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

§ 1926.758 Systems-engineered metal buildings. ( a ) All of the requirements of this subpart apply to the erection of systems-engineered metal buildings except §§ 1926.755 (column anchorage) and 1926.757 (open web steel joists).
( b ) Each structural column shall be anchored by a minimum of four anchor rods (anchor bolts).
( c ) Rigid frames shall have 50 percent of their bolts or the number of bolts specified by the manufacturer (whichever is greater) installed and tightened on both sides of the web adjacent to each flange before the hoisting equipment is released.
( d ) Construction loads shall not be placed on any structural steel framework unless such framework is safely bolted, welded or otherwise adequately secured.
( e ) In girt and eave strut-to-frame connections, when girts or eave struts share common connection holes, at least one bolt with its wrench-tight nut shall remain connected to the first member unless a manufacturer-supplied, field-attached seat or similar connection device is present to secure the first member so that the girt or eave strut is always secured against displacement.
( f ) Both ends of all steel joists or cold-formed joists shall be fully bolted and/or welded to the support structure before: ( 1 ) Releasing the hoisting cables;
( 2 ) Allowing an employee on the joists; or
( 3 ) Allowing any construction loads on the joists.
( g ) Purlins and girts shall not be used as an anchorage point for a fall arrest system unless written approval is obtained from a qualified person.
( h ) Purlins may only be used as a walking/working surface when installing safety systems, after all permanent bridging has been installed and fall protection is provided.
( i ) Construction loads may be placed only within a zone that is within 8 feet (2.5 m) of the center-line of the primary support member.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended ended April 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, D. Michael Parker, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:



| | (3) | such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | the information contained in such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: July 16, 2004



/s/ D. Michael ParkerD. Michael ParkerSenior Vice President, Finance andChief Financial Officer
#### THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK v. JACOB GROSSMAN and MAX EICHLER.

*J. B. Fellows,*for pl’ff; *B. Hirsehfield,*for deft’s.

Same application.

See opinion rendered June 3,1889.

25 N. Y. State Rep., 745.
# Table 6
EXHIBIT 99.1
                     STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                    IRT PROPERTY COMPANY, AS GENERAL PARTNER
                              OF IRT PARTNERS, L.P.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                   SEC. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of IRT Partners, L.P. ("LP") on
Form  10-Q  for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas H. McAuley,
Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the  Company, as general partner of IRT Partners,
L.P., do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec.  906  of  The  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  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  results of operations of the Company.


/s/  Thomas  H.  McAuley
------------------------
IRT  Property  Company,  as  general  Partner
Thomas  H.  McAuley
Chief  Executive  Officer
August  14,  2002
#### § 1915.1016 N-Nitrosodimethylamine.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1003 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1003).

[[61 FR 31430](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31430), June 20, 1996]
#### In the Matter of Public Service Commission, Respondent, against Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.

Argued April 22, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*Ottó M. Buerger*and *Louis J. Carruthers*for appellant.

*Gay H. Brown, Sherman C. Ward, Sidney Kabalkin*and *Laurence J. Olmsted*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, I inch and Rippey, JJ.
Exhibit 4.3







Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated April 2, 2015, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-202208) of Smart Trust, Argus
Dividend Growers Total Return Trust, Series 4.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


April 2, 2015
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40559

Summary Calendar

 

RICKY JAMES DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RAYMOND BYRD, Major, Michael Unit,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CV-483

- - - - - - - - - -

December 24, 1997

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricky James Davis, Texas inmate # 519327, appeals judgment

for the defendant following a bench trial in his civil rights

suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that the evidence

showed that he was the victim of excessive force during a prison

lock-down. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs

and AFFIRM for the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge. 

Davis v. Byrd, No. 6:95-CV-483 (E.D. Tex. June 3, 1996). 
No. 96-40559

-2-

Davis also argues that the trial court improperly limited

the number of witnesses which he would be permitted to call at

trial. Inasmuch as the purported testimony of the uncalled

witnesses was cumulative, the magistrate judge did not abuse his

discretion in limiting Davis's witnesses. See Gibbs v. King, 779

F.2d 1040, 1047 (5th Cir. 1986). Davis also challenges the trial

court's refusal to appoint an expert to examine the use-of-force

video tape. Davis was not entitled to the appointment of an

expert. See Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 1996-97 n.5 (5th Cir.

1995). Last, Davis's contention that he was barred from calling

his only witness is not supported by the record. 

AFFIRMED.
#### Soho Bazaar, Inc., Appellant, v Board of Managers of Soho International Arts Condominium, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 626]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered August 24, 1998, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant board’s motion to vacate the court’s prior order entered February 24, 1998 and to dismiss the complaint, and vacated a preliminary injunction against the sale of the two condominium units at issue, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although the two units in question have been sold, the issues raised on this appeal, involving plaintiffs claims as a contract vendee of those units, are not moot inasmuch as there remains pending an action by plaintiff for money damages allegedly sustained by it as a consequence of defendant condominium’s allegedly wrongful purchase of the units pursuant to a right of first refusal provision in its favor contained in the condominium by-laws. Turning to the merits, plaintiff, a mere contract vendee, lacks standing to enforce the condominium *66by-laws. We would also note that the board’s actions were taken in good faith to further a legitimate interest of the condominium corporation, especially when consideration is given to the corporation’s start-up financial status. Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
[No. 49998-0-I.

Division One.

October 28, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. R.S., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 02-8-00422-1, Dale B. Ramerman, J., entered February 8, 2002. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part,*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
§ 18.71 Approval of settlement or consent findings. ( a ) *Motion for approval of settlement agreement.* When the applicable statute or regulation requires it, the parties must submit a settlement agreement for the judge's review and approval.
( b ) *Motion for consent findings and order.* Parties may file a motion to accept and adopt consent findings. Any agreement that contains consent findings and an order that disposes of all or part of a matter must include: ( 1 ) A statement that the order has the same effect as one made after a full hearing;
( 2 ) A statement that the order is based on a record that consists of the paper that began the proceeding (such as a complaint, order of reference, or notice of administrative determination), as it may have been amended, and the agreement;
( 3 ) A waiver of any further procedural steps before the judge; and
( 4 ) A waiver of any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered into in accordance with the agreement.
DocketNo.FAA-2o15-'1o·v3RegulatoryEvaluation)o/5'-tv?---27DirectorateIdentifier:-AD.!delthe1rorkhuun.partsco\f.andnwnherul[regi\tt!redprod11cl1to!hi!whlehf:'lmr.Whenmuarefinishedclickonthe"[j,dutl!Fields..hllllon/ninthetoto/.\.UpdateFieldsIEstimatedCosts:ActionCostsperProduct(e.g.,aircraft,engine,(e.g.,Inspection,propeller,appliance)Work-hoursLaborPartsCostTotalCostsNumberofTotalCostreplacement)(includecost(labor+u.s.forU.S.FleetDonotincludeonconditioncostshereaccess,testing,(@$85/hparts)Registeredandclose-up)our)ProductsStrip,Inspect&Recoat7.1578356COPSealTeethTheknownnumberofproductsincompliance:..'TotalCostsofcomplianceforU.S.fleet:$50,657Costscoveredunderwarranty(ifknown)$\....'...On-ConditionCosts:0ActionWork-hoursLaborcostPartsCostCostperProduct(e.g.,Inspection,(includeaccess,(@$85/hour)replacement)testing,andclose-up)Inspection7SpecialconsiderationsforEconomicAnalysis(UsethisfieldtoexplainanythingintheEstimatedCoststablethatwasassumedormightnotbeobvious.Thisfieldcanalsobeusedtoexplainwarrantycosts):ExecutiveOrder12866:CouldtheADbeconsidereda"significantregulatoryaction"?GYES*0NO0*Explanation:DOTRegulatoryPoli.ciesandProcedures:IstheADsignificant?@YES*0*Explanation:RegulatoryFlexibilityAct:WilltheADhaveasignificanteconomicimpactonasubstantialnumberofsmallentities?ExplainforeitheraYesorNoanswer.GYES0NO0Explanation:IntrastateAviationinAlaska:ThisADcouldaffectintrastateaviationinAlaska.IsitappropriatetoincludespecificrequirementsforaircraftoperatedinAlaskawhereaviationmightbetheonlymodeoftransportation?GYES*0*Explanation:8
#### Jerelyn Caligiuri, Plaintiff, v AAA-1 Towing, Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Ramp Chevrolet, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 482]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about April 12, 1999, which denied the motion of third-party defendant Ramp Chevrolet, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly relied upon the statements of defendant and third-party plaintiff Lee Belli in denying the motion. Although Belli’s statements, as reported in the testimony of plaintiff Caligiuri, were hearsay, they were properly considered by the motion court since they constitute “admissions” by a party to a material fact at issue *(see, Reed v McCord,*160 NY 330, 341). Belli’s “admissions” were attributable not only to Belli but to defendant AAA-1 as well, since Belli, an agent and employee of AAA-1, made the subject admissions while engaged in an activity within the scope of his agency authority *(see, e.g., Loehner v Simons,*223 AD2d 533, 534). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
§ 1986.102 Obligations and prohibited acts. ( a ) A person may not retaliate against any seaman because the seaman: ( 1 ) In good faith reported or was about to report to the Coast Guard or other appropriate Federal agency or department that the seaman believed that a violation of a maritime safety law or regulation prescribed under that law or regulation has occurred;
( 2 ) Refused to perform duties ordered by the seaman's employer because the seaman had a reasonable apprehension or expectation that performing such duties would result in serious injury to the seaman, other seamen, or the public;
( 3 ) Testified in a proceeding brought to enforce a maritime safety law or regulation prescribed under that law;
( 4 ) Notified, or attempted to notify, the vessel owner or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard was operating of a work-related personal injury or work-related illness of a seaman;
( 5 ) Cooperated with a safety investigation by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard was operating or the National Transportation Safety Board;
( 6 ) Furnished information to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard was operating, the National Transportation Safety Board, or any other public official as to the facts relating to any marine casualty resulting in injury or death to an individual or damage to property occurring in connection with vessel transportation; or
( 7 ) Accurately reported hours of duty under part A of subtitle II of title 46 of the United States Code.
( b ) Retaliation means any discrimination against a seaman including, but not limited to, discharging, demoting, suspending, harassing, intimidating, threatening, restraining, coercing, blacklisting, or disciplining a seaman.
( c ) For purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the circumstances causing a seaman's apprehension of serious injury must be of such a nature that a reasonable person, under similar circumstances, would conclude that there was a real danger of an injury or serious impairment of health resulting from the performance of duties as ordered by the seaman's employer. To qualify for protection based on activity described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the seaman must have sought from the employer, and been unable to obtain, correction of the unsafe condition. Any seaman who requested such a correction shall be protected against retaliation because of the request.
#### R. S. HOWARD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 42673.

Decided June 3, 1935]

*Messrs. Jo'lm W. Gashins*and *George A. King*for the plaintiff. *Messrs. Clarence W. DeKnigKt,*IF. *G. Balder-ston*and *Paul E. Haworth*were on the briefs.

*Mr. Percy M. Cox,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General George C. /Sweeney,*for the defendant.

*653Whauet, *Judge,*

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes to this court under a special act of Congress waiving the statute of limitations.

The plaintiff was the owner of a lease with the Bush Terminal Buildings Company. By a commandeer order dated June 18, 1918, the Government, acting through the Navy Department, demanded possession of the space occu*654pied, by the plaintiff under this lease. The plaintiff, acting under the order to vacate, secured other premises and made preparations to comply with the order of possession. On August 27, 1918, the plaintiff began removing from the space occupied in the Terminal.

On September 1, 1918, the plaintiff had vacated and then tendered to the defendant 6,000 square feet. On September 13, 1918, the defendant canceled the commandeer order. Plaintiff completed removal from the premises on February 1, 1919.

This suit is for just compensation for the value of the lease taken and other expenses incurred in moving to the new site. It is similar in all respects to the case of *William*Wrigley, *Jr., Co.*v. *The United States,*75 C. Cls. 569. It was held in that case, and followed in other cases, *Thermal Syndicate, Ltd.,*v. *The United*States, No. 17333 *(ante,*p. 446), and *Charles B. Chrystal*v. *The United States,*No, 17335 *(ante,*p. 461), decided April 8, 1935, that the tenant was entitled to just compensation for the value of the lease' from the date of vacation of the premises to the date of expiration of the lease. In the instant case, the plaintiff tendered 6,000 square feet on September 1, 1918, but the defendant did not accept the space offered. The plaintiff, after the order of cancellation, took the space back and on October 1, 1918, sublet this space to the end of the term of its lease. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference between the market value and the rental paid for the month of September, which is $150. When the plaintiff vacated the premises on February 1, 1919, the Bush-Terminal Buildings Company canceled the unexpired term of the lease. The difference between the stipulated rental and the fair market value thereof on February 1, 1919, for the unexpired term extending: therefrom to May 1, 1921, is $28,228.50.

Other items of expense in moving are consequential in their nature and are not recoverable. See *Wrigley case, supra.*

This cause of action is within the general jurisdiction of this court, private property having been taken for public use. *Barnes*v. *United States,*46 C. Cls. 7:

*655The plaintiff is entitled to the sum of $28,318.50, with interest at six percent on $150.00 from September 1, 1918. until paid and interest at six percent on $28,228.50 from February 1, 1919, until paid.

It is so ordered.

Williams, *Judge;*Littleton, *Judge;*Gkebn, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
EXHIBIT
23








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-133848 on Form S-8 and No. 333-61393 on Form S-8 of our reports dated
February 20, 2009, relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedule of North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. (formerly
Kinark Corporation), and the effectiveness of North American Galvanizing &
Coatings, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2008.






DELOITTE
& TOUCHE LLP


Tulsa,
Oklahoma


February
20, 2009
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS*





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of La-Z-Boy Incorporated (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2011, (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Kurt L. DarrowKurt L. DarrowPresident and Chief Executive OfficerJune 21, 2011/s/ Louis M. Riccio, Jr.Louis M. Riccio, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerJune 21, 2011




*The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and the applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  It is not to be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liability of that section and will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent, if any, the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**In the Matter of**

**JAMES MICHAEL DELAPLANE, JR.**

**PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM INACTIVE STATUS**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: No. 157 DB 2014 (No. 1 RST 2015)** 

**Attorney Registration No. 76170** 

**(Philadelphia)**

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 15 th**  **day of January, 2015, the Report and Recommendation of**  **Disciplinary Board Member dated January 6, 2015, is appr oved and it is ORDERED that**  **James Michael Delaplane, Jr., who has been on Inactive St atus, has never been**  **suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he ha s the moral qualifications,**  **competency and learning in law required for admission t o practice in the**  **Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to act ive status as a member of the**  **Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation**  **and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petit ioner.**