alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1926](/current/title-29/part-1926?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At [44 FR 8577](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-8577), Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at [44 FR 20940](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-20940), Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of [29 CFR part 1926](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1926) together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in [29 CFR part 1910](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1910), which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at [84 FR 21597](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-21597), May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1112 Ethyleneimine.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1003 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1003).

[[61 FR 31433](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31433), June 20, 1996]
#### CARRAN v. SOLINE OIL CO.

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.

No. 8791.

Decided Oct. 8, 1928

Schaefer & Lawrence, Cleveland, for Car-ran.

Bloomberg & Wolf, Cleveland, for Soline Oil Co.

SULLIVAN, J.

We cannot review the evidence because it is not here in any form, by bill of exceptions or otherwise. Hence it is impossible to determine whether the court below was guilty of abuse of sound discretion, for that could only be determined with the evidence upon which it acted before us. There is however a more important defect than this, which is apparent from the record. Upon a motion or petition to vacate a judgment, during the term or after the term, its essential foundation is some ground enumerated in the statue and thereupon it becomes the duty of the court, first, to hear and determine the question as to whether the statutory ground for motion exists.

Under the decision by McIlvaine, C. J., in Watson et al vs Paine, 25 O. S. 340, the court has not ended its duty by hearing and determining whether the motion is supported by a ground enumerated in the statue. If it is found that a legal ground exists, to suspend or vacate the judgment, then it becomes .the next duty of the court to hear and determine the question as to whether there is a valid defense and this may be determined by proper pleadings and by evidence of a competent nature which sheds legal light upon this issue. If the proceedings to vacate are by motion, an answer to the original petition should be tendered or filed so that it would become a document in the hands of the court assisting in the determination as to whether there was a valid defense. If the proceeding is by petition, and the matters of defense are set forth in such a way as to become issuable, then it might be that the question could be decided by reply or demurrer but in any event the issues when made up should be tried as in other cases.

Ralston et al vs Wells, 49 O. S. 298; Follett vs Alexander et al, 58 O. S. 202.

In an opinion rendered by this court of Appeals, Feb. 4, 1913 Niman, J., these principles annunciated here were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 37 O. S. 518.

Vickery and Levine JJ., concur.
#### § 1980.115 Special circumstances; waiver of rules.

In special circumstances not contemplated by the provisions of this part, or for good cause shown, the ALJ or the ARB on review may, upon application, after three days notice to all parties, waive any rule or issue any orders that justice or the administration of the Act requires.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1926

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.27 Sanitation.

Health and sanitation requirements for drinking water are contained in subpart D of this part.
#### Josephine McBride, Resp’t, *v.*Robert T. McBride, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,*

*Filed July 9, 1889.)*

Divorce—Allowance by way of counsel fees.

Where in an action for divorce anything remains to be done to perfect the judgment to which the wife has been held to be "entitled after trial, and it appears that future services of counsel will be necessary to perfect the judgment, and to conduct the future steps in the litigation, and that the wife will not be able to retain her counsel, unless compensation is made for this service, the court has ample power to protect her, and secure to her the future services of her counsel.

Appeal from order granting allowance by way of counsel fees.

*P. Stevenson,*for app’lt; *S. G. Adams,*for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

The allowance granted herein by way of counsel fees to the plaintiff, does not seem to us to be at all excessive, provided the court had the power to make provision for any compensation to her counsel.

It is claimed that under the rule laid down in the case of *Beadleston*v. *Beadleston*(103 N. Y., 402; 3 N. Y. State Rep., 634) no allowance, whatever, can be made in this case. The *806rule laid down is certainly a very strict one, and calculated to work great injustice to a wife who has been successful in an action of divorce, because if the construction to be put upon the decision which is claimed by the. appellant is the true one, where a wife has been denied counsel fee because of the showing made against her by affidavits, upon an application for counsel fee, although she may succeed upon the trial where witnesses- are examined in open court, there is no power in the court to compensate her counsel for their labors in her behalf.

We do not think that this is the true interpretation of the decision in question, notwithstanding the broad language used, but that where anything remains to be done to perfect the judgment to which the wife has been held to be entitled after trial, and it appears that future services of counsel will be necessary to perfect the judgment, and to conduct the future steps in the litigation,, and that the wife will not be able to retain her counsel, unless compensation is made for this service, the court has ample power to protect her, and to secure to her the future services of her counsel.

The order appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs.
#### Howard Rapaport, Appellant, v Flushing Savings Bank, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 496]

—In an action to recover the proceeds of a certificate of deposit, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated September 24, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) to set aside a determination of the same court, dated March 9, 1998, directing the entry of judgment in favor of him and against the defendant in the total sum of only $25,197.54.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) to set aside the determination directing the entry of judgment in his favor in the total sum of only $25,197.54 was untimely since it was made five months after the determination *(see,*CPLR 4405).

In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff’s remaining contentions need not be addressed. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128735 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

GONZALEZ INTEGRATED MARKETING, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, f/k/a LAKELAND GRAPHICS SERVICES, INC., Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 128735 

 COA: 251151 

Wayne CC: 02-233037-CK

WALTER R. OLTERSDORF,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the Court of Appeals judgment and 

REINSTATE the September 10, 2003 order of the Wayne Circuit Court granting 

plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition and denying defendant’s motion for summary 

disposition for reasons stated by that court. 

s1221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2005 

Clerk
ACCEPTED 03-14-00138-CR 4944790 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/20/2015 8:36:07 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK NO. 03-14-00138-CR LARRYDEWAYNE GARRETT 

### § § § § § IN THE 

## vs. THIRD COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS OF APPEALS APPEARANCE OF CO-COUNSEL BOBBY DALE BARINA/TYLER WOUDWYK hereby make this appearance as cocounsel for Larry Dewayne Garrett in this case. Respectfully submitted, BOBBYDALE BARINA 455 East Central Texas Expressway, Suite 104 HarkerHeights, Texas 76548 Tel: (254) 699-3755 Fax: (254) 699-1074 BobbyDaleBarina@BarinaLaw.com

# By~ ;Woudwyk State BarNo. 24084120 bobbydalebarina@barinalaw.com Attorney for Larry Dewayne Garrett

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE !2P This is to certify that on Apri!)?f, 2015, a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing document was served on the County Attorney's Office, Bell County, 1201 Huey Road, Bell CountyTexas, byfax to 254-933-5150

. 

# .Zoudwyk
[LOGO SARATOGA INDUSTRIES                                     TEL : 518-245-4400
      SARATOGA ELECRO-FINISHING]                              FAX : 518-245-4425
                                                                www.espey.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp.
233 Ballston Avenue, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 USA

                                  AMENDMENT TO
         SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED HOWARD PINSLEY AGREEMENT (Revised)

      AMENDMENT dated as of November 23, 2009, by and between Espey Mfg. &
Electronics Corp., a New York corporation and Howard Pinsley, to that certain
Agreement dated as of February 20, 2009.

      The parties hereby agree to amend and restate paragraph 4 of the Agreement
so that it provides, in full, as follows:

            4. TERM. This Agreement shall continue in effect until February 26,
               ----
      2010 at which time this Agreement shall terminate (the "Term"). If during
      the Term, the Employee resigns or is terminated as Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company, then the provisions of this Agreement shall continue in
      effect during the 36 month period following such resignation or
      termination and as provided in Section 5 below.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment
as of the day and year first above written.

                                             ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP.

                                             By: /s/ Dave O'Neil
                                                 --------------------------
                                                 Name:  David O'Neil
                                                 Title:  Treasurer


                                             /s/Howard Pinsley
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Howard Pinsley


                                       3
# EUR-Lex - 31999Y0717(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999Y0717(01)

**Declarations on Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission **

*
Official Journal C 203 , 17/07/1999 P. 0001 - 0001 *

DECLARATIONS ON COUNCIL DECISION 1999/468/EC

of 28 June 1999

laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission

(1999/C 203/01)

1. COMMISSION STATEMENT (ad Article 4)

Under the management procedure, the Commission would recall that its constant practice is to try to secure a satisfactory decision which will also muster the widest possible support within the Committee.

The commission will take account of the position of the members of the Committee and act in such a way as to avoid going against any predominant position which might emerge against the appropriateness of an implementing measure.

2. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION STATEMENT

The Commission and the Council agree that provisions relating to committees assisting the Commission in the exercise of implementing powers provided for in application of Decision 87/373/EEC should be adjusted without delay in order to align them with Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Decision 1999/468/EC in accordance with the appropriate legislative procedures.

Such adjustment should be made as follows:

- current procedure I would be turned into the new advisory procedure;

- current procedures II(a) and II(b) would be turned into the new management procedure;

- current procedures III(a) and III(b) would be turned into the new regulatory procedure.

a modification of the type of committee provided for in a basic instrument should be made, on a case by case basis, in the course of normal revision of legislation, guided inter alia by the criteria provided for in Article 2.

Such adjustment or modification should be made in compliance with the obligations incumbent on the Community institutions. It should not have the effect of jeopardising attainment of the objectives of the basic instrument or the effectiveness of Community action.

3. COMMISSION STATEMENT (ad Article 5)

In the review of proposals for implementing measures concerning particularly sensitive sectors, the Commission, in order to find a balanced solution, will act in such a way as to avoid going against any predominant position which might emerge within the Council against the appropriateness of an implementing measure.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 UC HUB Group, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2005,
as  filed  with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Larry Wilcox, Chief Executive Officer and 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, that:

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

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

     Dated:  June 22, 2005.
                                       /s/  Larry Wilcox
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Larry Wilcox, Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             598
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,293
<PP&E>                                          90,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          158,576
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,446
<OTHER-SE>                                     (69,448)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,128
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          (10,169)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (10,169)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,614)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
[No. 49335-3-I.

Division One.

December 9, 2002.]

#### Everett Recreational Vehicle Park, et al., *Appellants,*v. The City of Everett, *Respondent.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 99-2-09101-7, Ronald L. Castleberry, J., entered June 16, 2000 and August 6, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kennedy, J., concurred in by Grosse and Baker, JJ.
<PAGE>  33
     Exhibit 99.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief
           Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Mary D. Cohron, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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


By:  /s/Mary D. Cohron
            Mary D. Cohron
            Chief Executive Officer



Date:  June 6, 2003

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Bill Wright, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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


By:  /s/ Bill D. Wright
             Bill D. Wright
             Chief Financial Officer


Date: June 6, 2003
China Information Security Technology, Inc. - Exhibit 10.27 - Prepared
   By TNT Filings Inc.










Exhibit 10.27

HUIPU ELECTRONICS (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD 
Add: Block R2-A2, South
District, High-tech Park, 
Nanshan Dristrict, Shenzhen City 
Tel:
0755-26984710 Fax: 0755-2698740 
Web: www.huipu.com.cn 

HUIPU ELECTRONICS (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD 

General Purchase Contract  

	Buyer: Huipu Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 	Contract No. HPC200826002 
	Seller: iASPEC Software Co., Ltd. 	Date: August 26, 2008




	NO. 	Items 	       Descriptions
      	Quantity 	Unit Price 	Sub-Total (RMB) 
	  		  	  	  	  
	1 	19W Widescreen 	LCD/No DV1/No Speaker/All
      black 	58,800.00 	795.00 	46,746,000.00 
	2 	15"LCD TV 	HITACH 	1,243.00 	664.00 	825,352.00 
	3 	26"LCD TV 	All Weiguan Inventory
      	2,000.00 	1,718.00 	3,436,000.00 
	4 	40"LCD TV 	All Weiguan Inventory 	2,000.00 	3,020.00 	6,040,000.00 
	  		  	  	  	  
	Total 		  	  	  	57,047,352.00 


Remarks: 

1. Delivery date: Sep 1-Sep 30, 2008 (Specific delivery date to
be notified). 2. Quality standards: Standard ex-factory inspection as agreed by
both parties. 3. Trade terms: FOB ShenZhen. 

4. Payment terms: L/C at sight. 

5. Inspection and Demurs: Within three days from the goods
delivered to the Buyer' factory. 

6. Spare parts: None. 

7. Packing: PE Bag 




8. Enforcibility and Dispute Settlement: Facsimile of the
Contract upon execution by both parties shall be deemed equally authentic. The
Contract is governed by PRC Law. All disputes in connection with this contract
or the execution thereof shall be settled at the court of Shenzhen Nanshan
District.

	Buyer: 	Seller: 
	Huipu Electronic (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd 	iASPEC Software Co., Ltd. 
	SIGNATURE 	 SIGNATURE 
	  	  
	...................................................... 	...................................................... 
	Lu Zhi Duan 	 Ding Quan 
	Date: August 26, 2008 	Date: August 26, 2008
#### § 1919.17 Exemptions from heat treatment.

Gear made of steel, or gear which contains (as in ball bearings swivels), or is permanently attached to (as with blocks) equipment made of materials which cannot be subjected to heat treatment shall be exempt from the requirements of § 1919.16. Such gear, however, shall be thoroughly examined in the manner described in § 1919.15(c).
§ 1919.79 Wire rope. ( a ) Wire rope and replacement wire rope shall be of the same size, same or better grade, and same construction as originally furnished by the equipment manufacturer or contemplated in the design, unless otherwise recommended by the equipment or the wire rope manufacturer due to actual working condition requirements. In the absence of specific requirements as noted, wire rope shall be of a size and construction suitable for the purpose, and a safety factor of 4 shall be adhered to, and verified by wire rope test certificate.
( b ) Wire rope in use on equipment previously constructed and prior to initial certification of said equipment shall not be required to be tested, but shall be subject to thorough examination at the time of initial certification of the equipment.