (76 FR 
31892, June 2, 2011). No requests to present oral testimony at a 
hearing concerning the proposed rule were received from the public. 
Further, the Commission received only one public comment in response to 
the June 2 notice, and the commenter expressed support for the proposed 
changes. Therefore, it will not be necessary to hold the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal 
Counsel, (202) 663-4668, or Erin N. Norris, Senior Attorney, (202) 663-
4876, Office of Legal Counsel, 131 M Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507.

    Dated: September 8, 2011.

    For the Commission.
Jacqueline A. Berrien,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2011-23601 Filed 9-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
```
§ 27.771 Pilot compartment. For each pilot compartment— ( a ) The compartment and its equipment must allow each pilot to perform his duties without unreasonable concentration or fatigue;
( b ) If there is provision for a second pilot, the rotorcraft must be controllable with equal safety from either pilot seat; and
( c ) The vibration and noise characteristics of cockpit appurtenances may not interfere with safe operation.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1120
DAVID LOUIS WHITEHEAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION; TYNDALE HOUSE PUBLISHER, INCORPORATED; NEW MARKET FILMS, INCORPORATED; FOX 43, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01349-CMH) Submitted: May 11, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Louis Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: David Louis Whitehead appeals the district court’s order transferring his complaint, alleging copyright infringement, to the District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a)(2000) and 1406(a)(2000). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Cor. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Whitehead seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Carefirst of Md., Inc. , 305 F.3d 253, 257 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we deny Whitehead’s motion for sanctions against opposing counsel; we deny as moot his motion to stay his case pending submission of the DVD, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (Twentieth Century Home Entertainment, Inc. 2004); we deny as moot his motions for injunctive relief, and we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[No. 48923-2-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### The City of Renton, *Respondent,*v. Robin L. Bailey, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-1-06344-6, Michael J. Trickey, J., entered June 25, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Baker, J., concurred in by Kennedy and Schindler, JJ.
§ 1401.27 Appeals. ( a ) *Requirements for making an appeal.* A requester may appeal any adverse determinations to the Agency's Deputy Director, FOIA Appeal, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20427; *foia@fmcs.gov .* Requesters can submit appeals by mail, email, or via the online portal at *www.fmcs.gov*/foia. The requester must make the appeal in writing, clearly identifying the grounds therefore and providing any supporting documentation. To be considered timely it must be postmarked or, in the case of electronic submissions, transmitted within 90 calendar days after the date of the response. The appeal should clearly identify the determination that is being appealed and the assigned request number, if known. To facilitate handling, the requester should mark both the appeal letter and envelope, or subject line of the electronic transmission, “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”
( b ) *Adjudication of appeals.* An appeal ordinarily will not be adjudicated if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation.
( c ) *Decisions on appeals.* The Deputy Director of the FMCS or designee will provide a decision on an appeal. A decision that upholds the FMCS's determination in whole or in part must contain a statement that identifies the reasons for the affirmance, including any FOIA exemptions applied. The decision must provide the requester with notification of the statutory right to file a lawsuit and will inform the requester of the dispute resolution services offered by the OGIS as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If the decision is remanded or modified on appeal, the Deputy Director will notify the requester of that determination in writing. The Office of General Counsel will then further process the request in accordance with that appeal determination and will respond directly to the requester. Alternatively, the Deputy Director may decide to modify the decision and decide the appeal on its merits in a single step.
( d ) *Engaging in dispute resolution services provided by OGIS.* Dispute resolution is a voluntary process. If the Agency agrees to participate in the dispute resolution services provided by OGIS, the Deputy Director or designee will participate on behalf of the FMCS.
( e ) *When appeal is required.* Before seeking review by a court of the Agency's adverse determination, a requester generally must first submit a timely administrative appeal.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41525 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MOISES ALBERTO MUNOZ-SAULA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-03-CR-1021-1

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Moises Alberto Munoz-Saula appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Munoz-Saula contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8 U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a conviction only under United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-41525 -2- that provision, and his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Munoz-Saula acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
# EUR-Lex - 31994R2029 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994R2029

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2029/94 of 8 August 1994 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 on the granting of aid for the purchase of butter by non-profit-making institutions and organizations **

*
Official Journal L 206 , 09/08/1994 P. 0007 - 0007 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 60 P. 0107 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 60 P. 0107 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2029/94 of 8 August 1994 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 on the granting of aid for the purchase of butter by non-profit-making institutions and organizations

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1880/94 (2), and in particular Article 12 (3) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 of 28 December 1992 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3528/93 (4), and in particular Article 9 (1) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1756/93 (6), provides for the granting of aid for the purchase of butter by non-profit-making institutions and organizations;

Whereas Regulation (EC) No 1881/94 (7), which last amended Council Regulation (EEC) No 2072/92 (8), fixing the target price for milk and the intervention prices for butter, skimmed milk powder and Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano cheeses for two annual periods from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1995, provides for a further reduction of the intervention price for butter from 1 August 1994;

Whereas, therefore, the aid for the purchase of butter as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81 should be adapted;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2191/81, 'ECU 138' is hereby replaced by 'ECU 130'.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 August 1994.

For the Commission

Hans VAN DEN BROEK

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13.

(2) OJ No L 197, 30. 7. 1994, p. 21.

(3) OJ No L 387, 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.

(4) OJ No L 320, 22. 12. 1993, p. 32.

(5) OJ No L 213, 1. 8. 1981, p. 20.

(6) OJ No L 161, 2. 7. 1993, p. 48.

(7) OJ No L 197, 30. 7. 1994, p. 23.

(8) OJ No L 215, 30. 7. 1992, p. 65.
§ 91.1413 CAMP: Responsibility for airworthiness. ( a ) For aircraft maintained in accordance with a Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program, each program manager is primarily responsible for the following: ( 1 ) Maintaining the airworthiness of the program aircraft, including airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, rotors, appliances, and parts.
( 2 ) Maintaining its aircraft in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
( 3 ) Repairing defects that occur between regularly scheduled maintenance required under part 43 of this chapter.
( b ) Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a CAMP must— ( 1 ) Employ a Director of Maintenance or equivalent position. The Director of Maintenance must be a certificated mechanic with airframe and powerplant ratings who has responsibility for the maintenance program on all program aircraft maintained under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program. This person cannot also act as Chief Inspector.
( 2 ) Employ a Chief Inspector or equivalent position. The Chief Inspector must be a certificated mechanic with airframe and powerplant ratings who has overall responsibility for inspection aspects of the CAMP. This person cannot also act as Director of Maintenance.
( 3 ) Have the personnel to perform the maintenance of program aircraft, including airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, rotors, appliances, emergency equipment and parts, under its manual and this chapter; or make arrangements with another person for the performance of maintenance. However, the program manager must ensure that any maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration that is performed by another person is performed under the program manager's operating manual and this chapter.
̈¦§15 

Fort Peck Lake 

A Allb be e r rt t aa Glacier

National Park SSaass kka att cchheewwaa nn

Blackfeet Indian

Reservati

232 

Havre Pra

") on 

Browni

GLACIER 

£¤89

ng Cut Bank TOOLE 

Swee

Shelby 

t Grass Hills LIBERTY

HILL 

£¤2

irie Potholes BLAINE 

Malta Prairie Potholes 

VALLEY 

Chester Havre Chinook 

Bears Paw 

Malta

Rocky Boy's Ft. Belknap Indian Reservation Indi Reservati an on

CHOUTEAU 66 191 

PHILLIPS 

£¤

Little Rockies Fort Benton 

Malta Breaks 

CCMMRRNNaattiioonnaal

l

WWiillddlli

i

ffeeRReeffuuggee 

")

£¤87 Glasgow Sun Prairie 

Map W.0

Fire Management Units (FMU)

Comparison of Alternatives B-D
 

Maps shows the Fire Management Units and Management

Categories for Alternatives B, C, and D.
 

Boundaries are not intended to confer authority, responsibility,

or jurisdiction over lands and waters that are not administered

by the BLM.
 

Created by the Malta Field Office in December 2012 

0 

1:2,500,000 

50 100Miles Albers Equal Area, NAD83, Meters 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

HiLine District Fire Management Unit 

Management Category B 

Management Category C 

RMP Boundary 

County

Highway or State Route 

Interstate 

Town 

¬ 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of

Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by

the BLM. This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product
 

was developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification. State of Montana 

! H i L i n e R M P

Kalispell 

!

Great Falls 

! 

^ Lewistown

Helena 

! ! Miles City

Butte !

Billings
#### TOLEDO (city) v CUMMINGS

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21496.

Decided May 29, 1929

Syllabus by

MATTHIAS, J.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

(360 N) The provisions of 3714 GC, do not impose upon municipalities the duty of maintaining guards or other means to prevent persons from entering the waters of ponds, lakes or streams within its boundaries, which are not maintained as bathing plaees and to enter which no invitation express or implied has been extended; or create a liability for failure so to' do.

Marshall, CJ, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Day and Allen, JJ, concur-.
636 A.2d 1016

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. James Franklin VANCE.

Misc. (Subtitle BV) No. 55,

Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 9, 1994

ORDER

Consent to Inactive Status filed by Bar Counsel in accordance with Maryland Rule BV 12 d 2.

James Franklin Vance is placed on inactive status by consent from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland and his name stricken from the register of attorneys in this Court.

The Court having considered the Consent to Inactive Status by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and James Franklin Vance, Respondent, in which Respondent agrees to be placed on inactive status by the Court, it is this 9th day of February, 1994,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that James Franklin Vance be, and is hereby, placed on inactive *628status by consent from the practice of law in the State of Maryland until such time as he can demonstrate by proper evidence that he is capable of engaging in the practice of law; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of James Franklin Vance, from the register of attorneys until further order of this Court, and pursuant to Maryland Rule BV13, shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00228

- CV

George GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

Anna GARCIA

, Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 02221 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

.
We order that appellee Anna Garcia recover her costs of this appeal from appellant George Garcia.

SIGNED June 26, 2013.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            778
<SECURITIES>                                    1,663         
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,622
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                8,138 
<PP&E>                                      1,915,953
<DEPRECIATION>                              (181,220)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,751,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          46,800
<BONDS>                                       726,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                   369,194
<COMMON>                                       43,022
<OTHER-SE>                                    544,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,751,626
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              199,904
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               78,557
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             27,811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                51,217
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            51,217
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (410) 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   28,641
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.67
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1601.77 Review by the Commission.

After a designated FEP agency has been certified, the Commission shall accept the findings and resolutions of that agency as final in regard to all cases processed under contract with the Commission, as provided in section 709(b) of title VII, except that the Commission shall review charges closed by the certified FEP agency for lack of jurisdiction, as a result of unsuccessful conciliation, or where the charge involves an issue currently designated by the Commission for priority review.

[46 FR 50367, Oct. 13, 1981, as amended at 51 FR 18778, May 22, 1986. Redesignated at 56 FR 9625, Mar. 7, 1991]
**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 withthe Quarterly Report of NEON Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian D. Helman, principalfinancial and accounting officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Theinformation 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 (principal financial and accounting officer) |
| August 15, 2005                                                       |

 

----