alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Helen Nesofsky et al., Respondents, against Jacob Ragorotsky et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

Argued May 20, 1937;

decided June 8, 1937.

*Charles P. Bane*for appellant.

*597
      *John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General {Leon Freedman*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, O’Brien, Hitbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Dissenting: Crane, Ch. J.
#### § 102.102 Intervention.

Any person desiring to intervene must file a motion for intervention, stating the grounds upon which such person claims to have an interest in the petition. The motion must be filed with the Board in Washington, DC.

[82 FR 11767, Feb. 24, 2017]
§ 34.4 Incorporation by Reference. Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51). All approved material is available for inspection at the FAA and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the FAA Office of Rulemaking (ARM), 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-267-9677) For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit *www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations* or email *fr.inspection@nara.gov .* ( a ) The material may be obtained from the following source: International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO): Document Sales Unit, 999 University Street, Montreal, Quebec H3C 5H7, Canada, phone + 1 514-954-8022, or *www.icao.int .* ( 1 ) Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Environmental Protection, Volume II—Aircraft Engine Emissions, Third Edition, July 2008 (ICAO Annex 16); in §§ 34.1 and 34.60.
( 2 ) Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Environmental Protection, Volume II—Aircraft Engine Emissions, Fourth Edition, July 2017 (ICAO Annex 16, Volume II), in §§ 34.71 and 34.73.
( b ) [Reserved]
[Doc. No. FAA-2023-2434, Amdt. 34-7, 89 FR 31086, Apr. 24, 2024]
§ 1903.8 Representatives of employers and employees. ( a ) Compliance Safety and Health Officers shall be in charge of inspections and questioning of persons. A representative of the employer and a representative authorized by his employees shall be given an opportunity to accompany the Compliance Safety and Health Officer during the physical inspection of any workplace for the purpose of aiding such inspection. A Compliance Safety and Health Officer may permit additional employer representatives and additional representatives authorized by employees to accompany him where he determines that such additional representatives will further aid the inspection. A different employer and employee representative may accompany the Compliance Safety and Health Officer during each different phase of an inspection if this will not interfere with the conduct of the inspection.
( b ) Compliance Safety and Health Officers shall have authority to resolve all disputes as to who is the representative authorized by the employer and employees for the purpose of this section. If there is no authorized representative of employees, or if the Compliance Safety and Health Officer is unable to determine with reasonable certainty who is such representative, he shall consult with a reasonable number of employees concerning matters of safety and health in the workplace.
( c ) The representative(s) authorized by employees may be an employee of the employer or a third party. When the representative(s) authorized by employees is not an employee of the employer, they may accompany the Compliance Safety and Health Officer during the inspection if, in the judgment of the Compliance Safety and Health Officer, good cause has been shown why accompaniment by a third party is reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection of the workplace (including but not limited to because of their relevant knowledge, skills, or experience with hazards or conditions in the workplace or similar workplaces, or language or communication skills).
( d ) Compliance Safety and Health Officers are authorized to deny the right of accompaniment under this section to any person whose conduct interferes with a fair and orderly inspection. The right of accompaniment in areas containing trade secrets shall be subject to the provisions of § 1903.9(d). With regard to information classified by an agency of the U.S. Government in the interest of national security, only persons authorized to have access to such information may accompany a Compliance Safety and Health Officer in areas containing such information.
[36 FR 17850, Sept. 4, 1971, as amended at 89 FR 22601, Apr. 1, 2024]
# EUR-Lex - 31997R1186 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997R1186

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/97 of 27 June 1997 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products **

*
Official Journal L 172 , 30/06/1997 P. 0001 - 0015 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1186/97 of 27 June 1997 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 28 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (1),

Whereas it is in the interest of the Community to suspend partially or totally the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for a number of new products not listed in the Annex to the said Regulation;

Whereas the products referred to in the said Regulation, for which it is no longer in the Community's interest to maintain suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties or for which it is necessary to amend the description in the light of technical developments, must be withdrawn from the list in the Annex thereto;

Whereas, for the sake of clarity, it is therefore advisable to regard the products for which amendments to the description are required as new products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The products set out in Annex I to this Regulation shall be added to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96. The autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on these products shall be suspended at the rate indicated for each product.

Article 2

The products for which the codes are set out in Annex II to this Regulation shall be removed from the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1997.

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

Done at Luxembourg, 27 June 1997.

For the Council

The President

A. JORRITSMA-LEBBINK

(1) OJ No L 158, 29. 6. 1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2484/96 (OJ No L 341, 30. 12. 1996, p. 1).

ANNEX I

>TABLE>

ANEXO II - BILAG II - ANHANG II - ÐÁÑÁÑÔÇÌÁ II - ANNEX II - ANNEXE II - ALLEGATO II - BIJLAGE II - ANEXO II - LIITE II - BILAGA II

>TABLE>
# L_2004306DE.01002202.xml

| 2.10.2004 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 306/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2004

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 306/22

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1510/1996 der Kommission vom 26. Juli 1996 zur Einreihung von bestimmten Waren in die Kombinierte Nomenklatur

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 189 vom 30. Juli 1996
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 189 vom 30. Juli 1996

Auf Seite 90, im Anhang, Punkt 2, Spalte 1:

anstatt:

„Molke in Pulverform 20—35“

muss es heißen:

„Molke in Pulverform 30—35“

---
Kyle	Johnson

Johnson	Aerial	Photography 497	S	Lawson	Dr,	Green	Lake,	WI	54941

Dear Madam or S ir, I am sending you this letter in pursuit to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the “Reform Act”) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11. Specificall y exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a) , 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b).

I am seeking to do aerial photography and videography

to enhance the property interest to valuable homes in central Wisconsin. As well as work with co nservancies to keep watch of algae growth rate and weed formation in Wisconsin’s L akes. I need relief from this to be able to run my business of aerial photography for real estate agents. The restrictions are hindering my ability to service this industry

s afel y and through the right path of legality I hope to do so . Granting me exemption like y ou have done for exemption No. 11153, and No. 11218 will allow for safe and regulated flight of m y phantom 2 vision +. This device, like y ou know, does not require ai rworthiness certification as y ou described in docket No. 11218.

Safety is the biggest fear that y ou may have and I plan to implement a pre

- flight list as well as inflight safety concerns and the quick ability to end operation if a hazard arises or weather becomes an issue to the safet y of the flight. Like in exemption No. 11153, the ability

to use an UA, replacing manned aircraft, the safet y of the public and all those considered. UAS also provides an additional tool to the aerial photography industry which supplement the current capabilities offered by manned aircraft.
This may be a short exemption but Ibelieve the ability that I would be granted does not only

effect me in money , but the ability to work with conservancies to monitor algae growth, track deer population and be aware of any fire hazards that may

be troublesome to our land. In coordination with University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Ihave been chosen for a select group of people to help build the entrepreneurs of tomorrow. In this program I am gi ven guidance, opportunit y and funding to grow m y business the best I can. Accepting me for this exemption will give the chance for a younger, smaller compan y to get a foothold, instead of a very large company

taking over and monopolizing this industry as w ell.
Thank y ou for y our time and consideration.

Kyle Johnson Johnson Aerial Photography
#### Frank Sedlacek, Sr., Appellant, v Dryden Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 793]

—Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Coutant, J.), entered September 10, 1998 in Broome County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff owned a four-family apartment building in the City of Binghamton, Broome County, which he sold to his daughter, Mary Beth Hamilton, pursuant to an oral agreement. No deed was executed and plaintiff remained the titled owner. The agreement between plaintiff and Hamilton provided, *inter alia,*that the latter was responsible to insure the property and, in accordance therewith, she purchased a policy of fire insurance from defendant, which listed plaintiff as mortgagee.

On November 27, 1996, defendant sent Hamilton a notice of cancellation, together with a copy to plaintiff for nonpayment of premium effective December 14, 1996. On December 16, 1996, defendant received a check from Hamilton for payment of the overdue premium and, the following day, issued a notice of reinstatement to Hamilton with a copy to plaintiff. Upon presentation of Hamilton’s check to the bank, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds and, accordingly, on December 23, 1996 defendant issued a second notice of cancellation to Hamilton with a copy forwarded to plaintiff. On December 27, 1996, the apartment building was damaged by fire and plaintiff sought reimbursement from defendant. When defendant denied the claim, plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages in the amount of $35,000. Following joinder of issue, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion and this appeal by plaintiff ensued.

As a starting point, it is axiomatic that a check given in pay*769ment of an underlying obligation constitutes conditional payment and the obligation is discharged if the check is dishonored (see, UCC 3-802 [1] [b]). Therefore, as to Hamilton, defendant’s underlying obligation to reinstate the insurance policy was discharged when Hamilton’s check was dishonored for insufficient funds. Plaintiff contends, however, that as a mortgagee, he was entitled to rely upon defendant’s reinstatement notice and, as to him, defendant is estopped from declaring a forfeiture of the policy. We disagree. The record makes plain that plaintiff received the copy of defendant’s December 23, 1996 notice of cancellation prior to the loss in question and, therefore, he could not reasonably have relied upon the December 17, 1996 reinstatement notice.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Open-File Report 2013-1020

Pubs Warehouse

High-Resolution Geophysical Data Collected Aboard the U.S. Geological Survey Research Vessel *Rafael*to Supplement Existing Datasets From Buzzards Bay and Vineyard Sound, Massachusetts

----

Title Page / List of Figures / Conversion Factors and Datum / Abstract / Introduction / Data Collection and Processing / Acknowledgments / References Cited / Appendix / Index

----

**Table 1.**Survey and equipment details for the data  collected in the study areas of Buzzards Bay and Vineyard Sound, Massachusetts.

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |            U.S. Geological Survey                                                URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1020/html/imagepages/ofr2013-1020_Table1.html            Page Contact Information: GS Pubs Web Contact                        Page Last Modified: Wednesday, March 12, 2014, 05:24:52 PM
### No. 01

- 15 -00312- CR

In the 

### Court of Appeals for the 

### First District of Texas at Houston

    

  


### No. 1421605
In the 1 76 th District Court Harris County, Texas

    

  


### HARVEY SMITH Appellant V. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

    

  



### APPELLANT ’S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

    

  

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

APPELLANT, pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1, 10.5(b) and 38.6(d), moves for an

extension of time within which to file its appellate brief. In support of its motion, appellant

submits the following:

1. Appellant was charged with aggravated robbery.

2. A jury convicted appellant of the charged offense and sentenced h im to 28 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on March 23, 2015.

3. Notice of appeal was filed on March 23, 2015. ACCEPTED 01-15-00312-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/20/2015 7:13:31 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2

4. A ppellant ’s brief wa s due on August 13 , 201 5

.

5. Appellant seeks an extension to file h is brief until November 13 , 201 5

.

6. The following facts are relied upon to show good cause for the requested extension:



### a. Counsel filed a petition for discretionary review in Miranda v. State
, No. PD

- 0827

- 15
, and Hayes v. State, No. PD

- 0 885

- 15 and No. PD

0 88 6

- 15

. b. Counsel has filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in Masterson v. Stephens.

c. Counsel has filed a writ of habeas corpus in Ex parte Williams
, 1 371668 A

.

7. Appellant’s motion i s not for purposes of delay, but so that justice may be done.

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant the requested extension.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ M ANDY M ILLER Attorney for appellant 2910 Commercial Center Blvd., Ste. 103

- 201 Katy, TX 77494 SBN 24055561 PHONE ( 832 ) 900

- 9884 FAX ( 877 ) 904

- 6846 mandy@mandymillerlegal.com3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been delivered via

electronic mail to the following address:

Harris Cou nty District Attorney’s Office ATTN: Alan Curry

c urry_ alan@dao.hctx.net

/s/ M ANDY M ILLER Attorney for appellant 2910 Commerc ial Center Blvd., Ste. 103

- 201 Katy, TX 77494 SBN 24055561 PHONE ( 832 ) 900

- 9884 FAX ( 877 ) 904

- 6846 mandy@mandymillerlegal.com
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0332 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0332

**2000/332/EC: Commission Decision of 25 April 2000 amending Decision 97/20/EC establishing the list of third countries fulfilling the equivalence conditions for the production and placing on the market of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods (notified under document number C(2000) 1052) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 114 , 13/05/2000 P. 0040 - 0041 *

Commission Decision

of 25 April 2000

amending Decision 97/20/EC establishing the list of third countries fulfilling the equivalence conditions for the production and placing on the market of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods

(notified under document number C(2000) 1052)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/332/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/492/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC(2) and in particular Article 9(3)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 97/20/EC of 17 December 1996(3), as last amended by Decision 98/571/EC(4), establishes the list of third countries from which imports of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods in whatever form are authorised for human consumption.

(2) Commission Decision 2000/333/EC(5) lays down special conditions for the import of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, therefore Decision 97/20/EC should be amended to include the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in part I of the list.

(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 97/20/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 April 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.

(3) OJ L 6, 10.1.1997, p. 46.

(4) OJ L 277, 14.10.1998, p. 42.

(5) See page 42 of this Official Journal.

ANNEX

List of third countries from which imports of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods in whatever form for human consumption are authorised

I. Third countries which have been the subject of a specific decision based on Council Directive 91/492/EEC

AU Australia

CL Chile

MA Morocco

PE Peru

VN Socialist Republic of Vietnam

KR South Korea

TN Tunisia

TR Turkey

II. Third countries, which may be the subject of a provisional decision, based on Council Decision 95/408/EC

CA Canada

FO Faeroe Islands

GL Greenland

NZ New Zealand

TH Thailand (only for products sterilised or heat-treated under the conditions laid down in Commission Decision 93/25/EEC)

US United States of America
#### § 15.109 What if the claim is denied?

Denial of an administrative claim under this subpart shall be in writing, and notification of denial shall be sent to the claimant, or his or her attorney or legal representative by certified or registered mail. The notification of final denial shall include a statement of the reasons for the denial and shall include a statement that, if the claimant is dissatisfied with the Department's action, that claimant may file suit in an appropriate U.S. District Court not later than 6 months after the date of mailing of the notification.
#### Charles H. Levy Respondent, *v.*Joseph P. Day, Inc., Appellant.

Submitted May 24, 1937;

decided June 1, 1937.

*Myron D. Levy*for motion.

*William Harvey Smith*and *H. Schieffelin Sayers*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-25-2008 

# M agoni-D etwi le r v

. B lo omin gd ale P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-3712

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M a g oni -D e twi le r v

. B loomin g d ale " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 489. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/489

### 1 NO T P RE CE DENT I AL UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

_____________ No. 07- 3712

_____________ J ENNI F ER MA GON I - DET W I LE R, A ppel l ant

v. RI CH AR D W. BL OOMI NGDAL E , CH AI R P E RS ON UNE M P L OYMENT CO M PENSATI ON BO AR D O F REVI EW ; EI LEEN B. M ELVI N, M EM BER UNE M P L OYMENT CO M P E NS AT I ON B OAR D OF RE VI E W; L AR RY DUNN, M E M BE R U NE M P L OYMENT CO M P E NS AT I ON B OAR D OF RE VI E W; WI L L I AM H A WK I N S , ME MB E R U N E MP L O Y ME N T C O MP E N S A T I O N B O A R D O F R E V I E W; E DWARD P . RA WLI NGS , CL AI M S ADMI NI S T RA T OR ; S T E P HE N S CH M E RI N, S E CR E T AR Y OF L AB OR AND I NDUS T RY CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E N N S Y L V A N IA 

### OnAp pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Court f o r th e E asternD istrict o f

P enn sylv an ia ( 06- c v- 0490406) ( Honor abl e Eduar do C. Robr e no) Subm itte d P ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a )

Se pt e m be r 8, 2008 Be for e : Sc i r i c a , Mc Ke e and S m ith , Circ uit J

ud ges ( Fi l e d: Se pt e m

be r 25, 2008 )

### 2 OPINI ON OF THE COURT M cK ee, Ci rc ui t

J udge J e nni fe r Ma goni - De twi l e r

a ppe a l s the di s m i s s a lof he r am e nde d c om

pl a i nt i n the s ui t s he br ought

a ga i ns t num e r ous de fe ndant s a ft e r s he wa s de ni e d une m

pl oy m e nt c o mp e n s at i o n . F o r

th e r e a s o n s th at

f o l l o w , w e w i l la f

f i rm. I n hi s thought ful and we l lr e a s one d Me m or andum , Judge Robr e no th o ro u g h ly

exp lain edw h y

th is co m p lain t co u ldn o t surv iv e th e d ef en d an ts’ m o tio nto d ism iss. S in ce n o th in g n eedb e ad d edto th e d istrict co urt’s caref u l an aly sis, w e w ill a f f i rm s ub s t an t i a l l y

f o r th e r e a s o n s s e t

f o rthi nth at

M e mo r an dum.