alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.2



Consent of Independent Public Accountant

We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the Registration
Statements  on  Form  S-3  (Nos. 33-66112  and 333-94091)  and  Form  S-8  (Nos.
33-24274;  33-50949;  333-28235  and 333-92865) of Kerr-McGee Corporation of our
report dated February 26, 1999 appearing in Kerr-McGee Corporation's 1999 Annual
Report  to  Stockholders   and   incorporated  by  reference  in this Form 10-K,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Oryx  Energy Company, which
such financial statements are not separately presented therein.

(PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP)
 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 30, 2000
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.

§ 1926.555 Conveyors. ( a ) *General requirements.* ( 1 ) Means for stopping the motor or engine shall be provided at the operator's station. Conveyor systems shall be equipped with an audible warning signal to be sounded immediately before starting up the conveyor.
( 2 ) If the operator's station is at a remote point, similar provisions for stopping the motor or engine shall be provided at the motor or engine location.
( 3 ) Emergency stop switches shall be arranged so that the conveyor cannot be started again until the actuating stop switch has been reset to running or “on” position.
( 4 ) Screw conveyors shall be guarded to prevent employee contact with turning flights.
( 5 ) Where a conveyor passes over work areas, aisles, or thoroughfares, suitable guards shall be provided to protect employees required to work below the conveyors.
( 6 ) All crossovers, aisles, and passageways shall be conspicuously marked by suitable signs, as required by subpart G of this part.
( 7 ) Conveyors shall be locked out or otherwise rendered inoperable, and tagged out with a “Do Not Operate” tag during repairs and when operation is hazardous to employees performing maintenance work.
( 8 ) All conveyors in use shall meet the applicable requirements for design, construction, inspection, testing, maintenance, and operation, as prescribed in the ANSI B20.1-1957, Safety Code for Conveyors, Cableways, and Related Equipment.
#### §§ 91.717-91.799 [Reserved]
§ 21.115 IRB Records. ( a ) An institution, or when appropriate an IRB, shall prepare and maintain adequate documentation of IRB activities, including the following: ( 1 ) Copies of all research proposals reviewed, scientific evaluations, if any, that accompany the proposals, approved sample consent forms, progress reports submitted by investigators, and reports of injuries to subjects.
( 2 ) Minutes of IRB meetings, which shall be in sufficient detail to show attendance at the meetings; actions taken by the IRB; the vote on these actions including the number of members voting for, against, and abstaining; the basis for requiring changes in or disapproving research; and a written summary of the discussion of controverted issues and their resolution.
( 3 ) Records of continuing review activities, including the rationale for conducting continuing review of research that otherwise would not require continuing review as described in § 21.109(f)(1).
( 4 ) Copies of all correspondence between the IRB and the investigators.
( 5 ) A list of IRB members in the same detail as described in § 21.108(a)(2).
( 6 ) Written procedures for the IRB in the same detail as described in § 21.108(a)(3) and (4).
( 7 ) Statements of significant new findings provided to subjects, as required by § 21.116(c)(5).
( 8 ) The rationale for an expedited reviewer's determination under § 21.110(b)(1)(i) that research appearing on the expedited review list described in § 21.110(a) is more than minimal risk.
( 9 ) Documentation specifying the responsibilities that an institution and an organization operating an IRB each will undertake to ensure compliance with the requirements of this policy, as described in § 21.103(e).
( b ) The records required by this policy shall be retained for at least 3 years, and records relating to research that is conducted shall be retained for at least 3 years after completion of the research. The institution or IRB may maintain the records in printed form, or electronically. All records shall be accessible for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the Federal department or agency at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

IAN RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 318 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1265]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA No. 99-3041; MM Docket No. 99-303; RM-9737]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Seymour, TX

AGENCY:  Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This document allots Channel 254A at Seymour, Texas, in 
response to a petition filed by Seymour Broadcasting Company. See 64 FR 
57835, October 27, 1999. The coordinates for Channel 254A at Seymour 
are 33-29-57 NL and 99-15-06 WL. There is a site restriction 10.1 
kilometers (6.3 miles) south of the community. With this action, this 
proceeding is terminated. A filing window for Channel 254A at Seymour 
will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of opening a filing 
window for this channel will be addressed by the Commission in a 
subsequent order.

DATES:  Effective February 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media 
Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This is a summary of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-303, adopted December 29, 1999 and 
released January 7, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857-3800, 
facsimile (202) 857-3805.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is 
amended by adding Channel 254A at Seymour.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-1265 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04126

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 04126\04126_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04126\04126_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

04126\04126_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 04126\04126_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04126\04126_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04126\04126_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04126\Certification Statement Plant ID 04126.pdf Plant certification statement

04126\Supporting Documentation\04126_Question A5-2 Attachment.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04126\Supporting Documentation\04126_Question A5-3 Attachment.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                                      LCS INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE AND
                             COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                        For the Years Ended September 30,
                                                                                                                  
                                                 1996         1995 (A)     1994 (A)
                                              ----------   ----------   ----------
<S>                                           <C>          <C>          <C>       
Primary earnings per share:

Weighted average shares outstanding .......    4,329,663    4,019,576    3,870,261


Weighted average - dilutive stock options .      627,947      540,693      240,652

Shares issuable in connection with the
   acquisition of Catalog Resources, Inc. .      160,475      195,096      195,096
                                              ----------   ----------   ----------
                                               5,118,085    4,755,365    4,306,009
                                              ==========   ==========   ==========

Net income ................................   $7,837,645   $6,328,592   $1,374,770

Primary earnings per share and common
   equivalent share .......................   $     1.53   $     1.33   $      .32
                                              ==========   ==========   ==========



Fully diluted earnings per share:
Weighted average shares outstanding .......    4,329,663    4,019,576    3,870,261

Fully diluted earnings per share:
Weighted average - dilutive stock options .      634,430      835,286      241,827

Shares issuable in connection with the
   acquisition of Catalog Resources, Inc. .      160,475      195,096      195,096
                                              ----------   ----------   ----------
                                               5,124,568    5,049,958    4,307,184
                                              ==========   ==========   ==========

Net income ................................   $7,837,645   $6,328,592   $1,374,770


Fully diluted earnings per share and common
   equivalent share .......................   $     1.53   $     1.25   $      .32
                                              ==========   ==========   ==========

(A) All shares and  equivalent  shares  reflect the 10% stock  dividend  paid in
January, 1995 and the 2 for 1 stock split paid as a 100% dividend on October 24,
1995.
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12551]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207.

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2000, 2 p.m.

LOCATION: Room 410, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
MD.

STATUS: Part open to the public; part closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  

Open to the Public

    1. CPSC Vice Chairman.
    The Commission will elect a Vice Chairman.

Closed to the Public

    2. Compliance Status Report.
    The staff will brief the Commission on the status of various 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207; (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: May 15, 2000.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12551 Filed 5-15-00; 2:52 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
§ 1902.16 Partial approval of State plans. ( a ) The Assistant Secretary may partially approve a plan under this part whenever: ( 1 ) The portion to be approved meets the requirements of this part;
( 2 ) The plan covers more than one occupational safety and health issue; and
( 3 ) Portions of the plan to be approved are reasonably separable from the remainder of the plan.
( b ) Whenever the Assistant Secretary approves only a portion of a State plan, he may give notice to the State of an opportunity to show cause why a proceeding should not be commenced for disapproval of the remainder of the plan under subpart C of this part before commencing such a proceeding.
[80 FR 49903, Aug. 18, 2015]
§ 1960.12 Dissemination of occupational safety and health program information. ( a ) Copies of the Act, Executive Order 12196, program elements published in this part, details of the agency's occupational safety and health program, and applicable safety and health standards shall be made available upon request to employees or employee representatives for review.
( b ) A copy of the agency's written occupational safety and health program applicable to the establishment shall be made available to each supervisor, each occupational safety and health committee member, and to employee representatives.
( c ) Each agency shall post conspicuously in each establishment, and keep posted, a poster informing employees of the provisions of the Act, Executive Order 12196, and the agency occupational safety and health program under this part. The Department of Labor will furnish the core text of a poster to agencies. Each agency shall add the following items: ( 1 ) Details of the agency's procedures for responding to reports by employees of unsafe or unhealthful working conditions, and to allegations of discrimination or reprisal due to participation in safety and/or health activities;
( 2 ) The location where employees may obtain information about the agency's occupational safety and health program, including the full text of agency occupational safety and health standards, and
( 3 ) Relevant information about any agency safety and health committees. Such posters and additions shall not be altered, defaced, or covered by other material.
( d ) A copy of the agency's poster shall be provided to the Secretary. If the agency needs assistance and advice on the content and development of the poster, such shall be requested of the Secretary prior to printing and distribution.
( e ) Agency heads shall promote employee awareness of occupational safety and health matters through their ordinary information channels, such as newsletters, bulletins and handbooks.
§ 5.93 Safety communication. Any person required to have an SMS under this part must develop and maintain means for communicating safety information that, at a minimum: ( a ) Ensures that employees are aware of the SMS policies, processes, and tools that are relevant to their responsibilities.
( b ) Conveys hazard information relevant to the employee's responsibilities.
( c ) Explains why safety actions have been taken.
( d ) Explains why safety procedures are introduced or changed.
[Doc. No. FAA-2009-0671, Amdt. 5-1, 80 FR 1326, Jan. 8, 2015, as amended by Amdt. 5-2, 89 FR 33108, Apr. 26, 2024]
#### CAMPBELL v JACKSON (City)

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Jackson Co

Decided December 18, 1929

Mr. E. E. Eubanks, Jackson, for Campbell.

Mr. Frank DeLay, Jackson, for City.

BLOSSER, J.

The question to be determined is whether the assessment exceeds thirty three and one third per cent of the value of the plaintiff’s premises immediately after the completion of the improvement in question. The defendant resists the reduction of the assessment upon plaintiff’s property, relying to some extent upon the attitude taken by this .court in Rogers vs. Johnson, 21 Ohio App. 292, and Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. vs. Village of Oak Hill, 25 Ohio App. 301. In those cases we held that the value of the benefits conferred upon land subject to assessment was not, generally speaking, a judicial question and that it was only when the assessment amounted to a confiscation of property that a judicial question arose. That is not the case at bar. We are not asked nor do we undertake to determine the amount or value of the benefits conferred upon the plaintiff’s property. We have to determine the altogether different question of the value of the plaintiff’s land. That being determined the statute fixes the limit of an assessment that can be made on it to one third the value of that land regardless of the amount of benefits that may really accrue. In the Oak Hill ease this was recognized, but this court found that there was no evidence to show what the value of the railroad property actually was. In the instant case there is testimony tending to show what the value of the plaintiff’s property is. Under the statute limiting assessments to one third of the value of the property as improved there arises a judicial question as to the value of the plaintiff’s property.

The evidence is conflicting.- The discrepancies are due to the opinions held by the various witnesses as to the reasonable use that could be made of the premises. Speculations and remote possibilities should not be considered. The test of value here is the reasonable and likely adaptability of the land. Questions asked of witnesses regarding the basis of - their opinions are not for the purpose of permitting this court to independently arrive at a valuation of the land but are solely for the purpose of determining the weight to be attached to the testimony of each witness.

The members of this court have viewed the improvement and premises in question so as to better understand and apply the testimony of the witnesses. Upon a consideration of that testimony we are inclined to the view that the value placed by the plaintiff’s witnesses more truly represents the value of the premises in question, and we agree with the lower court that the value of said premises immediately after the improvement was completed did not exceed the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars and that the assessment of five hundred and twenty five dollars is in excess of one third of such value.

A decree will' be entered in accordance with the prayer of the petition enjoining the collection of an assessment in excess of two hundred and fifty dollars against the premises of plaintiff.

Middleton, PJ., and M_auck, J., concur.
#### Leon WILLIAMS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5662

475 S.W. 2d 685

Opinion delivered January 24, 1972

[Rehearing denied February 28, 1972.]

*Harold L. Hall,*for appellant.

*Ray Thornton,*Attorney General; *Henry Ginger,*Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

For reversal of the verdict finding him guilty of assault with intent to kill, appellant Leon Williams urges that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and (2) the court erred in giving State’s requested instruction No. 2 over his objection.

On the evening of August 7, 1969, outside a cafe in Little Rock there was a fight between “Pap” Williams and David Lewis. Appellant, “Pap’s” brother, one of a number of people watching the fight, kept telling people to stay out of the fight. When William Ham went up to the combatants, appellant shot him in the back. Appellant, “Pap” Williams and his wife Ruby testified that Ham came to the scene of the fight with a knife in his hand, threw Ruby Williams to the ground when she attempted to stop him from entering the fight, and went over to get into the fight. Ham, a friend of David Lewis, and other witnesses for the State testified that Ham had no knife and had just pulled Lewis off “Pap” Williams when he was shot. Appellant testified that he fired just once, shooting down, and didn’t intend to hit Ham but *850to scare him off. One young witness testified that after Ham was shot and fell on his face, he asked appellant if he could pick up Ham, that appellant told the witness, "No, you can’t pick him up, Don’t nobody pick him up,” but the witness picked him up anyway.

The court instructed the jury on both assault with intent to kill and assault with a deadly weapon (a misdemeanor). We find the evidence was sufficient to support the felony verdict.

Appellant next complains of State’s requested instruction No. 2, concerning intent to kill, to which appellant generally objected. Appellant relies upon *Davis*v. *State,*115 Ark. 566, 173 S. W. 829 (1914); however, in the *Davis*case a substantially similar instruction was approved as correct. *Davis*was reversed because of the court’s failure to instruct the jury that an out of court confession was not sufficient to warrant a conviction until there was other proof tending to show the offense was committed.

Affirmed.