alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASIDNGTON, D.C. ) Inthe matter of ) ) MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC ) ) FAADocketNo. TBA FDMS No. FAA-2013-0040

WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF APPEAL Complainanthereby withdraws its Notice ofAppeal previously filed on Aprill6, 2015.

Dated: May 29, 2015 Respectfully submitted, Peter Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel

for Enforcement

By:c;Q Charles Raley, Attorney Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Phone: (202) 267-3357 Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 

# RECEIVED MAY 29 2015 

## HEARING DOCKETCertificate ofService I hereby certifY that onthis date I have sent by personal delivery, a copy of Complainant's Withdrawal ofNotice ofAppeal In the matter ofMartinaire Aviation, LLC, FDMS No. FAA-2013-0040, addressed to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 In addition, I hereby certifY that on this date 1have sent by certified mail one copy ofthe foregoing document to: Michael L. Dworkin, Esq. 465 California Street Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94104

Dated: May 29, 2015
#### § 2700.12 Consolidation of proceedings.

The Commission and its Judges may at any time, upon their own motion or a party's motion, order the consolidation of proceedings that involve similar issues.
DEC 19 2013

Mr. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IXMail Code ORA-l75 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105

RE: Submittal of Pima County Rules revising the Pima County Portion of the Arizona State

Implementation Plan for Section 11 0(a)(2) Infrastructure

Dear Mr. Blumenfeld:

Consistent with the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes § 49-104, 49-404, 49-406, and theCode of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, § § 51.102 through 51.104, the Arizona Department

of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) hereby adopts and submits to the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Pima County Rules 17.04.190, Composition, adopted September 28,

1993, 17.12.040, Reporting for Compliance Evaluations, adopted September 28, 1993, and17.24.040, Reporting Requirements, adopted April 19, 2005, as a revision to the Pima County

portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision strengthens the existingrules and also replaces Rule 622 with Rule 17.12.040.

Rules 17.04.190, 17.12.040, and 17.24.040 were referenced as part of ADEQ’s SIP supplement

to the Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2): Implementation of2006 PM2.5NationalAmbient

Air Quality Standards, 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and 1997 8-hour

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which was submitted to the EPA on August 24,

2012. This submission corrects the deficiencies required for Clean Air Act (CAA) Section

11 0(a)(2)(e)(ii), which specifies hearing boards composition requirements, and 11 0(a)(2)(F)

regarding stationary source monitoring and reporting. These deficiencies were outlined in 77 FR

66398 and 77 FR 66405 (November 5, 2012).

Southern Regional Office

400 West Congress Street • Suite 433 • Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 628—6733

Printed on recycled paper
Sincerely,

sey

Direct , Air Quality

Enclosures (2)

cc: Bill Wiley, Maricopa County Air Quality Department

Ursula Kramer, Pima County Department of Environmental Quality

Don Gabrielson, Pinal County Air Quality Department

Colleen McKaughan, EPA Region IX

Noah Smith, EPA Region IX
#### § 23.430 Wage and Hour Division investigation.

The Administrator may investigate possible violations of the Executive Order or this part either as the result of a complaint or at any time on his or her own initiative. As part of the investigation, the Administrator may conduct interviews with the relevant contractor, as well as the contractor's workers at the worksite during normal work hours; inspect the relevant contractor's records (including contract documents and payrolls, if applicable); make copies and transcriptions of such records; and require the production of any documentary or other evidence the Administrator deems necessary to determine whether a violation, including conduct warranting imposition of debarment, has occurred. Federal agencies and contractors shall cooperate with any authorized representative of the Department of Labor in the inspection of records, in interviews with workers, and in all aspects of investigations.
#### § 2570.80 Scope of rules.

The rules of practice set forth in this subpart are applicable to “502(l) civil penalty proceedings” (as defined in § 2570.82 of this subpart) under section 502(l) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act). Refer to 29 CFR 2560.502-1 for the definition of the relevant terms of ERISA section 502(l).
§ 1918.55 Cranes (See also § 1918.11). The following requirements shall apply to the use of cranes forming part of a vessel's permanent equipment. ( a ) *Defects.* Cranes with a visible or known defect that affects safe operation shall not be used. Defects shall be reported immediately to the officer in charge of the vessel.
( b ) *Operator's station.* ( 1 ) Cranes with missing, broken, cracked, scratched, or dirty glass (or equivalent) that impairs operator visibility shall not be used.
( 2 ) Clothing, tools and equipment shall be stored so as not to interfere with access, operation or the operator's view.
( c ) *Cargo operations.* ( 1 ) Accessible areas within the swing radius of the body of a revolving crane or within the travel of a shipboard gantry crane shall be physically guarded or other equally effective means shall be taken during operations to prevent an employee from being caught between the body of the crane and any fixed structure, or between parts of the crane. Verbal warnings to employees to avoid the dangerous area do not meet this requirement.
( 2 ) Limit switch bypass systems shall be secured during all cargo operations. Such bypass systems shall not be used except in an emergency or during non-cargo handling operations such as stowing cranes or derricks or performing repairs. Any time a bypass system is used, it shall be done only under the direction of an officer of the vessel.
( 3 ) Under all operating conditions, at least three full turns of rope shall remain on ungrooved drums, and two full turns on grooved drums.
( 4 ) Crane brakes shall be monitored during use. If crane brakes are unable to hold the load, the crane shall not be used.
( 5 ) Cranes shall not be used if control levers operate with excessive friction or excessive play.
( 6 ) When cranes are equipped with power down capability, there shall be no free fall of the gear when a load is attached.
( 7 ) When two or more cranes hoist a load in unison, a designated person shall direct the operation and instruct personnel in positioning, rigging of the gear and movements to be made.
( d ) *Unattended cranes.* When cranes are left unattended between work periods, § 1918.66(b) (4)(i) through (v) shall apply.
#### MORRIS PLAN BANK OF CLEVELAND v VIONA et SEARS v OBERLANDER

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21802.

No 21966.

Decided March 5, 1930

Decided March 5, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30563-30564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12029]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[I.D. 050800LE]


Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Information Collection; 
Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    Title: Scientific Research, Public Display, and Enhancement Permits 
Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Fur Seal Act and the 
Endangered Species Act.
    Agency Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0084.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously 
approved collection.
    Burden: 6,165 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 461.
    Average Hours Per Response:4 minutes to 20 hours depending on the 
requirement.
    Needs and Uses: The Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Fur Seal Act 
of 1966, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 mandate the protection 
and

[[Page 30564]]

conservation of marine mammals and other protected species/parts/
products, and prohibit the taking, importation, and export of protected 
species except under certain circumstances. Exemptions for scientific 
research, enhancement, photography for educational or commercial 
purposes, public display, and certain other limited purposes are 
allowed provided permits are applied for and received or other 
necessary authorization is obtained.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households, businesses or other 
for-profit organizations, not-for-profit institutions, Federal, state, 
local or tribal governments.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5027, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#066a636861636a6b634662696528616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f030a01080a03020a2f0b000c41080019">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: May 4, 2000.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12029 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.207 Wage garnishment order. ( a ) Unless the Department receives information that the Department believes justifies a delay or cancellation of the withholding order, the Department shall send, by first class mail, a withholding order to the debtor's employer: ( 1 ) Within 30 days after the debtor fails to make a timely request for a hearing (*i.e.,* within 15 business days after the mailing of the notice described in § 20.205(a), or,
( 2 ) If a timely request for a hearing is made by the debtor, within 30 days after a final decision is made by the hearing official, or,
( 3 ) As soon as reasonably possible thereafter.
( b ) The withholding order sent to the employer under paragraph (a) of this section shall be in the form prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The withholding order shall contain the signature of, or the image of the signature of, the Secretary of Labor or his or her delegatee. The order shall contain only the information necessary for the employer to comply with the withholding order. Such information includes the debtor's name, address, and Employee Identification Number, as well as instructions for withholding and information as to where payments should be sent.
( c ) The Department will retain evidence of service indicating the date of mailing of the order.
[Nos. 48806-6-I; 48807-4-I.

Division One.

November 25, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jason Roy McDaniels, *Appellant.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-1-02967-1, Michael Hayden, J., entered July 3, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Agid, J, concurred in by Becker, C.J., and Baker, J.
110TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 15

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized

3 to be used on March 29, 2007, for a ceremony to award

4 a Congressional Gold Medal collectively to the Tuskegee

5 Airmen in accordance with Public Law 109–213. Physical

6 preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in ac7 cordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Cap8 itol may prescribe.

Passed the Senate March 6, 2007.

Attest:

Secretary.
110TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 15

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the Rotunda of the Capitol to be used

men.Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airon March 29, 2007, for a ceremony to award the
#### § 2204.411 Payment of award.

An applicant seeking payment of an award shall submit to the officer designated by the Secretary a copy of the Commission's final decision granting the award, accompanied by a certification that the applicant will not seek review of the decision in the United States courts.
§ 2200.66 Transcript of testimony. ( a ) *Hearings.* Hearings shall be transcribed verbatim. A copy of the transcript of testimony taken at the hearing, duly certified by the reporter, shall be filed with the Judge before whom the matter was heard.
( b ) *Payment for transcript.* The Commission shall bear all expenses for court reporters' fees and for copies of the hearing transcript received by it. Each party is responsible for securing and paying for its copy of the transcript.
( c ) *Correction of errors.* Error in the transcript of the hearing may be corrected by the Judge on the Judge's own motion, on joint motion by the parties, or on motion by any party. The motion shall conform to § 2200.40 and shall state the error in the transcript and the correction to be made. The official transcript shall reflect the corrections.
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3508 — Doughty Hanson / Balta)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 176/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32; Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 has been replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

----
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SERENA Software, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2005 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



I, Robert I. Pender, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of SERENA Software, Inc. certify that:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of SERENA Software, Inc.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    ROBERT I. PENDER,
JR.Robert I. Pender, Jr. Senior Vice President, Finance And Administration, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial And Accounting Officer) And Director




Date: June 9, 2005
# Euroopan unionin C 198/5. e

| | ISSN 1725-2490 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 198 |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 47. vuosikerta5. elokuu 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2490

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 198

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

47. vuosikerta5. elokuu 2004

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Tiedonantoja |
| | Komissio |
| 2004/C 198/1 | Euron kurssi | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

I   Tiedonantoja

Komissio

2004/C 198/1

Euron kurssi

1

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

I Tiedonantoja

Komissio

| 5.8.2004 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | C 198/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2004

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

C 198/1

---

Euron kurssi (1)

4. elokuuta 2004

(2004/C 198/01)

1 euro=

| | Rahayksikkö | Kurssi |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | Yhdysvaltain dollaria | 1,1983 |
| JPY | Japanin jeniä | 133,72 |
| DKK | Tanskan kruunua | 7,4352 |
| GBP | Englannin puntaa | 0,65960 |
| SEK | Ruotsin kruunua | 9,1938 |
| CHF | Sveitsin frangia | 1,5394 |
| ISK | Islannin kruunua | 86,33 |
| NOK | Norjan kruunua | 8,4145 |
| BGN | Bulgarian leviä | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Kyproksen puntaa | 0,57940 |
| CZK | Tšekin korunaa | 31,769 |
| EEK | Viron kruunua | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Unkarin korinttia | 250,14 |
| LTL | Liettuan litiä | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian latia | 0,6527 |
| MTL | Maltan liiraa | 0,4245 |
| PLN | Puolan zlotya | 4,4350 |
| ROL | Romanian leuta | 40 954 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolaria | 240,0100 |
| SKK | Slovakian korunaa | 40,120 |
| TRL | Turkin liiraa | 1 782 400 |
| AUD | Australian dollaria | 1,7079 |
| CAD | Kanadan dollaria | 1,5844 |
| HKD | Hongkongin dollaria | 9,3465 |
| NZD | Uuden-Seelannin dollaria | 1,8624 |
| SGD | Singaporin dollaria | 2,0667 |
| KRW | Etelä-Korean wonia | 1 399,08 |
| ZAR | Etelä-Afrikan randia | 7,5483 |

Rahayksikkö

Kurssi

USD

Yhdysvaltain dollaria

1,1983

JPY

Japanin jeniä

133,72

DKK

Tanskan kruunua

7,4352

GBP

Englannin puntaa

0,65960

SEK

Ruotsin kruunua

9,1938

CHF

Sveitsin frangia

1,5394

ISK

Islannin kruunua

86,33

NOK

Norjan kruunua

8,4145

BGN

Bulgarian leviä

1,9558

CYP

Kyproksen puntaa

0,57940

CZK

Tšekin korunaa

31,769

EEK

Viron kruunua

15,6466

HUF

Unkarin korinttia

250,14

LTL

Liettuan litiä

3,4528

LVL

Latvian latia

0,6527

MTL

Maltan liiraa

0,4245

PLN

Puolan zlotya

4,4350

ROL

Romanian leuta

40 954

SIT

Slovenian tolaria

240,0100

SKK

Slovakian korunaa

40,120

TRL

Turkin liiraa

1 782 400

AUD

Australian dollaria

1,7079

CAD

Kanadan dollaria

1,5844

HKD

Hongkongin dollaria

9,3465

NZD

Uuden-Seelannin dollaria

1,8624

SGD

Singaporin dollaria

2,0667

KRW

Etelä-Korean wonia

1 399,08

ZAR

Etelä-Afrikan randia

7,5483

---

(1)

Lähde: Euroopan keskuspankin ilmoittama viitekurssi.

---
#### § 1911.17 Certification of the record of a hearing.

Upon completion of the oral presentations, the transcript thereof, together with written submissions on the proposed rule, exhibits filed during the hearing, and all posthearing comments, recommendations, and supporting reasons shall be certified by the officer presiding at the hearing to the Assistant Secretary.
#### FERRY v BROOKMIRE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9213.

Decided Feb 25, 1929

E A Binyon, Cleveland, for Ferry.

John Marshall, for Brookmire.

SULLIVAN, J.

The answer of the defendant denies negligence and alleges that the proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of plaintiff himself in failing to use the faculties of sight and hearing and in his failure to exercise ordinary care prior to, and at the time of the collision upon the highway in the Village of Wickliffe, Lake County, Ohio, and in the adverting to Section 6310-34 GC. and on examination of the record we have come to the conclusion that we cannot support the contention that the violation of this statute is negligence per se, and that because thereof no liability ensued, and this for the reason that it could equally be claimed that the proximate cause was the dangerous speed of the automobile, for if it had been going slower and plaintiff continued his pace unchanged, it is obvious that no collision would have occurred and hence no injuries. This fact precludes the possibility of determining that a violation of the statute was the proximate cause of the injury even though it were unchallenged in the record. Upon examination of the record, however, we find no evidence bearing upon the exception which is noted in the section quoted which reads:

> “except in cases where crossings or crosswalks are an unreasonable distance apart.”

Aside from the question of proximate cause and the donflict in the testimony as to whether it was because of a violation of fhe statute or the speed of the automobile, it is our judgment that it was neces*202sary to incorporate in the' record some evidence bearing upon the exceptions mentioned in' the Section of the General Code above set forth.

The situation under discussion was submitted to the jury and it became the province of that tribunal to determine the question of nroximate cause from all the facts and circumstances in the record, and the verdict appears to be in consonance with credible evidence in the record and about which there is scarcely any conflict, and we think in consonance with our conclusion that under the entire record substantial justice has been done and thus holding the judgment of the Common Pleas Court is hereby affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
### -79 -78 -77 -76 -75
38 39 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 07/19 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.48 N 77.37 WMeters AGL
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed Ju ly 17, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24

- 0810

Lower Tribunal No. F96

- 6088 B

________________



### Max Lee Brazley

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from

the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Laura Shearon Cruz , Judge.

Max Lee Brazley , in proper person.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C. J., a nd LINDSEY and BOKOR , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### SALECKER v WOMANS HOSPITAL

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10436.

Decided December 23, 1929

Mr. Leroy C. Lancer, Cleveland, for Salecker.

Mr. Howard Sample, Cleveland, for Hospital.

LEVINE, J.

We are cited to 8004 GC, which is to the effect that if the wife abandons the husband he is not liable for her support until she offers to return, unless she was justified by his conduct in abandoning him. We are also cited to the case of Morse v. Lewis, 15 O. A. R. 108

Without passing upon the question of the burden of proof as to whether it was the duty of plaintiff in the action to show that the wife was justified in abandoning defendant because of his misconduct, we are of the opinion that there is affirmative evidence in this record showing that there was no such justification and that she abandoned him without cause. This affirmative evidence is in the record and in our opinion, defeats the claim of the hospital company, as against the husband.

In addition to the foregoing it appears affirmatively from the record that when the wife entered the hospital the hospital company made its contract with her and so charged the bill to her on the books of the company. It was only after she died and upon discovery by the hospital, company that there were no assets in her estate, that it then decided to proceed against the husband. This, of course, was an after thought, having charged the bill in the first instance to the wife.

The judgment of the municipal court will therefore be reversed and judgment is entered for the plaintiff in error herein.

Vickery, PJ., and Sullivan, J., concur.