alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 17.10 How does the Secretary make efforts to accommodate intergovernmental concerns? ( a ) If a state process provides a state process recommendation to the Department through its single point of contact, the Secretary either— ( 1 ) Accepts the recommendation;
( 2 ) Reaches a mutually agreeable solution with the state process; or
( 3 ) Provides the single point of contact with such written explanation of the decision, as the Secretary in his or her discretion deems appropriate. The Secretary may also supplement the written explanation by providing the explanation to the single point of contact by telephone, other telecommunication, or other means.
( b ) In any explanation under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the Secretary informs the single point of contact that: ( 1 ) The Department will not implement its decision for at least ten days after the single point of contact receives the explanation; or
( 2 ) The Secretary has reviewed the decision and determined that, because of unusual circumstances, the waiting period of at least ten days is not feasible.
( c ) For purposes of computing the waiting period under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a single point of contact is presumed to have received written notification 5 days after the date of mailing of such notification.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBERT KENON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1955

[May 10, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. McCann, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2007-CF-001604-A.

Robert Lee Kenon, Carrabelle, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina 

Jimenez-Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit
31.1 CERTIFICATION  I, Gino Scotto, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 10-K of Kenilworth Systems Corporation;  2.Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 are made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this annual report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;  4.The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for
the registrant and have:  a)Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures or caused such disclosure controls 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 annual report is being prepared;  b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)             Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and  5.The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):  a)             All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)            Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.   Date:  April 12, 2005
  By:
  /s/ Gino ScottoChief Executive Officer
128 STAT. 1826 PUBLIC LAW 113–153—AUG. 8, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3765 (S. 2057): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

June 17, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–153 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 198 Baker 

Street in Corning, New York, as the ‘‘Specialist Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST RYAN P. JAYNE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Specialist Ryan P. Jayne Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Specialist Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building’’. 

Approved August 8, 2014. 

Aug. 8, 2014 

[H.R. 3765] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
#### §§ 1910.381-1910.398 [Reserved]
#### Virginia Landin *et al., Appellants,*v. Neils McKenzie Oerting, *Appellee.*

Where the decree rendered by a Probate Court is correct, a ruling of that court sustaining an objection to testimony that had been submitted, even if erroneous, may be harmless, and if so, will not warrant a reversal of the Probate decree by the Circuit Court on appeal.

This case was decided by Division A.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Sullivan & Sullivan,*for Appellants;

*R. P. Reese,*for Appellee.

Whitfield, C. J.

This appeal is from a decree of the circuit court reversing a decree of the County Judge sitting as a Court of Probate. A final settlement by an administrator of his deceased wife’s estate was contested by the decedent’s children. In taking the testimony before the County Judge as to whether certain bank deposits amounting to $857.00 included in the inventory of the deceased wife’s estate were the property of the decedent or of her husband, the administrator, the following question was propounded to the administrator by his counsel: - “State whether or not the money on deposit in the American National Bank, of Pensacola, to the credit of Mary C. Oerting, at the time of her death, was your money.” Answer. “I had eight hundred dollars in gold in an old trunk at my house where it had been for years, *653and during my absence from the city, my wife, Mary C. Oerting, discovered that the money was there, and upon my return to the city my wife got the money out of the trunk and carried it down to the bank and deposited it in her name.” It appears merely that an objection was sustained by the County Judge to this testimony on the ground that it related to a transaction or communication between the administrator and his decedent.

Even if the action of the County Judge in sustaining the objection to the testimony was erroneous, it was, in view of the entire record, harmless. The administrator had included the bank deposits in the inventory of the decedent’s property signed by him and by the appraisers. The testimony objected to was heard by the judge notwithstanding the objection to it, and whether it was considered or not, it was not sufficient to overcome the evidence in the case showing that the deposits were the property of the decedent.

The decree of the circuit court is reversed.

Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36884-36885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15773]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property 
at Durant Regional--Eaker Field, Durant, Oklahoma

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the 
release of land at Durant Regional--Eaker Field, Durant, Oklahoma.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Glenn Boles, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Manager--Arkansas/
Oklahoma Airports Development Office, ASW-630, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-
0630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tim House, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office, ASW-630, 
2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0630.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this 
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release property at Durant Regional--Eaker Field under the 
provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment 
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City of Durant has requested release of a parcel comprised of 
5.92

[[Page 36885]]

acres acquired through provisions of Executive Order 9689, dated 
January 31, 1946 and the Surplus Property Act of 1944 with aeronautical 
rights attached. The property is located on the west side of the 
airport and is indentified as Lot 1 of Amended Durant Regional Airport 
Industrial Park. The parcel is separated from aviation activity by 
Cessna Road and is located outside of the airport perimeter fence. As 
airport owner, the City of Durant has requested a full release of their 
airport obligations. The city plans to construct a Regional Emergency 
Operations Center (REOC) on the property. As a condition of the 
transfer, the city will provide $73,670.00 to fund construction of T-
hangars at Durant Regional--Eaker Field.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, 
notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the 
Durant Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 19, 2015.
Ignacio Flores,
Manager, Airports Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-15773 Filed 6-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
```
#### § 1915.1003 13 carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.).

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment 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 31430](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31430), June 20, 1996]
§ 91.1101 Pilots: Initial, transition, and upgrade ground training. Initial, transition, and upgrade ground training for pilots must include instruction in at least the following, as applicable to their duties: ( a ) General subjects— ( 1 ) The program manager's flight locating procedures;
( 2 ) Principles and methods for determining weight and balance, and runway limitations for takeoff and landing;
( 3 ) Enough meteorology to ensure a practical knowledge of weather phenomena, including the principles of frontal systems, icing, fog, thunderstorms, windshear and, if appropriate, high altitude weather situations;
( 4 ) Air traffic control systems, procedures, and phraseology;
( 5 ) Navigation and the use of navigational aids, including instrument approach procedures;
( 6 ) Normal and emergency communication procedures;
( 7 ) Visual cues before and during descent below Decision Altitude or MDA; and
( 8 ) Other instructions necessary to ensure the pilot's competence.
( b ) For each aircraft type— ( 1 ) A general description;
( 2 ) Performance characteristics;
( 3 ) Engines and propellers;
( 4 ) Major components;
( 5 ) Major aircraft systems (that is, flight controls, electrical, and hydraulic), other systems, as appropriate, principles of normal, abnormal, and emergency operations, appropriate procedures and limitations;
( 6 ) Knowledge and procedures for— ( i ) Recognizing and avoiding severe weather situations;
( ii ) Escaping from severe weather situations, in case of inadvertent encounters, including low-altitude windshear (except that rotorcraft pilots are not required to be trained in escaping from low-altitude windshear);
( iii ) Operating in or near thunderstorms (including best penetration altitudes), turbulent air (including clear air turbulence), inflight icing, hail, and other potentially hazardous meteorological conditions; and
( iv ) Operating airplanes during ground icing conditions, (that is, any time conditions are such that frost, ice, or snow may reasonably be expected to adhere to the aircraft), if the program manager expects to authorize takeoffs in ground icing conditions, including: ( A ) The use of holdover times when using deicing/anti-icing fluids;
( B ) Airplane deicing/anti-icing procedures, including inspection and check procedures and responsibilities;
( C ) Communications;
( D ) Airplane surface contamination (that is, adherence of frost, ice, or snow) and critical area identification, and knowledge of how contamination adversely affects airplane performance and flight characteristics;
( E ) Types and characteristics of deicing/anti-icing fluids, if used by the program manager;
( F ) Cold weather preflight inspection procedures;
( G ) Techniques for recognizing contamination on the airplane;
( 7 ) Operating limitations;
( 8 ) Fuel consumption and cruise control;
( 9 ) Flight planning;
( 10 ) Each normal and emergency procedure; and
( 11 ) The approved Aircraft Flight Manual or equivalent.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00481-CV

SYLVIA ROGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

ESTATE OF JEAN LOUIS ROGER, SR., ET AL.

v.

BENJAMIN KARL MUMME, JR. AND CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

On Appeal from the

319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2012-DCV-1731-G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED IN PART and 

REVERSED and RENDERED IN PART. The Court orders the judgment of the trial 

court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED and RENDERED IN PART. Costs of the 

appeal are adjudged against the party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d); see 

also id. R. 43.4.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 19, 2016
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 824 

To amend Public Law 106–348 to extend the authorization for establishing 

a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor veterans 

who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United 

States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2007 

Mr. THUNE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 106–348 to extend the authorization 

for establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia 

or its environs to honor veterans who became disabled 

while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR ESTABLISHING 

4 DISABLED VETERANS MEMORIAL. 

5 Public Law 106–348 is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (b)— 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 824 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘The establishment’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subsection (e), 

3 the establishment’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘the Commemorative 

5 Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)’’ and in6 serting ‘‘chapter 89 of title 40, United States 

7 Code’’; 

8 (2) in subsection (d)— 

9 (A) by striking ‘‘section 8(b) of the Com10 memorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b))’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘section 8906 of title 40, United 

12 States Code’’; 

13 (B) by striking ‘‘or upon expiration of the 

14 authority for the memorial under section 10(b) 

15 of such Act (40 U.S.C. 1010(b)),’’; and 

16 (C) by striking ‘‘section 8(b)(1) of such 

17 Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b)(1)’’ and inserting 

18 ‘‘8906(b)(2) or (3) of such title’’; and 

19 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub20 section: 

21 ‘‘(e) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—Notwith22 standing section 8903(e) of title 40, United States Code, 

23 the authority to establish a memorial under this section 

24 shall expire on October 24, 2015.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### § 1690.303 Consultation with affected agencies.

At the start of consultation, the EEOC shall determine which other agencies would be affected by the proposed issuance, and the initiating agency shall consult with such agencies. Initiating agencies shall also consult with other agencies which claim that their internal equal employment opportunity or personnel programs are affected by proposed issuances otherwise directed at external equal employment opportunity efforts. Agencies may consult with any other agencies that they believe would be affected by the issuance. The consultation period shall be determined by the parties. During the consultation period, the EEOC shall seek to resolve any disputes with the initiating agency before publication.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems (1196).                    

*Date and Time:*                         June 8-9, 2000—8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, Room 580, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Persons:*                         Dr. Usha Varshney, Program Director, Electronic, Photonics and Device Technologies (EPDT), Division of Electrical and Communications Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 675, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1339.                    

*Purpose:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate research proposals in the Electronics, Photonics and Device Technologies program as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are within exemptions 4 and 6 of 5 U.S.C. 552 b. (c), (4) and (6) the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-12457 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v BADER

Case No. 77519BP

County Court, Dade County (Traffic Division)

February 25, 1987

OPINION OF THE COURT

FRED MORENO, County Judge.

The Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Driving Under the Influence on the basis that a videotape of the defendant was erased by the State. The State contends that only an attempt to make the videotape was made and that any error occurring resulted from mislabeling a tape unrelated to this case. Both parties stipulated, at an evidentiary hearing that was held, that Trooper Roger Odem’s deposi*85tion of February 17, 1987 would be the sole evidence presented for the motion. The Court having reached such transcript and having heard argument of counsel hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Court finds that a videotape of the Defendant after his arrest was made and that the videotape machine was working as testified by Trooper Odem. (See pages 32 and 33 of the deposition). The Court further finds that in view of the Defendant’s condition (e.g. he didn’t have any trouble providing accident information to the trooper; his neat appearance; the trooper’s failure to recollect how the Defendant performed on the balance test; the Defendant missing only one out of six times on the finger to nose test, etc.) the videotape would have been material and favorable to the Defendant under *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83 (1963). This videotape was apparently destroyed by the State after request for it was made by the Defendant. Hence, the omission of the videotape was material to the determination of guilt or innocence as admitted by Trooper Odem in his deposition. Furthermore, considering the breath test result of .12% which would carry an instruction to the jury presuming the Defendant impaired, the omission of the tape would be extremely prejudicial.

The instant case is easily distinguished from *Melendez v. State*(FLW 12/11/86) in that the evidence alleged not to be preserved (stains, clothes, blood sampling) in that murder case was not shown to have an apparent exculpatory value. In a D.U.I. prosecution, as Trooper Odem himself states, a videotape “gives the true picture of what transpired rather than just telling somebody how somebody performed.” (Deposition Transcript pages 50-51). Also, *Budman v. State,*362 So.2d 1022 (3d DCA 1978) likewise is easily distinguishable since the Court “scrupulously reviewed the entire record and can find no showing, whatsoever, that the copies, if produced, would have been favorable or material in any way to appellant.”

Wherefore, despite the State’s unnecessary destruction of the favorable evidence having been done in apparent good faith, dismissal is required. *State v. Del Gaudio,*445 So.2d 605 (3d DCA 1984); *State v. Counce,*392 So.2d 1029 (4th DCA 1981).

WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1987 in Miami, Dade County, Florida.