alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 108.159 Stairways and exterior inclined ladders.

Each stairway, except a stairway in a machinery or storage space, and each exterior inclined ladder must be at least 70 centimeters (28 inches) wide with an angle of inclination from the horizontal of not more than 50 degrees, except that special consideration may be given to the installation if a 70 centimeters (28 inch) width is impracticable.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF PATINA OIL & GAS CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350



1. I, Thomas J. Edelman, Chief Executive Officer of Patina Oil & Gas Corporation (the Company), hereby certify to the best of my knowledge that the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the annual
period ending December 31, 2003 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Company fully complies with the requirements of
that section.



2. I further certify to the best of my knowledge that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/ Thomas J. EdelmanName:

Thomas J. EdelmanDate:

March 9, 2004




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure
document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and will be retained by Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE GENERAL MOTORS

COMPANY DERIVATIVE

LITIGATION §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 392 , 2015

Court Below: Court of Chancery

of the State of Delaware

C.A. No. 9627

- VC G

Submitted: February 10 , 2016

Decided: February 11 , 2016

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; HOLLAND

, VALIHURA

, VAUGHN , and

SEITZ , Justices, constituting the Court en Banc

.

ORDER

This 11th day of February 2016, having considered this matter on the briefs

filed by the parties and after oral argument, we find it evident that the judgment of

the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of an d for the reasons

assigned in its June 26 , 2015 decision. 1

N OW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

1 In re Gen. Motors Co. Derivative Litig. , 2015 WL 3958724 (Del. Ch. June 26, 2015).
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 236 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 71185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9533]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5045-N-49]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-
7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: November 30, 2006.
Mark R. Johnston,
Acting Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. 06-9533 Filed 12-07-06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-M
§ 95.511 Approval of the cost allocation plan or plan amendment. ( a ) The Director, DCA, after consulting with the affected Operating Divisions, shall notify the State in writing of his/her findings. This notification will be made within 60 days after receipt of the proposed plan or amendment and shall either: ( 1 ) Advise the State that the plan or plan amendment is approved or disapproved,
( 2 ) advise the State of the changes required to make the plan or amendment acceptable, or
( 3 ) request the State to provide additional information needed to evaluate the proposed plan or amendment. If the DCA cannot make a determination within the 60-day period, it shall so advise the State.
( b ) For purpose of this subpart, State agency cost allocation plans which have been approved by an authorized official of the Department of HHS prior to the effective date of this regulation are considered approved until such time as a new plan or plan amendment is required by § 95.509(a).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND 

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, et al.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01419 (CRC)

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby 

ORDERED that [5] Defendant’s partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that Count Three and Count Four in the above-captioned case are 

DISMISSED. It is further 

ORDERED that the portions of Counts One and Two in the above-captioned case that 

seek relief pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, are DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER

United States District Judge

Date: August 13, 2015 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 19 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 1
June 22, 1998



John W. Henry & Company
One Glendinning Place
Westport, Ct. 06880
Attn: Ms. Beth Kenton


         Re:      Management Agreement Renewal
                  Smith Barney Principal Plus Futures Fund II

Dear Ms. Kenton:

We are  writing  with  respect  to  your  management  agreement  concerning  the
commodity pool to which reference is made above (the "Management Agreement"). We
would like to extend the term of the Management  Agreement through June 30, 1999
and make the  attached  modification  on Rider 1. All  other  provisions  of the
Management Agreement will remain unchanged.

Please indicate your agreement to and acceptance of this modification by signing
one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Daniel Dantuono
at the address above or fax to 212-723-8985.  If you have any questions I can be
reached at 212-723-5416.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT INC.



By:
         Daniel A. Dantuono
         Chief Financial Officer,
         Director & Treasurer

AGREED AND ACCEPTED

JOHN W. HENRY & COMPANY


By:

Print Name:

DAD/sr
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

REX ALLEN UMNEY,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No.: 14-13328

Honorable Matthew F. Leitman

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

COMMUNITY FINANCIAL

CREDIT UNION, COMMUNITY

FINANCIAL MEMBERS FEDERAL

CREDIT UNION, 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND 

AND COMPEL DISCOVERY AS MOOT [R. 28]

Plaintiff Rex Umney has moved to extend and compel discovery, 

stating only that he has sought discovery and deposition dates from 

defense counsel verbally and via email. Because this Court has 

recommended that the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings 

be granted, [R. 46], Umney’s motion to extend and compel [R. 28] is 

DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

Detroit, Michigan ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 47 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 440
2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which 

provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of 

this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district 

judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 22, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 47 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 441
§ 11.493 Master (OSV). ( a ) The minimum service required to qualify an applicant for an endorsement as master (OSV) of offshore supply vessels less than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT is 24 months of total service as mate, chief mate, or master of ocean or near-coastal and/or Great Lakes on self-propelled vessels of more than 100 GRT. Service on inland waters may substitute for up to 50 percent of the required service. At least one-half of the required experience must be served as chief mate.
( b ) The minimum service required to qualify an applicant for master (OSV) of 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT or more is 24 months of total service as mate, chief mate, or master of ocean or near-coastal and/or Great Lakes on self-propelled vessels of more than 100 GRT. At least one-half of the required experience must be served as chief mate and be obtained on vessels of 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT or more.
( c ) If an applicant for master (OSV) of more than 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT does not have the service on vessels of 1,600 GRT/3,000 GT or more as required by paragraph (b) of this section, a tonnage limitation will be placed on the officer endorsement based on the applicant's qualifying experience. The endorsement will be limited to the maximum tonnage on which at least 25 percent of the required experience was obtained, or 150 percent of the maximum tonnage on which at least 50 percent of the service was obtained, whichever is higher. However, the minimum tonnage limitation calculated according to this paragraph will be 2,000 GRT. Limitations are in multiples of 1,000 GRT using the next higher figure when an intermediate tonnage is calculated. In no case will the limitation exceed 10,000 GRT/GT for OSVs unless the applicant meets the full requirements for an unlimited tonnage endorsement.
( d ) A person holding an endorsement as master (OSV) may qualify for an STCW endorsement, according to §§ 11.305 and 11.311 of this part.
( e ) The Coast Guard may exempt an applicant from meeting any requirement under STCW Regulation II/2 (incorporated by reference, see § 11.102 of this part) that the Coast Guard determines to be inappropriate or unnecessary for service on an OSV, or that the applicant meets under the equivalency provisions of Article IX of STCW.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77909, Dec. 24, 2013, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58277, Sept. 29, 2014]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 25, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 25, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22I0054. MARK WINCHELL v. KIMBERLY MYERS et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

STCV1700793
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0492 Directorate ID: 2008-SW-013-AD

Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 230 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 12 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during 

steady-state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $20 for the decal

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour to update 

the RFM)

(0.2 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour to install 

the decal)

$43

$17

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $80

Total US Fleet Cost $960

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: Chinh Vuong
---

---

# Exhibit 13.1

Certification Pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of B.O.S. Better Online Solutions Ltd., a
company organized under the laws of the State of Israel (the Company),
for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned
officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officers knowledge, that:

| | 1. | the
Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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
as                of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|By: /s/ Shalom Daskal
Shalom DaskalChief Executive Officer |  | By: /s/ Eyal Cohen
Eyal CohenChief Financial Officer
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 30, 2009



---

---
Methyl Bromide Pre-phaseo

Inventory

16,422 MT

12,994 MT

9,974 MT

7,941 MT

6,458 MT

4,271 MT

3,064 MT

1,803 MT1,249 MT627 MT 357 MT 

0

2,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Methyl Bromide (MT)

End of Year Inventory

Values are for the amount of methyl bromide produced usin

production allowances prior to 2005 and remaining in invenat the end of that year.
Submitted on record and briefs October 18, 1995,

conviction affirmed; remanded for entry of corrected judgment April 17, 1996

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*JOHN DUDLEY LEFTRIDGE, III, *Appellant.*

(8903-31129; CA A87799)

914 P2d 716

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and David E. Groom, Deputy Public Defender, filed the brief for appellant.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Deits and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*443PER CURIAM

Defendant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Execution of the sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for five years.1 Subsequently, his probation was revoked, and the trial court ordered execution of the previously imposed sentence. The court also ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to a sentence defendant was currently serving in the state of Washington.

Defendant contends that the trial court has no authority, after revoking probation in this case, to modify a sentence previously imposed by ordering that it be served consecutively to another sentence. The state concedes error and we agree. *State v. Debusman,*102 Or App 119, 792 P2d 115 (1990); *Fergelic v. Cupp,*53 Or App 190, 631 P2d 800, *rev den*292 Or 108 (1981).

Conviction affirmed; remanded for entry of a corrected judgment.

1

 Defendant committed the offense before the effective date of the sentencing guidelines.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SAMIR BAZZOUN, 

 PLAINTIFF, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-12711 

 HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS 

V. 

UNITED STATES EMBASSY, BEIRUT, LEBANON, 

 DEFENDANT. 

 / 

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (DOC # 1) 

On July 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed this action alleging that the United States Embassy in Beirut, 

Lebanon improperly managed his parent’s application for visas to enter the United States, 

causing undue delay. He alleges that the application process “should not take more than three 

months,” without citing any legal authority. Compl., at 2. Plaintiff requests that the Court inquire 

as to the Embassy’s reason(s) for the delay. 

While the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over immigration affairs, Plaintiff does not 

have standing to file this claim. To accomplish Article III standing, a plaintiff must establish 

these elements: 

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally 

protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or 

imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’ ” Second, there must be a causal 

connection between the injury and the conduct complained or—the injury has to 

be “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] 

result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Third, 

it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be 

redressed by a “favorable decision.” 

Kardules v. City of Columbus, 95 F.3d 1335, 1346 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). 

2:14-cv-12711-VAR-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/12/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 10
   

Plaintiff fails to allege an “injury in fact” that is “concrete” and “particularized.” Plaintiff 

does not allege that his rights are being infringed, given that the visa applications are not filed on 

his behalf. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff requests judicial review of an administrative agency decision, yet fails 

to cite to any U.S. civil statute as the basis for his cause of action. Compl., at 4; See 5 U.S.C. § 

702 (“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or 

aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review 

thereof.”). 

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for lack of standing. 

IT IS ORDERED. 

/S/ Victoria A. Roberts _ 

Victoria A. Roberts 

United States District Judge 

Dated: August 12, 2014 

2:14-cv-12711-VAR-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/12/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 11
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 51 (Friday, March 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12635-12636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1325]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

[F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 3-07]


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR Part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of 
meetings for the transaction of Commission business and other matters 
specified, as follows:

Date and Time: Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 1 p.m.

Subject Matter: Issuance of Proposed Decisions, Amended Proposed 
Decisions, and Amended Final Decisions in claims against Albania.

Status: Open.
    All meetings are held at the Foreign claims Settlement Commission, 
600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance 
notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: 
Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement

[[Page 12636]]

Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. 
Telephone: (202) 616-6988.

Mauricio J. Tamargo,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 07-1325 Filed 3-14-07; 3:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-P
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT




To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
SDC International, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of SDC International, Inc. (the 
"Company") as of August 31, 1997 and the related statements of operations, 
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended August 31, 1997 and 
1996.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's 
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial 
statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of 
material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence 
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit 
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant 
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial 
statement presentation.  We  believe that our audits provide a reasonable 
basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in 
all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of August 31, 
1997, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years ended 
August 31, 1997 and 1996 in conformity with generally accepted accounting 
principles.



Scarano & Tomaro, P.C.
Syosset, New York
December 5, 1997
#### Nash *v.*The State.

Submitted October 15,

Decided November 7, 1906.

Accusation of stabbing. Before Judge Bush. City court of Miller county. July 7, 1906.

*W. I. Geer,*by *Z. D. Harrison,*for plaintiff in error.

*N. L. Stapleton, solicitor,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. The court having charged that in order to convict the defendant they must believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if they had a reasonable doubt arising from the evidence or want of evidence submitted in the case, it would be their duty to acquit, it furnished no ground for a new trial that he did not proceed further and define and explain to the jury what constitutes a reasonable doubt. *Nelms*v. *State,*123 *Ga.*575, 578.

•2. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justiees concur.*