alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 24.0
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned, being a
director or officer, or both, of KUHLMAN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint ROBERT S. JEPSON, JR.,
CURTIS G. ANDERSON, VERNON J. NAGEL, and RICHARD A. WALKER, with full power to
each of them to act alone, as the true and lawful attorneys and agents of the
undersigned, with full power of substitution and resubstitution to each of said
attorneys, to execute, file or deliver any and all instruments and to do any and
all acts and things which said attorneys and agents, or any of them, deem
advisable to enable the Company to comply with the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended and any requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission
in respect thereto, relating to the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 1996, including specifically, but without
limitation of the general authority hereby granted, the power and authority to
sign his name as director or officer, or both, of the Company, as indicated
below opposite his signature, to annual reports on Form 10-K or any amendments
or papers supplemental thereto; and each of the undersigned does hereby fully
ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agents, or any of them, or the
substitute of any of them, shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has subscribed these
presents, this 18th day of February, 1997.

<TABLE>
<S>                                             <C>    

 /s/ Robert S. Jepson, Jr.                        /s/ Gary G. Dillon
Robert S. Jepson, Jr., Chairman of the           Gary G. Dillon, Director
Board and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) and Director
                                                  /s/ Alexander W. Dreyfoos, Jr.
                                                 Alexander W. Dreyfoos, Jr., Director
 /s/ Vernon J. Nagel
Vernon J. Nagel, Executive Vice President
of Finance, Chief Financial Officer               /s/ William M. Kearns, Jr.
and Treasurer (Principal Financial               William M. Kearns, Jr., Director
and Accounting Officer)

 /s/ Curtis G. Anderson                           /s/ George J. Michel, Jr.
Curtis G. Anderson, President, Chief             George J. Michel, Jr., Director
Operating Officer and Director

                                                  /s/ General H. Norman Schwarzkopf
 /s/ William E. Burch                            General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Director
William E. Burch, Director


 /s/ Steve Cenko
Steve Cenko, Director

</TABLE>


<PAGE>
#### § 102.87 Method of conducting balloting; postballoting procedure.

The method of conducting the balloting and the postballoting procedure will be governed by the provisions of § 102.69, insofar as applicable.

[82 FR 11765, Feb. 24, 2017]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12621]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 31837]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50


Public Workshop on Performance-Based Approach--Voluntary Option

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will host a public 
workshop to solicit feedback on the implementation of the direct final 
rule for 10 CFR 50.54(a) and to gather information to determine the 
need for the development of the voluntary alternative rulemaking based 
on Nuclear Energy Institute petition PRM-50-62. On February 23, 1999, 
the NRC published a direct final rule in the Federal Register (64 FR 
9029), that amended its regulations to permit power reactor licensees 
to implement certain quality assurance (QA) program changes without 
obtaining prior NRC approval of these changes. The direct final rule 
became effective on April 26, 1999. Based on the workshop outcome, the 
staff will determine whether additional rulemaking is warranted. The 
NRC invites comments from interested parties who are unable to attend 
the workshop.

DATES: The workshop will be held on Wednesday, June 7, 2000, from 9 
a.m. to 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North 
(Room 14 B6), 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, (301) 
415-7000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pettis, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555, telephone: (301) 415-3214, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aad8c6da9eeac4d8c984cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f1839d81c5b19f8392df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The discussion topics are tentative and 
subject to change. Anyone interested in providing a presentation on 
these or other related topics, please contact Robert Pettis at (301) 
415-3214.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of May, 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Theodore R. Quay,
Chief, IQMB, Division of Inspection Program Management, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-12621 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Civ. No. 2281.

First Appellate District.

October 22, 1917.]

#### GLOBE INDEMNITY CO., Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al., Respondents.

Workmen’s Compensation Act—Affirmance of Award—Evidence.— An award- of compensation to an employee of a manufacturing establishment must be affirmed where the record on petition for a writ of review shows that the finding of the commission is sustained by the law and the evidence adduced at the hearing.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Review originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District to annul an award of the Industrial Accident Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

D. Hadsell, Joe G. Sweet, and E. A. Ingalls, for Petitioner.

Christopher M. Bradley, for Respondents.

THE COURT.

Petition for writ, of review.

This is a petition for a writ of review for the purpose of having vacated and annulled an award of compensation to an employee of a manufacturing establishment, which carried with the petitioner a policy of insurance covering its industrial .liability. It is contended that the evidence does not support the conclusion reached by the Industrial Accident Commission that said employee’s disability arises from an accident received during the course of his employment, but arises from a cause entirely independent of such employment. But from a review of the record we think the finding of the commission is well sustained by the law and the evidence adduced at the hearing. The award is therefore affirmed and the writ dismissed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 20, 1917.
#### § 22.15 Ex parte contacts.

No party or person (except employees of the ALJ's office) shall communicate in any way with the ALJ on any matter at issue in a case, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. This provision does not prohibit a person or party from inquiring about the status of a case or asking routine questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.
Exhibit 32.1

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 on Form 10-K of FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for the
year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David L. Hauser, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ DAVID L. HAUSERDavid L. Hauser Chief Executive Officer


May 27,
2010

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

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12039]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Water Heater Industry Joint Research and 
Development Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 3, 1999, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Water Heater Industry 
Joint Research and Development Consortium (``the Consortium'') has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership 
status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, A. O. Smith 
Water Products Company, a division of A.O. Smith Corporation, Irving, 
TX has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and the Consortium intends to file 
additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 28, 1995, the Consortium filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on March 27, 1995 (60 FR 15789).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 17, 
1999. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 1, 1999 (64 FR 53416).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-12039 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Tertullus Goff *versus*Charles Kellogg, Executor, &c.

*Sept. 23d.*

*Sept. 24th.*

The proper evidence of the rejection of a claim laid before commissioners on an estate represented insolvent, is the report of the commissioners and the acceptance thereof by the Court of Probate ; and notice given of an intention to prosecute a suit at law on such claim, and a suit brought thereon, after the commissioners had in fact rejected the claim, but before their report was returned and accepted, were held to be premature.

Assumpsit for use and occupation. The estate of the defendant’s testator having been represented to be insolvent, a commission of insolvency was issued thereon on the 6th of. March, 1833, and six months were allowed to creditors to ' present and prove their claims. The commissioners held their last session on the 6th of September, 1833, when they rejected the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a notice in the probate office on the 2d of October, 1833, that he should bring an action at common law, and this action was accordingly commenced on the 18th of October, 1833, the writ being return able in February, 1834. The report of the commissioners was received, considered, and ordered to be recorded, by the Probate Court, on the 7th of January, 1834.

A verdict was taken for the plaintiff; and the question, whether the notice was conformable to the *St.*1784, c. 2, was reserved for the consideration of the whole Court.

*Lancklon,*for the defendant,

cited *Ellsworth*v. Thayer, 4 Pick. 122.

*Gold,*for the plaintiff.

Shaiv C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. By *St.*1784, *c.*2, the notice is to be given by a creditor whose claim is rejected by the commissioners, within twenty days after such rejection. The proper evidence of the rejection of the claim is the return of the report to the probate office, and the acceptance thereof bythe Probate Court. This was so held in *Ellsworth v. Thayer,*4 Pick. 122, and that notice given betore the return of the report of the commissioners was premature, and not a compliance with the requisitions of the statute, which is a condition precedent to the maintenance of the action. That case is decisive of the present, against the plaintiff.

*Verdict set aside, and, by*consent, *plaintiff nonsuit.*
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
WITH
HEINROCKET INC.
8850 TIPSICO LAKE ROAD
HOLLY, MICHIGAN 48442
         ®




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



Telephone:
    
    585-2541100Facsimile:
    
    585-2541105
  
          
      4




---



##### 



Heinrocket IncBy:
    /s/ John HeinricyJohn Heinricy  TORVEC, INC.By:
    /s/ Richard A. KaplanRichard A. KaplanChief Executive Officer  5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-51004

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TODD RICKS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-206-1

Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Todd Ricks is serving a 300-month sentence for three drug and firearm

crimes. He has moved this court for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and for

appointment of counsel as he seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of two

motions. In one motion, Ricks contended that a hung jury in a 2007 mistrial

equated to an acquittal and that he was entitled to a nunc pro tunc order of

acquittal. In the other motion, Ricks sought a formal written ruling that his

motion for acquittal during the 2007 mistrial had been denied.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 16, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-51004 Document: 00511510656 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2011
No. 10-51004

The motions filed by Ricks in the district court were meaningless,

unauthorized, and without any jurisdictional basis. See United States v. Early,

27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994) (addressing “a meaningless, unauthorized

motion” that lacked any jurisdictional basis). Ricks has failed to show that his

appeal from the denial of these frivolous motions involves “legal points arguable

on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220

(5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). The appeal is DISMISSED

as frivolous, and Ricks’s motions are DENIED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d

197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. RULE 42.2.

2

Case: 10-51004 Document: 00511510656 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2011
§ 1910.30 Training requirements. ( a ) *Fall hazards.* ( 1 ) Before any employee is exposed to a fall hazard, the employer must provide training for each employee who uses personal fall protection systems or who is required to be trained as specified elsewhere in this subpart. Employers must ensure employees are trained in the requirements of this paragraph on or before May 17, 2017.
( 2 ) The employer must ensure that each employee is trained by a qualified person.
( 3 ) The employer must train each employee in at least the following topics: ( i ) The nature of the fall hazards in the work area and how to recognize them;
( ii ) The procedures to be followed to minimize those hazards;
( iii ) The correct procedures for installing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, and disassembling the personal fall protection systems that the employee uses; and
( iv ) The correct use of personal fall protection systems and equipment specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, including, but not limited to, proper hook-up, anchoring, and tie-off techniques, and methods of equipment inspection and storage, as specified by the manufacturer.
( b ) *Equipment hazards.* ( 1 ) The employer must train each employee on or before May 17, 2017 in the proper care, inspection, storage, and use of equipment covered by this subpart before an employee uses the equipment.
( 2 ) The employer must train each employee who uses a dockboard to properly place and secure it to prevent unintentional movement.
( 3 ) The employer must train each employee who uses a rope descent system in proper rigging and use of the equipment in accordance with § 1910.27.
( 4 ) The employer must train each employee who uses a designated area in the proper set-up and use of the area.
( c ) *Retraining.* The employer must retrain an employee when the employer has reason to believe the employee does not have the understanding and skill required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. Situations requiring retraining include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) When changes in the workplace render previous training obsolete or inadequate;
( 2 ) When changes in the types of fall protection systems or equipment to be used render previous training obsolete or inadequate; or
( 3 ) When inadequacies in an affected employee's knowledge or use of fall protection systems or equipment indicate that the employee no longer has the requisite understanding or skill necessary to use equipment or perform the job safely.
( d ) *Training must be understandable.* The employer must provide information and training to each employee in a manner that the employee understands.
#### Jere M. MILLS, Sr., Individually, Jere M. Mills, Sr., as Trustee, et al., Appellants, v. Granger HANSELL et al., Appellees.

No. 23865.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 7, 1967.

Sam D. Hewlett, Jr., Cullen M. Ward, Florence Hewlett Dendy, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.

Edward W. Killorin, Hamilton Lokey, Lokey & Bowden, Gambrell, Harlan, Russell & Moye, Atlanta, Ga., for Granger Hansell and Robert L. Marchman, III.

Lokey & Bowden, by Hamilton Lokey, Atlanta, Ga., for Phoenix, Inc.

Charles L. Gowen, King & Spalding, Atlanta, Ga., for Alvin Cates, Jr.

Before BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, who were plaintiffs below, brought this diversity action on the allegations that “the defendants herein did, on August 16, 1962, conspire, wilfully and maliciously, to injure and damage plaintiffs by causing and bringing about a sale of a company known as CIMCO, and its subsidiaries, Georgia Securities and Georgia Securities Agency, Inc., through fraud and without just cause, thereby forcing plaintiffs to enter into an agreement to sell said CIMCO stock to the Palomar Mortgage Company and sustain a loss in excess of One Million Dollars.”

The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment filed by appellees after two hearings wherein the entire facts of the transaction here involved were before him by complete depositions of all possible witnesses, by all material documents, and by supplemental affidavits. Extensive written briefs and oral arguments were also submitted. While mere conspiracy itself is not a substantive tort giving rise to a cause of action under the law of Georgia, Drummond v. McKinley, 65 Ga.App. 145, 15 S.E.2d 535, the lower court gave the appellants the benefit of having their case judged from the standpoint of whether the conduct of any one or more of the appellees constituted an actionable tort against the appellants; and, after so doing, concluded that there was. no genuine issue as to any material fact. While we agree with the appellants’ contention that a lawyer is bound by the very highest ethical principles to exer*54cise absolute good faith towards and for his client, we feel that the able trial judge correctly concluded that the evidence showed without question that appellants knew that none of the attorneys sued by them was representing them in the transaction complained of, and further that there was no misconduct on the part of such attorneys. There were also other grounds which fully supported the granting of the motions for summary judgment.

Affirmed.
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.

§ 1926.1439 Dedicated pile drivers. ( a ) The provisions of subpart CC apply to dedicated pile drivers, except as specified in this section.
( b ) Section 1926.1416(d)(3) (Anti two-blocking device) does not apply.
( c ) Section 1926.1416(e)(4) (Load weighing and similar devices) applies only to dedicated pile drivers manufactured after November 8, 2011.
( d ) In § 1926.1433, only §§ 1926.1433(d) and (e) apply to dedicated pile drivers.
Exhibit 32.1



                            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 Keystone Consolidated  Industries,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
David L. Cheek,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  and Bert
E. Downing, Jr., Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer,  Corporate Controller
and Treasurer 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 result of  operations of the
Company.




/s/  David L. Cheek                     /s/  Bert E. Downing, Jr.
-------------------------------------   -------------------------
David L. Cheek                          Bert E. Downing, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
February 13, 2006                       Corporate Controller and Treasurer
                                        February 13, 2006



Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.