alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 38.115 Post-termination proceedings. ( a ) A grant applicant or recipient adversely affected by a Final Decision and Order issued under § 38.112(b) will be restored, where appropriate, to full eligibility to receive WIOA Title I financial assistance if the grant applicant or recipient satisfies the terms and conditions of the Final Decision and Order and brings itself into compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA and this part.
( b ) A grant applicant or recipient adversely affected by a Final Decision and Order issued under § 38.112(b) may at any time petition the Director to restore its eligibility to receive WIOA Title I financial assistance. A copy of the petition must be served on the parties to the original proceeding that led to the Final Decision and Order. The petition must be supported by information showing the actions taken by the grant applicant or recipient to bring itself into compliance. The grant applicant or recipient has the burden of demonstrating that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. While proceedings under this section are pending, sanctions imposed by the Final Decision and Order under § 38.112(b)(1) and (2) must remain in effect.
( c ) The Director must issue a written decision on the petition for restoration. ( 1 ) If the Director determines that the grant applicant or recipient has not brought itself into compliance, the Director must issue a decision denying the petition.
( 2 ) Within 30 days of its receipt of the Director's decision, the recipient or grant applicant may file a petition for review of the decision by the Administrative Review Board, setting forth the grounds for its objection to the Director's decision.
( 3 ) The petition must be served on the Director and on the Office of the Solicitor, Civil Rights and Labor-Management Division.
( 4 ) The Director may file a response to the petition within 14 days.
( 5 ) The Administrative Review Board must issue a decision denying or granting the recipient's or grant applicant's request for restoration to eligibility.
[81 FR 87211, Dec. 2, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 13033, Mar. 6, 2020; 85 FR 30619, May 20, 2020]
Exhibit B

Great River Information Technologies 

Permission/Waiver

You have requested an aerial videography of your home by Great 

River Information Technologies In order to do so, Great River 

Information Technologies requires your written permission to enter 

your property in order to conduct an on-site survey of your 

property and it's surroundings; and to launch/fly an Unmanned 

Aerial Vehicle (UAV) over your home and it's surroundings. This 

is absolutely necessary in order to conduct a safe flight. We will 

not proceed without written approval. 

Great River Information Technologies will take every precaution 

to ensure that no damage occurs as a result of the flight. We 

reserve the right to cancel the flight at any time without penalty 

due to Force Majeure or Act of God. 

UAV damage can result from contact with any source such as 

landscaping, trees, utility poles and the house itself. While we 

pride ourselves on our professionalism and flying skill, there is 

always inherent danger in flight. A sudden and unexpected gust of 

wind could blow the UAV off its planned course. If the UAV 

contacts an object, it generally results in damage to the UAV. 

Minor property damage may occur. 

Great River Information Technologies accepts no responsibility for 

any damage incurred by your home or personal property as a result 

of the UAV flight of your home or property. You agree to hold 

harmless Great River Information Technologies, it's owners and 

operators should any damage occur. 
Great River Information Technologies retains sole ownership of 

all video shot on or around your property. We NEVER sell our 

video to you or any third party; rather we sell our expertise and 

video editing services. All rights reserved by Great River 

Information Technologies. 

We will issue you a license to display, upload and/or broadcast the 

final edited version by you, your real estate agent/agency or any 

other entity designated by you in writing. We will never display 

your address without your written approval. 

Our fees are based on the size of the property, it's location and the 

extent of aerial coverage and software development services 

requested by you. Additional services such as increased length of 

video production, additional flying time, titling and editing will 

increase the project cost. Unless there is an error or omission on 

our part, the edit will be considered final and not subject to your 

prior approval or consent. 

Subject Property Address:________________________________ 

Signed and Accepted by:_________________________________

Date: _______________
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

111) ll-E-71 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:07AM Sheet 111 of 264 
P.2 

F-451 T-140 P-0B2 RPR 02 '97 17:30 

Contact Report 

Plastic Composites NESHAP 

A 945 2 

• •--e-7/ 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

Greg LaFlam, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

April 10,1996 

Mr. George Zeltner 

Cambridge Industries, Marion, IN 

Telephone Number: (317) 668-0421 

Contact Summary: 

Asked followup questions concerning the company's response to the Composites 

Institute's March 1996 survey ofthe compression molding industry. 

Mr. Zeltner explained thai tiie gamma gauge is a measurement tool to weigh the SMC 

sheet as it is produced. The compactor is a belt that presses the resin and glass together. The 

festooner folds and packages the SMC product. Each of these process components may get dirty 

(from resin/paste leaking through broken film) and then must be cleaned with acetone (manually 

with mops). 

The facility has switched out of methylene chloride and entirely into acetone for cleaning. 

They are just beginning to get into a situation of more frequent color changes (on tiie order of 

daily). The present system does not lend itself well to easy disassembly and cleaning; therefore, 

physical changes to the system that will make cleaning easier may have to be made. There 

appears to be some uncertainty as to whether acetone will be an adequate cleaner under a more 

frequent cleaning schedule, but the facility does not want to go back to methylene chloride. 

REPORT IS ACCURATE ^Q«t~-y^ 7
§ 530.403 Request for hearing. ( a ) Except in the case of an emergency revocation under § 530.411 of this subpart, a request for an administrative hearing on a determination referred to in § 530.402 of this subpart shall be made in writing to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, and must be received no later than thirty (30) days after issuance of the notice referred to in § 530.402 of this subpart.
( b ) No particular form is prescribed for any request for a hearing permitted by this part. However, any such request shall be typewritten or legibly written; specify the issue or issues stated in the notice of determination giving rise to such request; state the specific reason or reasons why the person requesting the hearing believes such determination is in error; be signed by the person making the request or by an authorized representative of such person; and include the address at which such person or authorized representative desires to receive further communications relating thereto.
( c ) In the case of an emergency revocation, a request for an administrative hearing shall be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge in accordance with 29 CFR part 18, and must be received no later than 20 days after the issuance of the notice referred to in § 530.402 of this subpart.
[53 FR 45725, Nov. 10, 1988, as amended at 82 FR 2228, Jan. 9, 2017; 86 FR 1787, Jan. 11, 2021]
§ 38.13 Accessibility requirements. ( a ) *Physical accessibility.* No qualified individual with a disability may be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of a recipient's service, program, or activity or be subjected to discrimination by any recipient because a recipient's facilities are inaccessible or unusable by individuals with disabilities. Recipients that are subject to Title II of the ADA must also ensure that new facilities or alterations of facilities that began construction after January 26, 1992, comply with the applicable federal accessible design standards, such as the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (1991 or 2010) or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. In addition, recipients that receive federal financial assistance must meet their accessibility obligations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the implementing regulations at 29 CFR part 32. Some recipients may be subject to additional accessibility requirements under other statutory authority, including Title III of the ADA, that is not enforced by CRC. As indicated in § 38.3(d)(10), compliance with this part does not affect a recipient's obligation to comply with the applicable ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
( b ) *Programmatic accessibility.* All WIOA Title I-financially assisted programs and activities must be programmatically accessible, which includes providing reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures, administering programs in the most integrated setting appropriate, communicating with persons with disabilities as effectively as with others, and providing appropriate auxiliary aids or services, including assistive technology devices and services, where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, the program or activity.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
ABDUL MAHADDIE UNDERWOOD , Petitioner

.

NO. 1 CA

- CR 21

- 03 10 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR201 6

- 115949

- 001 The Honorable William R. Wingard , Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Amanda M. Parker Counsel for Respondent

Abdul Mahaddie Underwood , Eloy Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann , Judge David D. Weinzweig, and Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 12-9-2021STATE v. UNDERWOOD Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Abdul Mahaddie Underwood seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief. This is petitioner’s third petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- co nviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petit ion for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
#### Juliano v. Massimo

*Lloyd B. White, Jr.,*for plaintiff.

*Francis L. Zarrilli,*for defendants.

November 3, 1958.

Sweney, J.,

On September 29, 1958, we entered an order without an opinion. This opinion, therefore, is written in support thereof.

In this case, defendants appealed from arbitrators’ award. The statutory requirements admittedly were met except that appellants filed a bond in the amount of $100 for payment to plaintiff for costs likely to be accrued by reason of defendants’ appeal. Defendants filed a petition to amend answer to specify an additional defense and plaintiff filed a petition to strike the appeal. Both matters were heard together. Since the right to amend is unimportant if the appeal is stricken, we will discuss first the merits of the petition to strike the appeal.

Simply put, plaintiff contends that the recognizance should be for debt, interest and costs and since the award here was $835.28, plaintiff contends the bond is insufficient. This question has arisen several times and will again unless placed at rest.

*636The basis of plaintiff’s contention arises out of the fact that the present Arbitration Act is merely an amendment to the Act of June 16, 1836, P. L. 715, 5 PS §1 et seq. Section 30 thereof, 5 PS §75, specifically provided, and there seems to be no doubt, that the bond was required to cover not only the costs and probable costs but the debt itself as determined by the arbitrators’ award plus $1 for every day plaintiff is required to attend such appeal should he ultimately win, and plaintiff asserts that the amendments of January 14, 1952, P. L. 2087, under which we are now operating, did not change that section of the Act of 1836 and that it is still in effect.

This premise, however, completely overlooks the Act of March 20, 1845, P. L. 188, 42 PS §921, concerning bail and attachments wherein the legislature provided:

“In lieu of the bail heretofore required by law, in the cases herein mentioned, the bail in cases of appeal from the judgments of aldermen and justices of the peace, and from the *awards of arbitrators,*shall be bail absolute, in double the probable amount of costs accrued and likely to accrue in such cases,” and this same act repeals all existing laws altered or supplied thereby. (Italics supplied.) ■

We think the Act of 1845 changed the conflicting section of the Act of 1836 and is today the law of the case. That the Act of 1845 does effectively repeal this part of the Act of 1836 is borne out by the opinion in Carpenter v. Hutchison, 243 Pa. 260.

Since, therefore, there appears to be no merit in the petition to strike the appeal, it should be dismissed and the petition to amend the answer should be allowed. The order to this effect has heretofore been filed, to wit, September 29, 1958.
#### § 32.9 Administrative requirements for small recipients.

The Assistant Secretary may require any recipient that provides services to fewer than 15 beneficiaries or with fewer than 15 employees, or any class of such recipients, to comply with §§ 32.7 and 32.8, in whole or in part, when the Assistant Secretary finds a violation of this part or finds that such compliance will not significantly impair the ability of the recipient or class of recipients to provide benefits or services.
§ 4003.34 Contents of request for reconsideration. A request for reconsideration must— ( a ) Be in writing;
( b ) Be clearly designated as a request for reconsideration;
( c ) Specifically explain why PBGC's determination is wrong and the result the requestor is seeking;
( d ) Describe the relevant information the requestor believes is known by PBGC and summarize any other information that is relevant to the request for reconsideration; and
( e ) Include copies of any documentation that supports the requestor's claim or assertions.
[85 FR 10284, Feb. 24, 2020]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Utah Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 6 p.m. and adjourn at 8 p.m. on Thursday, June 22, 2000, at the Horizonte School, 1234 So. Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss civil rights issues in the State and plan future activities. 

Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact John Dulles, Director of the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 303-866-1040 (TDD 303-866-1049). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, May 19, 2000. 

Lisa M. Kelly, 

Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 00-13214 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 49453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20333]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA624


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's Gulf of Alaska 
(GOA) and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BS/AI) groundfish plan teams 
will meet in Seattle.

DATES: The meetings will begin at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, August 30, and 
continue through Friday, September 2, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Alaska Fisheries Science 
Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Building 4, Observer Training Room 
(GOA Plan Team) and Traynor Room (BS/AI Plan Team), Seattle, WA.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 
4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane DiCosimo or Diana Stram, NPFMC, 
(907) 271-2809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda: Principal business is to prepare and 
review the draft Economic Report, the draft Ecosystems Consideration 
Chapter, the draft stock assessments for some target-categories, and 
recommend preliminary groundfish catch specifications for 2012/13.
    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be 
posted at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject 
of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to 
those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising 
after publication of this notice that require emergency action under 
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's 
intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen, (907) 271-2809, at 
least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 5, 2011.
William D. Chappell,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-20333 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
797 A.2d 897

#### Roger BUEHL, Craig Williams, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Donald Tedford, Appellants, v. Martin HORN, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; James Price, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution-Greene; and Ken Miller, G-Unit Manager, State Correctional Institution-Greene, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 30, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2002, the order of the Commonwealth Court dated July 21, 2000, is hereby affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 6

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 6 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 6.20 Petition for review.

Within 40 days after the date of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (or such additional time as is granted by the Administrative Review Board), any party aggrieved thereby who desires review thereof shall file a petition for review of the decision with supporting reasons. Such party shall transmit the petition in writing to the Administrative Review Board pursuant to 29 CFR part 8, with a copy thereof to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. The petition shall refer to the specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, or order at issue. A petition concerning the decision on the ineligibility list shall also state the unusual circumstances or lack thereof under the Service Contract Act, and/or the aggravated or willful violations of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act or lack thereof, as appropriate.
#### § 520.205 How do these rules affect other Federal, state and local laws and collective bargaining agreements?

No provision of this part, or of any special minimum wage certificate issued thereunder, shall excuse noncompliance with any other Federal or state law or municipal ordinance or collective bargaining agreement establishing higher standards.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**


**OF**


**PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND**


**PRINCIPAL
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C.1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








I,
      John
      Z. Ferguson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended March
      31,
      2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of a21, Inc.





I,
      Thomas
      Costanza, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended March
      31,
      2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of a21, Inc.





Pursuant
      to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.




By:
              /s/ JOHN Z.
              FERGUSONJohn
                Z. Ferguson
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer) By:
              /s/ THOMAS
              COSTANZAThomas
                Costanza
              Vice
                President and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)Dated:
              December 12, 2006