alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 21.107 IRB membership. ( a ) Each IRB shall have at least five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted by the institution. The IRB shall be sufficiently qualified through the experience and expertise of its members (professional competence), and the diversity of its members, including race, gender, and cultural backgrounds and sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes, to promote respect for its advice and counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects. The IRB shall be able to ascertain the acceptability of proposed research in terms of institutional commitments (including policies and resources) and regulations, applicable law, and standards of professional conduct and practice. The IRB shall therefore include persons knowledgeable in these areas. If an IRB regularly reviews research that involves a category of subjects that is vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, consideration shall be given to the inclusion of one or more individuals who are knowledgeable about and experienced in working with these categories of subjects.
( b ) Each IRB shall include at least one member whose primary concerns are in scientific areas and at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas.
( c ) Each IRB shall include at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution and who is not part of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with the institution.
( d ) No IRB may have a member participate in the IRB's initial or continuing review of any project in which the member has a conflicting interest, except to provide information requested by the IRB.
( e ) An IRB may, in its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of issues that require expertise beyond or in addition to that available on the IRB. These individuals may not vote with the IRB.
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.

§ 1926.1428 Signal person qualifications. ( a ) The employer of the signal person must ensure that each signal person meets the Qualification Requirements (paragraph (c) of this section) prior to giving any signals. This requirement must be met by using either Option (1) or Option (2) of this section. ( 1 ) *Option (1)—Third party qualified evaluator.* The signal person has documentation from a third party qualified evaluator (*see* Qualified Evaluator (third party), § 1926.1401 for definition) showing that the signal person meets the Qualification Requirements (*see* paragraph (c) of this section).
( 2 ) *Option (2)—Employer's qualified evaluator.* The employer's qualified (*see* Qualified Evaluator (not a third party), § 1926.1401 for definition) evaluator assesses the individual and determines that the individual meets the Qualification Requirements (*see* paragraph (c) of this section) and provides documentation of that determination. An assessment by an employer's qualified evaluator under this option is not portable—other employers are not permitted to use it to meet the requirements of this section.
( 3 ) The employer must make the documentation for whichever option is used available at the site while the signal person is employed by the employer. The documentation must specify each type of signaling (*e.g.* hand signals, radio signals, *etc.*) for which the signal person meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) If subsequent actions by the signal person indicate that the individual does not meet the Qualification Requirements (*see* paragraph (c) of this section), the employer must not allow the individual to continue working as a signal person until re-training is provided and a re-assessment is made in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section that confirms that the individual meets the Qualification Requirements.
( c ) *Qualification Requirements.* Each signal person must: ( 1 ) Know and understand the type of signals used. If hand signals are used, the signal person must know and understand the Standard Method for hand signals.
( 2 ) Be competent in the application of the type of signals used.
( 3 ) Have a basic understanding of equipment operation and limitations, including the crane dynamics involved in swinging and stopping loads and boom deflection from hoisting loads.
( 4 ) Know and understand the relevant requirements of §§ 1926.1419 through 1926.1422 and 1926.1428.
( 5 ) Demonstrate that he/she meets the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section through an oral or written test, and through a practical test.
#### § 91.713 Operation of civil aircraft of Cuban registry.

No person may operate a civil aircraft of Cuban registry except in controlled airspace and in accordance with air traffic clearance or air traffic control instructions that may require use of specific airways or routes and landings at specific airports.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40644

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL AGUILAR-DELGADO, 

also known as Lieonel Villagomez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:03-CR-818-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael Aguilar-Delgado (“Aguilar”) challenges the 46-month

sentence imposed on resentencing for his guilty-plea conviction

of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues

that the district court erred in imposing as a special condition

of supervised release that he cooperate in the collection of a

DNA sample. This claim is not ripe for review. See United

States v. Riascos-Cuenu, ___ F.3d ___, No. 05-20037, 2005 WL

2660032 at *1-2 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2005). Accordingly, this
No. 05-40644

-2-

portion of the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

However, the case is remanded for the limited purpose of

conforming the judgment to the oral pronouncement that, as a

special condition of supervised release, Aguilar cooperate in the

collection of a DNA sample.

Aguilar also argues that the sentencing provisions of 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. This claim was decided

adversely to him in his original appeal, and the previous

determinations of this court stand as the law of the case. See

United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 1998). 

AFFIRMED; DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION;

LIMITED REMAND TO CORRECT THE JUDGMENT.
§ 1991.108 Role of Federal agencies. ( a ) ( 1 ) The complainant and the respondent will be parties in every proceeding and must be served with copies of all documents in the case. At the Assistant Secretary's discretion, the Assistant Secretary may participate as a party or as amicus curiae at any time at any stage of the proceeding. This right to participate includes, but is not limited to, the right to petition for review of a decision of an ALJ, including a decision approving or rejecting a settlement agreement between the complainant and the respondent, and the right to seek discretionary review of a decision of the Administrative Review Board (ARB) from the Secretary.
( 2 ) Parties must send copies of documents to OSHA and to the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, only upon request of OSHA, or when OSHA is participating in the proceeding, or when service on OSHA and the Associate Solicitor is otherwise required by these rules. Except as otherwise provided in rules of practice and/or procedure before the OALJ or the ARB, OSHA and the Associate Solicitor for Fair Labor Standards may specify the means, including electronic means, for serving them with documents under this section.
( b ) The DOJ, if interested in a proceeding, may participate as amicus curiae at any time in the proceeding, at the DOJ's discretion. At the request of the DOJ, copies of all documents in a case must be sent to the DOJ, whether or not it is participating in the proceeding.
Exhibit 10.22
 VECTOR GROUP LTD.
100 S.E. Second Street, 32nd Floor
Miami, Florida 33131




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



Very truly yours,
VECTOR GROUP LTD.By:
    /s/ Richard J. LampenRichard J. LampenExecutive Vice President AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:/s/ Howard M. LorberHoward M. Lorber




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 
  
 o
    
    my check in the amount of $.
 o
    

Shares having a total value of $, such value
being based on the closing price(s) of the Shares on the date hereof.
  Number of Certificates
     and DenominationsNameAddressSocial Security No.
  Very truly yours,
Howard M. Lorber
- 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 > Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall Act)

              														Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall Act), June 16, 1933.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/991,			accessed on August 22, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
**Exhibit        4.7**

**AMENDMENT        NO. 1 TO LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT**

*30,*
* *

----

----

*(c)*

*[Signature        Pages Follow]*

----

**[Signature        Page to Amendment No. 1 to**

**Loan        and Security Agreement]**

**S-1**

----

**[Signature          Page to Amendment No. 1 to**

**Loan          and Security Agreement]**

----

----

**[Signature        Page to Amendment No, 1 to**

**Loan        and Security Agreement]**

----

|   **Name                  and Address of Pledgor**  |  **  Pledged                  Entity**  | **Class                  of****Equity****Interest** |  **Percentage                  of****Ownership**  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| KeystoneConsolidated                  Industries, Inc.             | Keystone                  Energy Resources, LLC             | Membership                  Interests               | 100%                                                        |

----

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 24

                            THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.


                          DIRECTORS' POWER OF ATTORNEY
                          ----------------------------


         Each of the undersigned members of the Board of Directors of The Lamson
& Sessions Co., an Ohio Corporation, which anticipates filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D. C., an annual report of the
Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2000 ("1999 Form
10-K") under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, does
hereby constitute and appoint James J. Abel and John B. Schulze, jointly and
severally, with full power and substitution and resubstitution, as attorney(s)
to sign for him and in his name, in the capacities indicated below, the 1999
Form 10-K, including any amendments and exhibits thereto, with full power and
authority to do and perform any and all acts and things whatsoever necessary and
required to be done in connection with such signing as fully to all intents and
purposes as he would do if personally present, hereby ratifying and approving
the acts of said attorney(s) and any substitutes(s) therefor in connection with
such signing:


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands as of
the 23rd day of February, 2000.




/S/ JAMES  T. BARTLETT                              /S/ JOHN C. DANNEMILLER
--------------------------------------------        -------------------------
James T. Bartlett                                   John C. Dannemiller
Director                                            Director


/S/ FRANCIS H. BEAM, JR.                            /S/ GEORGE R. HILL
--------------------------------------------        -------------------------
Francis H. Beam, Jr.                                George R. Hill
Director                                            Director


/S/ WILLIAM H. COQUILLETTE                          /S/ A. MALACHI MIXON, III
--------------------------------------------        -------------------------
William H. Coquillette                              A. Malachi Mixon, III
Director                                            Director


/S/ MARTIN J. CLEARY                                /S/ JOHN C. MORLEY
--------------------------------------------        -------------------------
Martin J. Cleary                                    John C. Morley
Director                                            Director



                               /S/ D. VAN SKILLING
                               ---------------------
                               D. Van Skilling
                               Director
No. 17,416.

#### Shuman *v.*Collis et al.

Appellate *Procedure.—Dismissal.—Parties Appellant.—Vacation*Appeal.—A vacation appeal, by one of two joint judgment defendants, will be dismissed, where the other defendant is made an pellee instead of an appellant, under section 647,' R. S. 1894, quiri'ng all parties against whom judgment is rendered to be made appellants on such an appeal. .

From the Madison Circuit Court.

*J. C.*Shuman, for appellant.

*E. B.*McMahan, for appellees.

Monks, J.

Appellee, Collis brought this action against appellant and appellee, James Etchison, *334sheriff of Madison county, to enjoin said sheriff from selling the real estate of appellee, Collis, on an execution issued on a judgment in favor of appellant against said Collis.

Filed March 25, 1896.

A judgment was rendered in the court below, enjoining appellant and Etchison, as such sheriff, from selling said real estate or any part thereof.

It is well settled that all parties against whom judgment is rendered in the court below must, in all vacation appeals, be made appellants in this court, or the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Section 635, R. S. 1881 (section 647, R. S. 1894); *Denke-Walter*v. Loeper, 142 Ind. 657, and cases cited; *Midland R. W. Co.*v. *St. Clair,*144 Ind. 363.

There can be but one appeal from the same judgment, when the same is not a term time appeal all parties entitled to appeal must be joined as co-appellants. *Denke-Walter*v. *Loeper, supra,*and cases cited.

Final judgment was rendered in this case October 9,1893, and the appeal was perfected October 8,1894. The appeal, therefore, is not a term time appeal, and is not governed by the provisions of the act approved March 9, 1895. (Acts 1895, p. 179). James Etchison was a joint judgment defendant with appellant in the court below and should have been made an appellant in this court. This has not been done, and the appeal must therefore be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-26-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,929
<ALLOWANCES>                                       200
<INVENTORY>                                      3,272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,171
<PP&E>                                           8,520
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,373
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,754
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,563
<SALES>                                         44,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,329
<CGS>                                           42,516
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,794
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (35)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,198
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,144)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,144)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (2,020)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,164)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.85)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21


SUBSIDIARIES OF LILLY INDUSTRIES, INC. AS OF FEBRUARY 21, 1997


     Name of Subsidiary                                  State of Incorporation

1.   Lilly Industries (USA), Inc.                        Indiana

2.   Lilly Industries (Asia), Limited                    Hong Kong

3.   Lilly Industries (Ireland) Limited                  Ireland

4.   Lilly Industries (Malaysia) Sdn.Bhd.                Malaysia

5.   Lilly Industries, Inc.(Canada)                      Ontario, Canada

6.   Lilly Industries (Far East), Ltd.                   Taiwan

7.   Lilly Industries (Thailand), Limited                Thailand

8.   London Laboratories GmbH                            Germany
     (Subsidiary of Lilly Industries (USA), Inc.)

9.   London Laboratories Limited                         Ontario, Canada
     (Subsidiary of Lilly Industries (USA), Inc.)

10.  Dongguan Lilly Paint Industries, Ltd.               Peoples Republic
     (Subsidiary of Lilly Industries (Asia), Limited)      of China

11.  G.C.I. Insurance Company, Limited                   Bermuda
     (Subsidiary of Lilly Industries (USA), Inc.)

12.  Guardsman Products Limited                          Ontario, Canada
     (Subsidiary of Lilly Industries (USA), Inc.)

13.  Guardsman UK Limited                                United Kingdom
     (Subsidiary of Lilly Industries (USA), Inc.)

14.  Guardsman Chemical International                    Virgin Islands
     (Subsidiary of Lilly Industries (USA), Inc.
#### KODEL RADIO CORP v A C DAYTON CO

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No 977.

Decided July 1, 1930

H. P. Williamson, Dayton, for Kodel Corp.

Murphy & Murphy, Dayton, for A. C. Dayton Co.

*553KUNKLE, PJ.

The case resolves largely into questions of fact, which questions of fact were peculiarly within the province of the jury.

At the request of counsel for plaintiff in error the Court submitted to the jury three special interrogatories. These interrogatories with the answers thereto were as follows:

> First: Was there any special warranty of goods given by the plaintiff to the defendant warranting the packs sold and delivered defendant by plaintiff on and after October 31st, 1927? Ans. Yes.

> Second: Was there any general warranty of goods by the plaintiff to the defendant warranting the packs sold and delivered defendant by plaintiff on and after October 31st, 1927? Ans. Yes.

> Third: Was .there any implied warranty given by plaintiff to defendant on packs sold and delivered to defendant by plaintiff on and after October 31st, 1927? Ans. Yes.”

Upon a consideration of the evidence, we are of opinion that the record contains ample evidence in the form of oral testimony and written correspondence which, if believed, by the jury justified the jury in rendering the verdict which it did. We are of opinion that the record contains ample testimony to warrant, at least, the finding of the jury that there was an implied warranty by plaintiff in error to defendant in error upon the packs so sold and delivered. Section 8395 GC, . among other things contains the following provisions:

> “(1) When the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment, whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose.

> (2) When the goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description, whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not, there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be of merchantable quality.”

As above stated we think there is ample testimony in the record which warranted the jury, at least, in finding that there was an implied warranty and, if so, then the transaction would fall within the section of the code above quoted.

The Court, in our opinion, presented the case in its charge to the jury fairly and fully and from a thorough consideration of the record, we would not feel warranted in disturbing the verdict of the jury.

We have considered all of the errors urged by counsel for plaintiff in error, but finding no error in the record, which we consider prejudicial to plaintiff in error, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.

Allread and Hornbeck,. JJ, concur.