alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1626.21 Effect of opinions and interpretations of the Commission. ( a ) Section 10 of the Portal to Portal Act of 1947, incorporated into the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 through section 7(e)(1) of the Act, provides that: In any action or proceeding based on any act or omission on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, no employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment * * * if he pleads and proves that the act or omission complained of was in good faith in conformity with and in reliance on any written administrative regulations, order, ruling, approval or interpretation * * * or any administrative practice or enforcement policy of [the Commission].
The Commission has determined that only (1) a written document, entitled “opinion letter,” signed by the Legal Counsel on behalf of and as approved by the Commission, or (2) a written document issued in the conduct of litigation, entitled “opinion letter,” signed by the General Counsel on behalf of and as approved by the Commission, or (3) matter published and specifically designated as such in the Federal Register, may be relied upon by any employer as a “written regulation, order, ruling, approval or interpretation” or “evidence of any administrative practice or enforcement policy” of the Commission “with respect to the class of employers to which he belongs,” within the meaning of the statutory provisions quoted above.
( b ) An opinion letter issued pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, when issued to the specific addressee, has no effect upon situations other than that of the specific addressee.
( c ) When an opinion letter, as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is requested, the procedure stated in § 1626.20 shall be followed.
[48 FR 140, Jan. 3, 1983. Redesignated at 68 FR 70152, Dec. 17, 2003; 85 FR 65220, Oct. 15, 2020]
§ 65.33 Eligibility requirements: General. To be eligible for an air traffic control tower operator certificate a person must— ( a ) Be at least 18 years of age;
( b ) Be of good moral character;
( c ) Be able to read, write, and understand the English language and speak it without accent or impediment of speech that would interfere with two-way radio conversation;
( d ) Except for a person employed by the FAA or employed by, or on active duty with, the Department of the Air Force, Army, or Navy or the Coast Guard, hold at least a second-class medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter within the 12 months before the date application is made; and
( e ) Comply with § 65.35.
[Doc. No. 10193, 35 FR 12326, Aug. 1, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 65-25, 45 FR 18911, Mar. 24, 1980; Amdt. 65-31, 52 FR 17518, May 8, 1987]
#### § 102.116 Signature on Board orders.

The Executive Secretary, Deputy Executive Secretary, or an Associate Executive Secretary, or, in the event of their absence or disability, whomever may be designated by the Board in their place, is hereby authorized to sign all orders of the Board.
# EUR-Lex - 31994R3294 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994R3294

**Council Regulation (EC) No 3294/94 of 22 December 1994 amending Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 on the establishment of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction **

*
Official Journal L 341 , 30/12/1994 P. 0007 - 0007 Finnish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 13 P. 0265 Swedish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 13 P. 0265 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 3294/94 of 22 December 1994 amending Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 on the establishment of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 235 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),

Whereas on 8 February 1993 the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 on the establishment of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (3);

Whereas the financial provisions relating to bodies set up by the Community should be harmonized;

Whereas Article 11 of the aforementioned Regulation, which concerns the financial provisions governing the Centre, should be amended to take account of this need for harmonization;

Whereas, pursuant to Article 130 of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4), the provisions of the Financial Regulation should be taken into account as far as possible when adopting the Centre's internal financial rules,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 11 (12) of Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 shall be replaced by the following:

'12. After receiving the opinion of the Court of Auditors, the management board shall adopt internal financial provisions laying down in particular the detailed rules for establishing and implementing the Centre's budget.'

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, 22 December 1994.

For the Council

The President

H. SEEHOFER

(1) OJ No C 225, 20. 8. 1993, p. 3.

(2) OJ No C 61, 28. 2. 1994, p. 241.

(3) OJ No L 36, 12. 2. 1993, p. 1.

(4) OJ No L 356, 31. 12. 1977, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 1923/94 (OJ No L 198, 30. 7. 1994, p. 4).
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund XII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III  
|Leo F. Wells, III         
|Chief Executive Officer   
|November 14, 2005         
|                          
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|November 14, 2005
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Joyce Clark, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Kenilworth Systems Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Kenilworth Systems Corporation.

 
| By:    | /s/   Joyce Clark                                 |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Joyce   Clark                                     |   |
| Title: | Director,   Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| Date:  | March 30,   2011                             |   |

 

***Remainder of page intentionally left blank***

 

1

----
#### § 100.619 When a debt may be compromised.

The NLRB may compromise a debt not in excess of the monetary limitation in accordance with 31 CFR part 902 if it has not been referred to the Department of Justice for litigation.
§ 1905.26 Hearings. ( a ) *Order of proceeding.* Except as may be ordered otherwise by the presiding hearing examiner, the party applicant for relief shall proceed first at a hearing.
( b ) *Burden of proof.* The party applicant shall have the burden of proof.
( c ) *Evidence* — ( 1 ) *Admissibility.* A party shall be entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but a presiding hearing examiner shall exclude evidence which is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious.
( 2 ) *Testimony of witnesses.* The testimony of a witness shall be upon oath or affirmation administered by the presiding hearing examiner.
( 3 ) *Objections.* If a party objects to the admission or rejection of any evidence, or to the limitation of the scope of any examination or cross-examination, or to the failure to limit such scope, he shall state briefly the grounds for such objection. Rulings on all objections shall appear in the record. Only objections made before the presiding hearing examiner may be relied upon subsequently in a proceeding.
( 4 ) *Exceptions.* Formal exception to an adverse ruling is not required.
( d ) *Official notice.* Official notice may be taken of any material fact not appearing in evidence in the record, which is among the traditional matters of judicial notice or concerning which the Department of Labor by reason of its functions is presumed to be expert: *Provided,* That the parties shall be given adequate notice, at the hearing or by reference in the presiding hearing examiner's decision, of the matters so noticed, and shall be given adequate opportunity to show the contrary.
( e ) *Transcript.* Hearings shall be stenographically reported. Copies of the transcript may be obtained by the parties upon written application filed with the reporter, and upon the payment of fees at the rate provided in the agreement with the reporter.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Smith, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 850]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered May 8, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

At issue is the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer. Counsel for codefendant Darnell Manning stated that his client’s aunts should be permitted to be present while the officer was on the stand. After the court denied the application, defendant’s attorney stated that he “just wanted to join in [the] request.” Subsequently, this Court decided that the closure of the courtroom to the codefendant’s aunts was based upon an insufficient showing of necessity and ordered a new trial *(People v Manning,*258 AD2d 279).

Defendant urges that the denial of his application similarly warrants reversal. However, having failed to specify whom he wished to be present during the undercover officer’s testimony *(People v Collins,*254 AD2d 154, *lv denied*93 NY2d 851), defendant deprived the court of the opportunity to assess the potential danger that might be posed to the officer’s safety *(People v Nieves,*90 NY2d 426, 431). We note that there is no indication that any of defendant’s family members had been present during trial *(see, People v Sheppard,*257 AD2d 464, *lv denied*93 NY2d 979) and therefore conclude that his objection to closure is unpreserved.

Defendant’s other contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50347

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NABOR RODRIGUEZ-DE LEON

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

For The Western District of Texas, El Paso

USDC No. 3:06-CR-2234-ALL

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is an appeal raising the sole question whether appellant’s illegal

reentry sentence was improperly enhanced by the court’s deeming his prior

Colorado drug possession conviction “a crime of violence”. According to the

Bureau of Prisons website, appellant is scheduled to complete his term of

imprisonment on January 21, 2008. Because his release is imminent or has

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50347

2

occurred, this court cannot usefully grant the only relief to which appellant

would have been entitled: re-sentencing.

Because no effective judicial remedy exists, we must DISMISS this appeal

as MOOT.

DISMISSED.
#### RAFTER v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided Feb. 18, 1929

William J Meyers, Portsmouth, for Rafter.

Dustin W Gustin, Pros Atty, Portsmouth, for State.

*342MIDDLETON, PJ.

It may be said that the action of the court in selecting the grand jurors to be summoned as aforesaid was not warranted or authorized by any provision of the statute law of. this state. The only provision of the General Code authorizing the impanelling of a new jury after the regular grand jury has been discharged is Section 13,568. By the provisions of that section the power and authority of a judge of the court is limited to the making of an order to the sheriff to call together from bystanders and neighboring citizens a new grand jury. The agency fixed by that statute which is empowered to select the persons to be called as jurors is the sheriff of the county and not the Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. It has been frequently held that the statute permitting a challenge to the array is permissive only and that it is always addressed to the sound discretion of the court. We are not disposed to question this general rule, but when the challenge is based upon the claimed wrongful or unlawful act of the court itself such act should have some legal support or it should be set aside and the challenge sustained. Cleveland Railway Co. v. Brescia, 100 Ohio St. 267, 271.

The doctrine of the case cited controls in the instant case. To hold that the court could overrule a challenge to the' array because the right to grant it was discretionary would be to hold that the provision of Section 13,568 aforesaid was directory only and that the legislature did not intend the operation of said section to be exclusive. We are not prepared to give this construction to that section. The right under it to call and name the members of a proposed new grand jury is given in plain terms to the sheriff of the county and it is not by any possible interpretation given to the Judge of the Court of Common Pleas.

For overruling the challenge to the array the judgment of the Common Pleas Court is reversed, and the indictment being invalid the plaintiff in error is discharged from custody.

Mauck and Blosser, JJ, concur.
Exhibit 10.1





Exhibit 10.1




Schedule Identifying Material Details of

Executive Agreements Substantially Similar to Exhibit 99.2 to Huntington’s

Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 21, 2005

As Amended by Exhibit 10.1 to Huntington’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Period

Ended September 30, 2008 and

As Amended by Exhibit 10.4 to Huntington’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Period

Ended September 30, 2009




	 	 	 
	Name	 	Effective Date
	Zahid Afzal

	 	October 21, 2009
	Elizabeth Heller Allen

	 	October 21, 2009
	Daniel B. Benhase

	 	January 1, 2006
	Kevin M. Blakely

	 	July 8, 2009
	Richard A. Cheap

	 	January 1, 2006
	James E. Dunlap

	 	January 1, 2006
	Shirley L. Graham

	 	April 22, 2009
	Donald R. Kimble

	 	January 1, 2006
	Mary W. Navarro

	 	January 1, 2006
	Daniel J. Neumeyer

	 	October 21, 2009
	Nicholas G. Stanutz

	 	January 1, 2006
	Randall G. Stickler

	 	April 16, 2009
	Mark E. Thompson

	 	April 20, 2009
§ 1910.102 Acetylene. ( a ) *Cylinders.* Employers must ensure that the in-plant transfer, handling, storage, and use of acetylene in cylinders comply with the provisions of CGA Pamphlet G-1-2009 (“Acetylene”) (incorporated by reference, see § 1910.6).
( b ) *Piped systems.* ( 1 ) Employers must comply with Chapter 9 (“Acetylene Piping”) of NFPA 51A-2006 (“Standard for Acetylene Charging Plants”) (National Fire Protection Association, 2006 ed., 2006).
( 2 ) When employers can demonstrate that the facilities, equipment, structures, or installations used to generate acetylene or to charge (fill) acetylene cylinders were installed prior to February 16, 2006, these employers may comply with the provisions of Chapter 7 (“Acetylene Piping”) of NFPA 51A-2001 (“Standard for Acetylene Charging Plants”) (National Fire Protection Association, 2001 ed., 2001).
( 3 ) The provisions of § 1910.102(b)(2) also apply when the facilities, equipment, structures, or installations used to generate acetylene or to charge (fill) acetylene cylinders were approved for construction or installation prior to February 16, 2006, but constructed and installed on or after that date.
( 4 ) For additional information on acetylene piping systems, *see* CGA G-1.2-2006, part 3 (“Acetylene piping”) (Compressed Gas Association, Inc., 3rd ed., 2006).
( c ) *Generators and filling cylinders.* ( 1 ) Employers must ensure that facilities, equipment, structures, or installations used to generate acetylene or to charge (fill) acetylene cylinders comply with the provisions of NFPA 51A-2006 (“Standard for Acetylene Charging Plants”) (National Fire Protection Association, 2006 ed., 2006).
( 2 ) When employers can demonstrate that the facilities, equipment, structures, or installations used to generate acetylene or to charge (fill) of acetylene cylinders were constructed or installed prior to February 16, 2006, these employers may comply with the provisions of NFPA 51A-2001 (“Standard for Acetylene Charging Plants”) (National Fire Protection Association, 2001 ed., 2001).
( 3 ) The provisions of § 1910.102(c)(2) also apply when the facilities, equipment, structures, or installations were approved for construction or installation prior to February 16, 2006, but constructed and installed on or after that date.
[74 FR 40447, Aug. 11, 2009, as amended at 76 FR 75786, Dec. 5, 2011]
#### § 1612.14 Judicial review.

Any person may bring an action in a United States District Court to challenge or enforce the provisions of this part. Such action may be brought prior to or within sixty (60) calendar days after the meeting in question, except that if proper public announcement of the meeting is not made, the action may be instituted at any time within sixty (60) days after such announcement is made. An action may be brought where the agency meeting was held or in the District of Columbia.
§ 1602.41 Requirement for filing and preserving copy of report. On or before November 30, 1982, and biennially thereafter, certain public elementary and secondary school systems and districts, including individually or separately administered districts within such systems, shall file with the Commission or its delegate executed copies of Elementary-Secondary Staff Information Report EEO-5 in conformity with the directions set forth in the form and accompanying instructions. The elementary and secondary school systems and districts covered are: ( a ) Every one of those which have 100 or more employees, and
( b ) Every one of those others which have 15 or more employees from whom the Commission requests the filing of reports.
Every such elementary or secondary school system or district shall retain at all times, for a period of 3 years, a copy of the most recently filed report EEO-5 at the central office of the school system or district, and shall make the same available if requested by an officer, agent, or employee of the Commission under the authority of section 710 of title VII, as amended. It is the responsibility of the school systems or districts above described in this section to obtain from the Commission or its delegate necessary supplies of the form. [48 FR 8058, Feb. 25, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 33660, June 28, 1996]
# L_2007041DE.01002201.xml

| 13.2.2007 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 41/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2007

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 41/22

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2326/97 der Kommission vom 25. November 1997 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 32/82 zur Festlegung der Bedingungen für die Gewährung von Sondererstattungen bei der Ausfuhr von Rindfleisch

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 323 vom 26. November 1997
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 323 vom 26. November 1997

Seite 2, Artikel 1 Absatz 2:

anstatt:

„(2)   Dieser Nachweis wird erbracht durch Vorlage einer nach dem Muster des Anhangs aufgemachten Bescheinigung, die auf Antrag der Betreffenden von der Interventionsstelle oder jedweden anderen Stelle ausgestellt wird, die von dem Mitgliedstaat, in dem die Tiere geschlachtet wurden, eigens dazu bezeichnet wurde. Diese Bescheinigung ist den Zollbehörden zwecks Erfüllung der Ausfuhrzollförmlichkeiten vorzulegen und nach Erfüllung dieser Förmlichkeiten auf dem Verwaltungswege der für die Zahlung der Erstattung zuständigen Stelle zuzuleiten.“

muss es heißen:

„(2)   Dieser Nachweis wird erbracht durch Vorlage einer nach dem Muster des Anhangs aufgemachten Bescheinigung, die auf Antrag der Betreffenden von der Interventionsstelle oder jedweden anderen Stelle ausgestellt wird, die von dem Mitgliedstaat, in dem die Tiere geschlachtet wurden, eigens dazu bezeichnet wurde. Diese Bescheinigung ist den Zollbehörden zwecks Erfüllung der Ausfuhrzollförmlichkeiten vorzulegen und nach Erfüllung dieser Förmlichkeiten auf dem Verwaltungswege der für die Zahlung der Erstattung zuständigen Stelle zuzuleiten. Diese Förmlichkeiten sind in dem Mitgliedstaat zu erfüllen, in welchem die Tiere geschlachtet worden sind.“

---
#### STATE ex MOOCK v CINCINNATI (city) et MOOCK v CINCINNATI (city) et

Ohio Supreme Court

Nos. 21360 & 21361

Decided May 1, 1929

Syllabus by

JONES, J.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

(360 P5) The adoption of regulations pertaining to health and sanitation, including the process of collection and disposal of garbage, is within the proper exercise of the police powers of the state and of its municipalities.

(360 P4f) It was within the province of the city authorities to commit the power of issuing permits for the collection and disposal of garbage upon a designated officer, leaving to him the terms and conditions under which they should be issued. Such action on the part of the city does not invest the officer with legislative power.

The city of Cincinnati advertised for and received bids and entered into a contract with a single contractor who, for a consideration paid by the city, engaged to collect and remove garbage therefrom in accordance with the city’s specifications. A permit was thereupon issued to the city’s contractor but denied to the relator who had contracts for garbage removal with various hotels and restaurants in the city. This garbage, consisting of animal, vegetable and other products, had a commercial value, much of which being adaptable for the feeding of swine. Held: Neither the city ordinance nor the refusal of the city manager to issue relator a permit for the collection and removal of garbage contravened any provision of our state or Federal constitutions.

Kinkade, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur. • •