alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1691.13 Definitions. As used in this regulation, the term: ( a ) *Agency* means any Federal department or agency which extends Federal financial assistance subject to any civil rights provision(s) to which this regulation applies.
( b ) *Assistant Attorney General* refers to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, or his or her delegate.
( c ) *Chairman of the EEOC* refers to the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or his or her delegate.
( d ) *EEOC* means the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and, where appropriate, any of its District Offices and its Washington Field Office.
( e ) *Federal financial assistance* includes: ( 1 ) Grants and loans of Federal funds,
( 2 ) The grant or donation of Federal property and interests in property,
( 3 ) The detail of Federal personnel,
( 4 ) The sale and lease of, and the permission to use (on other than a casual or transient basis), Federal property or any interest in such property without consideration or at a nominal consideration, or at a consideration which is reduced for the purpose of assisting the recipient, or in recognition of the public interest to be served by such sale or lease to the recipient, and
( 5 ) Any Federal agreement, arrangement, or other contract which has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance. For purposes of this regulation, the term *Federal financial assistance* also includes funds disbursed under the revenue sharing act.
( f ) *Joint complaint* means a complaint of employment discrimination covered by title VII or the Equal Pay Act and by title VI, title IX, or the revenue sharing act.
( g ) *Recipient* means any State, political subdivision of any State, or instrumentality of any State or political subdivision, any public or private agency, institution, organization, or other entity, or any individual, in any State, to whom Federal financial assistance is extended, directly or through another recipient, for any program, including any successor, assign, or transferee thereof, but such term does not include any ultimate beneficiary under such program.
( h ) *Revenue sharing act* refers to the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 1221 *et seq.*
( i ) *Title VI* refers to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4. Where appropriate, *title VI* also refers to the civil rights provisions of other Federal statutes or regulations to the extent that they prohibit employment discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex or national origin in programs receiving Federal financial assistance of the type subject to title VI itself.
( j ) *Title VII* refers to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, *et seq.*
( k ) *Title IX* refers to title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 to 1683.
[48 FR 3574, Jan. 25, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 32063, Aug. 4, 1989]
§ 1982.112 Judicial review. ( a ) Within 60 days after the issuance of a final order (including a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) for which judicial review is available, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of the violation.
( b ) A final order is not subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
( c ) If a timely petition for review is filed, the record of a case, including the record of proceedings before the ALJ, will be transmitted by the ARB or the ALJ, as the case may be, to the appropriate court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local rules of such court.
[80 FR 69132, Nov. 9, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 30623, May 20, 2020]
# C_2007006EN.01000701.xml

| 11.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4423 — Merck/Serono)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 6/13)

On 15 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4423. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4423. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Exhibit 32


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                        18 U.S.C. 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of American Sports
Development Group, Inc. on form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William B.
Kearney, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



November 14, 2003                      /s/ William B. Kearney
                             -----------------------------------------
                                        William B. Kearney

                                      Consultant performing
                                      certain services for the
                                      company commonly performed
                                      by a Chief Financial
                                      Officer
§ 1450.24 Liquidation from final check or recovery from other payment. ( a ) If the employee retires or resigns or if his or her employment or period of active duty ends before collection of the debt is completed, offset of the entire remaining balance on the debt may be made from a final payment of any nature, including but not limited to, final salary payment or lump-sum leave due to the employee as of the date of separation.
( b ) If the debt cannot be liquidated by offset from a final payment, offset may be made from later payments of any kind due from the United States, including, but not limited to, the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, pursuant to § 1450.11 of this regulation.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4469-15T3

U.S. BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RCL MANAGEMENT, GARDEN STATE

POOL I, LLC, TOWNSHIP OF

HILLSIDE,

Defendants,

and

RODNEY LEE,

his heirs devise, and

personal representatives

and his/her, their, or

any of their successors 

in right, title and interest,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

Submitted September 26, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, 

Docket No. F-030486-13.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

October 17, 2017
2 A-4469-15T3

Rodney Lee, appellant pro se.

RAS Citron, LLC, attorneys for respondent 

(John Habermann and Monika Pundalik, on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Rodney Lee seeks to challenge the foreclosure of a 

mortgage by plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association. Because Lee 

did not file his notice of appeal until June 21, 2016, we entered 

an order on July 11, 2016, denying his motion to file his notice 

of appeal out of time as to the November 24, 2015 final foreclosure 

judgment. Instead, our order limited his appeal to the May 12, 

2016 order denying his motion to vacate the final judgment. 

However, Lee failed to provide us with the motion judge's statement 

of reasons for the May 12, 2016 order, and thus we cannot engage 

in meaningful appellate review of the judge's decision and order. 

See Cipala v. Lincoln Tech. Inst., 179 N.J. 45, 55 (2004).

As significantly, Lee's appellate brief does not address the 

merits of the reconsideration motion. Instead, his brief is 

directed entirely at an interlocutory order dated October 28, 

2014, granting summary judgment striking his answer. His attempted 

appeal of that order is untimely, because his appeal of the final 

judgment was untimely. However, even if we were to consider his 

arguments, they are without merit, for the reasons cogently stated 
3 A-4469-15T3

by Judge David B. Katz in his written opinion accompanying the 

October 28, 2014 summary judgment order. Defendant's arguments 

do not warrant further discussion here. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Summary judgment was properly granted, and Lee has provided no 

basis to disturb the May 12, 2016 order denying his motion to 

vacate the final judgment.

Affirmed.
#### § 1919.73 Unit proof test and examination of derricks.

(a) Unit proof tests of derricks shall be carried out at the same times as are specified in § 1919.71(a) for cranes.

(b) Unit proof load tests and safe working load ratings shall be based on the design load ratings at the ranges of boom angles or operating radii. Unit proof loads shall exceed the safe working load as follows:

| Safe working load | Proof Load |
| --- | --- |
| Up to 20 tons | 25 percent in excess. |
| 20-50 tons | 5 tons in excess. |
| Over 50 tons | 10 percent in excess. |

Proof loads shall be applied at the designed maximum and minimum boom angles or radii, or, if this is impracticable, as close to these as practicable. The angles or radii of test shall be stated in the certificate of test. Proof loads shall be swung as far as possible in both directions. The weight of all auxiliary handling devices shall be considered a part of the load.

(c) After satisfactory completion of a unit proof load test, the derrick and all component parts thereof shall be carefully examined in accordance with the requirements of § 1919.71(d), as far as applicable.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2010

- 0040 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2008

-NM

- 203

-AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Inspection 0.3 $ 25.50 $0 $ 25.50 

### 611 $15,580.50 

### Replacement 0.7 $ 59.50 $0 $ 59.50 

### 611 $36,354.50 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products i n compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $51,935 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- C**  **ondition Costs:** Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE RAKO CORP FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR
               THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
               ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               88
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,025
<OTHER-SE>                                     (95,466)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       88
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (88)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (88)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (88)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.00)



</TABLE>
#### Associated Indemnity Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Abraham Chais, Respondent.

Argued May 20, 1937;

decided June 8, 1937.

*600
      *Maxwell Berman*for appellant.

*Norman L. Maries, Isidore Meyer*and *Stanley Wolder*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs. The validity of a statute is not the only question involved. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0566 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-008-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC135 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 226 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions are intended to detect a crack in the ring frame which could result in loss of 

the fenestron structure and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $7,425 for the ring replacement

$1,320 for the ring frame modification & reidentification

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 x $85/work-hour for 

the inspection)

(8 x $85/work-hour for the 

ring frame replacement)

(17 x $85/work-hour for 

the ring frame modification 

& re-identification)

$42.50 per inspection cycle

$680

$1,445

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $8,105 for the ring frame replacement

$2,765 for the ring frame modification & reidentification

Total US Fleet Cost $

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Sharon Miles
----

----

I Információ

Bizottság

----

Euro átváltási árfolyamok (1)

2004. június 24.

(2004/C 166/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Forrás: Az Európai Központi Bank (ECB) átváltási árfolyama.

----

----

A forgalombahozatali engedélyekről szóló közösségi határozatok összefoglalása a gyógyszerkészítmények tekintetében 2004. május 15-től2004. június 15-ig

(kiadva a 2309/93/EGK (1) tanácsi rendelet 12. vagy 34. cikke értelmében)

(2004/C 166/02)

Forgalombahozatali engedély kiadása (2309/93/EGK tanácsi rendelet 12. cikk) – Elfogadva

Forgalombahozatali engedély módosítása (2309/93/EGK tanácsi rendelet 12. cikk) – Elfogadva

----

(1)HL L 214, 1993.8. 24., 1. o.

----

----

Összefonódás előzetes bejelentése

(Ügyszám COMP/M.3505 – TCL/ALCATEL)

Egyszerűsített eljárás alá vont ügy

(2004/C 166/03)

(EGT vonatkozású szöveg)

----

(1)HL L 24., 2004.1.29., 1. o.

(2)HL C 217., 2000.7.29., 32. o. A Tanács 4064/89/EGK rendeletét a Tanács 1310/97/EK rendelete felváltotta.

----

----

Bejelentett összefonódás engedélyezése

(Ügyszám COMP/M.3391 – XCHANGING/DEUTSCHE BANK/ETB JV)

(2004/C 166/04)

(EGT vonatkozású szöveg)

2004. április 28-án a Bizottság úgy határozott, hogy engedélyezi a fentebb említett összefonódást, és a közös piaccal összeegyeztethetőnek nyilvánítja. Ez a határozat a Tanács 4064/89/EGK rendeletének 6(1)(b) paragrafusán nyugszik. A határozat teljes szövege kizárólag angolul érhető el, és azután teszik közzé, miután az üzleti titkokat tartalmazó részeket eltávolították a határozat szövegéből. Elérhető lesz:

----
State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 11, 2014

Nos. 04-14-00004-CR, 04-14-00005-CR, 04-14-00006-CR, & 04-14-00007-CR

Devon Alexander KANE,

Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. A1319, A1320, A1321, & A1322

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The State’s 

brief is due August 27, 2014.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court 

on this 11th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### § 1918.89 Handling hazardous cargo (See also § 1918.2 and § 1918.99).

Hazardous cargo shall be slung and secured so that neither the draft nor individual packages can fall because of tipping of the draft or slacking of the supporting gear.
# EUR-Lex - 32000R1009 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R1009

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1009/2000 of 8 May 2000 concerning capital increases of the European Central Bank **

*
Official Journal L 115 , 16/05/2000 P. 0001 - 0001 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 1009/2000

of 8 May 2000

concerning capital increases of the European Central Bank

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Statute") and in particular Article 28(1) thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation made by the European Central Bank (ECB)(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission of the European Communities(3),

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 107(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community ("the Treaty") and Article 42 of the Statute,

Whereas:

(1) Articles 28(1) and 28(2) of the Statute require that the ECB be provided by the national central banks with capital of EUR 5000 million, which is to become operational upon the establishment of the ECB.

(2) Article 28(1) of the Statute provides that the capital may be increased by such amounts as may be decided by the Governing Council of the ECB, within the limits and under the conditions set by the Council.

(3) Article 123(1), in conjunction with Article 107(6) of the Treaty provides that immediately after 1 July 1998 the Council is to adopt the provision referred to in Article 28(1) of the Statute.

(4) This Regulation establishes a limit for future increases in the ECB's capital, thereby enabling the Governing Council of the ECB to decide on an actual increase at some point in the future in order to sustain the adequacy of the capital base needed to support the operations of the ECB,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Increases in the capital of the ECB

The Governing Council of the ECB may increase the capital of the ECB beyond the amount specified in the first sentence of Article 28(1) of the Statute by an additional amount of up to EUR 5000 million.

Article 2

Final provision

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

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Done at Brussels, 8 May 2000.

For the Council

The President

J. Pina Moura

(1) OJ C 411, 31.12.1998, p. 10.

(2) OJ C 219, 30.7.1999, p. 182.

(3) Opinion delivered on 8 March 2000 (not yet published in the Official Journal).