alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 99.11 ADIZ flight plan requirements. ( a ) No person may operate an aircraft into, within, or from a departure point within an ADIZ, unless the person files, activates, and closes a flight plan with the appropriate aeronautical facility, or is otherwise authorized by air traffic control.
( b ) Unless ATC authorizes an abbreviated flight plan— ( 1 ) A flight plan for IFR flight must contain the information specified in § 91.169; and
( 2 ) A flight plan for VFR flight must contain the information specified in § 91.153(a) (1) through (6).
( 3 ) If airport of departure is within the Alaskan ADIZ and there is no facility for filing a flight plan then: ( i ) Immediately after takeoff or when within range of an appropriate aeronautical facility, comply with provisions of paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) as appropriate.
( ii ) Proceed according to the instructions issued by the appropriate aeronautical facility.
( c ) The pilot shall designate a flight plan for VFR flight as a DVFR flight plan.
( d ) The pilot in command of an aircraft for which a flight plan has been filed must file an arrival or completion notice with an appropriate aeronautical facility.
[Doc. No. 25113, 53 FR 18217, May 20, 1988; 53 FR 44182, Nov. 2, 1988, as amended by Amdt. 99-15, 54 FR 34331, Aug. 18, 1989; 66 FR 49822, Sept. 28, 2001; 69 FR 16756, Mar. 30, 2004]
#### § 1601.79 Revocation of certification.

Certification of a designated FEP agency is discretionary with the Commission and the Commission may, upon its own motion, withdraw such certification as a result of an evaluation conducted pursuant to § 1601.78 or for any reason which leads the Commission to believe that such certification no longer serves the interest of effective enforcement of title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA. The Commission will accept comments from any individual or organization concerning the efficacy of the certification of any designated FEP agency. The revocation shall be effected by the issuance and publication of an amendment to § 1601.80 of this part.

[46 FR 50367, Oct. 13, 1981. Redesignated and amended at 56 FR 9624, 9625, Mar. 7, 1991; 74 FR 63982, Dec. 7, 2009; 89 FR 11169, Feb. 14, 2024]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4693 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide requirements for agency 

decision making based on science. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 

Mr. LANKFORD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide 

requirements for agency decision making based on science. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Evaluation of 

5 Science and Technology Act’’ or the ‘‘BEST Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. USE OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IN RULEMAK7 ING. 

8 Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, is amend9 ed by adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4693 IS

1 ‘‘(f) To the extent that an agency makes a decision 

2 based on science when issuing a rule under this section, 

3 the agency shall use scientific information, technical pro4 cedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies, or 

5 models, employed in a manner consistent with the best 

6 available science, and shall consider as applicable— 

7 ‘‘(1) the extent to which the scientific informa8 tion, technical procedures, measures, methods, proto9 cols, methodologies, or models employed to generate 

10 the information are reasonable for and consistent 

11 with the intended use of the information; 

12 ‘‘(2) the extent to which the information is rel13 evant for use by the head of the agency in making 

14 a decision related to issuing the rule; 

15 ‘‘(3) the degree of clarity and completeness with 

16 which the data, assumptions, methods, quality assur17 ance, and analyses employed to generate the infor18 mation are documented; 

19 ‘‘(4) the extent to which the variability and un20 certainty in the information, or in the procedures, 

21 measures, methods, protocols, methodologies, or 

22 models, are evaluated and characterized; and 

23 ‘‘(5) the extent of independent verification or 

24 peer review of the information or of the procedures, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4693 IS

1 measures, methods, protocols, methodologies, or 

2 models. 

3 ‘‘(g) An agency shall make a decision described in 

4 subsection (f) based on the weight of the scientific evi5 dence. 

6 ‘‘(h) Each agency shall make available to the public— 

7 ‘‘(1) all notices, determinations, findings, rules, 

8 consent agreements, and orders of the head of the 

9 agency in connection with a rule; 

10 ‘‘(2) a nontechnical summary of each risk eval11 uation conducted in connection with a rule; and 

12 ‘‘(3) a list of the studies considered by the 

13 agency in carrying out each risk evaluation described 

14 in paragraph (2), along with the results of those 

15 studies.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE>

Exhibit 11.
 Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

<CAPTION>

 For the periods ended June 30                    2nd Qtr.                  Six months
                                               2000         1999        2000           1999
<S>                                        <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
 Diluted earnings per common share:
   Average common shares outstanding ...     643,053      643,053      643,053      500,732
   Common stock equivalents ............        --           --           --           --
                                            ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
 Average shares and share equivalents        643,053      643,053      643,053      500,732

 Net income (loss) .....................   $ (91,585)   $(256,550)   $(307,918)     (14,949)
                                            --------     ---------    ---------    ---------

Income available for common stock ......   $ (91,585)   $(256,550)   $(307,918)   $ (14,949)

 Diluted earnings (loss) per share: ....   $   (0.14)   $   (0.40)   $   (0.48)   $   (0.03)

 Basic earnings (loss) per share: ......   $   (0.14)   $   (0.40)   $   (0.48)   $   (0.03)
</TABLE>
§ 1979.108 Role of Federal agencies. ( a ) ( 1 ) The complainant and the named person shall be parties in every proceeding. At the Assistant Secretary's discretion, the Assistant Secretary may participate as a party or may participate as amicus curiae at any time in the proceedings. This right to participate shall include, but is not limited to, the right to petition for review of a decision of an administrative law judge, including a decision based on a settlement agreement between complainant and the named person, to dismiss a complaint or to issue an order encompassing the terms of the settlement.
( 2 ) Copies of pleadings in all cases, whether or not the Assistant Secretary is participating in the proceeding, must be sent to the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and to the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.
( b ) The FAA may participate as amicus curiae at any time in the proceedings, at the FAA's discretion. At the request of the FAA, copies of all pleadings in a case must be sent to the FAA, whether or not the FAA is participating in the proceeding.
[No. 47033-7-I.

Division One.

November 4, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Joshua J. Courtney, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 99-1-01455-8, David F. Hulbert, J., entered July 27, 2000. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Order entered January 21, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00898-CR

BRANDON LAWRENCE COOPER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-81168-2011

ORDER

The Court GRANTS the State’s motion for extension of time to file the State’s brief. We 

ORDER the Clerk of the Court to file the brief tendered on December 16, 2013 as of the date of 

this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to counsel for 

all parties. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Financial Officer under Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

     I Luc Perron, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Visual Bible International, Inc.;

     2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not
contain any untrue statement of a 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 upon 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 quarterly report.

     4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have:

          a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;

          b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior
to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

          c)   Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

     5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          a)   All significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls.

     6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: November 24, 2004            /s/Luc Perron


                                   Luc Perron, Principal Financial
                                   Officer
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.

§ 1926.28 Personal protective equipment. ( a ) The employer is responsible for requiring the wearing of appropriate personal protective equipment in all operations where there is an exposure to hazardous conditions or where this part indicates the need for using such equipment to reduce the hazards to the employees.
( b ) Regulations governing the use, selection, and maintenance of personal protective and lifesaving equipment are described under subpart E of this part.
#### § 1954.11 Visits to State agencies.

As a part of the continuing monitoring and evaluation process, the Assistant Secretary or his representative shall conduct visits to the designated agency or agencies of State with approved plans at least every 6 months. An opportunity may also be provided for discussion and comments on the effectiveness of the State plan from other interested persons. These visits will be scheduled as needed. Periodic audits will be conducted to assess the progress of the overall State program in meeting the goal of becoming at least as effective as the Federal program. These audits will include case file review and follow-up inspections of workplaces.
#### § 2.40 Nondiscrimination among faith-based organizations.

Neither DOL nor any State or local government or other entity receiving financial assistance under any DOL program or service shall construe the provisions of this part in such a way as to advantage or disadvantage faith-based organizations affiliated with historic or well-established religions or sects in comparison with other religions or sects.

[85 FR 82141, Dec. 17, 2020]
§ 1603.213 Interlocutory review. ( a ) Interlocutory review may not be sought except when the administrative law judge determines either independently or upon motion of a party that: ( 1 ) The ruling involves a controlling question of law or policy about which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion;
( 2 ) An immediate appeal will materially advance the completion of the proceeding; and
( 3 ) The denial of an immediate appeal will cause irreparable harm to the party or the public.
( b ) Application for interlocutory review shall be filed within 10 days after notice of the administrative law judge's ruling. Any application for review shall: ( 1 ) Designate the ruling or part thereof from which appeal is being taken; and
( 2 ) Contain arguments or evidence that tend to establish one or more of the grounds for interlocutory review contained in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Any party opposing the application for interlocutory review shall file a response to the application within 10 days after service of the application. The applicant shall have no right to reply to a response unless the administrative law judge orders that a reply be filed.
( d ) The administrative law judge shall promptly certify in writing any ruling that qualifies for interlocutory review under paragraph (a) of this section.
( e ) The filing of an application for interlocutory review and the grant of an application shall not stay proceedings before the administrative law judge unless the administrative law judge or the Commission so orders. The Commission shall not consider a motion for a stay unless the motion was first made to the administrative law judge.
[62 FR 17543, Apr. 10, 1997, as amended at 89 FR 47853, June 4, 2024]
#### § 1955.18 Provision for written comments.

Any person who is not a party may submit a written statement of position with 4 copies to either the Assistant Secretary or the State at any time during the proceeding which statement shall be made available to all parties and may be introduced into evidence by a party. Mere statements of approval or opposition to the plan without any documentary support shall not be considered as falling within this provision.
Form Approved. OMB Nos. 2070-0060; 2070-0 174
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 re a ding 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 t o 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 o f sections 12(a)(2)(N), 12(a)(2)(Q), or 12(a)(2)(R) of FIFRA without opportunit y 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
#### LAMM v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 88-20AC10 (County Court Case No. 87-2734MM10)

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County

August 17, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

David Collins, for appellant.

Carolyn McCann, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEL GROSSMAN, Circuit Judge.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for driving while under the influence. Defendant raises two arguments:

1. Whether he may be convicted due to circumstantial evidence if a reasonable hypothesis of innocence exists; and

2. Whether he was denied a fair trial due to the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments.

On November 9, 1988, appellant was stopped by a Broward Sheriff’s Office Deputy when the officer noticed the Appellant leave the roadway twice. As the appellant exited his vehicle, the deputy observed bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and smelled a strong odor of alcohol. The *77appellant performed the roadside tests with a minimal amount of difficulty, although he did not complete follow the deputy’s directions. The appellant refused to take a breath test and was arrested for driving under the influence.

Because it is dispositive, only the second argument on appeal will be addressed. During closing arguments, the prosecutor made numerous remarks claimed to be improper, some objected to and others not, which individually do not amount to reversible error; however, cumulatively they do. Additionally, the prosecutor made several remarks as to the appellant’s attorney raising “smoke screens.” However, because the appellant’s attorney opened this door dming his closing argument, those remarks were proper.

In its brief, the state points out that the appellant did not object to some of the prosecutor’s remarks and thereby did not preserve those points on appeal. Ordinarily, this is the correct rule of law. *See Clark v State,*363 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1978).

Also, in *Tuff v State,*509 So.2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) citing *Ryan v State,*457 So.2d 1084 at 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), the Court held “that Prosecutorial misconduct amounts to fundamental error, and is excepted from the contemporaneous objection/motion for mistrial rule, when the prosecutor’s argument taken as a whole, is of such character that its sinister influence could not be overcome by rebuke or retraction.” Further, the prosecutor inappropriately vouched for the state’s evidence.

In the case at bar, the state asserts that any prejudice that may have occurred was harmless and had no effect on the verdict as the evidence against the appellant was convincing. However, the facts reveal that this was a close case. Accordingly, in light of the repetitiveness of the prosecutor’s conduct and the closeness of the case, it cannot be said that the comments did not so poison the jury’s minds so as to push them to the side of guilt. *Reddish v State,*525 So.2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

REVERSED AND REMANDED for a new trial.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1989.
[No. 27777-8-II.

Division Two.

December 20, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Richard Eric McClain, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grays Harbor County, No. 01-1-00278-6, F. Mark McCauley and David E. Foscue, JJ., entered September 4, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Houghton and Bridgewater, JJ.
**JK** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 18 - 0 562 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JEDEDIAH KEITH LARSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 60 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including October 2 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 23 2020

07/23/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0562
#### § 16.103 When the Act applies.

The Act applies to any adversary adjudication pending before the Department at any time between October 1, 1981 and September 30, 1984. This includes proceedings begun before October 1, 1981 if final agency action has not been taken before that date, and proceedings pending on September 30, 1984, regardless of when they were initiated or when final agency action occurs, except that it shall not apply in any case pending on October 1, 1981 in which a decision has been issued, but final agency action has not been taken by reason of an abatement.