alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1926](/current/title-29/part-1926?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At [44 FR 8577](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-8577), Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at [44 FR 20940](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-20940), Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of [29 CFR part 1926](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/part-1926) together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in [29 CFR part 1910](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/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](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-21597), May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1076 Qualifications of dive team.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.410 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.410).

[[61 FR 31432](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31432), June 20, 1996]
#### FERRO, INC., and Bolling R. Powell, Jr., Appellants v. JOHN THOMPSON BEACON WINDOWS, LTD., Appellee.

No. 15533.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 14, 1960.

Decided April 28, 1960.

Petition for Rehearing Denied June 13, 1960.

Mr. Bolling R. Powell, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Mr. John J. Sexton, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Harry M. Plotkin, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before Mr. Justice Reed, retired,* and Edgerton and Bastían, Circuit Judges.

*

 Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(a).

PER CURIAM.

a n x x, t -ix Appellant Ferro, Inc., an insolvent eorporation, paid its debt to appellant Powell, its sole stockholder and managing director. The District Court found that. this Pansier of the corporation’s funds. was made with intent “to hinder or delay” appellee, a creditor. The finding . , . , . , ,, is not clearly erroneous and supports the court’s conclusion that the transfer was vo^ as a&ainst aPPe^ee under D.C.Code, § 12-401.

Affirmed,
#### PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Harry MOORE, Trustee of the Estate of Billie Sol Estes, Bankrupt, Appellee.

No. 24081.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 9, 1967.

*336Cecil G. Magee, of Irion, Cain, Cocke & Magee, Dallas, Tex., James E. Irion, El Paso, Tex., Irion, Rash & Sehwarzbach, El Paso, Tex., for appellant.

Allan L. Poage, El Paso, Tex., for appellee.

Before RIVES, WISDOM and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

When the assets of Billie Sol Estes were being sold by the Trustee, the Bankruptcy Court Order designated certain funds to pay “valid liens on Estes tanks” so that these tanks could be sold free and clear. The Order provided that ■“chattel mortgages executed by the Bankrupt in his own name or under assumed names are eligible to present claims for consideration.” Appellant Pacific, which held a conditional sales contract in the name of W. J. Worsham on a tank listed in the Estes inventory, filed a claim of $19,200.00, to which the Trustee objected.

At a hearing before the Referee, it was undisputed that the signature on the contract was not that of Worsham; no direct evidence, however, was offered as to the identity of the person who had signed it. Worsham testified by deposition that he had given Estes permission to use his name to obtain credit, although he did not see anyone sign the particular contract in question. He was aware of the obligation to Pacific, received a payment book from Pacific, never questioned the contract and sent checks in through his secretary when Estes sent him a payment. The Referee sustained the contention of the Trustee and held the obligation on which Pacific’s claim was based to be invalid on the ground that the contract was not signed by Estes in his own or any of his assumed names. The District Court affirmed the order of the Referee.

The question is whether failure to prove directly that Estes signed the sales contract under the name of W. J. Worsham, as Worsham had given him authority to do, is fatal to Pacific’s claim against Estes’s Trustee.

Pacific showed that Worsham had given Estes authority to use his name to obtain credit and that the tank on which the contract was given ultimately wound up in Estes’s inventory. Without any further evidence being offered as to whether Estes actually signed Worsham’s name to the contract, one of two conclusions could be drawn, that is either (1) Worsham’s signature to the contract was a forgery or (2) Estes signed the contract using Worsham’s name as Worsham had given him authority to do. The choice being between forgery and an authorized signature, we should assume the signature to be authorized. Further, the only reasonable conclusion from all of the evidence and circumstances is that the contract was executed by the Bankrupt under the assumed name of W. J. Worsham with the consent of the true W. J. Worsham.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to allow Pacific’s claim.

Reversed with directions.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section  906 of the Public  Company  Accounting  Reform and
Investor  Protection  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.  1350,  as adopted),  I, Dianne
Hatton-Ward, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

         1. The  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ended
December 31, 2004, and to which this  Certification  is attached as Exhibit 99.1
(the "PERIODIC REPORT") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects,  the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period  covered by the Periodic  Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: February 2, 2005


S/ Dianne Hatton-Ward
---------------------
Dianne Hatton-Ward
CEO & CFO

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Yummies, Inc. and will be retained by Yummies, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request

THIS  CERTIFICATION   ACCOMPANIES  THIS  REPORT  PURSUANT  TO  SS.  906  OF  THE
SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED  "FILED" BY THE  COMPANY FOR
PURPOSES OF SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40313 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARTURO LOPEZ-SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-821-ALL

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Arturo Lopez-Salas appeals the 72-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Lopez-Salas argues for the first time on appeal that the magistrate judge did not have the jurisdiction or authority to accept his guilty plea because the district court had notNo. 02-40313 -2- referred the case to the magistrate judge. In United States v. Bolivar-Munoz , 313 F.3d 253, 256-57 (5th Cir. 2002), this court concluded that the district court must enter a proper referral order, but found that a failure to do so causes a procedural error, which can be waived, rather than a jurisdictional defect. As in Bolivar-Munoz , Lopez-Salas consented to proceedings before the magistrate judge and lodged no objection to the absence of a referral order. Lopez-Salas waived the procedural error. Lopez-Salas contends that his indictment violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because it lacked an allegation that he acted with general intent. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent in United States v. GuzmanOcampo , 236 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 533 U.S. 953 (2001), and United States v. Berrios-Centeno , 250 F.3d 294, 299-300 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 288 (2001), but raises it to preserve the issue for review by the Supreme Court. Lopez-Salas argues that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Apprendi did notNo. 02-40313 -3- overrule Almendarez-Torres
. Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90, 496; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001)
. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 27 May 2004

in Case C-398/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/442/EEC - Environment - Management of waste)

(2004/C 179/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-398/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure, as regards the landfill located at La Baneza (Spain), the implementation of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and  F. Macken, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 May 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.

----
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 879 

To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels 

illegal. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2007 

Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. COBURN, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. 

BOXER, and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and 

exporting cartels illegal. 

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 ‘‘No Oil Producing and 

5 Exporting Cartels Act of 2007’’ or ‘‘NOPEC’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SHERMAN ACT. 

7 The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended 

8 by adding after section 7 the following: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 879 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS. 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be illegal and a violation 

3 of this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality 

4 or agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in com5 bination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality 

6 or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person, 

7 whether by cartel or any other association or form of co8 operation or joint action— 

9 ‘‘(1) to limit the production or distribution of 

10 oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product; 

11 ‘‘(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural 

12 gas, or any petroleum product; or 

13 ‘‘(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of 

14 trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product; 

15 when such action, combination, or collective action has a 

16 direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on 

17 the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural 

18 gas, or other petroleum product in the United States. 

19 ‘‘(b) SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.—A foreign state en20 gaged in conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not 

21 be immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from 

22 the jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United 

23 States in any action brought to enforce this section. 

24 ‘‘(c) INAPPLICABILITY OF ACT OF STATE DOC25 TRINE.—No court of the United States shall decline, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•S 879 IS

1 based on the act of state doctrine, to make a determina2 tion on the merits in an action brought under this section. 

3 ‘‘(d) ENFORCEMENT.—The Attorney General of the 

4 United States may bring an action to enforce this section 

5 in any district court of the United States as provided 

6 under the antitrust laws.’’. 

7 SEC. 3. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. 

8 Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘or’’ after the 

11 semicolon; 

12 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and 

13 inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

14 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(8) in which the action is brought under sec16 tion 7A of the Sherman Act.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 93 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 93

To authorize NTIA to borrow against anticipated receipts of the Digital 
Television Transition and Public Safety Fund to initiate migration to a 
    national IP-enabled emergency network capable of receiving and 
     responding to all citizen activated emergency communications.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

  Mr. Stevens introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize NTIA to borrow against anticipated receipts of the Digital 
Television Transition and Public Safety Fund to initiate migration to a 
    national IP-enabled emergency network capable of receiving and 
     responding to all citizen activated emergency communications.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``911 Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR PROGRAM.

    Section 3011 of Public Law 109-171 (47 U.S.C. 309 note) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``The'' and inserting:
    ``(a) In General--The''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Credit.--The Assistant Secretary may borrow from the 
Treasury, upon enactment of this provision, such sums as necessary, but 
not to exceed $43,500,000 to implement this section. The Assistant 
Secretary shall reimburse the Treasury, without interest, as funds are 
deposited into the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety 
Fund.''.

SEC. 3. NTIA COORDINATION OF E-911 IMPLEMENTATION.

    Section 158(b)(4) of the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 942(b)(4)) is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following: ``Within 180 days 
after the date of enactment of the 911 Modernization Act, the Assistant 
Secretary and the Administrator shall jointly issue regulations 
updating the criteria to provide priority for public safety answering 
points not capable, as of the date of enactment of that Act, of 
receiving 911 calls.''.D23/
                                 <all>
```
§ 1991.107 Hearings. ( a ) Except as provided in this part, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at 29 CFR part 18, subpart A.
( b ) Upon receipt of an objection and request for hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will promptly assign the case to an ALJ who will notify the parties of the day, time, and place of hearing. The hearing is to commence expeditiously, except upon a showing of good cause or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Hearings will be conducted de novo on the record. ALJs have broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing.
( c ) If both the complainant and the respondent object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated and a single hearing will be conducted.
( d ) Formal rules of evidence will not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence will be applied. The ALJ may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.
Exhibit 32.2



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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Serena Software, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2004 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



I, Robert I. Pender, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Serena Software, Inc. certify that:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Serena Software, Inc.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    ROBERT I. PENDER,
JR.Robert I. Pender, Jr. Senior Vice President, Finance And Administration, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial And Accounting Officer) And Director




Date: December 10, 2004
§ 1918.81 Slinging. ( a ) Drafts shall be safely slung before being hoisted. Loose dunnage or debris hanging or protruding from loads shall be removed.
( b ) Cargo handling bridles, such as pallet bridles, which are to remain attached to the hoisting gear while hoisting successive drafts, shall be attached by shackles, or other positive means shall be taken to prevent them from being accidentally disengaged from the cargo hook.
( c ) Drafts of lumber, pipe, dunnage and other pieces, the top layer of which is not bound by the sling, shall be slung in a way that prevents sliders. Double slings shall be used on unstrapped dunnage, unless, due to the size of hatch or deep tank openings, using them is impracticable.
( d ) Case hooks shall be used only with cases designed to be hoisted by these hooks.
( e ) Bales of cotton, wool, cork, wood pulp, gunny bags or similar articles shall not be hoisted by straps unless the straps are strong enough to support the weight of the bale. At least two hooks, each in a separate strap, shall be used.
( f ) Unitized loads bound by bands or straps may be hoisted by the banding or strapping only if the banding or strapping is suitable for hoisting and is strong enough to support the weight of the load.
( g ) Additional means to maintain the unitized loads during hoisting shall be employed to ensure safe lifting of such loads having damaged banding or strapping.
( h ) Loads requiring continuous manual guidance during handling shall be guided by guide ropes (tag lines) that are long enough to control the load.
( i ) No draft shall be hoisted unless the winch or crane operator(s) can clearly see the draft itself or see the signals of a signalman who is observing the draft's movement.
( j ) Intermodal containers shall be handled in accordance with § 1918.85.
( k ) The employer shall require that employees stay clear of the area beneath overhead drafts or descending lifting gear.
( l ) The employer shall not permit employees to ride the hook or the load, except as provided for in § 1918.85(g).
Exhibit 31.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, John R. Beals, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The
First Years Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

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

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: April 29, 2004


By: /s/ John R. Beals
    -----------------------------
    John R. Beals
    Senior Vice President - Finance and Treasurer
    (Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer)
#### JOHN G. CUNNINGHAM v. UNITED STATES

[83 C. Cls. 696; 301 U. S. 686]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court April 26, 1937.
#### § 18.1102 [Reserved]