alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.51 General.

The drawbridges in this subpart are listed by the state in which they are located and by the waterway they cross. Waterways are arranged alphabetically by state. The drawbridges listed under a waterway are generally arranged in order from the mouth of the waterway moving upstream. The drawbridges on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway are listed from north to south and on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from east to west.

[USCG-2001-10881, 71 FR 70309, Dec. 4, 2006]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
     QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         5,339
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    142,618
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               178,935
<PP&E>                                         267,978
<DEPRECIATION>                                 124,729
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,006,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          266,100
<BONDS>                                        5,702
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (189,908)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,006,701
<SALES>                                        836,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               836,802
<CGS>                                          467,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  467,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             38,974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (126,604)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (39,437)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (87,167)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (5,805)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (92,972)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (92,972)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > What the Wage-Earning Woman Contributes to Family Support

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Peterson, Agnes Lydia. 						*What the Wage-Earning Woman Contributes to Family Support : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 75*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1929,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5383,			accessed on September 11, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 00-60640 Summary Calendar

__________________ LUIS ARMANDO GIRON, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A71 559 117

-------------------- April 19, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis Armando Giron, a native of El Salvador, petitions this court for review os the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his application for political asylum and his request for a voluntary departure. Giron argues that his misrepresentation at the hearing about not having been previously arrested was not material to a determination whether he had aNo. 00-60640 -2- well-founded fear of persecution supporting his claim for asylum or whether he was eligible for voluntary departure. The BIA based its denial of Giron’s application for political asylum and his request for voluntary departure upon the Immigration Judge’s finding that Giron was not a credible witness and that his claims of persecution were unbelievable. This court does not review BIA decisions based purely on the Immigration Judge’s assessment of the alien’s credibility. Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Giron’s petition for review of the BIA decision is DENIED.
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350

(Section 906 of theSarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002)

 

In connection with the filing by Senior HousingProperties Trust (the “Company”) of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe period ending March 31, 2006 (the “Report”), each of the undersignedhereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange 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/ John R. Hoadley  |   |
| Gerard M. Martin     | John R. Hoadley                       |
| Managing Trustee     | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.833 Pasquotank River. ( a ) The draw of the Albemarle & Chesapeake railroad bridge, mile 47.7, at Elizabeth City, North Carolina, shall be maintained in the open position; the draw may close only for the crossing of trains and maintenance of the bridge. When the draw is closed, a bridgetender shall be present to reopen the draw after the train has cleared the bridge.
( b ) The draw of the US 158 Highway Bridge, mile 50.7, at Elizabeth City, shall open on signal; except that between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, the draw need open only at 7:30 a.m., 8:30 a.m., 4:30 p.m., and 5:30 p.m. for any pleasure vessels waiting to pass.
[CGD05-94-118, 60 FR 40098, Aug. 7, 1995, as amended by CGD05-97-009, 62 FR 66006, Dec. 17, 1997]
Docket No. F AA

### Record of Discussion f\ 

# o l 

# S' 

# -ct 

# -OUJ

**"' n-**  **~** Directo rate I dentifie r : 4-D 

### With w hom outside the FAA has thi s AD action been discussed (i.e . , Design App ro val Holder, manufacturer , AT A , NBAA, RAA, 

### AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

**-- ~--**  **--**
**-- --**  **---- --**  **---- --**  **--------~** ORGAN IZ ATION PERS ON CO NT ACT ED DATE T O PICS DISCUSSE D M7 Aerospace LLC Conan Fox 5/4/ 2015 Concu r with the t echnical content in AD

·· --



### Other/Additionallnfonnation:



### II
**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                Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended                June                30, 2008, (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or Section 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. |
|--|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                KENNETH S. CRAGUN                                               |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Kenneth                S. Cragun                                                   |
| Chief                Financial Officer and Chief Accounting                Officer |

----
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Subject Index of Volumes 52-71: Monthly Labor Review, January 1941 to December 1950

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Subject Index of Volumes 52-71: Monthly Labor Review, January 1941 to December 1950 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1080*,												Washington, D.C. : 								U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics , 										1953,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4511,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

TYRONE CUMMINGS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1 034

[ December 1, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Rosemarie Scher

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 501989CF013783AXXXMB

.
Lydia Pittaway of Pittaway Law, PLLC

, Fort Pierce

, for appellant

.
No appearance required for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Aff irmed. See Sherwood v. State , 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

W ARNER , G ROSS and D AMOORGIAN , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 9.36 Severability.

If any provision of this part is held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, or stayed pending further agency action, the provision is to be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding will be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event the provision will be severable from this part and will not affect the remainder thereof.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2011 - 1382 Directorate ID : 2011 - SW - 053 -AD Helicopter Model: Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Model F - 28C, F - 28C - 2, F - 28F, 280C, 280F, 280FX TH - 28, 480, and 480B Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 207 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : This AD was prompted by four failures in the cyclic trim system on certain Enstrom model helicopters that resulted in reduced controllability of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Hel icopter $ 327 (Model 480, 480B, and TH - 28) $383 (Model 280C, 280F, 280FX, F - 28C, F - 28C - 2, and F - 28F) Labor per Helicopter (4 x $ 8 5 /work-hour) $ 340 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 667 (Model 480, 480B, and TH - 28) $723 (Model 280C, 280F, 2 80FX, F - 28C, F - 28C - 2, and F - 28F) Total US Fleet Cost $ Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Gregory J. Michalik
§ 105.215 Security training for all other facility personnel. All other facility personnel, including contractors, whether part-time, full-time, temporary, or permanent, must have knowledge of, through training or equivalent job experience, in the following, as appropriate: ( a ) Relevant provisions of the Facility Security Plan (FSP);
( b ) The meaning and the consequential requirements of the different MARSEC Levels as they apply to them, including emergency procedures and contingency plans;
( c ) Recognition and detection of dangerous substances and devices;
( d ) Recognition of characteristics and behavioral patterns of persons who are likely to threaten security; and
( e ) Techniques used to circumvent security measures.
( f ) Familiar with all relevant aspects of the TWIC program and how to carry them out.
[USCG-2003-14732, 68 FR 39322, July 1, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 60541, Oct. 22, 2003; USCG-2006-24196, 72 FR 3583, Jan. 25, 2007]
Exhibit 99(a)





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 Airborne, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Carl D. Donaway, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as enacted by § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/S/    CARL D. DONAWAY


---

Carl D. Donaway


Chief Executive Officer and President


November 13, 2002
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.889 Siuslaw River. ( a ) The draw of the US101 bridge, mile 5.0 at Florence, shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given.
( b ) The draw of the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad bridge, mile 8.0 near Cushman, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984; 49 FR 37382, Sept. 24, 1984, as amended by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35527, June 30, 1998]
Argued and submitted May 1,

affirmed December 23, 1992,

reconsideration denied May 26, petition for review pending 1993

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Merlyn G. Johnsen, Claimant. Merlyn G. JOHNSEN, *Petitioner, v.*BEACON ELECTRIC/HAMILTON ELECTRIC and SAIF Corporation, *Respondents.*

(89-17994; CA A70709)

843 P2d 1008

David C. Force, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Vick & Gutzler, Salem.

Julie K. Bolt, Special Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

BUTTLER, P. J.

*287BUTTLER, P. J.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board order holding that his occupational disease claim is precluded by an earlier determination denying an earlier claim. We agree with the Board and affirm.

The Board found that claimant has been employed as an electrician by the same employer since the 1950’s, when employer’s name was Hamilton Electric Company. It also found that, some time before 1983, Hamilton changed its name to Beacon Electric. In 1983, claimant filed an occupational disease claim against Hamilton, contending that exposure to asbestos in the 1950’s and 196Q’s had caused a compensable lung condition. The claim was denied by SAIF. The denial was upheld by the referee and the Board and ultimately by this court on *de novo*review, on the basis that claimant’s lung condition was not symptomatic and required only annual medical monitoring, not treatment. *Johnsen v. Hamilton Electric,*90 Or App 161, 165, 751 P2d 246 (1988).

In this claim against Beacon, filed in 1988, claimant alleges that he was exposed to asbestos on the job in 1984, while the first claim was pending. He assigns error to the Board’s holding that the 1988 claim is barred. First, he argues that the evidence does not support the Board’s statement that Beacon and Hamilton are the same employer.

Whether or not the employers are different, the claim is barred by issue preclusion if the exposures and conditions are the same as those considered in the earlier claim. In our *de novo*review of the earlier claim, we reviewed medical reports from 1986 that presumably had considered claimant’s 1984 exposure to asbestos, and we found that he did not have a compensable condition. The Board found that the condition for which claimant now seeks compensation was caused by claimant’s employment exposures to asbestos in the 1950’s and 1960’s and that it is the same condition and exposures for which he sought compensation in the first claim. Substantial evidence supports those findings. Claimant does not contend that his condition is any different now than it was at the time of the hearing on the first claim. We agree with the Board that the claim is barred.

*288We reject claimant’s contention that changes in the occupational disease law necessitate a different analysis of this claim than was made on the 1983 claim.

Affirmed.
Sullivan

No. 7389

#### State of New Hampshire v. Richard D. Fleury

September 30, 1976

*578
      *David H. Souter,*attorney general, and *Edward N. Damon,*attorney *(Mr. Damon*orally), for the State.

*Bell & Falk (Mr. Ernest L. Bell III*orally) for the defendant.

*Stanley M. Brown*and *David W. Hess (Mr. Hess*orally) for Carleton H. Tarrien, amicus curiae.

Per curiam.

Defendant was charged with striking and biting a police officer knowing that the officer “was attempting to arrest the defendant.” He was found guilty in the Newport District Court and appealed to the superior court and was tried de novo before a jury and found guilty. His exceptions were transferred by *Loughlin,*J.

Defendant contends that he was denied due process because the complaint alleged that the officer was attempting to “arrest” him whereas the trial judge instructed the jury that he could be found guilty if the officer was “either seeking to effect an arrest or was attempting to detain the defendant.”

RSA 642:2 is entitled “Resisting Arrest or Detention” and reads in pertinent part that a person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he resists a police officer “seeking to effect an arrest or detention of himself or another regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.” Defendant contends that there are two different crimes created (one for resisting arrest and the other for resisting detention); and that since the word “detention” was not contained in the complaint he was not given notice to be prepared to defend against that charge. We do not, however, read the statute as creating two different crimes but rather as defining the offense so as to avoid defenses based on technical distinction between arrest and *579other forms of seizures of the person falling short of a full-blown arrest. *See State v. Hutton,*108 N.H. 279, 235 A.2d 117 (1967); *Terry v. Ohio,*392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Although RSA 642:2 was not specifically referred to in the complaint, defendant had been convicted on the same complaint in the district court and had appealed and there is no indication that he did not know under what statute he was being charged. We hold that the complaint adequately informed the defendant of the charge and that he was not prejudiced by the court’s instructions.

Defendant further contends that his conviction should be set aside because a private attorney who represented the police officer in a pending civil rights action arising out of the same episode sat with the county attorney during trial and participated in the prosecution. He relies on *Robinson v. Fimbel Door Co.,*113 N.H. 348, 306 A.2d 768 (1973), where it was said that it is not permissible to use the criminal process to achieve solely civil ends. That case however is inapposite. The case was in the control of the county attorney, who was at all times present and who conducted the prosecution. What occurred was within the discretion of the trial court *(State v. Hale,*85 N.H. 403, 160 A. 95 (1932)), and we find no violation of any rights of the defendant.

*Exceptions overruled.*