alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 111.50-3 Protection of conductors. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of overcurrent protection for conductors is to open the electric circuit if the current reaches a value that will cause an excessive or dangerous temperature in the conductor or conductor insulation. A grounded conductor is protected from overcurrent if a protective device of a suitable rating or setting is in each ungrounded conductor of the same circuit.
( b ) *Overcurrent protection of conductors.* Each conductor must be protected in accordance with its current carrying capacity, except a conductor for the following circuits which must meet the following listed subparts: ( 1 ) Propulsion circuits, subpart 111.35.
( 2 ) Steering circuits, subpart 58.25 of this chapter.
( 3 ) Motor circuits, subpart 111.70.
( 4 ) Flexible cord and fixture wire for lighting circuits, subpart 111.75.
( 5 ) Switchboard circuits, subpart 111.30.
( c ) *Fuses and circuit breakers.* If the allowable current-carrying capacity of the conductor does not correspond to a standard rating for fuses or circuit breakers that meets Section 240.6 of NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference; see 46 CFR 110.10-1), then the next larger such rating is acceptable, except that: ( 1 ) This rating must not be larger than 150 percent of the current-carrying capacity of the conductor; and
( 2 ) The effect of temperature on the operation of fuses and thermally controlled circuit breakers must be taken into consideration.
( d ) *Parallel overcurrent protective devices.* An overcurrent protective device must not be connected in parallel with another overcurrent protective device.
( e ) *Thermal devices.* No thermal cutout, thermal relay, or other device not designed to open a short circuit may be used for protection of a conductor against overcurrent due to a short circuit or ground, except in a motor circuit as described in Article 430 of NFPA 70 or in IEC 60092-202:2016 (both incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).
( f ) *Ungrounded conductors.* A fuse or overcurrent trip unit of a circuit breaker must be in each ungrounded conductor. A branch switch or circuit breaker must open all conductors of the circuit, except grounded conductors.
( g ) *Grounded conductor.* An overcurrent device must not be in a permanently grounded conductor, except: ( 1 ) An overcurrent device that simultaneously opens all conductors of the circuit, unless prohibited by § 111.05-17 for the bus-tie feeder connecting the emergency and main switchboards; and
( 2 ) For motor-running protection described in Article 430 of NFPA 70 or in IEC 60092-202:2016 (both incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15236, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28279, June 4, 1996; CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51047, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65197, Oct. 31, 2008; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60153, Sept. 30, 2013; USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16362, Mar. 16, 2023]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

** **

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

** **

The undersigned executive officer of FirstFederal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc. (the “Registrant”) hereby certifies thatthe Registrant’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.

 

 
|   | /s/ Larry J. Brandt               |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Larry J. Brandt                   |
|   | President/Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Date: March 5, 2004

 

----
# C_2008041EN.01000401.xml

| 15.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 41/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 41/4

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 41/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 11.12.2006 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | NN 6/06 |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | UK film development and production funds |
| Legal basis | National Lottery Act 1993, as amended by National Lottery Act 1998 and SI's 1994 No 1342, 1999 No 2090 & 2000 No 78 National Lottery |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Culture |
| Form of aid | Direct grant, Provision of risk capital, Reimbursable grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: GBP 22,12 million
  Overall budget: GBP 110,6 million |
| Intensity | 50 % |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2012 |
| Economic sectors | Recreational, cultural sporting activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | UK Film Council |
| 10 Little Portland Street |
| London W1W 7JG |
| United Kingdom |

Date of adoption of the decision

11.12.2006

Reference number of the aid

NN 6/06

Member State

United Kingdom

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

UK film development and production funds

Legal basis

National Lottery Act 1993, as amended by National Lottery Act 1998 and SI's 1994 No 1342, 1999 No 2090 & 2000 No 78 National Lottery

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Culture

Form of aid

Direct grant, Provision of risk capital, Reimbursable grant

Budget

Annual budget: GBP 22,12 million

Overall budget: GBP 110,6 million

Intensity

50 %

Duration

Until 31.12.2012

Economic sectors

Recreational, cultural sporting activities

Name and address of the granting authority

UK Film Council

10 Little Portland Street

London W1W 7JG

United Kingdom

| Scottish Screen |
| --- |
| 249 West George Street |
| Glasgow G2 4QE |
| United Kingdom |

Scottish Screen

249 West George Street

Glasgow G2 4QE

United Kingdom

| NIFTC |
| --- |
| Alfred House |
| 21 Alfred Street |
| Belfast BT2 8ED |
| United Kingdom |

NIFTC

Alfred House

21 Alfred Street

Belfast BT2 8ED

United Kingdom

| Arts Council of Wales |
| --- |
| 9 Museum Place |
| Cardiff, CF10 3NX |
| United Kingdom |

Arts Council of Wales

9 Museum Place

Cardiff, CF10 3NX

United Kingdom

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
§ 10.410 Quality Standard System (QSS) requirements. ( a ) Providers of Coast Guard-approved courses, programs, training, and Coast Guard-accepted training creditable towards an STCW endorsement must establish and maintain a Quality Standard System (QSS), in accordance with Regulation I/8 of the STCW Convention (incorporated by reference, see § 10.103 of this part).
( b ) The QSS must be monitored by the Coast Guard or monitored through a third party that is designated as a Coast Guard-accepted QSS organization.
( c ) The Coast Guard-monitored QSS must— ( 1 ) Have a documented quality policy and quality objectives that align with the commitment by the training institution to achieve its missions and goals;
( 2 ) Maintain a manual that documents the objectives, authorities, and responsibilities that are essential controls for the implementation of the QSS, including— ( i ) The core procedures required to meet the missions and goals of the institution;
( ii ) The documents necessary for effective design, planning, operation, and control for the delivery of courses meeting the regulatory requirements;
( iii ) The filing and archiving of records so they are retrievable and legible;
( iv ) Action taken to stop recurrence of system, process, and product nonconformity; and
( v ) Auditing, reviewing, and improving the performance of the training management system.
( d ) Documentation from a nationally recognized academic accreditation body may be accepted by the Coast Guard as meeting one or more of the requirements listed in paragraph (c) of this section. The documentation must be readily available for inspection upon request.
( e ) The Coast Guard will accept documentation from a training institution certified under a national or international Quality Management System Standard as meeting one or more of the requirements listed in paragraph (c) of this section. The documentation must be readily available for inspection upon request.
( f ) The Coast Guard will accept company ISM documentation as meeting one or more of the requirements listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
( g ) Organizations are subject to audits at least twice in a 5-year period. Organizations must cooperate with Coast Guard audits.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77903, Dec. 24, 2013, as amended by USCG-2018-0874, 84 FR 30881, June 28, 2019]
### NUMBER 13

- 1 1

- 00 517

- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JOSH EUGENE COMSTOCK , A ppellant ,
v. REBECCA ANNE COMSTOCK , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 9 4th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Ga rza and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Josh Eugene Comstock , filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the
9 4th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 10

- 0889

- C

. Appellant
ha s filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have reached an agreement to settle and compromise their differences. Appellant request s that this Court dismiss the appeal.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file an d appellant = s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant = s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Any pending motions are dismissed as mo ot. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant = s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 20th day of October , 20 1 1

.
P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

209)OGRC-S0010 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:31 PM Sheet 209 of 259 
P.2 

OG-RC-SOOIO 

AMAL OIL COMPANY, INC. 

419 PERRY-BROOKS BUILDING 

AUSTIN. TEXAS 78701 

GILBERT PRUO'HOMME (812) 470-086 4 

PRESIDENT 

E. G. PRUO'HOMME. SR. 

VICE-PRESIDENT 

September 19, 1990 

U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

400 M Street 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Attention: Robert Hall 

Dear Sir: 

I am the president of Amal Oil Company, Inc. We have a R2 

permit to operate a reclaiming plant in south and southeast Texas. 

I have learned that the EPA is in process of classifying produced 

crude oil tank bottoms as a hazardous material. 

I object to classifying produced crude oil bottoms and residue 

as a hazardous material. I have worked around this material for 

thirty years with no adverse affect. I had a pumper who worked for 

Mobil Oil and later, after retirement, with me and was actively 

working at age eighty-six at my plant in south Texas. He had 

worked around tank bottoms all of his life. 

We have not been supplied with any scientific or technical 

evidence pointing to the fact that ordinary produced crude oil is 

a hazardous waste nor is it a hazardous waste merely because it is 

a residue in a tank bottom. I would appreciate your making a note 

of my thoughts on this matter. 

I will be glad to appear and testify if this would be helpful 

or appropriate. 

I thank you for your court 

GP:sah 

#^V^<£^
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 23


                             [HENRY & PETERS, PC LETTERHEAD]

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc.


We consent to the use of our report dated November 15, 2000, on the consolidated
financial statements of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
September 30, 2000 and 1999, and for each of the years in the three-year period
ended September 30, 2000, in Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the year
ended September 30, 2000.

                                   /s/ HENRY & PETERS, P.C.
                                   ----------------------------
                                   HENRY & PETERS, P.C.


Tyler, Texas
December 12, 2000
§ 84.52 Health, welfare, and other social services. ( a ) *General.* In providing health, welfare, or other social services or benefits, a recipient may not, on the basis of handicap: ( 1 ) Deny a qualified person with a disability these benefits or services;
( 2 ) Afford a qualified person with a disability an opportunity to receive benefits or services that is not equal to that offered persons without disabilities;
( 3 ) Provide a qualified person with a disability with benefits or services that are not as effective (as defined in § 84.4(b)) as the benefits or services provided to others;
( 4 ) Provide benefits or services in a manner that limits or has the effect of limiting the participation of qualified persons with disabilities; or
( 5 ) Provide different or separate benefits or services to persons with disabilities except where necessary to provide qualified persons with disabilities with benefits and services that are as effective as those provided to others.
( b ) *Notice.* A recipient that provides notice concerning benefits or services or written material concerning waivers of rights or consent to treatment shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that qualified persons with disabilities, including those with impaired sensory or speaking skills, are not denied effective notice because of their disability.
[42 FR 22677, May 4, 1977, as amended at 89 FR 40187, May 9, 2024]
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David A. Baldwin,  President of CE Casecnan  Water and Energy  Company,  Inc.
(the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual  period ended
     December 31, 2003 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of
     Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated:  February 9, 2004



                              /s/ David A. Baldwin
                              --------------------
                                David A. Baldwin
                                    President
                            (chief executive officer)
STATE OF DELAWARE 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
 

OFFICE OF THE 89 KINGS HIGHWAY PHONE: (302) 739-9000 

SECRETARY DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 FAX: (302) 739-6242 

April 1, 2010 

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin (3RAOO) 

Regional Administrator 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Dear~~.-:

I am pleased to submit the enclosed revision to the State of Delaware State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Attainment and Maintenance of the 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard. The revision is to 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 - REQUIREMENTS 

FOR PRECONSTRUCTION REVIEW, Section 3.0 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of 

Air Quality. 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 regulates emissions of pollutants from new and modified 

facilities, and is organized by attainment status of pollutants emitted relative to federal national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action is to amend 3.0 of7 DE Admin. Code 1125 

to cite explicitly that nitrogen oxides (NOx) is a precursor to the fonnation of ground-level 

ozone. EPA requires this revision (see 73 FR 16205, March 27,2008) because they have 

determined the current regulatory language is not clear that NOx, in addition to volatile organic 

compounds, is a ground-level ozone precursor. This action has no immediate impact because all 

of Delaware is classified as non-attainment of the ground-level ozone NAAQS. This revision is 

effectiveAprilll,2010. 

The requirements of the CAA Section 11 0(a)(2)(A) have been met through the normal 

public hearing process established by the State of Delaware with proper notification (30 days) 

prior to the convening of the public hearing. Attachments A and B are copies of affidavits as 

proof of proper notification. It is the position of the State ofDelaware that all minimum 

requirements set forth in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments have been met. 

We look forward to continuing the cooperative effort between Delaware and EPA in this 

important work. As always, feel free to contact me or Ali Mirzakhalili, Administrator, (302) 

739-9402, if you have any questions concerning the enclosed documents. 
Mr. Shawn Garvin 

April 1, 2010 

Page 2 

in P. O'Mara 

Secretary 

cc:	 David Arnold, EPA w/encl. 

Ali Mirzakhalili
#### TESSIE CAUFELD ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. SIDNEY METZENDORF ET AL., PARTNERS, ETC., DEFENDANTS.

Decided November 4, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker, and Bodine.

For the rule, *Carey & Lane.*

Contra, *David T. Wilentz.*

Per Curiam.

Tessie Caufeld, a little girl eight years old, was knocked down and injured by a truck of the defendants while she was leaving the ice house of the latter. The trial resulted in *927a verdict for $18,000 in her favor and an award of $1,000 to her father, who joined as a plaintiff in the action.

The first contention made before us on behalf of the defendants is that the finding of the jury that the accident was a result of the carelessness of the defendants’ truck driver was contrary to the clear weight of the evidence. Our examination of the testimony satisfies us that the finding of the jury upon this point should not be interfered with.

The next contention on the part of the defendants is that the award to this little girl of $18,000 is grossly excessive. We think that this is so, and that the verdict in her favor should be reduced to $10,000, if such reduction is accepted by her representative; if not, the rule to show cause will be made absolute.

Lastly, it is contended that the award of $1,000 to the father is excessive. In our opinion, the award is a reasonable one.

If consent is given to the reduction of the verdict in favor of the girl to the amount which we have indicated, the rule to show cause will be discharged; otherwise, it will be made absolute.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CARLOS COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO: 14-CV-14105-DT

DANIEL H. HEYNS, ET AL.,

Defendants. / 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Michael Hluchaniuk pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. In his report filed on September 24, 2015, the

magistrate judge recommended that this court grant Defendant Heyns’ Motion for Summary

Judgment and dismiss him with prejudice. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C), thus further appeal rights are waived.1

Having reviewed the file and the report, the court concludes that the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and ADOPTS the same for purposes of this

Order.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s

“Report and Recommendation”, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED,

and Defendant Daniel Heyns is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 25, 2015

 1The failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the court from its duty to

independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

2:14-cv-14105-RHC-SDD Doc # 29 Filed 11/25/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 175
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or

pro se parties on this date, November 25, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2

2:14-cv-14105-RHC-SDD Doc # 29 Filed 11/25/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 176
#### § 134.160 Freeboard markings.

Freeboard markings required by § 174.260 of this subchapter must be both permanently scribed or embossed and painted white or yellow on a dark background.
- 2364
- 2365
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.86 Confined space entry. ( a ) Except in an emergency, no person may enter a confined space unless that space has been tested to ensure there is sufficient oxygen to support life. If the oxygen content is below 19.5 percent, the space must be ventilated and retested before entry.
( b ) In an emergency, a confined space may be entered by a trained person wearing self-contained breathing apparatus, suitable protective clothing as necessary, and a wire rope safety line tended by a trained person outside the hold or in an adjacent space. Emergency entry into a confined space must be supervised by a responsible person as defined in § 148.3 of this part.
----

----

| (1)    | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended      December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| (2)    | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.                                                                                                                   |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

| Dated:      February 27, 2008 | /s/  Joseph      L. Sullivan |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                          | Joseph      L. Sullivan                |
|                          | President                              |
|                          | (principal      executiveofficer)      |