alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 65.55 Knowledge requirements. ( a ) A person who applies for an aircraft dispatcher certificate must pass a knowledge test on the following aeronautical knowledge areas: ( 1 ) Applicable Federal Aviation Regulations of this chapter that relate to airline transport pilot privileges, limitations, and flight operations;
( 2 ) Meteorology, including knowledge of and effects of fronts, frontal characteristics, cloud formations, icing, and upper-air data;
( 3 ) General system of weather and NOTAM collection, dissemination, interpretation, and use;
( 4 ) Interpretation and use of weather charts, maps, forecasts, sequence reports, abbreviations, and symbols;
( 5 ) National Weather Service functions as they pertain to operations in the National Airspace System;
( 6 ) Windshear and microburst awareness, identification, and avoidance;
( 7 ) Principles of air navigation under instrument meteorological conditions in the National Airspace System;
( 8 ) Air traffic control procedures and pilot responsibilities as they relate to enroute operations, terminal area and radar operations, and instrument departure and approach procedures;
( 9 ) Aircraft loading, weight and balance, use of charts, graphs, tables, formulas, and computations, and their effect on aircraft performance;
( 10 ) Aerodynamics relating to an aircraft's flight characteristics and performance in normal and abnormal flight regimes;
( 11 ) Human factors;
( 12 ) Aeronautical decision making and judgment; and
( 13 ) Crew resource management, including crew communication and coordination.
( b ) The applicant must present documentary evidence satisfactory to the administrator of having passed an aircraft dispatcher knowledge test within the preceding 24 calendar months.
§ 2702.5 Right to appeal. ( a ) *Generally.* Any requester adversely affected by a final decision of the Commission's FOIA Office may file an appeal of that decision within 90 days of the initial determination. All FOIA appeals must be in writing and shall be made to the Chair of the Commission. Sitting Commissioners will decide appeals within 20 business days after receipt. In the event that a sitting Commissioner is the subject of the disputed FOIA records or has a substantial interest in the disputed records, that Commissioner should be recused from consideration of said FOIA appeal. In the event of a tie vote of those Commissioners, the FOIA Office's initial determination will be deemed approved by the Commission. Appeals must be submitted via email, mail, fax or hand delivery to *FOIA-appeals@fmshrc.gov ,* Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710, Fax: 202-434-9944.
( b ) *Appeal of denial or partial denial of information request.* The appeal must include a copy of the initial FOIA request, a copy of the determination denying the request in whole or in part, and a detailed statement explaining why the initial determination should be reversed. Any records to be disclosed by the Commission to the requester shall be provided with the letter setting forth the determination as to the appeal or shall be sent as soon as possible thereafter.
( c ) *Appeal of denial of request to expedite.* The appeal must include a copy of the initial request to expedite, a copy of the determination denying the request, and a detailed explanation demonstrating a compelling need as stated in § 2702.4(b)(3). The Commission will provide expeditious consideration of administrative appeals of determinations on whether to provide expedited processing. Once a determination has been made to grant expedited processing, the Commission will process the request as soon as practicable.
( d ) *Appeal of denial of fee waiver or reduction.* The appeal must include a copy of the initial fee waiver/reduction request, a copy of the determination denying the request, and a detailed statement explaining how the request satisfies one or more requirements in § 2702.10(b).
( e ) *Denial of appeal.* If an appeal is denied, the Commission's notice of denial shall inform the requester of the right to obtain judicial review of the Commission's action under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)-(G). The requester may appeal the Commission's decision by filing a complaint in the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has its principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia.
Order entered November 13, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00901
- CV MICHAEL ZIEHL, Appellant

V. TORNADO BUS COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 116th Ju dicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 10314



### O RDER
Befo re the Court is court reporter Lanetta Williams’s November 8, 2019 request for a thirty

- day extension of time to file the record

. We GRANT the request and ORDER the

r eporter’s record be filed no later than December 9, 2019. We caution Ms. Williams that further extensions will not be granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
EXHIBIT
      32(b)









This
      Certificate is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
      subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document
      pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such
      filing.





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


Of
      Title
      18 of the United States Code





In
      connection with the Annual Report of the Companies (as defined below) on Form
      10-K (the “reports”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Holly K. Koeppel,
      the
      chief financial officer of





American
      Electric Power Company, Inc.


AEP
      Generating Company


AEP
      Texas
      Central Company


AEP
      Texas
      North Company


Appalachian
      Power Company


Columbus
      Southern Power Company


Indiana
      Michigan Power Company


Kentucky
      Power Company


Ohio
      Power Company


Public
      Service Company of Oklahoma


Southwestern
      Electric Power Company





(the
      "Companies"), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i)
      the Reports fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
      Reports fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Companies.








/s/
      Holly K. Koeppel


Holly
      K.
      Koeppel


Chief
      Financial Officer





February
      28, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
      Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

MAY ott01! 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center 

US Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sirs: 

6500 South MacArthur Boulevard 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169-6901 

Flight Inspection Services (FIS) Operating Certificate# RU3A249N, has been changed from 

"Aviation System Standards, Operating Certificate# RU3A796U". FIS requests an 

amendment of exemption No. 5118K, to reflect this new name. 

Exemption No. 5118K, from 14 CFR Part 91.119(b) and (c), 91.159, 91.175(a) and (b), 

91.179, and 91.515 (a)(l) and (2) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations allows FIS to 

deviate from certain flight rules required by subpart B of part 91 while conducting flight 

inspections of air navigation facilities and instrument approach procedures. The exemption 

also permits FIS to deviate from the 91.177 minimum altitudes for instrument flight rule 

operations when performing flight inspections of air navigation facilities and instrument 

approach procedures at night. Exemption No. 5118K had an expiration date of March 31, 

2014. 

There have been no changes in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and 

safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. We feel continued operation 

under the provisions of the exemption would be in the public interest. 

Sincerely, 

etYrw. 

~~~ fdfetsch 

Director of Operations 

Flight Inspection Services
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2014-0228

 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM216AD

A330-27-3195 --- 12/7/12

A340-27-4188 --- 12/7/12

A340-27-5059 --- 4/10/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
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.

§ 1926.301 Hand tools. ( a ) Employers shall not issue or permit the use of unsafe hand tools.
( b ) Wrenches, including adjustable, pipe, end, and socket wrenches shall not be used when jaws are sprung to the point that slippage occurs.
( c ) Impact tools, such as drift pins, wedges, and chisels, shall be kept free of mushroomed heads.
( d ) The wooden handles of tools shall be kept free of splinters or cracks and shall be kept tight in the tool.
‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message

‐‐‐‐‐

From: Kenneth Winder [mailto:kwinder@mleainc.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:37 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: phopkinson@hvolt.com; Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com;

adelaski@standardsasap.org; ahofmann@publicpower.org; Aris Marantan;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; august.esch@gmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Brian

Coffey; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov;

Caitlin Johnson; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com; charlied@uus.org;

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; clark.silcox@nema.org; cstephens@neea.org;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; dave.millure@metglas.com; DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com;

eduardorobles@eaton.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; gbf1@pge.com;

gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; J ames.Lass@cleco.com;

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov; Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov;

jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; jhodge@howard

‐ ind.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org; Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

john.caskey@nema.org; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; jrossetti@mlgw.org;

kcoughlin@lbl.gov; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com;

Matthew Nardotti; maxinesavitz@aol.com; mhyland@appanet.org; Michael Rivest;

mwaltner@nrdc.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; phil@pjharter.com;

pkumar@publicpower.org; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com; richardparkerdc@gmail.com; rick.anderson@faypwc.com;

robert.saint@nreca.coop; robert.vanbuskirk@ee.doe.gov; rroy@nrdc.org;

ScottB@lvmetals.com; snadel@aceee.org; srosenstock@eei.org;

tballo@earthjustice.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; Zhimei Luo; Chris Boulduc; Ken

Winder

Subject: Replacement Cost for Transfo rmer Pole

Richard and Committee:

Attached is a spreadsheet showing the cost to replace an existing pole in a

three

‐ phase distribution circuit with an existing single

‐ phase distribution

transformer mounted on it. This information was developed to estimate the cost

to replace an existing pole with a new, higher str ength pole required because of

the increased weight of the distribution transformer. This estimate represents

the cost to do this for my Cooperative.

Other Utilities will be furnishing this information for their systems.

Kenneth A. Winder, PE
§ 93.319 Commercial air tour limitations. ( a ) Unless excepted under paragraph (f) or (g) of this section, no certificate holder certificated in accordance with part 119 for part 121 or 135 operations may conduct more commercial air tours in the Grand Canyon National Park in any calendar year than the number of allocations specified on the certificate holder's operations specifications.
( b ) The Administrator determines the number of initial allocations for each certificate holder based on the total number of commercial air tours conducted by the certificate holder and reported to the FAA during the period beginning on May 1, 1997 and ending on April 30, 1998, unless excepted under paragraph (g).
( c ) Certificate holders who conducted commercial air tours during the base year and reported them to the FAA receive an initial allocation.
( d ) A certificate holder must use one allocation for each flight that is a commercial air tour, unless excepted under paragraph (f) or (g) of this section.
( e ) Each certificate holder's operation specifications will identify the following information, as applicable: ( 1 ) Total SFRA allocations; and
( 2 ) Dragon corridor and Zuni Point corridor allocations.
( f ) Certificate holders satisfying the requirements of § 93.315 of this subpart are not required to use a commercial air tour allocation for each commercial air tour flight in the GCNP SFRA provided the following conditions are satisfied: ( 1 ) The certificate holder conducts its operations in conformance with the routes and airspace authorizations as specified in its Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area operations specifications;
( 2 ) The certificate holder must have executed a written contract with the Hualapai Indian Nation which grants the certificate holder a trespass permit and specifies the maximum number of flights to be permitted to land at Grand Canyon West Airport and at other sites located in the vicinity of that airport and operates in compliance with that contract; and
( 3 ) The certificate holder must have a valid operations specification that authorizes the certificate holder to conduct the operations specified in the contract with the Hualapai Indian Nation and specifically approves the number of operations that may transit the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area under this exception.
( g ) Certificate holders conducting commercial air tours at or above 14,500 feet MSL but below 18,000 feet MSL who did not receive initial allocations in 1999 because they were not required to report during the base year may operate without an allocation when conducting air tours at those altitudes. Certificate holders conducting commercial air tours in the area affected by the eastward shift of the SFRA who did not receive initial allocations in 1999 because they were not required to report during the base year may continue to operate on the specified routes without an allocation in the area bounded by longitude line 111 degrees 42 minutes east and longitude line 111 degrees 36 minutes east. This exception does not include operation in the Zuni Point corridor.
[65 FR 17732, Apr. 4, 2000]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                           361,263
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     89,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 451,244
<PP&E>                                           517,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (12,434)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,000,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            147,208
<BONDS>                                           39,543
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          11,119
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,952,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,000,155
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 979,583
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        0
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (979,583)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.0881)



</TABLE>
#### Horace Tower *versus*Martin Tower *et al.*

Under *St.*1812, *c.*146, § 2, [Revised Stat. *c.*58, § 12,] which authorizes “ any person to kill any dog or dogs found and being without a collar,” it is lawful to kill a dog if be is out of the inclosure of his owner, without a collar, although he be under the immediate care of the owner, and this be known to the person killing the dog.

Trespass for killing the plaintiff’s dog. Upon a case stated, in the Court of Common Pleas, it appeared, that the dog, when killed, was without a collar, and was out of the inclosure of the plaintiff, but under his immediate care ; and that the defendants knew, that it was the plaintiff’s dog. *Cummins*J. ruled, that the action could not be sustained, and that judgment should be rendered for the defendants. To this ruling, the plaintiff excepted.

*263
      *Sept.*23*d.*

*Sept.*24*th.*

*Robinson*and *Parish,*for the plaintiff.

*Briggs, D. N. Dewey*and *Sayles,*for the defendants, cited *St.*1835, c. 148, § 4.

Shaw C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The single question is, whether it was lawful, under *St.*1812, c. 146, § 2, to kill the plaintiff’s dog. The provision is, that it shall be lawful for any person to kill any dog, found and being without a collar as aforesaid. It is contended, that the word *“*found ” implies, out of the immediate care of the owner, as well as out of his inclosure. Even if this were a fair inference if it stood alone, it is to be considered with reference to the 1st section, which requires the owner to furnish his dog with a collar, to be *constantly*worn, whether under the care of his owner or not. It is in reference to this requisition, that the law renders it lawful to kill a dog, found anywhere, and not for the time being furnished with the protection required by law for his security. The matter seems to have been so understood by the makers of the Revised Statutes, who have dropped the word “ found,” and used the words only “ being without a collar as aforesaid.” This seems to have been done, not as introducing any new provision, for they give no notice to that effect in their report, but in pursuance of their general plan of omitting superfluous words. Revised Stat. c. 58, § 12. We think it was the intention of the legislature, not to give to the owner of a dog a right to maintain an action for destroying him, unless he had in fact given that security to the public, which the act required, by causing him at the time to wear a collar, with the name and residence of his owner marked thereon.

*Exceptions overruled, and judgmtnt of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed.*
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARK GLENN DESCHAMPS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1340

[November 5, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Okeechobee County; Michael C. Heisey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

472016CF000679A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Logan T. Mohs, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, CONNER, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.