alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HALF-HOLIDAY LAW.

[Cuyahoga Circuit Court,

1897.]

Caldwell, Hale and Marvin, JJ.

#### Diemer v. Hudson.

’The Saturday Hale-Holiday Daw is Unconstitutional.

The Saturday half-holiday law, 92 O. D-, 208, applicable only to cities having a a population of 50,000, or over, is one on a general subject, and as there is no ground whatever upon which the legislature can make that classification the law is unconstitutional.

Caldwell, J.

The Saturday half-holiday law, applicable to cities having a population of 50,000, or over, 92 O. L., 208, passed by our legislature last .spring, is unconstitutional.

This was a replevin case, and the claim was made that a writ made •out and served on a Saturday afternoon was illegal. In the common pleas court Judge Dissette declared that the proceeding was illegal because the writ was served on a legal half-holiday; this declared the half-holiday law to be constitutional. The circuit court hold: The half-holiday law is one on a general subject. A general holiday is a subject of a nature pertaining to every part of the state, and there is no natural distinction existing between those parts of the state that are subject to the law and *859those that are not. There is no ground whatever upon which the legislature can make that classification, and for this reason the law is unconstitutional. The action of the common pleas court is overruled and the case is remanded.
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.

§ 1926.1424 Work area control. ( a ) *Swing radius hazards.* ( 1 ) The requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section apply where there are accessible areas in which the equipment's rotating superstructure (whether permanently or temporarily mounted) poses a reasonably foreseeable risk of: ( i ) Striking and injuring an employee; or
( ii ) Pinching/crushing an employee against another part of the equipment or another object.
( 2 ) To prevent employees from entering these hazard areas, the employer must: ( i ) Train each employee assigned to work on or near the equipment (“authorized personnel”) in how to recognize struck-by and pinch/crush hazard areas posed by the rotating superstructure.
( ii ) Erect and maintain control lines, warning lines, railings or similar barriers to mark the boundaries of the hazard areas. *Exception:* When the employer can demonstrate that it is neither feasible to erect such barriers on the ground nor on the equipment, the hazard areas must be clearly marked by a combination of warning signs (such as “Danger—Swing/Crush Zone”) and high visibility markings on the equipment that identify the hazard areas. In addition, the employer must train each employee to understand what these markings signify.
( 3 ) *Protecting employees in the hazard area.* ( i ) Before an employee goes to a location in the hazard area that is out of view of the operator, the employee (or someone instructed by the employee) must ensure that the operator is informed that he/she is going to that location.
( ii ) Where the operator knows that an employee went to a location covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the operator must not rotate the superstructure until the operator is informed in accordance with a pre-arranged system of communication that the employee is in a safe position.
( b ) Where any part of a crane/derrick is within the working radius of another crane/derrick, the controlling entity must institute a system to coordinate operations. If there is no controlling entity, the employer (if there is only one employer operating the multiple pieces of equipment), or employers, must institute such a system.
Exhibit 32.2   Section 1350 Certification





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Citizens First Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, J. Steven Marcum, Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ J. Steven MarcumJ. Steven MarcumExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
July 30, 2010








This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed ‘filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0474 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM213AD

A330 - 92 - 3077 --- 6/17/08 A340 - 92 -4078 --- 6/17/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
Forwarded by Bob Boethling/DC/USEPA/US on 08/23/2012 04:15 PM -----

From: Bob Boethling/DC/USEPA/US

To: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Chuantung Lin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathryn Schechter/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/27/2012 10:55 PM

Subject: Re: HPV 2 P/C Data received from Vertellus to satisfy req of test rule for CASRN 68187-84-8. 

I reviewed the biodegradation study (OECD 301D method) submitted for this substance. The test was 

correctly run and the results are deemed reliable. The substance was partially degraded and did not 

meet the ready biodegradability pass criterion. Given the substance, this surprises me, but there's 

nothing more I can say to refute the data. Perhaps the oxidation (it's "castor oil, oxidized") oxidizes the 

double bonds to epoxides and this would, if anything, be expected to impart some resistance to 

biodegradation.

Robert Boethling, PhD

Exposure Assessment Branch

US EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (7406M)

Washington, DC 20460

202-564-8533 (P)

202-564-8892 (F)
#### § 1650.207 Administrative charges.

All administrative charges incurred in connection with the referral of a debt to the Treasury and all costs of collection of the debt will be assessed on the debt and thus increase the amount of the offset.
§ 1905.15 Requests for hearings on applications. ( a ) *Request for hearing.* Within the time allowed by a notice of the filing of an application, any affected employer, employee, or appropriate State agency having jurisdiction over employment or places of employment covered in an application may file with the Assistant Secretary, in quadruplicate, a request for a hearing on the application.
( b ) *Contents of a request for a hearing.* A request for a hearing filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall include: ( 1 ) A concise statement of facts showing how the employer or employee would be affected by the relief applied for;
( 2 ) A specification of any statement or representation in the application which is denied, and a concise summary of the evidence that would be adduced in support of each denial; and
( 3 ) Any views or arguments on any issue of fact or law presented.
[36 FR 12290, June 30, 1971, as amended at 40 FR 25450, June 16, 1975]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12358]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, June 2, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-12358 Filed 5-12-00; 11:31 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### Lucy Anderson, Appellant, v. Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Respondent.

Argued April 26, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*548
      *Henry Pleus*and *Julius Datler*for appellant.

*Herman S. Axelrod*and *Milton Maurice Meyer*for Charles L. Meckenberg, *amicus curiae.*

*Richard S. Holmes, Harold P. Winans*and *Wilber Stammler*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs. First and second questions certified answered in the negative. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loitghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 1917.113 Clearance heights.

Clearance heights shall be prominently posted where the height is insufficient for vehicles and equipment.
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0593 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0593

**97/593/EC: Commission Decision of 29 July 1997 laying down animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the importation of fresh poultry meat from Israel (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 239 , 30/08/1997 P. 0051 - 0053 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 29 July 1997 laying down animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the importation of fresh poultry meat from Israel (Text with EEA relevance) (97/593/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/494/EEC of 26 June 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of fresh poultrymeat (1), as last amended by Directive 93/121/EC (2), and in particular Article 10 (1) b, Article 11 and Article 12 thereof,

Whereas Commission Decision 94/85/EC (3), as last amended by Decision 96/2/EC (4), established a list of third countries, including Israel, from which the importation of fresh poultrymeat is authorized;

Whereas Israel is no longer free from Newcastle disease; whereas, however, Israel applies measures to control Newcastle disease which are at least equivalent to those laid down in Directive 92/66/EEC (5) as last amended by the act of Accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland;

Whereas it is appropriate on this basis to allow the importation of fresh poultrymeat from Israel; Whereas therefore the animal health conditions and the veterinary certificates must be laid down;

Whereas it is appropriate to restrict the scope of this Decision to poultry species covered by Council Directive 71/118/EEC (6), as last amended by Directive 96/23/EEC (7) and, if necessary, to lay down the animal health conditions and veterinary certification for other poultry species in a separate Decision;

Whereas this Decision applies without prejudice to measures taken for poultry meat imported for other purposes than human consumption;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Member States shall authorize the import of fresh poultry meat from Israel, provided that it meets the requirements of the animal health certificate set out in the Annex and that it is accompanied by such a certificate, duly completed and signed.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 July 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 35.

(2) OJ No L 340, 31. 12. 1993, p. 39.

(3) OJ No L 44, 17. 2. 1994, p. 31.

(4) OJ No L 1, 3. 1. 1996, p. 6.

(5) OJ No L 260, 5. 9. 1992, p. 1.

(6) OJ No L 55, 8. 3. 1971, p. 23.

(7) OJ No L 125, 23. 5. 1996, p. 10.

ANNEX

>START OF GRAPHIC>

>END OF GRAPHIC>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4979 

To terminate the Department of Education. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 8, 2020 

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

the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To terminate the Department of Education. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDU4 CATION. 

5 The Department of Education shall terminate on De6 cember 31, 2020. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
§ 1919.36 Heat treatment. ( a ) The annealing of wrought iron gear required by this part shall be accomplished at a temperature between 1100° and 1200 °F. and the exposure shall be of between 30 and 60 minutes duration. After being annealed, the gear shall be allowed to cool slowly and shall then be carefully inspected. All annealing shall be carried out in a closed furnace.
( b ) When heat treatment of loose gear made of other than wrought iron or steel is recommended by the manufacturer, it shall be carried out in accordance with the specifications of the manufacturer.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 19

- 00700

- CV

IN RE IMPLICITY MANA GEMENT COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 11, 2019

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On October 10, 2019, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a

motion for stay of the underlying proceedings pending final resolution of the petition for writ of

mandamus, which this court granted on October 23 , 2019. The real party in interest respo nded

and relator replied. After considering the petition , response, reply, and the record, this court

concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a). The sta y imposed on October 23 , 2019 is lifted.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2016CI11019, styled Implicity Management Company v. American Risk

Insurance Co., Inc. , pending in the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, th e Honorable Cathleen M.

Stryker presiding.
# EUR-Lex - 31997R0386 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997R0386

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 386/97 of 28 February 1997 correcting the English and Swedish language versions of Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 laying down quality standards for bananas and the Spanish language version of Regulation (EC) No 2898/95 concerning verification of compliance with quality standards for bananas **

*
Official Journal L 060 , 01/03/1997 P. 0053 - 0053 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 386/97 of 28 February 1997 correcting the English and Swedish language versions of Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 laying down quality standards for bananas and the Spanish language version of Regulation (EC) No 2898/95 concerning verification of compliance with quality standards for bananas

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of the market in bananas (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas the English and Swedish language versions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 (3) and the Spanish language version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2898/95 (4), amended by Regulation (EC) No 465/96 (5), differ from the texts in the other official Community languages; whereas, therefore, the necessary corrections should be made to those language versions;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Bananas,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The English language version of Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 is amended as follows:

In Point III of Annex I, the first indent concerning sizing is replaced by the following:

'- the length of the fruit expressed in centimetres and measured along the convex face, from the blossom end to the point where the peduncle joins the crown,`.

Article 2

A correction is hereby made to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2898/95.

This correction concerns only the Spanish language version of the Regulation.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 February 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 47, 25. 2. 1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 349, 31. 12. 1994, p. 105.

(3) OJ No L 245, 20. 9. 1994, p. 6.

(4) OJ No L 304, 16. 12. 1995, p. 17.

(5) OJ No L 65, 15. 3. 1996, p. 5.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         644,941
<SECURITIES>                                 2,306,262
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,111,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,241,645
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,566,929
<PP&E>                                       4,995,310
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,748,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,693,348
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       124,926
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,699,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,748,279
<SALES>                                      9,913,885
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,913,885
<CGS>                                        8,006,668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,006,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,876,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             204,322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                410,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            410,354
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   410,354
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00



</TABLE>
§ 91.185 IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure. ( a ) *General.* Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has two-way radio communications failure when operating under IFR shall comply with the rules of this section.
( b ) *VFR conditions.* If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.
( c ) *IFR conditions.* If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if paragraph (b) of this section cannot be complied with, each pilot shall continue the flight according to the following: ( 1 ) *Route.* ( i ) By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received;
( ii ) If being radar vectored, by the direct route from the point of radio failure to the fix, route, or airway specified in the vector clearance;
( iii ) In the absence of an assigned route, by the route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance; or
( iv ) In the absence of an assigned route or a route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance, by the route filed in the flight plan.
( 2 ) *Altitude.* At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels for the route segment being flown: ( i ) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;
( ii ) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in § 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or
( iii ) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.
( 3 ) *Leave clearance limit.* ( i ) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if one has not been received, as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.
( ii ) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989; Amdt. 91-211, 54 FR 41211, Oct. 5, 1989]
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.

§ 1926.417 Lockout and tagging of circuits. ( a ) *Controls.* Controls that are to be deactivated during the course of work on energized or deenergized equipment or circuits shall be tagged.
( b ) *Equipment and circuits.* Equipment or circuits that are deenergized shall be rendered inoperative and shall have tags attached at all points where such equipment or circuits can be energized.
( c ) *Tags.* Tags shall be placed to identify plainly the equipment or circuits being worked on.
[44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979; 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, as amended at 55 FR 42328, Oct. 18, 1990; 58 FR 35181, June 30, 1993; 61 FR 9251, Mar. 7, 1996; 61 FR 41739, Aug. 12, 1996]]