alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.406 Procedure for responding to formal complaints. ( a ) Within a reasonable time after an answer to a formal complaint is filed, the Assistant General Counsel shall either: ( 1 ) Issue a notice instituting a formal enforcement proceeding in accordance with § 302.407 or
( 2 ) Issue an order dismissing the complaint in whole or in part, stating the reasons for such dismissal.
( b ) An order dismissing a complaint issued pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall become effective as a final order of the Department thirty (30) days after service thereof.
( c ) Whenever the Assistant General Counsel has failed to act on a formal complaint within a reasonable time after an answer is due, the following motions may be addressed to the General Counsel: ( 1 ) By the complainant to institute an enforcement proceeding by docketing the complaint upon a showing that it is in the public interest to do so; and
( 2 ) By the respondent to dismiss the complaint upon a showing that it is in the public interest to do so.
( d ) The General Counsel may grant, deny, or defer any of the motions, in whole or in part, and take appropriate action to carry out his or her decision.
[Docket No. OST-97-2090, 65 FR 6457, Feb. 9, 2000, as amended at 84 FR 15936, Apr. 16, 2019]
#### Woods *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided March 23, 1917.

74 South. 737.)

Intoxicating Liquors; Aiding Sale. — The evidence examined and held to justify a conviction for aiding and abetting in procuring an unlawful sale of prohibited liquors, and in transporting liquors contrary to law.

Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. E. Blackwood.

*621Frank Woods was convicted of aiding or abetting the violation of the prohibition law and he appeals.

Affirmed.

J. W. Inzer, Embry & Embry, and C. R. Robinson, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

This is a companion case to *Hugh Rogers v. State, infra,*73 South. 994, disposed of January 30, 1917. The undisputed evidence shows that the defendant aided and abetted Rogers in procuring an unlawful sale of prohibited liquors, and that he aided in transporting the liquors to the state’s witness Crump.

The case is governed by the principles declared in *Bridgeforth v. State, infra,*74 South. 402, and *Rogers v. State, supra,*and authorities there cited.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
JK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0562

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 granted 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
#### WALDRON v SOUTHWESTERN BUS CO

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Huron Co

No 259.

Decided April 23, 1930

Young & Young,, Norwalk, for Waldron.

G. Ray Craig, Norwalk, for Bus Co.

RICHARDS, J.

The defendant company, while she was a passenger, owed her a high degree of care for her safety, but she alighted from the bus in a place of safety and the relation of carrier and passenger thereupon terminated. The proximate cause of herí subsequent injury was either her own negligence in walking in front of an approaching automobile, or the negligence of the operator of such automobile, and the defendant was in no sense responsible for the injury resulting therefrom. Having discharged the passenger in a place of safety, there could be no causal connection between that act and the injury which she suffered. She was familiar with the surrounding conditions and the operator of the bus owed no duty to warn her of approaching automobiles.

> Reining, Admx. vs. Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co., 107 Ohio St., 528;

> Cleveland R. R. Co. vs. Sebasta, et al., Supreme Court of Ohio, May 29, 1929, published in Ohio Bar July 9, 1929.

The authorities on this question are collected in a note to Chesley, Admr. vs. Waterloo, Cedar Falls & Northern R. R. Co., (Iowa), 12 A. L. R., 1366.

For the reasons given the judgment will be affirmed.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 26, 2016

t0718

Order 

Clerk

July 26, 2016

150581 & (16)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150581

COA: 323978

Ionia CC: 2013-015838-FC

WILLIAM CARL KILBURN, 2012-015596-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issue and additional file number is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 12, 2014 order of the 

Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Ionia Circuit Court to determine whether 

the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under the sentencing 

procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). On remand, the trial 

court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial court 

determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional 

constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, however, the trial 

court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the 

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. In addition, 

we VACATE the trial court’s November 21, 2014 order reinstating costs. The court did 

not have authority to sua sponte enter the order because the correction was not a clerical 

error under MCR 6.435(A), the judgment of sentence was not invalid within the meaning 

of MCR 6.429(A), and the amended version of MCL 769.1k does not apply to the court’s 

amended judgment of sentence issued September 29, 2014. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-31,789-03

IN RE DONNIS RAY HANCOCK, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1471570 IN THE 178TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 178th District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application and that the 180-day time frame set out in TEX. R. APP. P.

73.4(b)(5) has not expired shall also be submitted with the response. This application for leave to

file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate

response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: October 18, 2017

Do not publish
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 99.4




                   Certificate Furnished Under Section 906
                      Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Douglas H. Yaeger, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Laclede Gas Company, hereby certify that

         (a)      To the best of my knowledge, the accompanying report on
                  Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2002 fully
                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         (b)      To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in
                  the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ended
                  September 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of Laclede Gas Company.


Date:    December 5, 2002                    /s/ Douglas H. Yaeger
                                             -----------------------------

                                             Douglas H. Yaeger
                                             Chairman of the Board, President
                                             and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Fragoso, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 671]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered January 21, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree (2 counts) and grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 9 to 18 years, 9 to 18 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The value of the stolen car was properly established through expert testimony.

The court properly disallowed a peremptory challenge by the defense after sufficiently complying with the protocols required by *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79). The record supports the court’s finding of a prima facie case of racial discrimination, and, in any event, that issue became moot when the court ruled on the ultimate issue of discrimination *(People v Payne,*88 NY2d 172, 182). The court properly determined that defense counsel failed to advance a non-pretextual reason for the challenge in question, and was entitled to make a prompt finding of pretext *(supra,*at 184).

The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation. The alleged error by counsel could not have *129deprived defendant of a fair trial (see, *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 149]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 1806]]

Public Law 113-149
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
    450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, as the ``Vincent R. 
     Sombrotto Post Office''. <<NOTE: Aug. 8, 2014 -  [H.R. 2291]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. VINCENT R. SOMBROTTO POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Vincent R. 
Sombrotto Post Office''.

    Approved August 8, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2291:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            July 14, considered and passed House.
            Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
U.S. Department of 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation

NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF IATA AGREEMENT(S)

This serves as official notice of the Department’s approval and grant of antitrust immunity to the 

docketed IATA agreement(s) listed below during the weekly period ending February 3, 2012. 

Approval of any individual IATA agreement is subject, where applicable, to any conditions 

previously imposed by the Department.

DOCKET NUMBER DATE FILED DATE APPROVED

*OST-2011-0087 04/21/11 02/02/12

OST-2012-0015 01/27/12 02/01/12

 

* U.S. and Foreign Agreement

Action taken by:

Paul L. Gretch

Director, Office of International Aviation 

by authority assigned under 14 CFR 385

An electronic version of this document is available

on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<CASH>                                186
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      42,694
<ALLOWANCES>                        2,412
<INVENTORY>                        82,806
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  124,512
<PP&E>                            239,670
<DEPRECIATION>                    128,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    313,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              68,613
<BONDS>                           109,157
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                            83
<COMMON>                               41
<OTHER-SE>                         20,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      313,820
<SALES>                           325,029
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  325,029
<CGS>                             296,230
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     302,939
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   13,654
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      (32)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 10,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (4,950)
<INCOME-TAX>                       (1,943)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (3,007)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       (3,007)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.83)



</TABLE>
State and Federal Incentives and Laws

Our database captures state and federal laws and incentives 

related to alternative fuels and vehicles, air quality, fuel 

efficiency, and other transportation-related topics. State-level 

information is updated annually after each state's legislative 

session ends. To access state information, select a state from 

the map below. Federal information is updated after enacted

legislation is signed into law. Select the Federal Incentives and 

Laws link below for the latest federal-level information.

Read a brief summary of the provisions of the Energy

Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 that was part of the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. These provisions pertain 

to alternative fuels and vehicles. 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-

140) was signed into law on December 19, 2007. This broadreaching policy contains many provisions to increase energy

efficiency and the availability of renewable energy. For the complete text, download The 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (PDF 895 KB). Download Adobe Reader

Selected summaries from federal legislation related to alternative fuels and advanced 

transportation technologies are also available, view select summaries.

 Federal Incentives and Laws

 Recent Federal Actions

 List All States - Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentives and Laws

 List All States - Expired Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentives and Laws

U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center

Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center: State and Federal Incentives and L... Page 1 of 2

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/incentives_laws.html?print 1/21/2010
AFDC Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | AFDC Disclaimer | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 11/30/2009

 For additional incentives related to renewable energy, go to the 

Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy. 

If you have questions or would like to add an incentive to the database, 

e-mail theTechnical Response Service.

Please note: The information in these pages provides an overview of incentives and laws, but 

should not be used as the only source of information when making vehicle purchase 

decisions, tax decisions, or other binding agreements. Please refer to the federal and state 

contacts included in these pages to verify that these laws and incentives are still applicable.

Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center: State and Federal Incentives and L... Page 2 of 2

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/incentives_laws.html?print 1/21/2010
Overview Briefing for OMB/Interagency Review 

EO 12866_111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 Final_20150507 

CAA Section 111(b) DRAFT Final Rule 

Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and 

Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 

May 14, 2015 3:00 – 4:00 PM 

A. Summary Overview 

1. Background 

2. Proposal 

3. Comments 

B. Standards for New, Modified, and Reconstructed Steam Generating Units 

1. Applicability 

2. Final Standards – New Sources 

3. Final Standards – Modified Sources 

4. Final Standards – Reconstructed Sources 

C. Standards for New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Combustion Turbines 

1. Applicability 

2. Final Standards – New, Modified, and Reconstructed Sources 

D. Interactions with Other EPA Programs and Rules 

1. PSD Program 

2. Title V Program 

E. Impacts of the Final Standards of Performance 

Attendees: 

EPA/OAR: N. Hutson, C. Fellner, M. Johnson, L. Chappell, D. Weatherhead, J. Herring, D. Svendsgaard, K. 

Culligan, A. Karimjee, M. DeFigueiredo 

EPA/OP: B. Elman, M. Roberts 

EPA/OGC: M. Marks, S. Silverman 

Interagency: 

N. Frey, OMB/OIRA (lead) 

OMB/OIRA, CEQ, OSTP, SBA, USDA, DOE, Treasury, DOJ, FERC, Interior, HHS
Pilot	Preflight	Checklist

1. Clear	Area	of	People

2. Transmitter	Power	On

3. All	Switches	Toward	Front

4. Range	Extender	ON

5. Phantom	Power	ON

6. Check	– Flashing	Green	Lights

7. Nexus	or	Ipod	Switch	ON	-		WI	FI	ON	– Select	Phantom	XXXX

8. DJI	Vision	Icon	– Tap	Camera	– Confirm	Picture

9. 1	Green	3	Red	light	flash	Switch	S2	to	Course	Lock	2	Green	3	Red	Confirm

10. Lift	off	– Hover	about	3	feet	– Rotate	90	degrees	Check	control	

right/left/forward/back

11. All	Confirm	– Continue	Flight	– otherwise	land	and	recheck
#### BECKMAN v STATE

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22173.

Decided May 28, 1930

*354Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.
#### § 1919.5 Duration and renewal of accreditation.

The period of accreditation shall not exceed three years. Applications for renewal of accreditation shall be made on the same form as described in § 1919.3. No accreditation shall expire until action on an application for renewal shall have been finally determined, provided that such application has been properly executed in accordance with § 1919.3 and filed with and received by the Assistant Secretary not less than 15 nor more than 60 days prior to the expiration date. A final determination means either the approval or initial denial of the application for renewal. The procedure specified in § 1919.4 shall be applicable to all applications for renewal.
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.

§ 1926.706 Requirements for masonry construction. ( a ) A limited access zone shall be established whenever a masonry wall is being constructed. The limited access zone shall conform to the following. ( 1 ) The limited access zone shall be established prior to the start of construction of the wall.
( 2 ) The limited access zone shall be equal to the height of the wall to be constructed plus four feet, and shall run the entire length of the wall.
( 3 ) The limited access zone shall be established on the side of the wall which will be unscaffolded.
( 4 ) The limited access zone shall be restricted to entry by employees actively engaged in constructing the wall. No other employees shall be permitted to enter the zone.
( 5 ) The limited access zone shall remain in place until the wall is adequately supported to prevent overturning and to prevent collapse unless the height of wall is over eight feet, in which case, the limited access zone shall remain in place until the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section have been met.
( b ) All masonry walls over eight feet in height shall be adequately braced to prevent overturning and to prevent collapse unless the wall is adequately supported so that it will not overturn or collapse. The bracing shall remain in place until permanent supporting elements of the structure are in place.
[No. 28839-7-II.

Division Two.

November 8, 2002.]

#### David C. Carpenter, *Appellant,*v. The Employment Security Department, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 01-2-01030-9, Richard D. Hicks, J., entered May 3, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, A.C. J., and Houghton, J.
#### In the Matter of Frank Rose et al., Appellants, against Victor J. Shankey et al., Constituting the Town Council of the Town of Haverstraw et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 22, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*536
      *H. Eliot Kaplan*for appellants.

*Walter A. McDermott*and *Ernest W. Hofstatter*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O'Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
###### 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.

#### § 1926.1113 beta-Propiolactone.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1003 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1003).

[[61 FR 31433](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31433), June 20, 1996]