alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Rogers, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 64]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), entered January 31, 1996, which convicted him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*482The defendant asserts that the court improperly dismissed a juror who was observed sleeping during trial. Contrary to the People’s contention, this argument is preserved for appellate review *(People v Colavito,*70 NY2d 996; *People v Fleming,*70 NY2d 947; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). However, the defendant’s argument is without merit. The prosecutor stated that he observed the juror sleeping for two days through most of the testimony. The court observed the juror with her eyes closed in the jury box on numerous occasions during three days of trial. The trial court conducted a probing and tactful in camera inquiry of the juror, placed its determination on the record, and the determination is supported by the juror’s answers *(see, People v Rodriguez,*71 NY2d 214). Under such circumstances, the juror was properly dismissed as grossly unqualified *(see,*CPL 270.35; *People v Adams,*179 AD2d 764; *People v South,*177 AD2d 607; *People v Russell,*112 AD2d 451). Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### Richard Verity et al., as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Charles H. Verity, Deceased, Appellants, *v.*Metropolis Land Company, Respondent, Impleaded with Another.

Argued May 27, 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

*Eugene B. Hurley*and *Paul J. Leach*for appellants.

*Joseph M. Creamer*and *Starr Corey*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
§ 1910.136 Foot protection. ( a ) *General requirements.* The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole, or when the use of protective footwear will protect the affected employee from an electrical hazard, such as a static-discharge or electric-shock hazard, that remains after the employer takes other necessary protective measures.
( b ) *Criteria for protective footwear.* ( 1 ) Protective footwear must comply with any of the following consensus standards: ( i ) ASTM F-2412-2005, “Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection,” and ASTM F-2413-2005, “Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective Footwear,” which are incorporated by reference in § 1910.6;
( ii ) ANSI Z41-1999, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; or
( iii ) ANSI Z41-1991, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6.
( 2 ) Protective footwear that the employer demonstrates is at least as effective as protective footwear that is constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section.
[59 FR 16362, Apr. 6, 1994; 59 FR 33911, July 1, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 9238, Mar. 7, 1996; 61 FR 19548, May 2, 1996; 61 FR 21228, May 9, 1996; 74 FR 46356, Sept. 9, 2009; 79 FR 20629, Apr. 11, 2014]
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3028130-APR-201308:28 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       8,873,994
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,930,183
<PP&E>                                       1,776,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                 167,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,959,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,284,205
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,207
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,379,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,959,072
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,758,101)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,567
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,763,668)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,763,668)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)


</TABLE>
§ 91.171 VOR equipment check for IFR operations. ( a ) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that aircraft— ( 1 ) Is maintained, checked, and inspected under an approved procedure; or
( 2 ) Has been operationally checked within the preceding 30 days, and was found to be within the limits of the permissible indicated bearing error set forth in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each person conducting a VOR check under paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall— ( 1 ) Use, at the airport of intended departure, an FAA-operated or approved test signal or a test signal radiated by a certificated and appropriately rated radio repair station or, outside the United States, a test signal operated or approved by an appropriate authority to check the VOR equipment (the maximum permissible indicated bearing error is plus or minus 4 degrees); or
( 2 ) Use, at the airport of intended departure, a point on the airport surface designated as a VOR system checkpoint by the Administrator, or, outside the United States, by an appropriate authority (the maximum permissible bearing error is plus or minus 4 degrees);
( 3 ) If neither a test signal nor a designated checkpoint on the surface is available, use an airborne checkpoint designated by the Administrator or, outside the United States, by an appropriate authority (the maximum permissible bearing error is plus or minus 6 degrees); or
( 4 ) If no check signal or point is available, while in flight— ( i ) Select a VOR radial that lies along the centerline of an established VOR airway;
( ii ) Select a prominent ground point along the selected radial preferably more than 20 nautical miles from the VOR ground facility and maneuver the aircraft directly over the point at a reasonably low altitude; and
( iii ) Note the VOR bearing indicated by the receiver when over the ground point (the maximum permissible variation between the published radial and the indicated bearing is 6 degrees).
( c ) If dual system VOR (units independent of each other except for the antenna) is installed in the aircraft, the person checking the equipment may check one system against the other in place of the check procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section. Both systems shall be tuned to the same VOR ground facility and note the indicated bearings to that station. The maximum permissible variation between the two indicated bearings is 4 degrees.
( d ) Each person making the VOR operational check, as specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, shall enter the date, place, bearing error, and sign the aircraft log or other record. In addition, if a test signal radiated by a repair station, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, is used, an entry must be made in the aircraft log or other record by the repair station certificate holder or the certificate holder's representative certifying to the bearing transmitted by the repair station for the check and the date of transmission.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005)
From: Steve Body/R10/USEPA/US

To: Aaron Worstell/R8/USEPA/US@EPA Date: Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:17AM Subject: TransAlta BART for Washington Regional Haze SIP: Co rrection History: This message has been replied to.
Aaron... This e-mail to to notify you of a typo in Region 10's Federal Register notice proposing approval of the NOx BART determination for the Tran sAlta Centralia power plant. (77 FR 30467, May 23, 2012) In that notice we incorrectly stated the ammonia slip would be limited to 0.5 ppm. That limit is incorrect. The actual BART order issu ed to TransAlta by the Washington Department of Ecology on December 14, 2011, establishes an amm onia slip limit of 10 ppmdv. 

### Page 1 of 1

7/27/2012 https://epamailr811.epa.gov/mail/r8/aworstel.nsf/(% 24Inbox)/86A9C37DCE8294A888257
...
§ 1410.7 Agency review of refusal to amend a record. ( a ) The requestor may appeal any determination of the Director of Administration not to amend a record by submitting a written request for review of refusal to amend a record to the Deputy National Director, Washington, DC 20427. Such a request shall indicate the specific corrections or amendments sought. Not later than 30 days from receipt of a request for review (unless such period is extended by the National Director for good cause shown), the Deputy National Director will complete such a review and make a final determination on the request, and shall advise the requestor in a written letter of determination whether, and to what extent the correction or amendment will be made. If the correction or amendment is denied, in whole or in part, the letter of determination will specify the reasons for such denial.
( b ) If the Deputy National Director makes a final determination not to amend the record, the individual may provide to the Service a concise written statement explaining the reasons for disagreement with the refusal.
( c ) In addition, the individual may file a civil action in the U.S. District Court to seek an order compelling the Service to amend the record as requested.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7317

DUKE E. WOODLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-95-177-3)

Submitted: November 21, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duke E. Woodley, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Woodley v. Angelone, No. CA-95-177-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 10,

1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 29.951 General. ( a ) Each fuel system must be constructed and arranged to ensure a flow of fuel at a rate and pressure established for proper engine and auxiliary power unit functioning under any likely operating conditions, including the maneuvers for which certification is requested and during which the engine or auxiliary power unit is permitted to be in operation.
( b ) Each fuel system must be arranged so that— ( 1 ) No engine or fuel pump can draw fuel from more than one tank at a time; or
( 2 ) There are means to prevent introducing air into the system.
( c ) Each fuel system for a turbine engine must be capable of sustained operation throughout its flow and pressure range with fuel initially saturated with water at 80 degrees F. and having 0.75cc of free water per gallon added and cooled to the most critical condition for icing likely to be encountered in operation.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-10, 39 FR 35462, Oct. 1, 1974; Amdt. 29-12, 41 FR 55473, Dec. 20, 1976]
Amendment to Employment Agreement between the Company and Patrick J. McEnany



 Exhibit 10.1 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into as of
this 8th day of November, 2009, by and between CATALYST
PHARMACEUTICAL PARTNERS, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Company”), and PATRICK J. MCENANY (“Employee”). 
 Preliminary Statements 
 A. The parties have previously entered into that certain Employment Agreement
effective as of November 8, 2006 (the “Original Agreement”), as previously amended by that First Amendment to Employment Agreement effective as of December 19, 2008 (the “First Amendment,” and collectively with the
Original Agreement, the “Employment Agreement”). Unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Employment Agreement. 
 B. The parties wish to further amend the Employment Agreement to reflect the terms set forth below. 
 Agreement 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

  

	1.	Extension of Agreement. The outside date of the Term of the Employment Agreement is extended for a two-year period from the “third anniversary of the
Effective Date” until the “fifth anniversary of the Effective Date” (November 8, 2011). Except as noted in paragraph 2 below, all references in the Employment Agreement to the “third anniversary of the Effective Date” shall
be deemed by this Amendment to now refer to the “fifth anniversary of the Effective Date.” 

  

	2.	Modification of Sections 7.5.2 and 7.6.2. Sections 7.5.2 and 7.6.2 of the Employment Agreement are hereby amended to remove all references from such sections to
the “third anniversary of the Effective Date.” The periods set forth in each such section during which Employee will receive severance compensation as provided in such sections shall now be 12 months (for a termination without Cause or a
termination for Good Reason) and 24 months (for a termination without Cause following a Change of Control or a termination for Good Reason following a Change of Control), respectively, from the date of termination, all of which shall be paid on the
terms and in the manner set forth in such sections of the Employment Agreement. 

  

	3.	Employment Agreement Remains in Effect. Except as otherwise specifically amended herein, the terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement remain in full
force and effect. 

  

 1 









	4.	Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment, effective as of the date set forth above. 
  

			
	CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL
	PARTNERS, INC., a Delaware corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/ Jack Weinstein
		 	Jack Weinstein
		 	Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
	
	EMPLOYEE:
	
	/s/ Patrick J. McEnany
	Patrick J. McEnany


  

 2
|   | EXHIBIT      13.2 |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | CHIEF      FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

|   | PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|

|   | In      connection with this annual report of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas) Limited (the      "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the      "Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  that: |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

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

|   | This      certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,      and not for any other purpose. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      March 13, 2008                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                    |
|                      /s/      Leonard J. Hoskinson |   |
| Leonard      J. Hoskinson                               |
|                                                    |
|                                                    |
| Chief      Financial Officer                            |
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31605-31606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12509]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,553]


Swank, Inc., Attleboro, Massachusetts; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on April 10, 2000, in response to a petition filed on the 
same date on behalf of workers at Swank, Inc., Attleboro, 
Massachusetts.

[[Page 31606]]

    The petitioning group of workers are covered by an existing 
certification issued on April 30, 2000 (TA-W-37,531). Consequently, 
further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and this 
investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of May, 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-12509 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
§ 1983.100 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part implements procedures of the employee protection provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), 15 U.S.C. 2087. CPSIA provides for employee protection from retaliation because the employee has engaged in protected activity pertaining to consumer product safety.
( b ) This part establishes procedures under CPSIA for the expeditious handling of retaliation complaints filed by employees, or by persons acting on their behalf. These rules, together with those codified at 29 CFR part 18, set forth the procedures under CPSIA for submission of complaints, investigations, issuance of findings and preliminary orders, objections to findings and orders, litigation before administrative law judges (ALJs), post-hearing administrative review, and withdrawals and settlements.
Registrant's Specimen Certificate for Ordinary Shares



 Exhibit 4.2 
 CHINA NUOKANG BIO-PHARMACEUTICAL INC. 
  

			
	Number	 	Shares

 Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands 
 Share capital is US$1,000,000 divided into 2,000,000,000 Shares of a par value of US$0.0005 each 
 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT [name of shareholder] is the registered holder of [no. of shares] Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum
and Articles of Association thereof. 
 EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company on the
                     day of                     
20              by: 
 DIRECTOR
                                        








 TRANSFER 
 I
                                         
                (the Transferor) for the value received DO HEREBY transfer to
                                         
            (the Transferee)
                                         
            the shares standing in my name in the undertaking called CHINA NUOKANG BIO-PHARMACEUTICAL INC. 
 To hold the same unto the Transferee 
 Dated 
 Signed by the Transferor 
 in the presence of: 
  

			
	  
	  	  

	Witness	  	Transferor
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3805

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Mark E. Bowman

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: May 28, 2013

 Filed: May 31, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Mark Bowman appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 1

sentence-reduction motion based on Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
Guidelines. We conclude that Bowman was not entitled to a reduction based on the

amendment, as the sentence he received in 2006 was the statutory mandatory

minimum. See United States v. Peters, 524 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2008) (per

curiam). Further, counsel’s argument on appeal that Bowman should receive the

benefit of the statutory changes of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) fails

because, among other reasons, we have held that the FSA does not apply to

defendants who were sentenced prior to its August 3, 2010 enactment. See United

States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900, 909 n.7 (8th Cir. 2010); cf. Dorsey v. United States,

132 S. Ct. 2321, 2335 (2012) (FSA applies to defendants who committed their

offenses before the FSA’s effective date but were sentenced after that date).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is

granted.

______________________________

-2-
§ 1690.201 Responsibilities. ( a ) The Associate Legal Counsel, Coordination and Guidance Services is responsible for coordinating the consultation and review process with other agencies on any issuances covered by the Order.
( b ) All Federal agencies shall advise and offer to consult with the EEOC during the development of any proposed issuances, concerning equal employment opportunity which affect the obligations of employers, labor organizations, employment agencies or other Federal agencies.
( c ) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall advise and offer to consult with the affected Federal agencies during the development of any proposed issuances concerning equal employment opportunity which affect the obligations of employers, labor organizations, employment agencies or other Federal agencies.
[45 FR 68361, Oct. 14, 1980, as amended at 47 FR 46276, Oct. 18, 1982]