alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.241 Inspection and test of welds. ( a ) Visual inspection of welding must be conducted by an individual qualified by appropriate training and experience to ensure that: ( 1 ) The welding is performed in accordance with the welding procedure; and
( 2 ) The weld is acceptable under paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) The welds on a pipeline to be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS must be nondestructively tested in accordance with § 192.243, except that welds that are visually inspected and approved by a qualified welding inspector need not be nondestructively tested if: ( 1 ) The pipe has a nominal diameter of less than 6 inches (152 millimeters); or
( 2 ) The pipeline is to be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop stress of less than 40 percent of SMYS and the welds are so limited in number that nondestructive testing is impractical.
( c ) The acceptability of a weld that is nondestructively tested or visually inspected is determined according to the standards in section 9 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 192.7). Appendix A of API Std 1104 may not be used to accept cracks.
[35 FR 13257, Aug. 19, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 192-37, 46 FR 10160, Feb. 2, 1981; Amdt. 192-78, 61 FR 28784, June 6, 1996; Amdt. 192-85, 63 FR 37503, July 13, 1998; Amdt. 192-94, 69 FR 32894, June 14, 2004; Amdt. 192-119, 80 FR 181, Jan. 5, 2015; Amdt. 192-120, 80 FR 12778, Mar. 11, 2015]
§ 178.985 Vibration test. ( a ) *General.* All rigid Large Packaging and flexible Large Packaging design types must be capable of withstanding the vibration test.
( b ) *Test method.* ( 1 ) A sample Large Packaging, selected at random, must be filled and closed as for shipment. Large Packagings intended for liquids may be tested using water as the filling material for the vibration test.
( 2 ) The sample Large Packaging must be placed on a vibrating platform that has a vertical or rotary double-amplitude (peak-to-peak displacement) of one inch. The Large Packaging must be constrained horizontally to prevent it from falling off the platform, but must be left free to move vertically and bounce.
( 3 ) The sample Large Packaging must be placed on a vibrating platform that has a vertical double-amplitude (peak-to-peak displacement) of one inch. The Large Packaging must be constrained horizontally to prevent it from falling off the platform, but must be left free to move vertically and bounce.
( 4 ) The test must be performed for one hour at a frequency that causes the package to be raised from the vibrating platform to such a degree that a piece of material of approximately 1.6-mm (0.063-inch) in thickness (such as steel strapping or paperboard) can be passed between the bottom of the Large Packaging and the platform. Other methods at least equally effective may be used (*see* § 178.801(i)).
( c ) *Criterion for passing the test.* A Large Packaging passes the vibration test if there is no rupture or leakage.
[75 FR 5400, Feb. 2, 2010, as amended at 75 FR 60339, Sept. 30, 2010]
Exhibit 21

LabOne, Inc. A Missouri Corporation



Subsidiaries

LabOne L.L.C. Kansas - Single member LLC

Lab One Canada, Inc. Canada - C Corp.

Systematic Business Services, Inc.  Missouri - C Corp.
     ScanTech Solutions, LLC  Missouri - Single member LLC

ExamOne World Wide, Inc.  Pennsylvania - C Corp.
     ExamOne World Wide of NJ, Inc.New Jersey - C Corp.

Osborn Group, Inc.  Delaware - C Corp.
     Intellisys, Inc.  Georgia - C Corp.

Central Plains Holdings, Inc.  Kansas - C Corp.
     Central Plains Laboratories, L.L.C.  Kansas - Single member LLC
#### Gus Sullwald, appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, appellant.

Filed January 21, 1918.

No. 19723.

Railroads: Killing Cattle: Negligence. Evidence tliat one, driving cattle over a right of way, fails to discover an approaching train, even though such failure may amount to negligence, will not constitute a defense in an action for damages to cattle killed hy the train, hy reason of defendant’s negligence ór failure to maintain a proper gate, when \the undisputed evidence shows that an earlier discovery of the train could not have prevented the accident.

Appeal from the district court for Buffalo county: Bruno O. Hostetler, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Edson Rich*arid *Thomas F. Hamer,*for appellant.

*H. M. Sinclair*and *E. B. McDermott, contra.*

Cornish, J.

Appeal from judgment for, -the wrongful killing of plaintiff’s cattle by defendant’s train.

Plaintiff and his hired man were driving 17 head of cattle over a private road. When within about 400 feet of defendant’s track, the cattle, then being-driven out of a'corn field into which they had gone, stampeded, running toward home. The evidence is undisputed that the plaintiff did what he could to head them off, but was unable to do so. The defendant’s- gate and fence leading over the right of way was in such condition that it offered no obstruction to the cattle, and just as *127they were crossing the track they were met by defendant’s engine and seven of them killed.

The court instructed the jury that, if they found that the cattle got on the track as a result of defendant’s failure to keep and maintain its gate in repair, then they should find for the plaintiff. The defendant in its answer alleged that the plaintiff was “guilty of negligence in the driving of said cattle upon the railroad of the defendant, which negligence was the proximate cause of the loss of said cattle.” It is assigned as error that the instruction, above mentioned, did not take into account this defense.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff did not discover the approaching train until about the time of the accident, and it further appears that he knew the condition of the gate and fence. No doubt it was the duty of the plaintiff to watch for approaching trains. Considering the evidence as a whole, however, it would seem that, even though the plaintiff had made an early discovery of the train, this would and could have made no difference in the event. The failure to see the train could hardly he found to be the cause or a contributing cause of the accident. The defendant requested no instruction covering this theory of its defense, if such was its theory at the time. If the defendant desired such theory of the facts presented to the jury, it should at least have requested an instruction presenting it to the jury. *Bowers v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.,*91 Neb. 229.

Other assignments of error are made and have been considered. We are of opinion that the judgment of the trial court should he, and it is,

Appirmed.

Sedgwick and Hamer, JJ., not sitting.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Anto nio, Texas

November 22, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00547

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.T., A CHILD

,

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015PA01326 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. Appellant’s brief was filed on November 3, 2016, making appellee’s brief due November 23, 2016. The appellee filed a motion for extension of time requesting a twenty

day extension to file its brief. The motion is GRANTED. Appellee’s brief must be filed no later than December 13, 2016. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court o n this 22nd day of November, 2 016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7231

DONALD CARL STOUT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PRESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF DANIEL 

LOUGHRIE; DEPUTY RANDY STOCKETT; OFFICER OKAN, K-9 Dog,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00123-TSK)

Submitted: May 27, 2022 Decided: June 14, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Carl Stout, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7231 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Carl Stout seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Stout’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint. Parties to a civil action are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s 

final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). But the district court 

may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves for an extension of the appeal 

period within 30 days after expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates

excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles 

v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court entered the judgment on March 31, 2021. The 30-day appeal 

period set by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) expired on April 30, 2021, and the subsequent 30-

day period to file a motion for an extension of time pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) 

expired on June 1, 2021. This court received Stout’s misrouted notice of appeal dated 

August 2, 2021, which suggests that Stout’s appeal was untimely. However, on April 5, 

2021, Stout submitted a letter to the district court in which he notified the court of his 

change of address, expressed an interest in appealing, requested de novo review, and 

requested that his letter serve as a motion if necessary. It is unclear whether Stout intended 

for this letter to serve as a notice of appeal, a motion for an extension of time to file a notice 

of appeal, or a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order. See generally Clark 

v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303, 305-07 (4th Cir. 2016) (discussing deference afforded to pro

se pleadings evincing an intent to appeal). 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7231 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/14/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district 

court to determine whether Stout timely noted an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). The 

record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7231 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/14/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
exh10-7_loanagmt.htm


 










 


 


 


 


 


 


EXHIBIT 10.7


 


LOAN AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 30, 2013


FROM RADIUM VENTURES CORP.


 


 


 


 




 




  





  











  








Radium Ventures Corp







Scotia Plaza Bldg. 9th Floor


51th St. & Federico Boyd Avenue


P.O. Box 0816-01114


Panama, Republic of Panama












April 19, 2013







To: Homeland Resources Ltd.


6801 Los Trechos NE


Albuquerque, NM  87109







RE:  Loan Commitment







Radium Ventures of 51th St. & Federico Boyd Avenue, Panama, Republic of Panama hereby agrees to loan Homeland Resources Ltd., up to the sum of US $31,000.00 at an interest rate of 6.5% per annum for a period of two years (April 2015) for the purposes of providing Homeland Resources Ltd., with working capital in connection with its proposed exploration programs.  This is an unsecured demand loan and can also be repaid at anytime.







Accepted by:







/s/ Alexis Vergara







Alexis Vergara, President


Radium Ventures Corp












/s/ Armando Garcia







Armando Garcia, President


Homeland Resources Ltd.
#### Bernhard Vogel, Plaintiff, *v.*Simon Nachemson et al., Defendants. Minnie Sable, Appellant; Jennie Nachemson, Respondent.

*Vogel*v. *Nachemson,*137 App. Div. 200, affirmed.

(Submitted June 1, 1910;

decided June 17, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 15, 1910, which reversed an order of Special Term directing distribution of certain surplus moneys remaining in the hands of a receiver appointed in foreclosure proceedings.

*Herman Kahn*for appellant.

*Louis L. Kahn*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Chase, JJ. Absent: Cullen, Cl i. J.
From: jerre@socket.net [mailto:jerre@socket.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 11:36 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Jerre Miller 

612 N. Walnut St. 

Willow Springs, MO 65793
OREGON STEEL MILLS, INC.


                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.0

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                              OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                  (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA AMOUNTS)


                                                  Year ended December 31,
                                           -----------------------------------
                                             1996          1995         1994
                                           ---------   -----------   ---------

Weighted average number of common           22,735        19,418        19,375
  shares outstanding                        

Common stock equivalents arising
  from 598 shares of stock to be
  issued March 2003.                           598           598           598
                                           -------       -------       -------

                                            23,333        20,016        19,973
                                           =======       =======       =======

Net income (loss)                          $23,747       $12,434       $  (338)
                                           =======       =======       =======

Primary and fully diluted
  net income (loss) per common and
  common equivalent shares                   $1.02          $.62         $(.02)
                                             =====          ====         =====
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, May 1, 1995 (59), Para 59.18 Reported Bills Sequentially Referred]
[Page 609]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.59.18  reported bills sequentially referred

  Under clause 5 of rule X, bills and reports were delivered to the 
Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

       Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Interior and Insular 
     Affairs. H.R. 1141. A bill to amend the act popularly known 
     as the ``Sikes Act'' to enhance fish and wildlife 
     conservation and natural resources management programs, with 
     an amendment; referred to the Committee on National Security 
     for a period ending not later than June 1, 1995, (Rept. No. 
     104-107, Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.
       Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Interior and Insular 
     Affairs. H.R. 541. A bill to reauthorize the Atlantic Tunas 
     Convention Act of 1975, and for other purposes, with an 
     amendment; referred to the Committee on Ways and Means for a 
     period ending not later than June 30, 1995, (Rept. No. 104-
     109, Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, July 13, 1995 (94), Para 94.39 Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Pages 1133-1134]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.94.39  reports of committees on public bills and resolutions

  Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to 
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

       Ms. PRYCE: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 189. 
     Resolution providing for the

[[Page 1134]]

     further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1977) making 
     appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and 
     for other purposes (Rept. No. 104-186). Referred to the House 
     Calendar.
       Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 1122. A 
     bill to authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to sell 
     the Alaska Power Administration, and for other purposes; with 
     an amendment (Rept. No. 104-187 Pt. 1) Ordered to be printed.
```
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**





Certifications





I,
      Lei,
      Ming, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dark Dynamite Inc.





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





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects our
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows as of, and for, the
      periods presented in this annual report;





4.
      Our
      other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
      disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)
      and 15d-(e)) for us have:





a) Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
      and
      procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
      information relating to us, including its consolidates subsidiaries, is made
      known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
      in
      which this report is being prepared;





b) Evaluated
      the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, and presented
      in
      this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
      and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
      such
      evaluation; and





c) Disclosed
      in this report any change in our internal control over financial reporting
      that
      occurred during our most recent fiscal period that has materially affected,
      or
      is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
      reporting; and





5.
      Our
      other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
      evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our board of directors
      (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a)
      all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect our ability to record, process, summarize and report
      financial data and have identified for our auditors any material weaknesses
      in
      internal controls (all of which do not apply); and





b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in our internal controls, (all of which do not apply);
      and








Date:
      June 21, 2007








/s/
      Lei, Ming


Lei,
      Ming


Chief
      Executive Officer
-----Original Message----- 

From: im3365@aol.com [mailto:im3365@aol.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:55 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Natalie Erber 

4741 N. Kilpatrick 

Chicago, IL 60630
### SERVED: July 22, 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

In The Matter Of: HEALTHTEX DISTRIBUTORS, INC. Respondent 

### OFFICE OF HEARINGS '_;: .•·•, WASHINGTON, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2013-0285

Case No. 2012S0700278

ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING On July 1, 2013, an Order Setting Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and Directing Rule 26(f) Planning and Submission was filed. Among otherthings, this Order set the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference for Tuesday, August 6, 2013 at 11 :00 a.m. Eastern time and set Tuesday, July 30, 2013, as the deadline for filing a proposed discovery plan. On July 22,2013, the FAAfiled a Withdrawal ofComplaint statingthatthe parties had reached a settlement. Afterreviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions,·regulations, statutory authority, andbeing fully advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The July 30, 2013 deadline for filing a proposed discovery plan is cancelled. 2. The Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference set for August 6, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time is cancelled. 3. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215,the FAAhas withdrawn its Complaint, andthis proceeding is dismissed withprejudice.

Attachment: Service List

# ·•

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. 

### MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY 

### Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W10001 

### ONE COPY 

### AndreaMichelle Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

### Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration P. 

### 0. Box20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Natividad R. 

### Elias, President Healthtex Distributors, Inc., Respondent 

### 3555 N.W. 41st Street Miami, Florida 33142 TEL: 305-633-7900 FAX: 305-633-7666 Judge J.E. Sullivan US. AdministrativeLawJudge 

### Oft1ce ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0285 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### George Gilbert, *Appellant, v.*Village of Margaretville, Respondent.—

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Boardman, J.;

Bockes, J., dissenting.
#### § 1248.100 Commodity classification designated.

Commencing with reports for the year or quarter beginning January 1, 1964, as the case might be, and thereafter until further order, reports of commodity statistics required to be made to the Board, shall be based on the commodity codes, up to 5 digits, in groups 01 through 40, in the Commodity Classification for Transportation Statistics, 1963, issued by the Bureau of the Budget, and on additional codes 411 through 462 shown in § 1248.101.

[32 FR 20466, Dec. 20, 1967. Redesignated at 46 FR 9116, Jan. 28, 1981, and 46 FR 10745, Feb. 4, 1981]