alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC
) 

### SKYDIVE MYRTLE BEACH, INC., ) 

### Complainant ) )**~** 

## ) ) 

### HORRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ) AIRPORTS, ) 

### Respondent. )
ORDER FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 05

On April22 , 20 1 6 , counsel for Complainant, Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc., filed a Motion under 14 Code of Federal Register (CFR) § 16.19( a), requesting permission to withdraw representation of Complainant. Counsel certified that good cause exists for the withdrawal under the South Carolina Rules of Appell ate Procedure. Acco rding ly, Complainant's motion is hereby GRANTED.

Associate Administrator for Airports

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



## -- n f7-- I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June d l , 2016 , I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) a true copy of the foregoing ORDER addressed to: Complainant Aaron Holly, President Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. 3032 Fa ll s River Avenue Raleigh, NC 37614 Counsel for Complainant Robert G. Eastman Eastman 

### & Associates, LLC P.O. Box 180 Charleston, SC 29402 Counsel for Respondent David Y. Bannard, Esq. Jeffrey R. Blease , Esq. Jaclyn V. Piltch, Esq
. Foley and Lardner LLP Ill Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02199 Copies to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis (AC0

- 100) Electronic Docket (www.regulations.gov): FAA-2014-0538

audia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12450]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Information and Intelligent Systems; 
Notice of Meeting.

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Information and Intelligent 
Systems (#1200).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Dates of  meetings                        Locations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1-2, 2000............................  National Science Foundation,
                                             Arlington, VA.
June 5-6, 2000............................  National Science Foundation,
                                             Arlington, VA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Persons: Michael Lesk and Richard Hilderbrandt, Division 
of Information and Intelligent Systems, Room 1115, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 
306-1930.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Information Technology Research 
(ITR) proposals submitted to the Information Technology Research 
Program as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12450 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Frank W. Barber *vs.*The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company.

Second Judicial District, Norwich,

October Term, 1917.

Prentice, C. J., JLoraback, Wheeler, Beach and Shumway, Js.

In crossing a street a pedestrian is bound to make a reasonable use of his senses for his own protection.

In the present case the plaintiff, while crossing a well-lighted and unobstructed city street, either did not see the defendant’s sleigh approaching, or, if he did, heedlessly stepped in front of it and was injured. *Held*that in either event the jury could not reasonably have found that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, and therefore that the trial court did not err in setting aside a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.

Argued October 16th —

decided December 15th, 1917.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant’s servant, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and tried to the jury before *Reed, J.;*the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,096, which the trial court set aside as against the evidence, and from this decision the plaintiff appealed.

*No error.*

*215
      *Lee R. Robbins,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Allyn L. Brown,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

The court did not err in setting aside the plaintiff’s verdict returned by the jury. The reasons assigned for the court’s action were that upon the evidence the jury could not reasonably have found either that the defendant’s servant was negligent or that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. An examination of the evidence shows that the second of these propositions clearly is sound. The plaintiff was injured in a city street, at the time well lighted, and, outside of the sidewalk, wholly deserted and free from obstructions to the sight of a traveler therein, save for the presence of the defendant’s sleigh, which was being driven along it at a moderate rate of speed estimated at about four miles an hour. He had just stepped from the sidewalk with the purpose of crossing the street diagonally. At this time the sleigh, must have been only a few feet away from his intended path. He had proceeded a distance from the curb, variously testified to as from three or four to thirteen feet, when he was hit in the back by one of the shafts of the sleigh.

The conclusion is inevitable that in crossing as he did he either made no use of his eyes in self-protection, or that, making such use, he heedlessly stepped in front of the approaching sleigh, of whose presence he must have been aware. In either event he was not in the exercise of due care.

There is no error.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00097

- CR

D ANIEL L YNN J OHNSON

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 355th District

Court

of Hood County ( CR14353 )

Ju ne 15, 2023

Opinion by Justice Wallach

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is o rdered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach
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.

§ 1926.1208 Duties of authorized entrants. The entry employer must ensure that all authorized entrants: ( a ) Are familiar with and understand the hazards that may be faced during entry, including information on the mode, signs or symptoms, and consequences of the exposure;
( b ) Properly use equipment as required by § 1926.1204(d);
( c ) Communicate with the attendant as necessary to enable the attendant to assess entrant status and to enable the attendant to alert entrants of the need to evacuate the space as required by § 1926.1209(f);
( d ) Alert the attendant whenever: ( 1 ) There is any warning sign or symptom of exposure to a dangerous situation; or
( 2 ) The entrant detects a prohibited condition; and
( e ) Exit from the permit space as quickly as possible whenever: ( 1 ) An order to evacuate is given by the attendant or the entry supervisor;
( 2 ) There is any warning sign or symptom of exposure to a dangerous situation;
( 3 ) The entrant detects a prohibited condition; or
( 4 ) An evacuation alarm is activated.
#### In the Matter of Louis H. Pink, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Rehabilitator of Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company,Appellant, against John N. Harman, as County Clerk of Kings County, Respondent.

Argued March 4, 1937;

decided March 23, 1937.

*619
      *Jess H. Rosenberg, James R. Kelly*and *J. Donald Whelehan*for appellant.

*Hector McG. Curren*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, upon the authority of *Matter of Pink*v. *Ransom*(273 N. Y. 617). No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Lottghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
§ 1918.26 Access to barges and river towboats. ( a ) With the exception of § 1918.25(b)(2), ramps used solely for vehicle access to or between barges shall meet the requirements of § 1918.25.
( b ) When employees cannot step safely to or from the wharf and a float, barge, or river towboat, either a ramp meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section or a safe walkway meeting the requirements of § 1918.22(f) shall be provided. When a ramp or walkway cannot be used, a straight ladder meeting the requirements of § 1918.24 and extending at least three feet (.91 m) above the upper landing surface and adequately secured or held against shifting or slipping shall be provided. When neither a walkway nor a straight ladder can be used, a Jacob's ladder meeting the requirements of § 1918.23 shall be provided. Exception: For barges operating on the Mississippi River System, where the employer shows that these requirements cannot reasonably be met due to local conditions, other safe means of access shall be provided.
( c ) When a barge or raft is being worked alongside a larger vessel, a Jacob's ladder meeting the requirements of § 1918.23 shall be provided for each gang working alongside unless other safe means of access is provided. However, no more than two Jacob's ladders are required for any single barge or raft being worked.
( d ) When longshoring operations are in progress on barges, the barges shall be securely made fast to the vessel, wharf, or dolphins.
National Estuaries Program

You are here: Water Our Waters Oceans, Coasts, Estuaries & Beaches National Estuaries Program Sustainable Financing Strate

Sustainable Financing Strategies

On average, the National Estuary Programs (NEPs) raise $15 for every $1 provided by EPA. The NEPs successfully leverage federal se

by:

 Developing finance plans

 Building strategic alliances

 Demonstrating environmental results

 Providing seed money or staff to initiate and develop new funding sources such as stormwater utilities.

Over the 2003-2010 period the NEPs leveraged nearly $2.3 billion from $160 million in EPA grants. This additional funding came from a 

federal, state, local and private sources through such mechanisms as annual membership appeals, license plate revenues, fines and pe

State appropriations and intergovernmental agreements. There are many sustainable funding examples from the NEPs.

The NEPs use leveraged resources to protect and restore important habitat, support critical land acquisitions, upgrade wastewater and

stormwater infrastructure, conduct outreach and education, and implement other priority actions contained in their Comprehensive Cons

Management Plans.

Note: Leveraged dollars are defined as the dollar value (cash or in-kind equivalent) of resources dedicated to implementing an NEP CC

and beyond the funding provided to the NEP under Section 320, including earmark funding. "Primary” leveraging indicates that the NEP 

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/fund.cfm

Sustainable Financing Strategies | National Estuaries Program | US EPA Page 1 of 2

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/fund.cfm 3/7/2011
Last updated on Tuesday, January 25, 2011.

and staff, rather than NEP partners, played the central or leadership role in obtaining the additional resources. Drinking Water

Education & Trainin

Grants & Funding

Laws & Regulation

Our Waters

Pollution Preventio

Control

Science & Technol

Water Infrastructur

What You Can Do

Drinking Water

Ground Water

Lakes

Oceans, Coasts, E

Beaches

Rivers & Streams

Stormwater

Wastewater

Watersheds

Wetlands

Where You Live

Share

Sustainable Financing Strategies | National Estuaries Program | US EPA Page 2 of 2

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/fund.cfm 3/7/2011
#### § 417.5 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 23

 

 

 

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

The Board of Directors

LaBarge, Inc.:

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-53583, 33-31330, 33-108357, 33-124556, and 33-121031) on Form S-8 of LaBarge, Inc. of our reports dated September 7, 2005 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of LaBarge, Inc. and subsidiaries as of July 3, 2005, and June 27, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended July 3, 2005, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of July 3, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal over financial reporting as of July 3, 2005, which reports appear in the July 3, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of LaBarge, Inc.

/S/KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri

September 7, 2005
§ 1915.73 Guarding of deck openings and edges. ( a ) The provisions of this section shall apply to ship repairing and shipbuilding operations and shall not apply to shipbreaking.
( b ) When employees are working in the vicinity of flush manholes and other small openings of comparable size in the deck and other working surfaces, such openings shall be suitably covered or guarded to a height of not less than 30 inches, except where the use of such guards is made impracticable by the work actually in progress.
( c ) When employees are working around open hatches not protected by coamings to a height of 24 inches or around other large openings, the edge of the opening shall be guarded in the working area to height of 36 to 42 inches, except where the use of such guards is made impracticable by the work actually in progress.
( d ) When employees are exposed to unguarded edges of decks, platforms, flats, and similar flat surfaces, more than 5 feet above a solid surface, the edges shall be guarded by adequate guardrails meeting the requirements of § 1915.71(j) (1) and (2), unless the nature of the work in progress or the physical conditions prohibit the use or installation of such guardrails.
( e ) When employees are working near the unguarded edges of decks of vessels afloat, they shall be protected by personal flotation devices, meeting the requirements of § 1915.158(a).
( f ) Sections of bilges from which floor plates or gratings have been removed shall be guarded by guardrails except where they would interfere with work in progress. If these open sections are in a walkway at least two 10-inch planks placed side by side, or equivalent, shall be laid across the opening to provide a safe walking surface.
( g ) Gratings, walkways, and catwalks, from which sections or ladders have been removed, shall be barricaded with adequate guardrails.
[47 FR 16986, Apr. 20, 1982, as amended at 67 FR 44542, July 3, 2002]
# EUR-Lex - 32000R1702 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R1702

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2000 of 31 July 2000 prohibiting fishing for cod by vessels flying the flag of Spain **

*
Official Journal L 195 , 01/08/2000 P. 0021 - 0021 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2000

of 31 July 2000

prohibiting fishing for cod by vessels flying the flag of Spain

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2846/98(2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required and amending Regulation (EC) No 66/98(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1447/2000(4), lays down quotas for cod for 2000.

(2) In order to ensure compliance with the provisions relating to the quantity limits on catches of stocks subject to quotas, the Commission must fix the date by which catches made by vessels flying the flag of a Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated.

(3) According to the information received by the Commission, catches of cod in the waters of ICES divisions I and II (Norwegian waters) by vessels flying the flag of Spain or registered in Spain have exhausted the quota allocated for 2000. Spain has prohibited fishing for this stock from 4 July 2000. This date should be adopted in this Regulation also,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Catches of cod in the waters of ICES divisions I and II (Norwegian waters) by vessels flying the flag of Spain or registered in Spain are hereby deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to Spain for 2000.

Fishing for cod in the waters of ICES divisions I and II (Norwegian waters) by vessels flying the flag of Spain or registered in Spain is hereby prohibited, as are the retention on board, transhipment and landing of this stock caught by the above vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.

Article 2

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

It shall apply from 4 July 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 31 July 2000.

For the Commission

Pedro Solbes Mira

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 341, 31.12.1999, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 163, 4.7.2000, p. 5.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50517

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROLANDO CASTILLO-CASTILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:05-CR-881-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rolando CastilloCastillo raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 June 2004

(2004/C 167/02)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
#### GIBSON v. THE STATE.

(Decided February 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. Wm. E. Fort.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Thomas, J.

No bill of exceptions and no error of record. Affirmed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.17

U. S. Bank


September 12, 2001


Mr. Ronald L. Krutzman
Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
Laclede Gas Company
720 Olive Street
St. Louis, MO  63101

Dear Ron:

U.S. Bank National Association (formerly known as Firstar Bank, N.A. (which
was the successor by merger to Firstar Bank Missouri, National Association,
which was formerly known as Mercantile Bank National Association) is pleased
to provide a $20,000,000 line of credit maturing September 11, 2002 to
Laclede Gas Company for general corporate purposes and for commercial paper
backup.

All borrowings will be priced at your option, at U.S. Bank's Prime rate,
floating, LIBOR adjusted +1/4% for available maturities to 90 days. Notes
issued under this line shall not exceed 90 days. No note shall have a
maturity date after September 11, 2002.

Interest shall be payable at the end of each calendar quarter beginning
September 30, 2001 and at maturity. Interest shall be computed on the basis
of actual 365/366 for prime borrowings and actual 360 basis for LIBOR. Notes
issued may be prepaid at any time without penalty, subject to standard
funding loss provisions for LIBOR loans.

We may terminate this agreement at any time if we determine, in good faith,
that we are not satisfied with your conditions, operations or performance,
financial or otherwise.

It is understood that any loans obtained by any subsidiary of Laclede Gas
Company, whether or not they are guaranteed by Laclede Gas Company, are
excluded from this agreement and shall not be charged against the line of
credit described above.

Nothing in this letter is intended to alter the arrangements set forth in
the agreement dated November 30, 2000 or the availability of $50,000,000 of
advances thereunder from U.S. Bank National Association on the terms set
forth in said November 30, 2000 agreement.




<PAGE>
<PAGE>

U.S. Bank

Page 2
Laclede Gas Company
September 12, 2001


If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please sign where indicated, and
return one original copy to me while retaining the other for your records.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve Laclede's needs and to continue the
long standing relationship between our companies.

                                           U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

                                           By: /s/ Eric Hartman
                                           Name:  Eric Hartman
                                           Title:  Vice President


Accepted this 12th day of September, 2001

LACLEDE GAS COMPANY


By: /s/ Ronald L. Krutzman
Name:   Ronald L. Krutzman
Title:  Treasurer & Assistant Secretary