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.

§ 192.740 Pressure regulating, limiting, and overpressure protection—Individual service lines directly connected to regulated gathering or transmission pipelines. ( a ) This section applies, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, to any service line directly connected to a transmission pipeline or regulated gathering pipeline as determined in § 192.8 that is not operated as part of a distribution system.
( b ) Each pressure regulating or limiting device, relief device (except rupture discs), automatic shutoff device, and associated equipment must be inspected and tested at least once every 3 calendar years, not exceeding 39 months, to determine that it is: ( 1 ) In good mechanical condition;
( 2 ) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is employed;
( 3 ) Set to control or relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.197; and to limit the pressure on the inlet of the service regulator to 60 psi (414 kPa) gauge or less in case the upstream regulator fails to function properly; and
( 4 ) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other conditions that might prevent proper operation.
( c ) This section does not apply to equipment installed on: ( 1 ) A service line that only serves engines that power irrigation pumps;
( 2 ) A service line included in a distribution integrity management plan meeting the requirements of subpart P of this part; or
( 3 ) A service line directly connected to either a production or gathering pipeline other than a regulated gathering line as determined in § 192.8 of this part.
[Amdt. 192-123, 82 FR 7998, Jan. 23, 2017, as amended at 86 FR 2241, Jan. 11, 2021]
|EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Annual Report of Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Robert H. Young, Chief Executive Officer 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, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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




/s/ Robert H. Young     
Robert H. Young
Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Central Vermont Public Service Corporation ("CVPS") and will be retained by CVPS and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

August 25, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 08-4029

LUIS ARMANDO PAEZ RESTREPO,et al., 

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the 

United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an 

Order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals.

Order

The opinion of this court issued on June 28, 2010, is amended by deleting the

quotation marks around the phrase “displaying attributes visible to passers-by” on the 

last two lines of page 4 of the slip opinion. The sentence now reads:

The Board doubted that farmers are a “visible” group, using “visible” in the 

sense of displaying attributes apparent to passers-by.
-----Original Message----- 

From: da.maley@gmail.com [mailto:da.maley@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:59 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 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, 

Doris Maley 

744 S. Spelman Lane 

Meridian, ID 83642
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20105

Conference Calendar

 

TED LAWRENCE ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND;

THE SUGAR LAND POLICE DEPARTMENT;

THERON RUNNELS, Officer, 

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CV-188

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ted Lawrence Robertson appeals the dismissal of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred by the relevant statute of

limitations. Robertson’s original complaint, which he filed on

January 19, 1995, alleged that on February 8, 1992, the

defendants unlawfully arrested him, falsely imprisoned him, and

illegally searched his home, car, truck, and person, thereby
No. 96-20105

- 2 -

violating his civil rights. The limitations period for filing 

suit on Robertson’s claims began to run on February 8, 1992, and

ended on February 9, 1994. See Rodriguez v. Holmes, 963 F.2d

799, 803 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court did not err by

dismissing Robertson’s § 1983 action as barred by the statute of

limitations. 

Robertson’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
§ 220.307 Use of railroad-supplied electronic devices. ( a ) *General restriction.* A railroad operating employee may use a railroad-supplied electronic device only for an authorized business purpose as specified by the railroad in writing. An authorized business purpose involving the taking of a photograph or video must be approved by FRA. A railroad subject to this subpart must submit to FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer a document specifying in writing the authorized business purpose(s) involving the taking of a photograph or video for which a railroad-supplied electronic device may be used by the carrier's railroad operating employees.
( b ) *Use by locomotive engineers operating controls.* A locomotive engineer operating the controls of a train shall not use a railroad-supplied electronic device— ( 1 ) When on a moving train;
( 2 ) When any member of the crew is— ( i ) On the ground, or
( ii ) Riding rolling equipment during a switching operation; or
( 3 ) When any railroad employee is assisting in preparation of the train for movement.
( c ) *Use in freight and passenger locomotive cabs generally.* In addition to the restrictions on locomotive engineers described in paragraph (b) of this section, a railroad operating employee who is not in deadhead status shall not use a railroad-supplied electronic device in the cab of a controlling locomotive unless— ( 1 ) A safety briefing that includes all crewmembers is held; and
( 2 ) All crewmembers agree that it is safe to use the device.
( d ) *Use outside freight locomotive cabs.* A freight train crewmember who is not in deadhead status may use a railroad-supplied electronic device outside the cab of a controlling freight locomotive only if all of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The crewmember is not fouling a track; and
( 2 ) All crewmembers agree it is safe to use the device.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2111 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2111

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 18, 1995

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the Federal building located at 1221 Nevin Avenue in 
     Richmond, California, as the ``Frank Hagel 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 1221 Nevin Avenue in Richmond, 
California, shall be known and designated as the ``Frank Hagel 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 ``Frank Hagel 
Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 18 
      (legislative day, December 15, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Cochran, *Adm'r, v.*Langmaid.

When the adverse party *is*an executor or administrator, the surviving party will not ordinarily be allowed to testify to matters to which the deceased could testify if alive.

Assumpsit, to recover certain notes. Plea, the general issue* with a set-off. Pacts found by a referee. The defendant offered his own testimony. The plaintiff, who is an administrator, did not *572elect to testify, and, it not appearing that injustice would be done without the testimony of the defendant, he was not allowed to testify, and the defendant excepted. All the matters to which he proposed to testify related to transactions occurring in the lifetime of the deceased, and it did not appear that the deceased could not testify to the same matters, if alive.

*John Y. Mugridge,*for the defendant.

*Sanborn Sf Clark, Saselton,*and *Copeland,*for the plaintiff.

Clark, J.

A party may be allowed to testify, although his ■adversary is an executor or administrator, when it clearly appears to the court that injustice may be done without his testimony. Gr. L., *e.*228, *s.*17. But the injustice must appear from other evidence than the testimony of the party himself. *Harvey*v. *Hilliard,*47 N. H. 551; *Fosgate*v. *Thompson,*54 N. H. 455. In determining whether a party should be admitted to testify when the adverse party is an executor or administrator, in ordinary cases the safe guide and decisive test are found in the inquiry whether the deceased, if alive, could testify to the same matters. *Chandler*v. *Davis,*47 N. H. 462; *Hoit*v. *Russell,*56 N. H. 559. And it is said to be a proper exercise of discretion to allow the living party to .testify to relevant facts of which the deceased could have had no knowledge, — as, to matters arising after the death of the deceased, or to facts not known to the deceased but known to a third person who might be a witness. *Brown*v. *Brown,*48 N. H. 90; *Chandler*v. *Davis, supra.*An application of these tests to the present case does not show that there was error in the ruling of the referee excluding the testimony of the defendant.

*Fxceptions overruled.*

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas Liguori, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Multi-Fineline Electronix, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.



|                         |  |     |  |                                                     
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 28, 2011 |  | By: |  | /S/    THOMAS
LIGUORI                               
|                         |  |     |  | Thomas Liguori                                      
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**
**FAA -** **2008 -**  **0288** Docket Number

**2006 -**  **SW -** **25 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket - NPRM Bell Ale rt Service Bulletin No. 214 - 08 - 70, Revision C, dated April 14, 2009; Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. 214ST - 08 - 86, Revision B, dated April 14, 2009; and Bell Information Letter 214ST - 12 - 23, dated January 30, 2012 .


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Ad ministration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the annual report of Arizona Land Income Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas R. Hislop, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Thomas R. HislopThomas R. HislopChief Executive OfficerChief Financial OfficerArizona Land Income CorporationMarch , 2004




29
§ 213.361 Right of way. The track owner in Class 8 and 9 shall submit a barrier plan, termed a “right-of-way plan,” to the Federal Railroad Administration for approval. At a minimum, the plan will contain provisions in areas of demonstrated need for the prevention of— ( a ) Vandalism;
( b ) Launching of objects from overhead bridges or structures into the path of trains; and
( c ) Intrusion of vehicles from adjacent rights of way.
-----Original Message----- 

From: kovalh@verizon.net [mailto:kovalh@verizon.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:04 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, 

linda koval 

1303 Gilbert Dr. 

Charleston, WV 25302
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAXIMO BERREONDO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JONATHAN AKANNO, Prison Doctor,

Kern Valley State Prison,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-15583

D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00432-LJO-DLB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2015** 

Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Maximo Berreondo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

NOV 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Berreondo

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Akanno

was deliberately indifferent to his pressure sores. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she

“knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health”); Toguchi, 391 F.3d

at 1057-60 (neither a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor

negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate

indifference); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (a plaintiff

“must show that the course of treatment the doctor[] chose was medically

unacceptable under the circumstances”). 

We reject Berreondo’s unsupported contention that the district court did not 

consider the evidence Berreondo submitted in his objections to the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Berreondo’s request to be put on permanent “PLU” status, filed on

2 14-15583
September 17, 2014, is denied. 

AFFIRMED.

3 14-15583
H. R. 2070

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To provide for the distribution within the United States of the United States

Information Agency film entitled ‘‘Fragile Ring of Life’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OF UNITED

STATES INFORMATION AGENCY FILM ENTITLED ‘‘FRAGILE RING OF LIFE’’.

Notwithstanding section 208 of the Foreign Relations

Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (22 U.S.C. 1461–

1(a)) and the second sentence of section 501 of the United States

Information and Education Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461)—

(1) the Director of the United States Information Agency

shall make available to the Archivist of the United States

a master copy of the film entitled ‘‘Fragile Ring of Life’’; and

(2) upon evidence that necessary United States rights and

licenses have been secured and paid for by the person seeking

domestic release of the film, the Archivist shall—

(A) reimburse the Director for any expenses of the

Agency in making that master copy available;

(B) deposit that film in the National Archives of the

United States; and

(C) make copies of that film available for purchase

and public viewing within the United States.
H. R. 2070—2

Any reimbursement to the Director pursuant to this section shall

be credited to the applicable appropriation of the United States

Information Agency.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 179.400-15 Radioscopy.

Each longitudinal and circumferential joint of the inner tank, and each longitudinal and circumferential double welded butt joint of the outer jacket, must be examined along its entire length in accordance with the requirements of AAR Specifications for Tank Cars, appendix W (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter).

[68 FR 75763, Dec. 31, 2003]
From: smaresca@hotmail.com [mailto:smaresca@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:48 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, 

Suzanne Maresca 

29 Northwood Rd 

Lk Hopatcong, NJ 07849
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, September 12, 1995 (113), Para 113.35 Subsequent Action on a Reported Bill Sequentially Referred]
[Page 1329]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.113.35  subsequent action on a reported bill sequentially referred

  Under clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the 
Speaker:

       H.R. 1670. The Committee on Small Business discharged.
```
-----Original Message----- 

From: lmacki@hotmail.com [mailto:lmacki@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:42 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 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, 

Lisa Macki 

1415 Legion Way 

Olympia, WA 98501