alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1952.24 New York. ( a ) The New York State plan for State and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on June 1, 1984.
( b ) The plan, as revised on April 28, 2006, provides assurances of a fully trained, adequate staff, including 29 safety and 21 health compliance officers for enforcement inspections and 11 safety and 9 health consultants to perform consultation services in the public sector. The State has also given satisfactory assurances of continued adequate funding to support the plan.
( c ) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit *http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/new_york.html .*
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of FairPoint Communications, Inc.(the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JohnP. Crowley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

1.                 The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ John P. Crowley                      |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| John P. Crowley*Chief Financial Officer* |   |
| May 29,  2007                       |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
§ 1603.101 Coverage. Section 304 of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 applies to employment, which includes application for employment, of any individual chosen or appointed by a person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof: ( a ) To be a member of the elected official's personal staff;
( b ) To serve the elected official on the policymaking level; or
( c ) To serve the elected official as an immediate advisor with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office.
[62 FR 17543, Apr. 10, 1997, as amended at 72 FR 5616, Feb. 7, 2007]
§ 1919.24 Limitations on use of wire rope. ( a ) An eye splice made in any wire rope shall have at least three tucks with a whole strand of rope and two tucks with one-half of the wires cut out of each strand. However, this requirement shall not operate to preclude the use of another form of splice or connection which can be shown to be as efficient and which is not prohibited by part 1918 of this chapter.
( b ) Except for eye splices in the ends of wires, each wire rope used in hoisting or lowering, in guying derricks, or as a topping lift, preventer or pendant shall consist of one continuous piece without knot or splice.
( c ) Eyes in the ends of wire rope cargo falls shall not be formed by knots and, in single part falls, shall not be formed by wire rope clips.
( d ) The ends of falls shall be secured to the winch drums by clamps, U-bolts, shackles or some other equally strong method. Fiber rope fastenings shall not be used.
( e ) Wire rope shall not be used for the vessel's cargo gear if in any length of eight diameters, the total number of visible broken wires exceeds 10 percent of the total number of wires, or if the rope shows other signs of excessive wear, corrosion, or defect. Particular attention shall be given to the condition of those sections of wire rope adjacent to any terminal connections, those sections exposed to abnormal wear, and those sections not normally exposed for examination.
## SERVE D APRI L7 , 201 0 'pRiAllO N

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I N TH EMATTE RO F 

### THRESHOL D AI RCHARTER , INC . Fo r fee s an dexpense s unde

r the Equa l Acces s to Justic e Ac

t 2010-EAJA-Ol FA A DOCKE T No . CP10WP000 4 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DMS No . FAA-2010-019 5 ORDE RO FDISMISSA L O n February 27 , 2010 , counse l for Threshol dAi r

Charter , Inc . ("Applicant" ) submitte da

n Applicatio n for

Attorney' s Fee s an dCost s ("Applicaton" ) unde r th e Equal Acces s t o Justic e Act , 5 US C §50 4 ("EAJA") , an d1 4 C.F.R . §14.0 1 o f th e FAA' s Rule s implementin g EAJA . B y Orde r serve dMarc h29 , 2010 , th e matte r was assigne dt o th e imdersigned . B y lette r

date dMarc h31 , 2010 , th e Applican t withdre w it s Application , citin g settlement . 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.2 5 states : "Th e applican t an dagenc y counse l may agre e o n a propose dsettlemen t

o f th e awar dbefore final actio n o n th e application,... " WHEREFORE , th e withi n filedWithdrawa l o f Applicatio n havin g bee n rea dan d considered , i t

i s ORDERE D a s follows : 1 . Applicant' s Withdrawa l o f Applicatio n b e an di s hereb y granted ; an d2 . Thi s proceedin g b e an di s hereb y dismisse dwithprejudice . S O ORDERED .

Richar dC . Goodwi n ^ U.S . Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CP10WP000 4 (Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Steve n L . Graff

, Applicant' s Counse l Steve n L . Graff

, Inc . P.O . Bo x 89240 9 Temecula , C A 92589-240 9 TEL : 951-303-640 0 FAX : 951-303-072 3 Lis aJ . Toscano , Agenc y Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Coimse l Western-Pacifi c Region , AWP- 7 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 9200 7 Lo s Angeles , C A 90009-200 7 TEL : 310-725-710 0 FAX : 310-725-681 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodvdn , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration

, 60 0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Roo

m2014 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .
Exhibit 32  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 amended Quarterly Report of Intelligent Living Corp., formerly Elgrande International, Inc., the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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 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 result of operations of the Company.   Date: July 17, 2008 /s/ Michael F. Holloran --------------------------------------- Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer      1
EX-10.20






Exhibit 10.20




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

CONCORD MEDICAL SERVICES HOLDINGS LIMITED

2008 SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN




     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made on November 17, 2009 (the “Amendment Date”) by Concord Medical
Services Holdings Limited (the “Company”).



     WHEREAS, the Company adopted the Concord Medical Services Holdings Limited 2008 Share
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) on October 16, 2008;



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that it is in the best interests
of the Company to amend the Plan as set forth below;



     WHEREAS, subject to approval of the shareholders of the Company, the Board of Directors may
amend the Plan as set forth below pursuant to Section 13 of the Plan; and



     WHEREAS, the shareholders of the Company and the Board of Directors have approved this First
Amendment on the date hereof;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as set forth below:


Section 1. Amendment. The Plan shall be amended by deleting Section 3 in its entirety and
replacing it with the following:




“3. Shares Subject to the Plan




     Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 9 hereof, the total number of Shares which may be
issued under the Plan is 4,765,800 Shares. Among the total number of Shares that may be issued
under the Plan, up to 4,765,800 Shares may be issued for the purpose of granting Options (all of
which may be issued as ISOs) and/or Share Appreciation Rights. The Shares may consist, in whole or
in part, of authorized and unissued Shares, treasury Shares or Shares purchased on the open market.
The issuance of Shares or the payment of cash upon the exercise of an Award or in consideration of
the cancellation or termination of an Award shall reduce the total number of Shares available under
the Plan, as applicable. Shares which are subject to Awards which terminate or lapse without the
payment of consideration may be granted again under the Plan.”



Section 2. Effect of Amendment. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Plan shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the Amendment Date, each reference to “this
Plan,” “hereof,” “hereunder” or words of like import, and all references to the Plan in any and all
agreements, instruments, documents, notes, certificates and other writings of every kind and nature
shall be deemed to mean the Plan as amended by this Amendment, except as is otherwise expressly
stated.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6408

COREY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA; WARDEN PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (9:10-cv-00829-JFA)

Submitted: June 16, 2011 Decided: June 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Corey Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
###### 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.

#### § 1926.1129 [Reserved]
# EUR-Lex - 31999R1526 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R1526

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1526/1999 of 13 July 1999 determining the percentage of quantities covered by applications for export licences for pigmeat which may be accepted **

*
Official Journal L 178 , 13/07/1999 P. 0006 - 0006 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1526/1999

of 13 July 1999

determining the percentage of quantities covered by applications for export licences for pigmeat which may be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1370/95 of 16 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the pigmeat sector(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1719/98(2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,

(1) Whereas Regulation (EC) No 1370/95 provides for specific measures where applications for export licences concern quantities and/or expenditure which exceed the normal trade patterns or where there is a risk that they will be exceeded, taking account of the limit referred to in Article 8(11) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75(3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2916/95(4), and/ or the corresponding expenditure during the period in question;

(2) Whereas uncertainty is a feature of the market in certain pigmeat products; whereas the impending adjustment of the refunds applicable to those products has led to the submission of applications for export licences for export licences for speculative ends; whereas there is a risk that the issue of licences for the quantities applied for from 5 to 9 and from 12 to 13 July 1999 may lead to an overrun in the quantities of the products concerned normally disposed of by way of trade; whereas applications covering the products concerned,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No further action shall be taken in respect of applications submitted until 13 July 1999 for export licences for pigmeat pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1370/95 in respect of categories 1, 2 and 3 of Annex I to that Regulation which should have been issued from 14 July and from 21 July 1999.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 July 1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 13 July 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 133, 17.6.1995, p. 26.

(2) OJ L 125, 1.8.1998, p. 58.

(3) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 77.

(4) OJ L 305, 19.12.1995, p. 49.
#### § 1912.34 Freedom of Information Act.

Subject to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and part 70 of this title and part 1913 of this chapter, there shall be available for public inspection and copying in the Office of Standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, documents which were made available to or prepared for or by each advisory committee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

IN RE: 

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND

VICE-CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

RULES OF EVIDENCE

:

:

:

:

:

No. 743

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of July, 2017, John P. Krill, Jr., Esquire, is hereby 

designated as Chair, and the Honorable Bradford H. Charles is designated as ViceChair, of the Committee on Rules of Evidence, commencing October 1, 2017.
§ 1903.15 Proposed penalties. ( a ) After, or concurrent with, the issuance of a citation, and within a reasonable time after the termination of the inspection, the Area Director shall notify the employer by certified mail or by personal service by the Compliance Safety and Health Officer of the proposed penalty in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, or that no penalty is being proposed. Any notice of proposed penalty shall state that the proposed penalty shall be deemed to be the final order of the Review Commission and not subject to review by any court or agency unless, within 15 working days from the date of receipt of such notice, the employer notifies the Area Director in writing that he intends to contest the citation or the notification of proposed penalty before the Review Commission.
( b ) The Area Director shall determine the amount of any proposed penalty, giving due consideration to the appropriateness of the penalty with respect to the size of the business of the employer being charged, the gravity of the violation, the good faith of the employer, and the history of previous violations, in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the Act and paragraph (d) of this section.
( c ) Appropriate penalties may be proposed with respect to an alleged violation even though after being informed of such alleged violation by the Compliance Safety and Health Officer, the employer immediately abates, or initiates steps to abate, such alleged violation. Penalties shall not be proposed for de minimis violations which have no direct or immediate relationship to safety or health.
( d ) *Adjusted civil monetary penalties.* The adjusted civil penalties for penalties proposed after January 15, 2024 are as follows: ( 1 ) *Willful violation.* The penalty per willful violation under section 17(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(a), shall not be less than $11,524 and shall not exceed $161,323.
( 2 ) *Repeated violation.* The penalty per repeated violation under section 17(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(a), shall not exceed $161,323.
( 3 ) *Serious violation.* The penalty for a serious violation under section 17(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(b), shall not exceed $16,131.
( 4 ) *Other-than-serious violation.* The penalty for an other-than-serious violation under section 17(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(c), shall not exceed $16,131.
( 5 ) *Failure to correct violation.* The penalty for a failure to correct a violation under section 17(d) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(d), shall not exceed $16,131 per day.
( 6 ) *Posting requirement violation.* The penalty for a posting requirement violation under section 17(i) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(i), shall not exceed $16,131.
[36 FR 17850, Sept. 4, 1971, as amended at 81 FR 43453, July 1, 2016; 82 FR 5382, Jan. 18, 2017; 83 FR 14, Jan. 2, 2018; 84 FR 219, Jan. 23, 2019; 85 FR 2298, Jan. 15, 2020; 86 FR 2969, Jan. 14, 2021; 87 FR 2336, Jan. 14, 2022; 88 FR 2217, Jan. 13, 2023; 89 FR 1817, Jan. 11, 2024]
[No. 20802-8-III.

Division Three.

January 7, 2003.]

#### Angel Martinez, et al., *Appellants,*v. Callahan Manufacturing, Inc., et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 96-2-01024-0, Evan E. Sperline, J., entered January 3, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, A.C.J., concurred in by Sweeney and Schultheis, JJ.
1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2756

___________

Craig Allen Smith, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 30, 2006

Filed: June 13, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Craig Allen Smith appeals the district court’s1

 order denying his motion under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for appointed counsel in his Federal Tort Claims Act suit. We

hold that the order Smith challenges is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions)

or § 1292 (granting appellate jurisdiction over specified interlocutory orders), or under

the collateral order doctrine, see Kassuelke v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 223 F.3d 929,

931 (8th Cir. 2000) (to qualify for immediate appeal under collateral order doctrine,
-2-

order must conclusively decide disputed question that is important and distinct from

case’s merits, and decision must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final

judgment); cf. Marler v. Adonis Health Prods., 997 F.2d 1141, 1142-43 (5th Cir.

1993) (declining to extend collateral order doctrine to immediate appeals of orders

denying appointed counsel in products liability cases; in support stating, inter alia, that

appellate court can effectively remedy effects of erroneous denial of counsel by

vacating judgment and remanding for new trial with appointed counsel).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

______________________________
#### Greater New York Export House, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Arthur L. Peirson et al., Individually and as Trustees et al., Defendants, and Charles I. Frank, Individually and as Trustee, et al., Respondents.

Argued April 19, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*Walter S. Seidman*for motion.

*Edward Áksél*and *Robert Aronstem*opposed.

Motion by Max N. Koven and Lloyds First Mortgage Company to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.
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.

§ 1926.2 Variances from safety and health standards. ( a ) Variances from standards which are, or may be, published in this part may be granted under the same circumstances whereunder variances may be granted under section 6(b)(A) or 6(d) of the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 65). The procedures for the granting of variances and for related relief under this part are those published in part 1905 of this title.
( b ) Any requests for variances under this section shall also be considered requests for variances under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and any requests for variances under Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act with respect to construction safety or health standards shall be considered to be also variances under the Construction Safety Act. Any variance from a construction safety or health standard which is contained in this part and which is incorporated by reference in part 1910 of this title shall be deemed a variance from the standard under both the Construction Safety Act and the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.