alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1915.506 Hazards of fixed extinguishing systems on board vessels and vessel sections. ( a ) *Employer responsibilities.* The employer must comply with the provisions of this section whenever employees are exposed to fixed extinguishing systems that could create a dangerous atmosphere when activated in vessels and vessel sections, regardless of geographic location.
( b ) *Requirements for automatic and manual systems.* Before any work is done in a space equipped with fixed extinguishing systems, the employer must either: ( 1 ) Physically isolate the systems or use other positive means to prevent the systems' discharge; or
( 2 ) Ensure employees are trained to recognize: ( i ) Systems' discharge and evacuation alarms and the appropriate escape routes; and
( ii ) Hazards associated with the extinguishing systems and agents including the dangers of disturbing system components and equipment such as piping, cables, linkages, detection devices, activation devices, and alarm devices.
( c ) *Sea and dock trials.* During trials, the employer must ensure that all systems shall remain operational.
( d ) *Doors and hatches.* The employer must: ( 1 ) Take protective measures to ensure that all doors, hatches, scuttles, and other exit openings remain working and accessible for escape in the event the systems are activated; and
( 2 ) Ensure that all inward opening doors, hatches, scuttles, and other potential barriers to safe exit are removed, locked open, braced, or otherwise secured so that they remain open and accessible for escape if systems' activation could result in a positive pressure in the protected spaces sufficient to impede escape.
( e ) *Testing the system.* ( 1 ) When testing a fixed extinguishing system involves a total discharge of extinguishing medium into a space, the employer must evacuate all employees from the space and assure that no employees remain in the space during the discharge. The employer must retest the atmosphere in accordance with § 1915.12 to ensure that the oxygen levels are safe for employees to enter.
( 2 ) When testing a fixed extinguishing system does not involve a total discharge of the systems extinguishing medium, the employer must make sure that the system's extinguishing medium is physically isolated and that all employees not directly involved in the testing are evacuated from the protected space.
( f ) *Conducting system maintenance.* Before conducting maintenance on a fixed extinguishing system, the employer must ensure that the system is physically isolated.
( g ) *Using fixed manual extinguishing systems for fire protection.* If fixed manual extinguishing systems are used to provide fire protection for spaces in which the employees are working, the employer must ensure that: ( 1 ) Only authorized employees are allowed to activate the system;
( 2 ) Authorized employees are trained to operate and activate the systems; and
( 3 ) All employees are evacuated from the protected spaces, and accounted for, before the fixed manual extinguishing system is activated.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Peter Thompson, Appellant.

Argued April 19, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*Henry Hirschberg, District Attorney,*for motion.

*Henry Hunter*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.
Form Approved. OMB Nos. 2070-0060; 2070-0174

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1200 Pe nnsylvania Avenue, N.W . 

WASHING TON , D.C. 20460 

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per response 

for registration activities and 0.25 hours per response for reregistration and special review activities, including time for reading the instructions and 

completing the necessary forms. ments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden to: Director, Collection Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460. 

SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT FOR THE 

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIES (PR NOTICE 98-1) 

Product Name: 

Reg. No./File Symbol No. 

(if known) or Company No. 

SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: 

I certify that the reported information on the “Summary Form” represents a true and accurate record of 

the test results of studies generated or owned by (Company Name): 

and that the values of the properties reported are reliable. 

I further certify that such data were generated in substantial conformity with OPPTS Test Guideline Series 830 

Product Properties, applicable to my product, and in effect at the time of submission. 

As a condition of registration, EPA may, by order, (1) withdraw a pending registration, (2) suspend the 

registration of this product without opportunity for hearing, or (3) assess civil penalties provided for in section 

14 of FIFRA for violations of section 12(a)(2)(N) of FIFRA without opportunity for hearing, if I have not 

submitted to EPA within thirty (30) days of receipt of a request by the Agency, or within a specified time 

agreed to by the Agency, test results of studies summarized in the “Summary Form.” 

As a condition of registration, EPA may, by order, (1) withdraw a pending registration, (2) suspend the 

registration of this product without opportunity for hearing, or (3) assess civil penalties provided for in section 

14 of FIFRA for violations of sections 12(a)(2)(N), 12(a)(2)(Q), or 12(a)(2)(R) of FIFRA without opportunity 

for hearing, if I fail to provide to EPA within thirty (30) days of receipt of a notification of error, or within 

a specified time agreed to by the Agency, information that EPA determines is required to correct the error. 

Type Applicant’s Name: 

Title: Telephone No. 

Applicant’s Signature: Date: 

Send com 

Do not send the form to this address. 

EPA Form 8570-37 (12-2003) 

Attach-2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IGNACIO E. MONTANES,

Appellant,

v.

CACH, LLC,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00021

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law Number Three

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC# CC

- 12

- 06973

- C )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                           CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Jupiter Marine International
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Carl Herndon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



Date: October 26, 2004


/s/ Carl Herndon
----------------
Carl Herndon
Chief Executive Officer
David M. Kirstein 

Direct 202.331.3348 x 224 

Fax 202.331.3933 

Email dkirstein@yklaw.com 

June 10, 2011 

By Email

Esta Rosenberg, Chief 

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

 Re: Spirit Airlines Application for Renewal/Reinstatement of an Exemption, 

 Detroit, Michigan (DET) – Cancun, Mexico (CUN) (DOT-OST-2004-18692) 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg, 

 Spirit Airlines has completed its poll of the carrier parties served with its 

application of June 7, 2011 for a renewal/reinstatement of an exemption pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. § 40109 for service between Detroit, Michigan (DET) and Cancun, Mexico 

(CUN). 

 Spirit received non-objections from each of the carrier parties served. We request 

expedited approval of our application. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 David M. Kirstein 

cc: Service List 
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email on the 

following persons: 

pmurphy@lopmurphy.com 

dan.weiss@coair.com 

jeff.morgan@delta.com 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

steve.morrissey@united.com 

robert.land@jetblue.com 

msinick@ssd.com 

cdonley@ssd.com 

anbird@fedex.com 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com 

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com 

efaberman@wileyrein.com 

howard.kass@usairways.com 

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com 

jhill@dlalaw.com 

mgoldman@sgbdc.com 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com 

russell.bailey@alpa.org 

john.allen@faa.gov 

urskr@state.gov 

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov 

brian.hedberg@dot.gov 

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com 

 

 

 _______________________ 

 Lyndsey Grunewald 

June 10, 2011
###### 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.

#### § 1926.550 [Reserved]
§ 1614.202 Equal Pay Act. ( a ) In its enforcement of the Equal Pay Act, the Commission has the authority to investigate an agency's employment practices on its own initiative at any time in order to determine compliance with the provisions of the Act. The Commission will provide notice to the agency that it will be initiating an investigation.
( b ) Complaints alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act shall be processed under this part.
#### INDUST. COMM. v. RAMSEY

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21110.

Decided Dec. 26, 1928.

ROBINSON, J,

APPEAL.

(30 I) A court of common pleas has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission of Ohio denying a claim for compensatin out of the state insurance fund until the claimant, after a denial of his claim, has made application for a rehearing and a rehearing has been had as provided in Section. 1465-90, General Code (111 Ohio Laws, 227), and the claim has again been denied by the Industrial Commission.

Marshall, C. J., D,ay, Allen, Kinkade, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned, directors of Kellwood Company (the Company), do hereby
constitute and appoint Robert C. Skinner, Jr. or W. Lee Capps III as his or
her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him or her and in his or her name,
place and stead, to sign the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report pursuant to
Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Amended for the fiscal
year ended January 28, 2006, and to file the same, with all exhibits
thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, granting unto the attorney-in-fact full power and
authority to sign such document on behalf of the undersigned and to make
such filing, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might
or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that the
attorney-in-fact, or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.

Dated:  March 9, 2006


/s/ Robert J. Baer                         /s/ Larry R. Katzen
---------------------------------          -----------------------------------
Robert J. Baer                             Larry R. Katzen


/s/ Martin Bloom                           /s/ Janice E. Page
---------------------------------          -----------------------------------
Martin Bloom                               Janice E. Page


/s/ Ben B. Blount, Jr.                     /s/ Robert C. Skinner, Jr.
---------------------------------          -----------------------------------
Ben B. Blount, Jr.                         Robert C. Skinner, Jr.


/s/ Kitty G. Dickerson                     /s/ Harvey A. Weinberg
---------------------------------          -----------------------------------
Kitty G. Dickerson, Ph.D.                  Harvey A. Weinberg


/s/ Jerry M. Hunter
---------------------------------
Jerry M. Hunter
# EUR-Lex - 32000R2426 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R2426

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2426/2000 of 31 October 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 94/92 laying down detailed rules for implementing the arrangements for imports from third countries provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 **

*
Official Journal L 279 , 01/11/2000 P. 0019 - 0019 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2426/2000

of 31 October 2000

amending Regulation (EEC) No 94/92 laying down detailed rules for implementing the arrangements for imports from third countries provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2020/2000(2), and in particular Article 11(1)(a) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 stipulates that products which are imported from a third country may be marketed only where they originate in a third country appearing on a list drawn up in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 2 of that Article. That list is given in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 94/92(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1616/2000(4).

(2) The Argentine authorities have asked the Commission to include a new inspection and certification body in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 94/92.

(3) The Argentine authorities have provided the Commission with all the necessary guarantees and information to satisfy it that the new inspection and certification body meets the criteria laid down in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 94/92 is amended as shown in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 31 October 2000.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 241, 26.9.2000, p. 39.

(3) OJ L 11, 17.1.1992, p. 14.

(4) OJ L 185, 25.7.2000, p. 62.

ANNEX

Point 3 of the text referring to Argentina is replaced by the following: "3. Inspection bodies:

- Instituto Argentino para la Certificación y Promoción de Productos Agropecuarios Orgánicos SRL (Argencert)

- Oragnización Internacional Agropecuaria (OIA)

- Letis SA"
#### James R. Davis and Leslie V. Davis, his wife, *Appellants,*v. John H. Simon, *Appellee.*

1. An appeal taken only from a decree confirming a sale of property in a foreclosure suit, and awarding a deficiency decree, does not authorize a review of the final decree settling the equities of the case.

2. In a foreclosure proceeding where it appears that the defendant’s title to the mortgaged property was of little if any market value, an order confirming a sale for ten dollars is not necessarily unjust or erroneous.

3. Where the amount of the deficiency decree is in accordance with the adjudication in the final decree, and there is no appeal from the final decree, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the final decree is not open for review.

This case was decided by Division A.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*J. W.*Brady, for Appellants.;

*Wilson & Boswell,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam

A final decree was rendered in a foreclosure proceeding adjudicating the amount of the indebtedness and ordering a sale of the property. The property sold for a nominal amount; the sale was confirmed and a deficiency decree rendered. An appeal was taken only from the order confirming the sale and awarding a deficiency decree. This appeal does not authorize a review of the final decree. It appears that the defendant’s title to *589the mortgage property was oí little, if any market value, therefore the order confirming its sale for ten dollars is not shown to be unjust or erroneous. The amount of the deficiency decree resulted mathematically from the indebtedness adjudged in the final decree which is not appealed from. This being so- the court cannot consider the sole contention that the amount of the indebtedness decree is not in accordance with the evidence.

The decree is affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;

Taylor, EEockek and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
#### Cornelius TILLMAN *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5676

475 S.W. 2d 529

Opinion delivered January 31, 1972

*Louis W. Rosteck,*for appellant.

*Ray Thornton,*Attorney General; *Henry Ginger,*Deputy A tty. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1922 (Repl. 1964) a defendant put to trial upon an offense punishable by either death or life imprisonment is entitled to 12 peremptory challenges. Appellant Cornelius Tillman was put to trial upon a charge of first degree rape. After he had used up eight peremptory challenges, the trial court ruled that, because the State had waived *897the death penalty, appellant had exhausted his peremptory challenges. This was error.

Reversed.
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.

§ 1926.856 Removal of walls, floors, and material with equipment. ( a ) Mechanical equipment shall not be used on floors or working surfaces unless such floors or surfaces are of sufficient strength to support the imposed load.
( b ) Floor openings shall have curbs or stop-logs to prevent equipment from running over the edge.
( c ) *Cranes, derricks, and other mechanical equipment.* Employers must meet the requirements specified in subparts N, O, and CC of this part.
[44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979 , 75 FR 48135, Aug. 9, 2010; 77 FR 49730, Aug. 17, 2012; 78 FR 23843, Apr. 23, 2013]
#### § 1955.34 Fees of witnesses.

Witnesses, including witnesses for depositions, shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States. Fees shall be paid by the party at whose instance the witness appears, and the person taking a deposition shall be paid by the party at whose instance the deposition is taken.
#### Diego Tejado, Respondent, *v.*Daniels and Kennedy, Inc., Appellant.

Submitted June 7,1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

*Irving A. Scheinberg*and *Bernard H. Packman*for motion.

*■Grover C. Sniffen*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on form S-8 Registration Nos.
333-138764, 333-114650, 333-110769, 333-105524, 333-101130, 333-102650,
333-80443, 333-47392, 333-72894, 333-75872, 333-82006, and 333-69123 of our
report (which included an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s
ability to continue as a going concern) dated March 31, 2009 relating to
our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Torvec, Inc. which are
included in Torvec, Inc.’s 2008 annual report on Form 10-K. /s/ Eisner LLP 
New York, New
York 
March 31, 2009
#### § 1981.114 Special circumstances; waiver of rules.

In special circumstances not contemplated by the provisions of this part, or for good cause shown, the administrative law judge or the Board on review may, upon application, after three days notice to all parties, waive any rule or issue any orders that justice or the administration of the Act requires.
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50931 Summary Calendar

__________________ CURTIS R. FRANCIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus STATE OF TEXAS; ANN W. RICHARDS, Governor; DAN MORALES, Attorney General; SELDON HALE, III; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-94-CV-486
- - - - - - - - - - May 27, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Curtis R. Francis appeals the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying counsel. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't , 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 857 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 857

  To redesignate the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine, as an 
                            anchorage area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2007

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To redesignate the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine, as an 
                            anchorage area.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF PROJECT.

    The portion of the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine, 
authorized under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 
Stat. 486), and described as a 6-foot deep, 10-acre maneuvering basin 
located at the head of navigation, is redesignated as an anchorage 
area.
                                 <all>
```