alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1915.81 Housekeeping. ( a ) *General requirements.* ( 1 ) The employer shall establish and maintain good housekeeping practices to eliminate hazards to employees to the extent practicable.
( 2 ) The employer shall eliminate slippery conditions, such as snow and ice, on walkways and working surfaces as necessary. If it is not practicable for the employer to remove slippery conditions, the employer either shall: ( i ) Restrict employees to designated walkways and working surfaces where the employer has eliminated slippery conditions; or
( ii ) Provide slip-resistant footwear in accordance with 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I.
( 3 ) The employer shall store materials in a manner that does not create a hazard for employees.
( 4 ) The employer shall maintain easy and open access to each fire-alarm box, fire-call station, fire-fighting equipment, and each exit, including ladders, staircases, scaffolds, and gangways.
( 5 ) The employer shall dispose of flammable and combustible substances, such as paint thinners, solvents, rags, scrap, and waste, or store them in covered fire-resistant containers at the end of each workshift or when the job is completed, whichever occurs first.
( b ) *Walkways.* ( 1 ) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (a), the employer also shall ensure that each walkway: ( i ) Provides adequate passage;
( ii ) Is clear of debris, including solid and liquid wastes, that may create a hazard for employees;
( iii ) Is clear of tools, materials, equipment, and other objects that may create a hazard for employees; and
( iv ) Is clear of hoses and electrical service cords. The employer shall: ( A ) Place each hose and cord above walkways in a location that will prevent injury to employees and damage to the hoses and cords;
( B ) Place each hose and cord underneath walkways;
( C ) Place each hose and cord on walkways, provided the hoses and cords are covered by crossovers or other means that will prevent injury to employees and damage to the hoses and cords; or
( D ) Protect each hose and cord by other suitable means.
( 2 ) While a walkway or part of a walkway is being used as a working surface, the employer shall cordon off that portion to prevent it from being used as a walkway.
( c ) *Working surfaces.* In addition to the requirements in paragraph (a), the employer also shall ensure that each working surface: ( 1 ) Is cleared of tools, materials, and equipment that are not necessary to perform the job in progress;
( 2 ) Is cleared of debris, including solid and liquid wastes, at the end of each workshift or job, whichever occurs first;
( 3 ) Is maintained, so far as practicable, in a dry condition. When a wet process is used, the employer shall maintain drainage and provide false floors, platforms, mats, or other dry standing places. When the employer demonstrates that this procedure is not practicable, the employer shall provide each employee working in the wet process with protective footgear, in accordance with 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

June 4, 2021

t0601 

# Order

Clerk June 4, 2021

162645

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 162645

COA: 354244

Oakland CC: 2016

- 260666

- FH

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL BURNS

- CRAWFORD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 22, 2020

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Oakland County

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after

the date of this order.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
# EUR-Lex - 31997R2590 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997R2590

**Council Regulation (EC) No 2590/97 of 16 December 1997 replacing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products **

*
Official Journal L 355 , 30/12/1997 P. 0001 - 0052 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2590/97 of 16 December 1997 replacing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 28 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas it is in the interest of the Community to suspend partially or totally the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for a number of new products not listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (1);

Whereas the products referred to in the said Regulation, for which it is no longer in the Community's interest to maintain suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties or for which it is necessary to amend the description in the light of technical developments, must be withdrawn from the list in the Annex thereto;

Whereas, for the sake of clarity, products whose description require amendment should be regarded as new products;

Whereas, taking into account the large number of amendments having effect on 1 January 1998, a complete replacement of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should be undertaken for the sake of clarity for the user,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 shall be replaced by the Annex to this Regulation. The autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on these products shall be suspended at the rate indicated for each product.

Article 2

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

It shall apply from 1 January 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 December 1997.

For the Council

The President

J. LAHURE

(1) OJ L 158, 29. 6. 1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1186/97 (OJ L 172, 30. 6. 1997, p. 1).

ANNEX

>TABLE>
§ 1627.5 Records to be kept by labor organizations. ( a ) Every labor organization shall keep current records identifying its members by name, address, and date of birth.
( b ) Every labor organization shall, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, keep for a period of 1 year from the making thereof, a record of the name, address, and age of any individual seeking membership in the organization. An individual seeking membership is considered to be a person who files an application for membership or who, in some other manner, indicates a specific intention to be considered for membership, but does not include any individual who is serving for a stated limited probationary period prior to permanent employment and formal union membership. A person who merely makes an inquiry about the labor organization or, for example, about its general program, is not considered to be an individual seeking membership in a labor organization.
( c ) When an enforcement action is commenced under section 7 of the Act regarding a labor organization, the Commission or its authorized representative shall require the labor organization to retain any record required to be kept under paragraph (b) of this section which is relative to such action until the final disposition thereof.
( d ) Whenever a labor organization has an obligation as an “employer” or as an “employment agency” under the Act, the labor organization must also comply with the recordkeeping requirements set forth in § 1627.3 or § 1627.4, as appropriate.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3046-0018) (Pub. L. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*))
[44 FR 38459, July 2, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981; 56 FR 35756, July 26, 1991]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 865 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 865

 To authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a project for the 
mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project for navigation, 
                           Saco River, Maine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2007

Ms. Collins (for herself and Ms. Snowe) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a project for the 
mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project for navigation, 
                           Saco River, Maine.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Camp Ellis Beach Restoration Act''.

SEC. 2. SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECT, SACO RIVER, MAINE.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army is authorized to carry 
out, under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 
426i), a project for the mitigation of shore damages attributable to 
the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                          47,052
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    783,422
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,075,771
<PP&E>                                       2,873,712
<DEPRECIATION>                                 204,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,579,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,508,079
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,474
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,064,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,579,790
<SALES>                                        307,449
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               504,441
<CGS>                                          295,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,404,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,203,437)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,203,437)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,023,437)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0220 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-CE-002-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of NEON Systems, Inc, (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian D. Helman, the principal financial and accounting officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



November 14, 2003



|/s/  Brian D. Helman                      
|------------------------------------------
|Brian D. Helman                           
|                                          
|principal financial and accounting officer
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------


Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of NORD OIL INTERNATIONAL, INC.(the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Viatcheslav Makarov, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, 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.


Dated:  February 1, 2006.


        /s/ Viatcheslav Makarov
        ---------------------------------
        Viatcheslav Makarov
        Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit-10.19



                                            September 1, 1999




Mr. Ronald L. Krutzman
Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
Laclede Gas Company
720 Olive Street
St. Louis, Missouri  63101

Dear Mr. Krutzman:

UMB Bank of St. Louis, n.a. (the "Bank") is pleased to provide a
$10,000,000.00 line of credit maturing January 31, 2000 to Laclede Gas
Company ("Laclede") for general corporate purposes and for commercial paper
backup.  The Bank will consider requests for advances under the line of
credit until January 31, 2000.  Our officers may, at their discretion, make
short-term loans to Laclede under the following terms.

All borrowings will be priced at Laclede's option at (i) Bank's prime rate,
(ii) at Libor for a similar principal amount and maturity adjusted +1/4%, or
(iii) CD's adjusted +1/2% for available maturities up to 90 days.  Notes
issued under this line shall not exceed 90 days.  If a whole note is
outstanding with a maturity after January 31, 2000, the note shall be
renewed in whole or in part provided no note shall mature later than May 1,
2000.

Interest shall be payable at maturity or on date of repayment.  Interest
shall be computed on the basis of actual 365/366 days for prime borrowings
and on actual 360 day basis for LIBOR or CD loans.  Notes issued may be
prepaid at any time without penalty.

It is understood that any loans obtained by any subsidiary of Laclede Gas
Company, whether or not they are guaranteed by Laclede Gas Company, are
excluded from this agreement and shall not be charged against the line of
credit described above.


















                                 66
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                              Page 2


We ask that you supply us with current financial and other information,
which current information will be furnished to the Bank as it may from time
to time reasonably request.  The Bank may terminate this agreement at any
time if Bank determines in good faith that we are not satisfied with your
conditions, operations or performance, financial or otherwise.  This letter,
a/k/a the Line of Credit Agreement, constitutes the entire understanding
between the Bank and Laclede regarding the line of credit.


UMB Bank of St. Louis, n.a.

By:  /s/ Ken E. Kotiza

Name:  Ken E. Kotiza

Title:  Regional President


Accepted this 10th day of September, 1999

Laclede Gas Company

By:  /s/ Ronald L. Krutzman

Name: Ronald L. Krutzman

Title:  Treasurer & Asst. Secretary



























                                 67
#### ANDERSON v ANDERSON etc, et

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co

No 3510.

Decided Dec 30, 1929

J. T. Rhyno, Cincinnati, for Anderson.

Wm. R. Collins and Wm. Groh, both of Cincinnati, for Anderson, etc, et.

ROSS, J.

The evidence indicates that the plaintiff was a lady living in Hartwell, who had owned a number of pieces of property, and was more or less familiar with transactions involving the purchase and sale of real estate; that she had known the defendant for some time; that defendant offered to build for her two store buildings, similar to those erected by him on premises in the neighborhood, and these stores were examined by the plaintiff, that she was satisfied to have her stores built like them, and there is evidence that they were built like them.

While the plaintiff claims a number of misrepresentations as to matters connected with the construction of these stores, the principal reliance seems to be upon the statement as to the value of the land and the proposed or expected rental value of the stores when completed. The evidence is in some conflict on these points.

As to these statements we feel that they constituted no fraud upon the plaintiff, there being no showing that she was not thoroughly acquainted with all the circumstances surrounding the transaction, and thoroughly competent to form an opinion as to the value of the property involved. There is evidence also that prospective tenants, who would have paid the rental represented, were produced and refused by the plaintiff. In any event, such statements can only be considered as opinions, and not from the very nature of the statements given can they be considered as misrepresentations of fact.

On these facts we find that the plaintiff’s petition must be dismissed, and on the cross-petition of the defendant Anderson, a decree requiring the plaintiff to specifically perform her contract may be taken, upon the defendant Anderson presenting to the plaintiff a deed of general warranty, with release of dower, conveying a title to the property clear, free, and unincumbered. The plaintiff is to be allowed credit on all amounts paid by her upon the contract price of $12,600.

A decree may be presented accordingly.

Cushing, PJ, and Hamilton, J, concur.
[No. 48974-7-I.

Division One.

December 16, 2002.]

#### Betty C. Dahlquist, *Petitioner,*v. Patrick G. Vukich, *Respondent.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-2-08221-5, Dean Scott Lum, J., entered June 1 and August 31, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### The Skinner Manufacturing Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. E. E. Douville, *Defendant in Error.*

A verdict that necessarily includes a finding that bad faith was not proven will not be set aside if the evidence is such that the jury could lawfully have found there was no bad faith affecting the right of recovery.

This case was decided by the court En Banc.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Maxwell d Reeves,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*William 0. Fitts,*for Defendant in Error.

On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

While bad faith on the part of the agent when properly pleaded and proven may be a defense in an action against the principal for compensation for services rendered, yet even when properly pleaded bad faith *433is a question of fact to be determined by the jury, and a verdict that necessarily includes a finding that bad faith was not proven will not be set aside if the evidence is such that the jury could lawfully have found there was no bad faith affecting the right of recovery.

A rehearing" is denied.
#### § 21.121 [Reserved]
<PAGE>23


Exhibit 11.
 Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
<TABLE>


 For the periods ended September 30
<CAPTION>

                                                 3rd Qtr.                   Nine months
                                            2003          2002             2003          2002

 Diluted earnings per common share:
<S>                                    <C>           <C>             <C>             <C>
   Average common shares outstanding       723,135       643,053         671,207       643,053


 Net income (loss) .................    $   220,062   $   217,739    $  (410,275)    $ 556,625

Diluted earnings (loss) per share: .      $   0.30     $     0.34      $  (0.61)     $    0.87

 Basic earnings (loss) per share: ..      $   0.30     $     0.34      $  (0.61)     $    0.87

</TABLE>

                                        23