alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 783.19 Commerce activities of enterprises in which employee is employed.

Under amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act effective September 3, 1961, employees not covered by reason of their personal engagement in interstate commerce activites, as explained in § 783.18, are nevertheless brought within the coverage of the Act if they are employed in an enterprise which is defined in section 3(s) of the Act as an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or by an establishment described in section 3(s)(3) of the Act (see § 783.11). Such employees, if not exempt from the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements under section 13(a)(14) or exempt from the overtime pay requirements under section 13(b)(6), will have to be paid in accordance with those monetary standards of the Act unless expressly exempt under some other provision. This would generally be true of employees employed in enterprises and by establishments engaged in a business concerned with transportation of goods or persons by vessels, where the enterprise has an annual gross sales volume of $1,000,000 or more. Enterprise coverage is more fully discussed in part 776 of this chapter, dealing with general coverage.
#### § 109.15 Enforcement proceedings.

Proceedings against a vessel violating the Anchorage Regulations are to be brought in the name of the officer of the Coast Guard assigned for the time being as Captain of the Port. When the vessel is at a port where there is no Coast Guard officer, proceedings will be initiated in the name of the District Commander.

[CGFR 67-46, 32 FR 17727, Dec. 12, 1967, as amended by USCG-2007-27887, 72 FR 45903, Aug. 16, 2007]
Editorial Note on Part 101
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 101 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35009, June 19, 2008.

§ 101.200 MARSEC Levels. ( a ) MARSEC Levels advise the maritime community and the public of the level of risk to the maritime elements of the national transportation system. Ports, under direction of the local COTP, will respond to changes in the MARSEC Level by implementing the measures specified in the AMS Plan. Similarly, vessels and facilities required to have security plans under part 104, 105, or 106 of this subchapter shall implement the measures specified in their security plans for the applicable MARSEC Level.
( b ) Unless otherwise directed, each port, vessel, and facility shall operate at MARSEC Level 1.
( c ) The Commandant will set (raise or lower) the MARSEC Level commensurate with risk, and in consideration of any maritime nexus to any active National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) alerts. Notwithstanding the NTAS, the Commandant retains discretion to adjust the MARSEC Level when necessary to address any particular security concerns or circumstances related to the maritime elements of the national transportation system.
( d ) The COTP may raise the MARSEC Level for the port, a specific marine operation within the port, or a specific industry within the port, when necessary to address an exigent circumstance immediately affecting the security of the maritime elements of the transportation in his/her area of responsibility. Application of this delegated authority will be pursuant to policies and procedures specified by the Commandant.
[USCG-2003-14792, 68 FR 39278, July 1, 2003, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39173, July 1, 2013]
#### § 778.4 Reliance on interpretations.

The interpretations of the law contained in this part 778 are official interpretations which may be relied upon as provided in section 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 84).
#### § 100.1400 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Barry M. Portnoy, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofSenior Housing Properties Trust;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:  | October 28, 2004 |   | /s/ Barry M. Portnoy |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|----------------------|
|   |                  |   | Barry M. Portnoy     |
|   |                  |   | Managing Trustee     |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

 

Nos. 06-2599

07-1754

ZULKIFLY KADRI,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent.

 

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on September 20, 2008, is amended as follows:

On the cover page insert at the bottom: Ilana Etkin Greenstein, Jeremiah Friedman, Harvey

Kaplan, Maureen O'Sullivan, and Kaplan, O'Sullivan & Friedman, LLP, on brief for Gay & Lesbian

Advocates & Defenders, National Lawyers' Guild, Massachusetts Chapter, and National

Immigration Project, amici curiae.
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

 21 October 2004

(2004/C 260/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
§ 31.8 Procedure for effecting compliance. ( a ) *General.* If there appears to be a failure or threatened failure to comply with this part, and if the noncompliance or threatened noncompliance cannot be corrected by informal means, compliance with this part may be effected by the suspension or termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance, or by any other means authorized by law. Such other means may include, but are not limited to, ( 1 ) A reference to the Department of Justice with a recommendation that appropriate proceedings be brought to enforce any rights of the United States under any law of the United States (including other titles of the Act), or any assurance or other contractual undertaking, and
( 2 ) Any applicable proceeding under State or local law.
( b ) *Termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance.* No order suspending, terminating, or refusing to grant or continue Federal financial assistance shall become effective until: ( 1 ) The Secretary has advised the applicant or recipient of his failure to comply and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means,
( 2 ) There has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure by the applicant or recipient to comply with a requirement imposed by or pursuant to this part,
( 3 ) The action has been approved by the Secretary, and
( 4 ) The expiration of 30 days after the Secretary has filed with the committee of the House and the committee of the Senate having legislative jurisdiction over the program involved, a full written report of the circumstances and the grounds for such action. Any action to suspend or terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other applicant or recipient as to whom such a finding has been made and shall be limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found.
( c ) *Other means authorized by law.* No action to effect compliance by any other means authorized by law shall be taken until: ( 1 ) The Secretary has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means,
( 2 ) The action has been approved by the Secretary,
( 3 ) The recipient or other person has been notified of its failure to comply and of the action to be taken to effect compliance, and
( 4 ) The expiration of at least 10 days from the mailing of such notice to the recipient or other person. During this period of at least 10 days additional efforts shall be made to persuade the recipient or other person to comply with this part and to take such corrective action as may be appropriate.
[29 FR 16284, Dec. 4, 1964. Redesignated at 38 FR 17958, July 5, 1973]
**Exhibit 32**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection withthe filing by Senior Housing Properties Trust (the “Company”) of the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 (the “Report”), eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Barry M. Portnoy |   | /s/ David J. Hegarty                  |   |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Barry M. Portnoy     |   | David J. Hegarty                      |   |
| Managing Trustee     |   | President and Chief Operating Officer |
|                 |   |                                  |   |
|                 |   |                                  |   |
| /s/ Gerard M. Martin |   | /s/ Richard A. Doyle                  |   |
| Gerard M. Martin     |   | Richard A. Doyle                      |
| Managing Trustee     |   | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Date:                    May 2, 2007

----
Exhibit 10.1



Exhibit 10.1


 


 


Field Point Capital Management Company


One Landmark Square, Suite 1900


Stamford, CT 06901


 


 


June 4, 2012


 


PASSUR Aerospace, Inc.


One Landmark Square, Suite 1900


Stamford, CT 06901


 


As Chairman of the Board as well as the principal
shareholder of PASSUR Aerospace, Inc. (“PASSUR Aerospace” or the “Company”), I make the following commitment
to the Company with respect to the period from the date of this commitment through June 4, 2013.


 


Liquidity


 


I commit that if the Company at any time is
unable to meet its obligations through June 4, 2013, that I will provide the necessary continuing financial support to the Company
to ensure the Company’s ability to operate as a going concern through the period ending June 4, 2013. Such continuing support
may take the form of additional loans or advances to PASSUR Aerospace in addition to the deferral of principal and/or interest
payments due on outstanding loans to PASSUR Aerospace as referred to above.


 


These commitments are not conditional and are
irrevocable through the period ending June 4, 2013.


 


I, G.S. Beckwith Gilbert, having the financial
wherewithal to enter into this irrevocable commitment, make the above commitments to the Company and its shareholders.


 


 


/s/ G.S. Beckwith Gilbert


G.S. Beckwith Gilbert


President
#### § 793.7 “Announcer.”

An announcer is an employee who appears before the microphone or camera to introduce programs, read news announcements, present commercial messages, give station identification and time signals, and present other similar routine on-the-air material. In small stations, an announcer may, in addition to these duties, operate the studio control board, give cues to the control room for switching programs, make recordings, make the necessary preparations for the day's programs, play records, or write advertising, promotional or similar type copy. An employee who is primarily engaged in the above described activities and in activities which are an integral part thereof will be considered to be employed as an announcer within the meaning of the exemption in section 13(b)(9).
### Memorandum : “ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Anal ys is of Refrigerants and Environmental Risk Factors” Date : March 29, 2010 This table compares various refrigerants and in particular, some of the environmental risk factors considered b y the Si gnificant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. These factors include:  ozone depletion potential (ODP);  global warming potential (GWP);  flammability ;  toxicity ;  contributions to smog;  aquatic and ecos ys tem effects; and,  occupational health and safety. Refrigerant Comparison Table Refrigerant Ozone

Depleting Potential (ODP) from 40 CFR Part 82 Appendix A & B 

### Global Warming

Potential (GWP) AR4 and SAR Atmospheric Lifetime (ALT) from AR4 expect where notated 

### Volatile

Organic Compound (VOC) R- 600a 0 8 a <1week b Yes R- 290 0 ~3 (AR4) <1weekc Yes HCR - 188C 0 <5 d <1week c Yes HCR - 188C1 0 <5 d <1week c Yes CFC - 11 1.0 4,750 (AR4) 3,800 (SAR) 45yrs No CFC - 12 1.0 10,900(AR4) 8,100 (SAR) 100yrs No CFC - 13 1.0 14,400 (AR4) Not listed (SAR) 640y rs No HCFC - 22 0.055 1,810 (AR4) 1,500 (SAR) 12yrs No HCFC - 142b 0.065 2,300 (AR4) 1,800 (SAR) 17.9yrs No HFC - 134a 0 1,430 (AR4) 1,300 (SAR) 14 yrs No R- 404A (Blend of 44% HFC - 125, 4% HFC - 134a, 52% HFC - 143a) 0 3,900 (AR4) 3,300 (SAR) components range from 14 - 42 yrs No

R- 410A (Blend of 50% HFC - 32, 50% HFC - 125) 0 2,100 (AR4) 1,700 (SAR) components range from 4.9 - 29 yrs No

a SNAP submission, General Electric b ICF GE risk screen

– Calm and Hourahan (2007) indicate the ALT is 0.019years or about on e week c ICF GE risk screen

– Wuebbles (2003) indicate the ALT of 5 - 21days or about one week d HCR - 188C SNAP Submission (A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. 2007). f SNAP submission, General Electric
(78 South. 714)

#### WALLACE v. STATE.

(8 Div. 579.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 16, 1918.)

1. Criminal Law <&wkey;463 — Evidence—Opinions — Wounds.

Any witness familiar by experience with the appearance and treatment of wounds, particularly physicians and surgeons, may give an opinion as to manner in which a wound was probably inflicted and the instrument used.

2. Criminal Law <&wkey;457t— Opinions — Drunkenness.

A witness may testify that one was drunk, or acted like he was drunk.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C. P. Almon, Judge.

Branch Wallace was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Dr. Lindsey, after stating that he was a practicing physician of 20 years’ experience, and that he had had experience in treating wounds made with heavy instruments, and that he saw the wound inflicted about the time it occurred, was asked the following question: “In your judgment, from the character of the wound, and from your experience in treating wounds of like character, would you say it was inflicted by some heavy instrument?” The witness was permitted, over objection, to answer: “Yes; a heavy instrument of some kind.” Another witness was asked: “Was Branch Wallace drinking?” The answer was : “I taken him to be; he acted like it.”

R. T. Simpson, of Florence, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and David W. W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

[1, 2] Any witness familiar by experience with the appearance and treatment of wounds, particularly physicians and surgeons, may give an opinion as to the manner in which a wound was probably inflicted and the instrument used. Rash v. State, 61 Ala. 89-93; Underhill’s Cr. Ev. § 312; 1 Greenl. Ev. 440; Pearce v. State, 14 Ala. App. 120, 72 South. 213. The testimony of the state’s witness, Hr. Lindsey, was within the rule. It is permissible for a witness *452to testify *that one was*drunk, or “acted like he was drunk.” 1 Mayf. Dig. 336, § 37.

Counsel for appellant have submitted no brief or argument, and we have carefully examined the record and find no reversible error therein, or anything further that warrants discussion.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         400,014
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  192,159
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               632,633
<PP&E>                                         212,738
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (40,741)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 804,630
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,654
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,334,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   765,976
<SALES>                                        749,276
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               749,276
<CGS>                                         (149,343)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (149,343)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (884,370)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (284,437)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (284,437)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (284,437)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (284,437)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.36)



</TABLE>
§ 780.809 Employees engaged in exempt operations. Employees engaged in actual ginning operations, as described in § 780.804 will come within the exemption if all other conditions of section 13(b)(15) are met. The following activities are among those within the meaning of the term “engaged in ginning of cotton”: ( a ) “Spotting” vehicles in the gin yard or in nearby areas before or after being weighed.
( b ) Moving vehicles in the gin yard or from nearby areas to the “Suction” and reparking them subsequently.
( c ) Weighing the seed cotton prior to ginning, weighing lint cotton and seed subsequent to ginning (including preparation of weight records and tickets in connection with weighing operations).
( d ) Placing seed cotton in temporary storage at the gin and removing the cotton from such storage to be ginned.
( e ) Operating the suction feed.
( f ) Operating the gin stands and power equipment.
( g ) Making gin repairs during the ginning season.
( h ) Operating the press, including the handling of bagging and ties in connection with the ginning operations of that gin.
( i ) Removing bales from the press to holding areas on or near the gin premises.
( j ) Others whose work is so directly and physically connected with the ginning process itself that it constitutes an integral part of its actual performance.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7595

LEONARD CARTER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Former Attorney General; ANDREW J. WINSTON, Chairman State Board of Corrections; RANDALL G. JOHNSON, Judge; A. D. ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center; KEITH W. DAVIS, Warden Programs, Nottoway Correctional Center; AVIS BRANCH, Mailroom Clerk, NottowayCorrectional Center; G. SEYMOUR, Sergeant Investigator, Nottoway Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-948) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.* The order from which Carter appeals was filed on October 9, 1998, and entered on the district court’s docket sheet on October 13, 1998, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a). See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Leonard Carter, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Carter v. Commonwealth of Virginia , No. CA-97-948 (E.D. Va. Oct. 13, 1998). * We deny Carter’s motions for a jury trial, for execution, and both his motions for production of documents. We also dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED