alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 102.34 Who will conduct hearing; public unless otherwise ordered.

The hearing for the purpose of taking evidence upon a complaint will be conducted by an Administrative Law Judge designated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge, Deputy Chief Administrative Law Judge, or any Associate Chief Judge, as the case may be, unless the Board or any Board Member presides. At any time, an Administrative Law Judge may be designated to take the place of the Administrative Law Judge previously designated to conduct the hearing. Hearings will be public unless otherwise ordered by the Board or the Administrative Law Judge.
#### § 102.75 Suspension of proceedings on the charge where timely petition is filed.

If it appears to the Regional Director that issuance of a complaint may be warranted but for the pendency of a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act, which has been filed by any proper party within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days from the commencement of picketing, the Regional Director will suspend proceedings on the charge and will proceed to investigate the petition under the expedited procedure provided below, pursuant to the first proviso to subparagraph (C) of Section 8(b)(7) of the Act.

[82 FR 11764, Feb. 24, 2017]
#### § 91.25 Aviation Safety Reporting Program: Prohibition against use of reports for enforcement purposes.

The Administrator of the FAA will not use reports submitted to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Aviation Safety Reporting Program (or information derived therefrom) in any enforcement action except information concerning accidents or criminal offenses which are wholly excluded from the Program.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of M Line Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Colin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  May 21, 2010
/s/ George ColinBy:  George ColinIts:  Chief Executive Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to M Line Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by M Line Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 1626.13 Withdrawal of charge.

Charging parties may request withdrawal of a charge. Because the Commission has independent investigative authority, see § 1626.4, it may continue any investigation and may secure relief for all affected persons notwithstanding a request by a charging party to withdraw a charge.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,500
<PP&E>                                           2,854
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,177
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 483,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          778,726
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     (294,908)
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   483,818
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (32,578)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,578)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,578)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 16.237 Waiver of procedures. ( a ) The hearing officer shall waive such procedural steps as all parties to the hearing agree to waive before issuance of an initial decision.
( b ) Consent to a waiver of any procedural step bars the raising of this issue on appeal.
( c ) The parties may not by consent waive the obligation of the hearing officer to enter an initial decision on the record.
§ 1910.3 Petitions for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a standard. ( a ) Any interested person may petition in writing the Assistant Secretary of Labor to promulgate, modify, or revoke a standard. The petition should set forth the terms or the substance of the rule desired, the effects thereof if promulgated, and the reasons therefor.
( b ) ( 1 ) The relevant legislative history of the Act indicates congressional recognition of the American National Standards Institute and the National Fire Protection Association as the major sources of national consensus standards. National consensus standards adopted on May 29, 1971, pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act are from those two sources. However, any organization which deems itself a producer of national consensus standards, within the meaning of section 3(9) of the Act, is invited to submit in writing to the Assistant Secretary of Labor at any time prior to February 1, 1973, all relevant information which may enable the Assistant Secretary to determine whether any of its standards satisfy the requirements of the definition of “national consensus standard” in section 3(9) of the Act.
( 2 ) Within a reasonable time after the receipt of a submission pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Assistant Secretary of Labor shall publish or cause to be published in the Federal Register a notice of such submission, and shall afford interested persons a reasonable opportunity to present written data, views, or arguments with regard to the question whether any standards of the organization making the submission are national consensus standards.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

13) ll-K- (B) -1 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:48 AM Sheet 13 of 325 
P.2 

hS 

II-K-CB)-! 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES RELATED TO COAL CLEANING DISCUSSED AT 

IERL MEETING ON APRIL 6, 1979. 

Letter from E. Medine, EEA to Dr. A. Wehe, EPArSASD. 

April 11, 1979, 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-1
#### THOMPKINS v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 18, 1917.)

Appeal from Crenshaw Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. E. Gamble.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed on motion of Attorney General.
§ 1902.8 Variations and variances. ( a ) The power of the Secretary of Labor under section 16 of the Act to provide reasonable limitations and variations, tolerances, and exemptions to and from any or all provisions of the Act as he may find necessary and proper to avoid serious impairment of the national defense is reserved.
( b ) No action by a State under a plan shall be inconsistent with action by the Secretary under this section of the Act.
( c ) Where a State standard is identical to a Federal standard addressed to the same hazard, an employer or group of employers seeking a temporary or permanent variance from such standard, or portion thereof, to be applicable to employment or places of employment in more than one State, including at least one State with an approved plan, may elect to apply to the Assistant Secretary for such variance under the provisions of 29 CFR part 1905.
( d ) Actions taken by the Assistant Secretary with respect to such application for a variance, such as interim orders, with respect thereto, the granting, denying, or issuing any modification or extension thereof, will be deemed prospectively an authoritative interpretation of the employer or employers' compliance obligations with regard to the State standard, or portion thereof, identical to the Federal standard, or portion thereof, affected by the action in the employment or places of employment covered by the application.
( e ) Nothing herein shall affect the option of an employer or employers seeking a temporary or permanent variance with applicability to employment or places of employment in more than one State to apply for such variance either to the Assistant Secretary or the individual State agencies involved. However, the filing with, as well as granting, denial, modification, or revocation of a variance request or interim order by, either authority (Federal or State) shall preclude any further substantive consideration of such application on the same material facts for the same employment or place of employment by the other authority.
( f ) Nothing herein shall affect either Federal or State authority and obligations to cite for noncompliance with standards in employment or places of employment where no interim order, variance, or modification or extension thereof, granted under State or Federal law applies, or to cite for noncompliance with such Federal or State variance action.
[80 FR 49902, Aug. 18, 2015]
Place holder for information received claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)

In formation regarding emission factors claimed as CBI received from SEMI . This information is being maintained in a separate confidential portion of the docket . For more information please contact Kirsten Cappel by phone at (202) 343 - 9556 or by email at cappel.kirsten@epa.gov .
#### G A BOECKLING CO v SCHWER, Auditor, et

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Erie Co

No. 293.

Decided May 13, 1929

King, Ramsey & Flynn, Sandusky, for Boeckling Co.

V. H. Gibbs, Asst Atty Gen and C. E. Moyer, Pros Atty, Sandusky, for Schwer.

*389RICHARDS, J.

During the argument in this court inquiry was made of counsel by the court if a motion for new trial had been filed in the court of common pleas and the information was furnished that none had been filed. It was not contended in any of the briefs then on file that a motion for new trial was necessary. Some days after the case was finally submitted, an additional brief was filed urging that a motion for a new trial in the court of common pleas was necessary. Without further discussion of that question, we are of the opinion that if a holding is to be made, that a motion for new trial is necessary in an error case, we should prefer that holding to be made by the Supreme Court. The proceeding to obtain a reversal of an order of the state Tax Commission has been held by the Supreme Court to be a proceeding in error, even though additional evidence is introduced.

> Floyd, Auditor, et al. vs. Manufacturers

> Light & Heat Co., 111 Ohio St., 57.

We have examined with great care the large mass of evidence contained in the bill of exceptions and, as is usual in cases involving the value of real estate and buildings, there is á wide difference of opinion. Thoroughly competent and qualified witnesses differ very greatly as to the value to be affixed to this property. The section of the General Code already cited contains the limitation that the valuation fixed by the Tax Commission shall not be reversed, vacated or modified, unless it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the value of the property as determined by the Commission is not the true value in money of such property.

The best consideration which we can give to the evidence in this case convinces the court of the fact that the value fixed by the Tax Commission is clearly and manifestly' excessive in amount. It would serve no useful purpose in this case to discuss in detail the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions. We therefore content ourselves with announcing the conclusion reached by the court. We are unanimously of the opinion that all of the. valuation in excess of $1,750,000.00 is excessive within the rule fixed by the statute.

The court therefore finds and adjudges that if the defendants in error will voluntarily remit from the valuation all in excess of the amount of $1,750,000.00, the order and valuation will be modified accordingly and as so modified will be affirmed. In the event that such remittitur is not consented to, the judgment of the common pleas court will be reversed on the ground that. it is clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to the amount of the valuation and. the cause remanded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.
Exhibit 31.1



Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



I, R. Thomas Kidd, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Greens Worldwide Incorporated.



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and



c)

presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls.



6.

I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: May 18, 2006



/s/ R. Thomas Kidd

______________________________________

R. Thomas Kidd

President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 1610.13 Maintenance of files.

The Commission must preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to Title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 4.2 of the National Archives and Records Administration. The Commission must not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.

[82 FR 45182, Sept. 28, 2017]
#### MARKOVIC v STATE ZAGG v STATE VASSO v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

No 1583.

Decided June, 1929

ROBERTS, J.

In regard to the first specification of alleged error above quoted, it is claimed that in these cases the defendants below should have been arraigned and have pleaded guilty or not guilty preliminary to a hearing upon the merits.

These contempt proceedings were brought by virtue of 13195-3 GC.

It is claimed by counsel for plaintiffs in error that contempt proceedings are criminal in nature, and that the provisions of Section 13629 of the General Code providing for arraignment of accused are applicable thereto. No authorities have been cited however, and we have found none to the effect that an arraignment and plea are necessary ■ as in regular criminal proceedings where the defendant is accused of the commission of a wrongful or criminal act. A contempt proceeding is one for the purpose of punishing a person found guilty of interfering, with the regular legal and ordinary juridicial proceedings.

Cornelius on Search and Seizure, Section 542.

Vol. 13 C. J„ page 73.

The conclusion is reached that irrespective of the fact as to whether or not an arraignment was made in these cases, that arraignment- and plea was not necessary or essential.

Concerning the second ground of alleged error it seems to assume that the action in which the contempt proceeding is alleged to have occurred, grew out of a restraining order, under what is commonly known as the pad lock law, was based upon a violation of the liquor law. and that the convictions which the petition sets forth were based upon a city ordinance governing the possession of intoxicatinp- liquors, which ordinance this court has heretofore found to be illegal and void by reason of penalty provided for in excess of that authorized by statute.

An examination of the pleadings, journal entries ,and evidence in these cases does not indicate that they are based upon a violation of a municiml ordinance or upon conviction of intoxicating liquor violations. The petition of the law director alleges the use of the place as a business place where intoxicating liquors have been bartered and sold and possessed and kept for sale to the extent of constituting a nuisance, the abating of which was the purpose of the actions. Specific violations of law are not alleged nor charged as a substantive offense in these actions.

Allen v. U. S., 278 Fed., 429.

Lewinsohn v. U. S., 278 Fed., 421.

We find no preiudicial error in these cases and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in all of them is affirmed.

Pollock and Farr, JJ, concur.
LIABILITY UNDERTAKING
                              ---------------------

     By  this  instrument  executed June 30, 2006, Gateway Distributors, Ltd., a
Nevada  corporation,  (hereinafter  "Gateway")  covenants and agrees as follows:

     1.     Subject  to  the provisions of paragraph 3d of that certain Contract
for  Sale  of  Business and Assets dated as of June 30, 2006 between Gateway and
Marshall  Distributing,  L.L.C.,  a Utah limited liability company, EMS Business
Development,  Inc.,  a  California  corporation,  and  Terry  D.  Nielsen  (the
"Agreement") Gateway agrees to assume, pay, and discharge all debts, duties, and
obligations  that  appear, as of June 30, 2006 on the books of the business owed
and  operated  as  a  herbal and health food supplement distributing business by
Marshall  Distributing, LLC, located at 3085 Directors Row, Salt Lake City, Utah
84104,  (the  "Business  Operations").

     2.     Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 3d of the Agreement, Gateway
further agrees to indemnify and hold Marshall Distributing, L.L.C., EMS Business
Development, Inc., and Terry D. Nielsen free and harmless from any debt, duty or
obligation  described in paragraph 1 above and from any suits, actions, or legal
proceedings  brought  to  enforce or collect any such debt, duty, or obligation.

     3.     Gateway  Distributors, Ltd., further agrees to so indemnify Marshall
Distributing,  L.L.C., EMS Business Development, Inc., and Terry D. Nielsen from
liability  or  expense  due  to  obligations relating to the Business Operations
conducted  by  Gateway  on  or  after  June  30,  2006.

Dated  as  of  June  30,  2006

                                        GATEWAY:

                                        Gateway Distributors, Ltd.
                                        a Nevada corporation


                                        By:
                                           -------------------------------------

                                        By:
                                           -------------------------------------
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00290-CR

TELVIN JAMALL HORNE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 1

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20153671CR1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Telvin Jamall Horne was charged with two counts of burglary of a motor vehicle. 

Horne filed a notice of appeal “...from the Judgment and Sentence entered in the above 

entitled and numbered cause....” No judgment and sentenced has been rendered or 

pronounced in the underlying case. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction, and this 
Horne v. State Page 2

appeal is dismissed without prejudice to file a notice of appeal when sentence is 

pronounced.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed 

Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 2016

Do not publish 

[CR25] 

 

1 Because there is no judgment, no certificate of right to appeal has been, nor can it be, prepared and signed 

by the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a).
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8Registration Nos. 333-138764, 333-114650, 333-110769, 333-105524, 333-101130, 333-102650,333-80443, 333-47392, 333-72894, 333-75872, 333-82006, and 333-69123of our report dated April 4, 2008 relating to our audit of the consolidated financialstatements of Torvec, Inc. which are included in Torvec, Inc.’s2007 annual report on Form 10-K./s/ EISNER LLP