alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1960.86 Establishing councils. ( a ) Those field councils established and in operation prior to the effective date of this subpart will continue to function without interruption provided they are operating in accordance with the provision of their charter and this subpart.
( b ) The Secretary may establish a council in any area where ten or more Federal establishments totaling 300 or more employees are located within an area having a radius of 50 miles, and there is substantial agreement among the agencies that such a council would be useful. In any such area where there is no council already established, a field representative of the Secretary may, upon his own initiative or at the request of any establishment within the area, contact representatives of all establishments within the area and encourage the organization of a field council.
( c ) After a new council has been organized, officers elected, and articles of organization drafted and accepted by the council membership, a formal request for recognition as a field council shall be sent to the Secretary. Upon approval of the Articles of Organization, a charter will be issued.
( d ) At the first general meeting of the council, committees should be appointed and the cooperation of all participants should be solicited to aid the functioning of committees and the successful accomplishment of the council's objectives.
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (File Nos.33-84904, 33-98132, 33-99134, 33-99140, 33-99150, 33-99154, 333-109200, 333-118678, and 333-127976) of our report dated June 26, 2006 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, whichappear in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. 

 

/s/ ChuoAoyama PricewaterhouseCoopers 

Osaka, Japan 

 

June 29, 2006
§ 1650.202 Past-due legally enforceable debt. A past due, legally enforceable debt is a debt: ( a ) That accrued within ten years of referral to Treasury;
( b ) That is at least $25.00; and
( c ) That the agency has made reasonable efforts to collect by: ( 1 ) Submitting the debt to Treasury, Financial Management Service, for collection by Administrative Offset and complying with 31 U.S.C. 3716(a) and related regulations, to the extent that collection by administrative offset is not prohibited by statute;
( 2 ) Notifying, or making a reasonable attempt to notify, the debtor that the debt is past-due, and unless repaid within 60 days after the date of the notice, will be referred to Treasury for tax refund offset;
( 3 ) Giving the debtor at least 60 days from the date of notification to present evidence that all or part of the debt is not past-due or legally enforceable, considering any evidence presented by such debtor, and determining that an amount of such debt is past-due and legally enforceable; and
( 4 ) Providing the debtor with an opportunity to make a written agreement to repay the amount of the debt.
AAM-12-332-E 

May 1, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10528 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0449 

Mr. Leland Blatter 

North Star Aviation 

516 Airport Road 

Hamilton, MT 59840 

Dear Mr. Blatter: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated April 20, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of North Star Aviation (North Star) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow North Star to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to North Star. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing 

programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of 

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was 

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant North Star Aviation an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 

to the extent necessary to allow North Star to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one 

drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of North Star are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the Prairie Aviation dba North Star part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ELI STAV
, Appellant,

v.

BROWARD COLLEGE
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3058

[ July 16, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; William W. Haury , Judge; L.T. Case No. 19

- 003789

.

Thomas Damian Sclafani, Scalfani & Associates, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Eric K. Gabrielle of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affir med.

D AMOORGIAN

, F ORST and A RTAU

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 1956.23 Procedures for certification of completion of development and determination on application of criteria.

The procedures contained in §§ 1902.33 and 1902.34 of this chapter shall be applicable to certification of completion of developmental steps under plans approved in accordance with this part. Such certification shall initiate intensive monitoring of actual operations of the developed plan, which shall continue for at least a year after certification, at which time a determination shall be made under the procedures and criteria of §§ 1902.38, 1902.39, 1902.40 and 1902.41, that on the basis of actual operations, the criteria set forth in §§ 1956.10 and 1956.11 of this part are being applied under the plan. The factors listed in § 1902.37(b) of this chapter, except those specified in § 1902.37(b)(11) and (12) which would be adapted to the State's compliance program provide the basis for making the determination of operational effectiveness.
# FILED
August 18, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL SESSION, 1998

LARRY JUNI OR KEATON, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9704- CR-00146 ) Appe llant, )

) DEKALB COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON. LEON BURNS, JR. , JUDGE STATE OF TENNESSEE ) ) Appellee. ) (POST -CON VICTIO N)

CONCURRI NG OPINI ON Except for the conclusion th at the failure to instruct a l esser included offense is not a constitutional abr idgement, I concur entirel y with the majority opinion. The trial judge has a duty to give the complete charge of the law applicable to the facts of each case. State v. Harbison , 704 S.W.2d 314, 319 (Tenn.), cert. denied , 476 U.S. 1153 (1986). It is settled law that wh en "there are any facts that are susceptible of inferring guilt of any lesser i ncluded offense or offenses, then there is a mandatory duty upon the trial judge to ch arge on such offense or offenses. Failure to do so denies the defendant his constitutional r ight of trial by jury." State v. Wright , 618 S.W.2d 310, 315 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981) (cit ations omitted); Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-18-110(a). When th ere is a trial on a sin gle charge of a felony, there is also a tr ial on all lesser included offenses, "as the facts may be." Strader v. State , 362 S.W.2d 224, 227 (Tenn. 1962). See State v. Belser , 945 S.W.2d 776, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).I concur in the results r eached by the majority because the issue, as indicated, has been waiv ed due to the petitioner's failur e to present the issue in the motion for new trial or on direct appeal. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(g), -210(f).

_________________________________ Gary R. Wade, Presiding Judge
#### Herman C. Cort, Appellant, *v.*Clarence A. Smith, Individually and as County Manager and as Director of Finance of the County of Monroe, et al., Respondents.

Argued December 3, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*482
      *Samuel Levy*for appellant.

*Harry Rosenberg*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Httbbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### Thomas J. Roche, Respondent, *v.*United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Appellant.

Argued December 1, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*474
      *William Dike Reed*for appellant.

*Milton Pinkus*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J.. Lehman, O’Brien, IIubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0008 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0008

**1999/8/EC: Council Decision of 31 December 1998 adopting the Statutes of the Economic and Financial Committee **

*
Official Journal L 005 , 09/01/1999 P. 0071 - 0071 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 31 December 1998 adopting the Statutes of the Economic and Financial Committee (1999/8/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 153 thereof,

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission,

Whereas in accordance with Article 109c(2) of the Treaty an Economic and Financial Committee will be set up at the start of the third stage;

Whereas the Council adopted on 21 December 1998 a Decision on the composition of the Economic and Financial Committee (1);

Recalling that on 16 June 1997 the European Council adopted a resolution on the establishment of an exchange-rate mechanism in the third stage of economic and monetary union (2);

Recalling that on 13 December 1997 the European Council adopted a resolution on economic policy coordination in the third stage of economic and monetary union and on Articles 109 and 109b of the Treaty (3);

Recalling that, in these resolutions, a certain role was foreseen for the Economic and Financial Committee;

Whereas, therefore, the Statutes of the Economic and Financial Committee should be adopted,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Statutes of the Economic and Financial Committee are hereby adopted.

The text of the Statutes is set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall take effect as from 1 January 1999.

Done at Brussels, 31 December 1998.

For the Council

The President

R. EDLINGER

(1) OJ L 358, 31. 12. 1998, p. 109.

(2) OJ C 236, 2. 8. 1997, p. 5.

(3) OJ C 35, 2. 2. 1998, p. 1.
§ 10.58 Administrator ruling. ( a ) Questions regarding the application and interpretation of the rules contained in this part may be referred to the Administrator, who shall issue an appropriate ruling. Requests for such rulings should be addressed to the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.
( b ) Any interested party may appeal to the Administrative Review Board for review of a final ruling of the Administrator issued under paragraph (a) of this section. The petition for review shall be filed with the Administrative Review Board within 30 calendar days of the date of the ruling.
#### § 1910.143 Nonwater carriage disposal systems. [Reserved]
§ 1910.426 Mixed-gas diving. ( a ) *General.* Employers engaged in mixed-gas diving shall comply with the following requirements, unless otherwise specified.
( b ) *Limits.* Mixed-gas diving shall be conducted only when: ( 1 ) A decompression chamber is ready for use at the dive location; and ( i ) A bell is used at depths greater than 220 fsw or when the dive involves inwater decompression time of greater than 120 minutes, except when heavy gear is worn or when diving in physically confining spaces; or
( ii ) A closed bell is used at depths greater than 300 fsw, except when diving is conducted in physically confining spaces.
( c ) *Procedures.* ( 1 ) A separate dive team member shall tend each diver in the water.
( 2 ) A standby diver shall be available while a diver is in the water.
( 3 ) A diver shall be stationed at the underwater point of entry when diving is conducted in enclosed or physically confining spaces.
( 4 ) Each diving operation shall have a primary breathing gas supply sufficient to support divers for the duration of the planned dive including decompression.
( 5 ) Each diving operation shall have a dive-location reserve breathing gas supply.
( 6 ) When heavy gear is worn: ( i ) An extra breathing gas hose capable of supplying breathing gas to the diver in the water shall be available to the standby diver; and
( ii ) An inwater stage shall be provided to divers in the water.
( 7 ) An inwater stage shall be provided for divers without access to a bell for dives deeper than 100 fsw or outside the no-decompression limits.
( 8 ) When a closed bell is used, one dive team member in the bell shall be available and tend the diver in the water.
( 9 ) Except when heavy gear is worn or where physical space does not permit, a diver-carried reserve breathing gas supply shall be provided for each diver: ( i ) Diving deeper than 100 fsw or outside the no-decompression limits; or
( ii ) Prevented by the configuration of the dive area from directly ascending to the surface.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Crdentia Corp. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John Kaiser, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes ofTitle 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to myknowledge:

1.                                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.                                       theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the datesand for the periods indicated.

ThisCertification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.
| Date: May 15, 2007 | By:    | /s/ John Kaiser                      |   |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|               |   | John Kaiser                          |
|               |   | Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|                    |        |                                      |        |  |

 

----
CERTIFICATIONS

I, John W. Stump III certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of American
International Industries, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarertly report.

Date: May 12, 2003

/s/ John W. Stump III
John W. Stump III, Chief Financial Officer and Director
#### § 1915.1053 Respirable crystalline silica.

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at § 1910.1053 of this chapter.

[81 FR 16875, Mar. 25, 2016]
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Consumer Leasing Act of 1976

              														Consumer Leasing Act of 1976, March 23, 1976.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1030,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of New Rochelle Trust Company, as Substituted Trustee under the Will of Charles H. Young, Deceased, Appellant; Florence Y. McKeage et al., Respondents. In the Matter of the Accounting of New Rochelle Trust Company, as Substituted Trustee under the Will of Charles H. Young, Deceased, Appellant; Margaret Young et al., Respondents.

Argued April 21, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*544
      *Albert Ritchie*and *Frederick H. Seacord, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Frederick C. McLaughlin*and *Ralph A. Bullock*for respondents.

In each proceeding: order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: GARY WAYNE HIRSCH,

Petitioner

______________________

2023-131

______________________

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Gary Wayne Hirsch submits a “Petition for issuance of 

Writ of Habeas Corpus,” ECF No. 2 at 1, and an “Amendment” to his petition, ECF No. 3 at 1.

Mr. Hirsch fails to allege any cognizable basis for our 

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C § 1295 (granting this court subject matter jurisdiction only over certain types of district 

court cases). Because we lack jurisdiction and see no basis 

for transfer, we dismiss this petition.

Accordingly,

Case: 23-131 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 06/14/2023
2 IN RE: HIRSCH

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is dismissed.

 June 14, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

 Jarrett B. Perlow

 Acting Clerk of Court

Case: 23-131 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 06/14/2023
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 1 - 1167 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 05 8 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
[No. 50514-9-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### Robert J.B. Lattimar, et al., *Plaintiffs,*v. Sherri A. Winslow, et al., *Defendants,*Sandra C. LaCelle, *Appellant,*Carlos M. Sosa, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-2-03663-7, Ronald Kessler, J., entered April 29, 2002. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part,*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Kennedy, J., concurred in by Baker and Schindler, JJ.