alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1471.820 How much time do I have to contest a proposed debarment? ( a ) As a respondent you or your representative must either send, or make arrangements to appear and present, the information and argument to the debarring official within 30 days after you receive the Notice of Proposed Debarment.
( b ) We consider the Notice of Proposed Debarment to be received by you— ( 1 ) When delivered, if we mail the notice to the last known street address, or five days after we send it if the letter is undeliverable;
( 2 ) When sent, if we send the notice by facsimile or five days after we send it if the facsimile is undeliverable; or
( 3 ) When delivered, if we send the notice by e-mail or five days after we send it if the e-mail is undeliverable.
#### PRATT v. BRICKEY.

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist., Lawrence Co.

Decided Nov. 27, 1928.

James Collier, Ironton, for Pratt.

William J. Mahoney, Ironton, for Brickey.

MATJCK, J.

We can not reverse the case as being manifestly opposed to the weight of the testimony. We have read the record and, of course, find it full of contradictory testimony. There is nothing improbable in the story of the plaintiff. The testimony of numerous witnesses in behalf of the defendant seriously reflects upon the character of the plaintiff and upon the story which she narrated. It is simply a case of the credibility of the witnesses, and we have no disposition to substitute our judgment for the judgment of the jury who observed those witnesses on the stand.

The special instructions requested by the defendant were these: First, that if the jury found from the evidence that- the prosecutrix had relations with other men at such a time as to make it doubtful as to who was the father of the child her testimony alone should not prevail but that the paternity of the child must be established by some corroborative evidence. And the second request was that the jury be charged that the case might be made by a preponderance of the evidence but that the prosecutrix must be corroborated by other evidence. It is too well settled in this state to justify discussion that a bastardy action is a civil proceeding and that the issues may be proven by a mere preponderance of the testimony. The peculiar nature of such a proceeding and the lack of much direct testimony has evidently resulted in statutes requiring that the complainant have corroboration of her testimony. The law on this subject has been amply reviewed in a note to Overseer of Poor v. Eason, 1 A. L. R. 635. The reading of this note discloses that the general rule is that in the absence of statute requiring corrroboration such corroboration is not essential to a conviction in a bastady proceeding.. The trial court was right in refusing to give the requested instruction.

Middleton, P. J., and Thomas, ,T., concur.
Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition cos/s here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Pt·oducts 

Research and 

re-identify engine 4.0 40 

type plate if needed 

ModifY installation 

to indicate a 

1.0 40 Maximum Coolant 

Temperature Limit 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 17,000 

Costs covered under warranty (if !mown) $0 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and close- up) 

$ 
*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ® 

YES*0 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. 

YESO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? 

YES* 0 

*Explanation:
Order filed, October 08, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00738-CV

____________

DAVID CASH MOORE, Appellant

V.

SHARON D. ALLEN, ET AL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 73303I

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 19, 2014. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Jill Friedrichs, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
#### § 33.82 General.

Before each endurance test required by this subpart, the adjustment setting and functioning characteristic of each component having an adjustment setting and a functioning characteristic that can be established independent of installation on the engine must be established and recorded.

[Amdt. 36-6, 39 FR 35468, Oct. 1, 1974]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,375
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    115,333
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           4,640
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             4,662
<LOANS>                                        146,311
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,376
<DEPOSITS>                                     202,434
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,163
<LONG-TERM>                                     48,815
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 282,376
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,821
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,810
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    14
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,645
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,678
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,201
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,444
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      240
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 106
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,193
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,193
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       724
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.42
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,016
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   121
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,149
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      293
<RECOVERIES>                                        80
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,176
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               941
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            235
        


</TABLE>
This .zip file contains graphic files (in .png format) of each chart and graph in the Economic Research Service report "Cost Containment in the WIC Program: Vendor Peer Groups and Reimbursement Rates, ERR-171, published in August 2014. The content and context of these files is as of the publication date of the report. After time, the material may not reflect the current ERS program of work, may be outdated, and/or superseded, so please visit the website to obtain the latest information: www.ers.usda.gov. Any reuse of these images should include attribution to "Economic Research Service/USDA."

The following inventory lists each of the files in this folder.


File name	Description
(Fig-01.png)	Figure 1 - Market share and redemption value for 1-4 cash register stores (FI 6012)     
(Fig-02.png)	Figure 2 - Geographic vendor peer groups   
(Fig-03a,b.png)	Figure 3a,b - Box plots for distribution of Food Instrument (FI) 6012 redemption values  
(Fig-03c.png)	Figure 3c - Box plots for distribution of Food Instrument (FI) 6012 redemption values
(Fig-04.png)	Figure 4 - Box plots for Food Instruments (FI) histograms of mean redemption values (mean = 1) by register groups FI 6012 redemption values
633 A.2d 92

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Jerome Elliott MICHAELSON.

Misc. (Subtitle BV) No. 46,

Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 19, 1993.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Consent to Disbarment from the practice of law filed by Jerome Elliott Michaelson, in accordance with Maryland Rule BV 12d2, and the written recommendation of Bar Counsel, it is this 19th day of November, 1993

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Jerome Elliott Michaelson be, and he is hereby, disbarred by consent from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Jerome Elliott Michaelson from the register of attorneys, 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.
**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 on Form 10-Q of Capital Bank Corporation
      (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, A.
      Christine Baker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ *A. Christine Baker*


A.
      Christine Baker


Chief
      Financial Officer


November
      9, 2006




This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section
      18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
      Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
      general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
#### § 460.19 Crew waiver of claims against U.S. Government.

Each member of a flight crew and any remote operator must execute a reciprocal waiver of claims with the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation in accordance with the requirements of part 440.
<PAGE>





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 Tower Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin
J. Himmelhaver, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
of the Company, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Kevin J. Himmelhaver
------------------------------------
Kevin J. Himmelhaver
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
  and Secretary
August 14, 2003
#### § 1471.325 What happens if I do business with an excluded person in a covered transaction?

If as a participant you knowingly do business with an excluded person, we may disallow costs, annul or terminate the transaction, issue a stop work order, debar or suspend you, or take other remedies as appropriate.
§ 1471.830 Under what conditions do I get an additional opportunity to challenge the facts on which a proposed debarment is based? ( a ) You as a respondent will not have an additional opportunity to challenge the facts if the debarring official determines that— ( 1 ) Your debarment is based upon a conviction or civil judgment;
( 2 ) Your presentation in opposition contains only general denials to information contained in the Notice of Proposed Debarment; or
( 3 ) The issues raised in your presentation in opposition to the proposed debarment are not factual in nature, or are not material to the debarring official's decision whether to debar.
( b ) You will have an additional opportunity to challenge the facts if the debarring official determines that— ( 1 ) The conditions in paragraph (a) of this section do not exist; and
( 2 ) Your presentation in opposition raises a genuine dispute over facts material to the proposed debarment.
( c ) If you have an opportunity to challenge disputed material facts under this section, the debarring official or designee must conduct additional proceedings to resolve those facts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          12,739
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,046
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    180,326
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         180,326
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           180,326
<LOANS>                                        332,277
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (2,310)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 552,235
<DEPOSITS>                                     279,909
<SHORT-TERM>                                   187,524
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,806
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 552,235
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,961
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,908
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    37
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,906
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,071
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,591
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,315
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       20
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 318
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,641
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,610
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,610
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,045
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.31
<LOANS-NON>                                        141
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,387
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,309
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       30
<RECOVERIES>                                        11
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,310
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,310
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Capacity Factor % 85

Trona and Urea

Sulfur lb/MMBtu 0.80

Unit Firing Rate MMBtu/hr 5,501

Uncontrolled Nox lb/MMBtu 0.300 Plant Average Nox inlet

Nox Removal Efficiency % 80.000

Nox emission rate lb/mmbtu 0.060

Ratio Urea to Nox lb Urea/ lb Nox 0.685

Urea Usage ton/hr 0.384

ton/year 3,367

Urea Cost $/ton 650 Cost based on 2016 dollars

Annual Urea Cost $/year 2,188,517

Variable O&M Costs 

Urea Costs $/year 2,188,517

Total Variable O&M $/year $2,188,517

Fixed O&M Costs 

Operating Labor Cost $/year 525,600 105120 1 person per shift for 5 shifts

Maintenance Labor $/year 525,600 105120 1 person per shift for 5 shifts

Maintenance Material $/year 500,000

Total Fixed O&M $/year 1,551,200

Removal Cost 

NOx Removal Variable Costs $/ton 650.00

Fixed Costs $/MWH 0.395

Additional Capital Costs 

Catalyst Replacement $/year 1,500,000 average annual cost (based on 50% of 

Rockport catalyst replacement cost)

Flint Creek Plant - SCR - OEM Cost Information.

Change Nox Efficiency (90% max for 

SCR) to get desired Nox emission rate 

guess that was based on an O&M study 

for Arsenal Hill Plant
#### § 435.11 Additional license terms and conditions.

The FAA may amend a reentry license at any time by modifying or adding license terms and conditions to ensure compliance with 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, chapter 509, and applicable regulations.

[Doc. No. FAA-2012-0232, 77 FR 20533, Apr. 5, 2012]
§ 1472.300 What must I do to comply with this part if I am an individual recipient? As a condition of receiving a(n) FMCS award, if you are an individual recipient, you must agree that— ( a ) You will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity related to the award; and
( b ) If you are convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity, you will report the conviction: ( 1 ) In writing.
( 2 ) Within 10 calendar days of the conviction.
( 3 ) To the FMCS awarding official or other designee for each award that you currently have, unless § 1472.301 or the award document designates a central point for the receipt of the notices. When notice is made to a central point, it must include the identification number(s) of each affected award.
§ 1601.12 Contents of charge; amendment of charge. ( a ) Each charge should contain the following: ( 1 ) The full name and contact information of the person making the charge except as provided in § 1601.7;
( 2 ) The full name and contact information of the person against whom the charge is made, if known (hereinafter referred to as the respondent);
( 3 ) A clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the alleged unlawful employment practices: See § 1601.15(b);
( 4 ) If known, the approximate number of employees of the respondent employer or the approximate number of members of the respondent labor organization, as the case may be; and
( 5 ) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged unlawful employment practice have been commenced before a State or local agency charged with the enforcement of fair employment practice laws and, if so, the date of such commencement and the name of the agency.
( b ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a charge is sufficient when the Commission receives from the person making the charge a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of. A charge may be amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including failure to verify the charge, or to clarify and amplify allegations made therein. Such amendments and amendments alleging additional acts which constitute unlawful employment practices related to or growing out of the subject matter of the original charge will relate back to the date the charge was first received. A charge that has been so amended shall not be required to be redeferred.
[42 FR 55388, Oct. 14, 1977, as amended at 85 FR 65217, Oct. 15, 2020]
#### COLONIAL FINANCE CO v STALDER

Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Logan Co

No 758.

Decided Jan 31, 1929

West & Campbell, Bellefontaine, for Finance Co.

Miller & Middleton, Bellefontaine, for Stalder.

*148HUGHES, J

The cases that have been reported by our Supreme Court since the decision of Farmers Insurance Company v. Todeno, 111 O.S. 274, do not seem to qualify in any extent the proposition therein laid down that no title passes to an automobile unless a bill of sale is given to the purchaser and the same is duly filed with the clerk of courts in compliance with the Code.

Later cases involve conflicts between lien holders and the like, but inasmuch as there has been no change in the general proposition, it would follow that Stewart did not procure such a title in the automobile in question as would enable him tp give any interest by way of mortgage to one claiming against a bone fide purchaser, such as Stalder was in this case.

Before Judges Crow, Hughes and Justice.