alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 159
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 159.15 Certification. ( a ) The recognized facility must evaluate the information that is submitted by the manufacturer in accordance with § 159.14(b) (1), (2), and (3), evaluate the device for compliance with §§ 159.53 through 159.95, test the device in accordance with § 159.101 and submit to the Commanding Officer (MSC), Attn: Marine Safety Center, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7430, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7430 the following: ( 1 ) The information that is required under § 159.14(b);
( 2 ) A report on compliance evaluation;
( 3 ) A description of each test;
( 4 ) Test results; and
( 5 ) A statement, that is signed by the person in charge of testing, that the test results are accurate and complete.
( b ) The Coast Guard certifies a test device, on the design of the device, if it determines, after consideration of the information that is required under paragraph (a) of this section, that the device meets the requirements in Subpart C of this part.
( c ) The Coast Guard notifies the manufacturer and recognized facility of its determination under paragraph (b) of this section. If the device is certified, the Coast Guard includes a certification number for the device. If certification is denied, the Coast Guard notifies the manufacturer and recognized facility of the requirements of this part that are not met. The manufacturer may appeal a denial to the Commanding Officer (MSC), Attn: Marine Safety Center, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7430, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7430.
( d ) If upon re-examination of the test device, the Coast Guard determines that the device does not in fact comply with the requirements of Subpart C of this part, it may terminate the certification.
[CGD 73-83, 40 FR 4624, Jan. 30, 1975, as amended by CGD 75-213, 41 FR 15326, Apr. 12, 1976; CGD 82-063a, 48 FR 4776, Feb. 3, 1983; CGD 88-052, 53 FR 25122, July 1, 1988; CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33668, June 28, 1996; USCG-2001-9286, 66 FR 33641, June 25, 2001; USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36286, June 25, 2010; USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38439, July 7, 2014; USCG-2016-0498, 82 FR 35083, July 28, 2017]
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4806 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4806

  To designate the Federal building located at 1710 Alabama Avenue in 
       Jasper, Alabama, as the ``Carl Elliott Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2000

 Mr. Aderholt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the Federal building located at 1710 Alabama Avenue in 
       Jasper, Alabama, as the ``Carl Elliott Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 1710 Alabama Avenue in Jasper, 
Alabama, shall be known and designated as the ``Carl Elliott Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Carl Elliott 
Federal Building''.
                                 <all>
```
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4884

AN ACT

To redesignate the facility of the United States

Postal Service located at 200 West 2nd Street inRoyal Oak, Michigan, as the ‘‘William S. Broomfield Post Office Building’’.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4884

AN ACT

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 200 West 2nd Street in Royal Oak, Michigan, as the ‘‘William S. Broomfield Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4884 EH

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 200 West 2nd Street in Royal Oak, Michigan,

4 and known as the Royal Oak Post Office, shall be known

5 and designated as the ‘‘William S. Broomfield Post Office

6 Building’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

10 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

11 to the ‘‘William S. Broomfield Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 6,

2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
###### Editorial Note on Part 157

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 157.212 Dedicated Clean Ballast Tanks Operations Manual: Not approved.

If the *Dedicated Clean Ballast Tanks Operations Manual* submitted under § 157.206 or § 157.208 is not approved, the Coast Guard forwards a letter to the submitter with the reasons why the manual was not approved.
#### ANNA K. GILMAN, Executrix, etc., Appellant, *v.*CAROLINE G. REDINGTON and others, Respondents.

*Appeal from order of surrogate*— *costs allowed*on— Gode; *section*318.

Upon appeal to the General Term from an order of the surrogate, the costs which may be allowed under section 318 of the Code, are only those which may be recovered in an action at issue on a question of law from the time the proceeding is brought into the Supreme Court, viz., twenty dollars for the argument and ten dollars for each term the appeal is necessarily on the calendar, and the disbursements.

*Morgan*v. *Morgan*(1 Abb. [N. S.], 40) approved.

Appeal from an order made at the Special Term readjusting a bill of costs.

*641
      *Wellesley W. Gage,*for the appellant.

*Charles E.*Whitehead, for the respondents.

Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Order modified, and as modified affirmed, without costs to either party.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 101 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 101

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 23, 2009

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the acceptance of a statue of Ronald Wilson Reagan from 
  the people of California for placement in the United States Capitol.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. ACCEPTANCE OF STATUE OF RONALD WILSON REAGAN FROM THE PEOPLE 
              OF CALIFORNIA FOR PLACEMENT IN UNITED STATES CAPITOL.

    (a) In General.--The statue of Ronald Wilson Reagan furnished by 
the people of California for placement in the United States Capitol in 
accordance with section 1814 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States (2 U.S.C. 2131), is accepted in the name of the United States, 
and the thanks of the Congress are tendered to the people of California 
for providing this commemoration of one of California's most eminent 
persons.
    (b) Presentation Ceremony.--The State of California is authorized 
to use the rotunda of the Capitol on June 3, 2009, for a presentation 
ceremony for the statue accepted under this section. The Architect of 
the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board shall take such action as may 
be necessary with respect to physical preparations and security for the 
ceremony.
    (c) Display in Rotunda.--The Architect of the Capitol shall provide 
for the display of the statue accepted under this section in the 
rotunda of the Capitol, in accordance with the procedures described in 
section 311(e) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 
U.S.C. 2132(e)).

            Passed the House of Representatives April 22, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  Ch.07 – DR Boards

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/Ch.07 – DR Boards Ch.07 – DR BoardsADR2022-02-17T18:03:25-05:00
			
			Ch.07 – DR BoardsDispute resolution boards (DRBs) have been used since the 1970s to avoid litigation and resolve controversies early.  DRBs are typically used in high-dollar, long-duration projects such as highway construction or other public works projects.
DRBs commonly have three members with significant experience in appropriate subject matters such as engineering, architecture, project management, law, etc.  Boards are established at the beginning of a project, before disputes arise, and the parties typically agree on the members and share the expenses.  As a standing panel of neutrals, DRB members become very familiar with the particular project and this in turn enables the DRB to quickly facilitate resolution, or if necessary, issue non-binding decisions to resolve disputes.
According to a survey by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, at least eighteen departments of transportation at the state-level use DRBs, each with different specifications, guidelines, thresholds and practices.
The use of DRB’s in federal projects has apparently declined in recent years.  One reason may be the ready availability of other ADR processes at the the BCAs as well as the increasing use of facilitated partnering. Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 
 STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-Q of Worlds.com Inc. (the
"Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher Ryan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
that:
 
 * the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 *
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Christopher
Ryan
 Christopher
Ryan
 Chief
Financial Officer
 
 
 Date:
October 1, 2009
 
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 326.1 Purpose.

This part prescribes enforcement policies (§ 326.2) and procedures applicable to activities performed without required Department of the Army permits (§ 326.3) and to activities not in compliance with the terms and conditions of issued Department of the Army permits (§ 326.4). Procedures for initiating legal actions are prescribed in § 326.5. Nothing contained in this part shall establish a non-discretionary duty on the part of district engineers nor shall deviation from these procedures give rise to a private right of action against a district engineer.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the use in the General  Form for  Registration  of  Securities  of
Small Business Issuers on Form 10-SB of our report dated February 8 2000, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of Millenium Holding Group, Inc.
as of December 31, 1999 and for the year then ended.

We also consent to the use in the General Form for Registration of Securities of
Small  Business  Issuers on Form 10-SB of our report dated February 16, 1999, on
our audit of the financial  statements of Amex Systems  Corporation,  Inc. as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for the years then ended.



                                            /s/ DANA F. COLE & COMPANY
Lincoln, Nebraska
March 23, 2000
EXHIBIT
      32.1


STATEMENT
      REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-QSB of Worlds.com, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2003, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Thomas Kidrin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
      that:




*
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




*
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
      Thomas
      Kidrin


Thomas
      Kidrin


Chief
      Executive Officer








Date:
      March 4, 2008





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# ToC

# A-9 Money amt-% by State

&"Arial Rounded MT Bold,Bold"&14Table A-9: LTC Ombudsman Program Funding Totals and Percents for FY 2013	

&"Arial Narrow,Regular"Table A-9: p. &P	

# Funding Totals by State

&"Arial Rounded MT Bold,Bold"&14Table A-9: LTC Ombudsman Program Funding Totals and Percents for FY 2013	

&"Arial Narrow,Regular"Table A-9: p. &P	

# Funding Percents by State

&"Arial Rounded MT Bold,Bold"&14Table A-9: LTC Ombudsman Program Funding Totals and Percents for FY 2013	

&"Arial Narrow,Regular"Table A-9: p. &P	

# A-9 Money amt-% by Region

&"Arial Rounded MT Bold,Bold"&14Table A-9: LTC Ombudsman Program Funding Totals and Percents by Region for FY 2013	

&"Arial Narrow,Regular"Table A-9: p. &P	

# Funding Totals by Region

&"Arial Rounded MT Bold,Bold"&14Table A-9: LTC Ombudsman Program Funding Totals and Percents by Region for FY 2013	

&"Arial Narrow,Regular"Table A-9: p. &P	

# Funding Percents by Region

&"Arial Rounded MT Bold,Bold"&14Table A-9: LTC Ombudsman Program Funding Totals and Percents by Region for FY 2013	

&"Arial Narrow,Regular"Table A-9: p. &P
§ 155.780 Emergency shutdown. ( a ) A tank vessel with a capacity of 250 or more barrels that is carrying oil or hazardous material as cargo must have on board an emergency means to enable the person in charge of a transfer operation to a facility, to another vessel, or within the vessel to stop the flow of oil or hazardous material.
( b ) The means to stop the flow may be a pump control, a quick-acting, power actuated valve, or an operating procedure. If an emergency pump control is used, it must stop the flow of oil or hazardous material if the oil or hazardous material could siphon through the stopped pump.
( c ) The means to stop the flow must be operable from the cargo deck, cargo control room, or the usual operating station of the person in charge of the transfer operation.
[CGD 86-034, 55 FR 36255, Sept. 4, 1990]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER FRENCI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

RUSH AUTO CORPORATION, LLC, DBA

Pick

- A

- Part, DBA Rush Auto Recyclers Incorporated, DBA We Buy Scrap, named as

Rush Auto Corporation LLC; JANET RUSH, in her official and individual capacities; DANIEL THORPE, in his official and individual capacities,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 22

- 16628

D.C. No. 2:22

- cv

- 00414

- MTL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 12, 2023 * *

Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges

.

Christopher Frenci appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 15 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 16628

dismissing his federal and state law employment action. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6) on the basis of claim preclusion

. Harris v. County of Orange , 682 F.3d

1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012)

. We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Frenci’s action because Fren ci’s claims

were raised or could have been raised in a previous action between the parties that

resulted in a final adjudication on the merits

. See Noel v. Hall , 341 F.3d 1148,

1166 (9th Cir. 2003) (federal court must follow state ’ s preclusion rules to

determine effect of a state court judgment); Peterson v. Newton , 307 P.3d 1020

,

1022 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (discussing requirements for claim preclusion under

Arizona law ); see also Phillips v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents , 601 P.2d 596, 598 (Ariz.

1979) (explaining that any dismissal , other than for lack of jurisdiction, improper

venue, or failure to join a party, is an adjudication on the merits, unless the court

specifies otherwise ).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Frenci’s motion for

reconsideration because Frenci failed to establish a basis for such relief

. See

D. Ariz. R. 7.2(g)(1) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); Bias v. Moynihan

,

508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth the standard of review for

compliance with local rules, and noting that “[b]road deference is given to a3 22

- 16628

district court ’ s interpretation of its local rules”)

.

AFFIRMED.
§ 203.21 Disaster preparedness responsibilities of non-Federal interests. Disaster preparedness is a basic tenet of State and local responsibility. Assistance provided under authority of Public Law 84-99 is intended to be supplemental to the maximum efforts of State and local interests. Assistance under Public Law 84-99 will not be provided when non-Federal interests have made insufficient efforts to address the situation for which assistance is requested. Assistance under Public Law 84-99 will not be provided when a request for such assistance is based entirely on a lack of fiscal resources with which to address the situation. Non-Federal interests' responsibilities are addressed in detail as follows: ( a ) *Operation and maintenance of flood control works.* Flood control works must be operated and maintained by non-Federal interests. Maintenance includes both short-term activities (normally done on an annual cycle, or more frequently) such as vegetation control and control of burrowing animals, and longer term activities such as repair or replacement of structural components (e.g., culverts) of the project.
( b ) *Procurement/stockpiling.* Procurement and stockpiling of sandbags, pumps, and/or other materials or equipment that might be needed during flood situations is a non-Federal responsibility. The Corps is normally a last resort option for obtaining such materials. Local interests should request such materials from State assets prior to seeking Corps assistance. Local interests are responsible for reimbursing (either in kind or in cash) the Corps for expendable flood fight supplies and materials, and returning items such as pumps. When a flood is of sufficient magnitude to receive a Stafford Act emergency or disaster declaration, then the District Engineer may waive reimbursement of expendable supplies.
( c ) *Training and plans.* Training personnel to operate, maintain, and patrol flood control projects during crisis situations is a non-Federal responsibility. Specific plans should be developed and in place to address known problem areas. For instance, the non-Federal sponsor of a levee reach prone to boils should have personnel specifically trained in flood fighting boils. In addition, contingency plans must be made when needed to address short term situations. For instance, if a culvert through a levee is being replaced, then the contingency plan should address all actions needed should a flood event occur during the construction period when levee integrity is lacking.
( d ) *Corps Rehabilitation and Inspection Program for Flood Control Works.* To be eligible for Rehabilitation Assistance under Public Law 84-99, it is a non-Federal responsibility to take those actions necessary for flood control works to gain and maintain an Active status in the Corps Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP), as detailed in subpart D of this part.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aceto Corporation, a New York
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Leonard S. Schwartz, Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
          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/ Leonard S. Schwartz
-----------------------
Leonard S. Schwartz
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
February 9, 2006