alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                      TRUSTEE AND OFFICER POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                    FORM 10-K
                           CLEVETRUST REALTY INVESTORS

    KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That each person whose name is signed below
has made, constituted and appointed, and by this instrument does make,
constitute and appoint John C. Kikol and Michael R. Thoms and each of them his
true and lawful attorney, with full power of substitution and resubstitution to
affix for him and in his name, place and stead, as attorney-in-fact, his
signature as a trustee or officer, or both, of CleveTrust Realty Investors, a
Massachusetts business trust (the "Company"), to the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 1998, pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and to any and all amendments and exhibits to that Form
10-K, and to any and all applications and other documents pertaining thereto,
giving and granting to each such attorney-in-fact full power and authority to do
and perform every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in the premises,
as fully as they might or could do if personally present, and hereby ratifying
and confirming all that each of such attorneys-in-fact or any such substitute
shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been signed at Westlake, Ohio
as of the date indicated.


/s/   Howard Amster                                   November 11, 1998
-----------------------------------------        -------------------------------
         Howard Amster, Trustee                       Date

/s/   Robert H. Kanner                                December 14, 1998
-----------------------------------------        -------------------------------
         Robert H. Kanner, Trustee                    Date

/s/   John C. Kikol                                   November 11, 1998
-----------------------------------------        -------------------------------
         John C. Kikol, Trustee                       Date

/s/   Leighton A. Rosenthal                           November 11, 1998
-----------------------------------------        -------------------------------
         Leighton A. Rosenthal, Trustee               Date

/s/   John D. Weil                                    November 11, 1998
-----------------------------------------        -------------------------------
         John D. Weil, Trustee                        Date
#### § 194.105 Worst case discharge.

(a) Each operator shall determine the worst case discharge for each of its response zones and provide the methodology, including calculations, used to arrive at the volume.

(b) The worst case discharge is the largest volume, in barrels (cubic meters), of the following:

(1) The pipeline's maximum release time in hours, plus the maximum shutdown response time in hours (based on historic discharge data or in the absence of such historic data, the operator's best estimate), multiplied by the maximum flow rate expressed in barrels per hour (based on the maximum daily capacity of the pipeline), plus the largest line drainage volume after shutdown of the line section(s) in the response zone expressed in barrels (cubic meters); or

(2) The largest foreseeable discharge for the line section(s) within a response zone, expressed in barrels (cubic meters), based on the maximum historic discharge, if one exists, adjusted for any subsequent corrective or preventive action taken; or

(3) If the response zone contains one or more breakout tanks, the capacity of the single largest tank or battery of tanks within a single secondary containment system, adjusted for the capacity or size of the secondary containment system, expressed in barrels (cubic meters).

(4) Operators may claim prevention credits for breakout tank secondary containment and other specific spill prevention measures as follows:

| Prevention measure | Standard | Credit (percent) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Secondary containment >100% | NFPA 30 | 50 |
| Built/repaired to API standards | API STD 620/650/653 | 10 |
| Overfill protection standards | API RP 2350 | 5 |
| Testing/cathodic protection | API STD 650/651/653 | 5 |
| Tertiary containment/drainage/treatment | NFPA 30 | 5 |
| Maximum allowable credit | | 75 |

[[58 FR 253](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/58-FR-253), Jan. 5, 1993, as amended by Amdt. 194-3, [63 FR 37505](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/63-FR-37505), July 13, 1998; Amdt. 194-4, [70 FR 8747](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/70-FR-8747), Feb. 23, 2005; Amdt. 194-5, [70 FR 35042](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/70-FR-35042), June 16, 2005]
#### Alonzo Welch, *Respondent, v.*The President, etc., of the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, *Appellant.*

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.909 How can an operator change its integrity management program? ( a ) *General.* An operator must document any change to its program and the reasons for the change before implementing the change.
( b ) *Notification.* An operator must notify OPS, in accordance with § 192.18, of any change to the program that may substantially affect the program's implementation or may significantly modify the program or schedule for carrying out the program elements. An operator must provide notification within 30 days after adopting this type of change into its program.
[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18231, Apr. 6, 2004; Amdt. 192-125, 84 FR 52253, Oct. 1, 2019]
#### § 236.312 Movable bridge, interlocking of signal appliances with bridge devices.

When movable bridge is protected by interlocking the signal appliances shall be so interlocked with bridge devices that before a signal governing movements over the bridge can display an aspect to proceed the bridge must be locked and the track alined, with the bridge locking members within one inch of their proper positions and with the track rail on the movable span within three-eighths inch of correct surface and alinement with rail seating device on bridge abutment or fixed span. Emergency bypass switches and devices shall be locked or sealed.

[33 FR 19684, Dec. 25, 1968, as amended at 49 FR 3385, Jan. 26, 1984]
§ 23.9 What are the nondiscrimination and assurance requirements of this part for recipients? ( a ) As a recipient, you must meet the non-discrimination requirements provided in part 26, § 26.7 with respect to the award and performance of any concession agreement, management contract or subcontract, purchase or lease agreement, or other agreement covered by this subpart.
( b ) You must also take all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of contracts and agreements covered by this part.
( c ) You must include the following assurances in all concession agreements and management contracts you execute with any firm after April 21, 2005: ( 1 ) “This agreement is subject to the requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation's regulations, 49 CFR part 23. The concessionaire or contractor agrees that it will not discriminate against any business owner because of the owner's race, color, national origin, or sex in connection with the award or performance of any concession agreement, management contract, or subcontract, purchase or lease agreement, or other agreement covered by 49 CFR part 23.
( 2 ) “The concessionaire or contractor agrees to include the above statements in any subsequent concession agreement or contract covered by 49 CFR part 23, that it enters and cause those businesses to similarly include the statements in further agreements.”
§ 23.31 What certification standards and procedures do recipients use to certify ACDBEs? ( a ) As a recipient, you must use, except as provided in this subpart, the procedures and standards of part 26, §§ 26.61-91 for certification of ACDBEs to participate in your concessions program. Your ACDBE program must incorporate the use of these standards and procedures and must provide that certification decisions for ACDBEs will be made by the Unified Certification Program (UCP) in your state (*see* part 26, § 26.81).
( b ) The UCP's directory of eligible DBEs must specify whether a firm is certified as a DBE for purposes of part 26, an ACDBE for purposes of part 23, or both.
[70 FR 14508, Mar. 22, 2005, as amended at 89 FR 24960, Apr. 9, 2024]
§ 230.110 Pilots. ( a ) *General provisions.* Pilots shall be securely attached, properly braced, and maintained in a safe and suitable condition for service.
( b ) *Minimum and maximum clearance.* The minimum clearance of pilot above the rail shall be 3 inches and the maximum clearance shall be 6 inches measured on tangent level track.
-----Original Message----- 

From: jvleearchitects@gmail.com [mailto:jvleearchitects@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:09 PM 

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, 

Johnnie Lee 

1401 Northgate Road 

Baltimore, MD 21218
§ 191.29 National Pipeline Mapping System. ( a ) Each operator of a gas transmission pipeline or liquefied natural gas facility must provide the following geospatial data to PHMSA for that pipeline or facility: ( 1 ) Geospatial data, attributes, metadata and transmittal letter appropriate for use in the National Pipeline Mapping System. Acceptable formats and additional information are specified in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual available at *www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov* or by contacting the PHMSA Geographic Information Systems Manager at (202) 366-4595.
( 2 ) The name of and address for the operator.
( 3 ) The name and contact information of a pipeline company employee, to be displayed on a public Web site, who will serve as a contact for questions from the general public about the operator's NPMS data.
( b ) The information required in paragraph (a) of this section must be submitted each year, on or before March 15, representing assets as of December 31 of the previous year. If no changes have occurred since the previous year's submission, the operator must comply with the guidance provided in the NPMS Operator Standards manual available at *www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov* or contact the PHMSA Geographic Information Systems Manager at (202) 366-4595.
( c ) This section does not apply to gathering pipelines.
[Amdt. 191-23, 80 FR 12777, Mar. 11, 2015, as amended by Amdt. 191-30, 86 FR 63295, Nov. 15, 2021]
From: svanmft@gmail.com [mailto:svanmft@gmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:40 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, 

Susan Vanderburgh 

72 Glen Eden Ave 

Oakland, CA 94611
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1987

ABIY AEMIRO,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A79-509-117)

Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 13, 2005

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oti W. Nwosu, Arthur D. Wright, III, THE WRIGHT LAW NETWORK,

Riverdale, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant

Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Jeffrey J.

Bernstein, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Abiy Aemiro, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

denying his motion to reopen its previous order dismissing his

appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of

discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.

314, 323-24 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.

1999). The denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with

extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate

reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to

reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).

A motion to reopen “shall state the new facts that will

be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and

shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2004). “A motion to reopen proceedings

shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence

sought to be offered is material and was not available and could

not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Id.

We have reviewed the administrative record, the immigration judge’s

decision, and the Board’s orders and find no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 
- 3 -

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
§ 238.407 Anti-climbing mechanism. ( a ) Each power car shall have an anti-climbing mechanism at its forward end capable of resisting an ultimate upward or downward static vertical force of 200,000 pounds. A power car constructed with a crash energy management design is permitted to crush in a controlled manner before the anti-climbing mechanism fully engages.
( b ) Interior train coupling points between units, including between units of articulated cars or other permanently joined units of cars, shall have an anti-climbing mechanism capable of resisting an upward or downward vertical force of 100,000 pounds without yielding.
( c ) The forward coupler of a power car shall be attached to the car body to resist a vertical downward force of 100,000 pounds for any horizontal position of the coupler without yielding.
Editorial Note on Part 195
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 195 appear at 71 FR 33409, June 9, 2006.

§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure. ( a ) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal operations, no operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds any of the following: ( 1 ) The internal design pressure of the pipe determined in accordance with § 195.106. However, for steel pipe in pipelines being converted under § 195.5, if one or more factors of the design formula (§ 195.106) are unknown, one of the following pressures is to be used as design pressure: ( i ) Eighty percent of the first test pressure that produces yield under section N5.0 of appendix N of ASME B31.8 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 195.3), reduced by the appropriate factors in §§ 195.106 (a) and (e); or
( ii ) If the pipe is 123 ⁄ 4 inch (324 mm) or less outside diameter and is not tested to yield under this paragraph, 200 p.s.i. (1379 kPa) gage.
( 2 ) The design pressure of any other component of the pipeline.
( 3 ) Eighty percent of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline which has been pressure tested under subpart E of this part.
( 4 ) Eighty percent of the factory test pressure or of the prototype test pressure for any individually installed component which is excepted from testing under § 195.305.
( 5 ) For pipelines under §§ 195.302(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) that have not been pressure tested under subpart E of this part, 80 percent of the test pressure or highest operating pressure to which the pipeline was subjected for 4 or more continuous hours that can be demonstrated by recording charts or logs made at the time the test or operations were conducted.
( b ) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or other variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the operating pressure limit established under paragraph (a) of this section. Each operator must provide adequate controls and protective equipment to control the pressure within this limit.
[Amdt. 195-22, 46 FR 38360, July 27, 1981, as amended by Amdt. 195-33, 50 FR 15899, Apr. 23, 1985; 50 FR 38660, Sept. 24, 1985; Amdt. 195-51, 59 FR 29385, June 7, 1994; Amdt. 195-52, 59 FR 33397, June 28, 1994; Amdt. 195-63, 63 FR 37506, July 13, 1998; Amdt. 195-65, 63 FR 59480, Nov. 4, 1998; Amdt. 195-99, 80 FR 184, Jan. 5, 2015; Amdts. 192-135, 195-107, 89 FR 33284, Apr. 29, 2024]
#### Antonio Carrasco v. The State.

*No. 762.*

*Decided June 8.*

1. Hew Trial—Hewly Discovered Evidence—Affidavit for—Requisites of.— A motion for new trial bn the ground of newly discovered evidence must he sworn to by defendant; and this must'not only he done, but defendant’s affidavit must negative the fact that he was cognizant of the alleged newly discovered evidence at the time of the trial.

2. Conflicting Evidence—Practice on Appeal.—Where evidence is directly conflicting, the court on appeal will not disturb the judgment.

Appeal from the District Court of Presidio. Tried below before Hon. C. ÍT. Buckler.

*566This appeal is from a conviction for horse theft, the punishment being assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

¡No statement necessary.

¡No briefs have come to the hands of the Reporter.

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The conviction herein was for horse theft. The ground of the motion for a new trial- setting up newly discovered evidence is not sworn to by appellant, as required by law. , Said motion is signed by his counsel, but is not sworn to by appellant or his counsel. Tuttle v. The State, 6 Texas Crim. App., 556; Campbell v. The State, 29 Texas, 490; Williams v. The State, 7 Texas Crim. .App., 163. This must not only be done, but such affidavit must negative the fact that appellant was cognizant of the alleged newly discovered evidence at the time of the trial. If he was aware from any source of this evidence at the time of the trial, he should have produced it, or sought postponement to obtain it. It would be no ■ excuse for diligence that the witnesses who are to detail the newly discovered evidence had not themselves informed appellant of their evidence. If he obtained such information from any source, whether the witnesses or others, it would be sufficient to require him to use all necessary diligence to obtain it at the trial. Hence it is requisite, in alleging newly discovered testimony, that the defendant should negative his knowledge of such evidence when this is made a ground for new trial.

The remaining questions relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. There was a direct conflict in the testimony. If appellant purchased the horse of the owner, he was not guilty; if he did not, he was guilty of the theft under the facts of this case. The jury decided this issue against appellant, and the other facts and circumstances proved on the trial fully sustain the theory of theft.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges all present and concurring.
§ 222.23 How does this regulation affect sounding of a horn during an emergency or other situations? ( a ) ( 1 ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, a locomotive engineer may sound the locomotive horn to provide a warning to animals, vehicle operators, pedestrians, trespassers or crews on other trains in an emergency situation if, in the locomotive engineer's sole judgment, such action is appropriate in order to prevent imminent injury, death, or property damage.
( 2 ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, including provisions addressing the establishment of a quiet zone, limits on the length of time in which a horn may be sounded, or installation of wayside horns within quiet zones, this part does not preclude the sounding of locomotive horns in emergency situations, nor does it impose a legal duty to sound the locomotive horn in such situations.
( b ) Nothing in this part restricts the use of the locomotive horn in the following situations: ( 1 ) When a wayside horn is malfunctioning;
( 2 ) When active grade crossing warning devices have malfunctioned and use of the horn is required by one of the following sections of this chapter: §§ 234.105, 234.106, or 234.107;
( 3 ) When grade crossing warning systems are temporarily out of service during inspection, maintenance, or testing of the system; or
( 4 ) When SSMs, modified SSMs or engineering SSMs no longer comply with the requirements set forth in appendix A of this part or the conditions contained within the Associate Administrator's decision to approve the quiet zone in accordance with section 222.39(b) of this part.
( c ) Nothing in this part restricts the use of the locomotive horn for purposes other than highway-rail crossing safety (e.g., to announce the approach of a train to roadway workers in accordance with a program adopted under part 214 of this chapter, or where required for other purposes under railroad operating rules).
#### § 232.716 Running tests.

When motive power, engine crew or train crew has been changed, angle cocks have been closed except for cutting off one or more cars from the rear end of train or electro-pneumatic brake circuit cables between power units and/or cars have been disconnected, running test of train air brakes on passenger train must be made, as soon as speed of train permits, by use of automatic brake if operating in automatic brake operation or by use of electro-pneumatic brake if operating in electro-pneumatic brake operation. Steam or power must not be shut off unless required and running test must be made by applying train air brakes with sufficient force to ascertain whether or not brakes are operating properly. If air brakes do not properly operate, train must be stopped, cause of failure ascertained and corrected and running test repeated.
From: postlwkr@netwtc.net [mailto:postlwkr@netwtc.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:31 PM 

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, 

R.Ernest LEDTJE 

218 Herman St 

Wilton, IA 52778