alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 219.12 Hours-of-service laws implications. ( a ) A railroad is not excused from performing alcohol or drug testing under subpart C (post-accident toxicological testing) and subpart D (reasonable suspicion testing) of this part because the performance of such testing would violate the hours-of-service laws at 49 U.S.C. ch. 211. If a railroad establishes that a violation of the hours-of-service laws is caused solely because it was required to conduct post-accident toxicological testing or reasonable suspicion testing, FRA will not take enforcement action for the violation if the railroad used reasonable due diligence in completing the collection and otherwise completed it within the time limitations of § 219.203(d) (for post-accident toxicological testing) or § 219.305 (for reasonable suspicion testing), although the railroad must still report any excess service to FRA.
( b ) A railroad may perform alcohol or drug testing authorized under subpart E (reasonable cause testing) of this part even if the performance of such testing would violate the hours-of-service laws at 49 U.S.C. ch. 211. If a railroad establishes that a violation of the hours-of-service laws is caused solely by its decision to conduct authorized reasonable cause testing, FRA will not take enforcement action for the violation if the railroad used reasonable due diligence in completing the collection and otherwise completed it within the time limitations of § 219.407, although the railroad must still report any excess service to FRA.
( c ) A railroad must schedule random alcohol and drug tests under subpart G of this part so that sufficient time is provided to complete the test within a covered employee's hours-of-service limitations under 49 U.S.C. ch. 211. However, if a direct observation collection is required during a random test per the requirements of part 40 of this title, then the random test must be completed regardless of the hours-of-service law limitations, although the railroad must still report any excess service to FRA. A railroad may not place a regulated employee on-duty for the sole purpose of conducting a random alcohol or drug test under subpart G of this part.
( d ) A railroad must schedule follow-up tests under § 219.104 so that sufficient time is provided to complete a test within a covered employee's hours-of-service limitations under 49 U.S.C. ch. 211. If a railroad is having a difficult time scheduling the required number of follow-up tests because a covered employee's work schedule is unpredictable, there is no prohibition against the railroad placing an employee (who is subject to being called to perform regulated service) on duty for the purpose of conducting the follow-up tests; except that an employee may be placed on duty for a follow-up alcohol test only if he or she is required to completely abstain from alcohol by a return-to-duty agreement, as provided by § 40.303(b) of this title. A railroad must maintain documentation establishing the need to place the employee on duty for the purpose of conducting the follow-up test and provide this documentation for review upon request of an FRA representative.
[81 FR 37927, June 10, 2016]
#### Eliza Bailey, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Boston, Hoosac Tunnel and Western Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.;

Landon, J., not acting.
§ 236.1039 Operations and Maintenance Manual. ( a ) The railroad shall catalog and maintain all documents as specified in the PTCDP and PTCSP for the installation, maintenance, repair, modification, inspection, and testing of the PTC system and have them in one Operations and Maintenance Manual, readily available to persons required to perform such tasks and for inspection by FRA and FRA-certified state inspectors.
( b ) Plans required for proper maintenance, repair, inspection, and testing of safety-critical PTC systems must be adequate in detail and must be made available for inspection by FRA and FRA-certified state inspectors where such PTC systems are deployed or maintained. They must identify all software versions, revisions, and revision dates. Plans must be legible and correct.
( c ) Hardware, software, and firmware revisions must be documented in the Operations and Maintenance Manual according to the railroad's configuration management control plan and any additional configuration/revision control measures specified in the PTCDP and PTCSP.
( d ) Safety-critical components, including spare equipment, must be positively identified, handled, replaced, and repaired in accordance with the procedures specified in the PTCDP and PTCSP.
( e ) Each railroad shall designate in its Operations and Maintenance Manual an appropriate railroad officer responsible for issues relating to scheduled interruptions of service contemplated by § 236.1029.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,031
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (18)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (18)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (18)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.43)<F1> 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>EPS-PRIMARY REPRESENTS NET EARNINGS PER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.2


COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


OF


THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, AS SERVICER


The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly elected and acting Vice President and Treasurer of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, as servicer (the “ Servicer ”) under the Phase-In-Recovery Property Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 20, 2013 (the “ Servicing Agreement ”), between the Servicer and CEI Funding LLC, as Bond Issuer, and further certifies on behalf of the Servicer that:


|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement during the period that commenced January 1, 2015 and ended December 31, 2015 has been made under the supervision of the undersigned pursuant to Section 3.03 of the Servicing Agreement; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | To the undersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Servicing Agreement throughout the period that commenced January 1, 2015 and ended December 31, 2015.

Executed as of this 29 th day of March 2016.





THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANYBy:/s/ Steven R. StaubName:Steven R. StaubTitle:Vice President and Treasurer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 23
- 00387
- CV

In re David Goad

OR I GINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the ju s tice

court ’ s order d enying his motion for change of v enue
. We lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of
mandamus against a justice of the peace or justice court unless it is necessary to p reserve

our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov ’ t Code § 22.221 (writ power of court of appea ls ); Twenty
First Century Holdings, Inc. v. Precision Geothermal Drilling, L.L.C. , No. 03

- 13

- 00081

- CV,
2015 WL 1882267, at *6 (Tex. App.

— Austin Apr. 23, 2015, no pet.) (citing Mullins v. Holt,
No. 10

– 13

– 00114

– CV, 201 3 WL 2257151 (Tex. App.

– Waco May 9, 2013 , no pet.) (mem. op.) ( court of a ppeals has no jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus against judge of justice

court unless necessary to preserve jurisdiction); Rodriguez v. Womack, No. 14

– 10

– 01213

– CV, 2012 WL 19659 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 5, 2 012, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting

court of appeals ’ lack of jurisdiction to issue mandamus agains t justice court). Relator does not argue or show that a writ of mandamus is necess ary to preserve our jurisdiction. Therefore, we
lack jurisdiction to is sue a writ of mandamus against the justice of the peac e or justice court. See In re Smith, 355 S.W.3 d 901, 901

– 02 (Tex. App.

– Amarillo 2011, orig. proceeding) (per cu riam )2

(where appel lants did not argue or show writ was necessary to preserve jurisdiction , appellate

court lacked jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus against justice of peace ).

Having revi ewed the p etition and the record provided, we dism iss the petitio n for want of juri sdiction

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8 (a)

.

____________ ___________________ ___________ Chari L. Kelly , Justice
Before Chief Just ice Byrne, Justices Kelly, and Theofanis
Fil ed : July 1 8 , 2023
Exhibit
32.2





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
SCI Engineered Materials, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald S. Blaskie, Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Gerald S. BlaskieGerald
      S. BlaskieVice
      President and Chief Financial Officer ofSCI
      Engineered Materials, Inc.February
      26, 2009
§ 211.33 Direct final rulemaking procedures. ( a ) Rules that the Administrator judges to be noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse public comment may be published in the final rule section of the Federal Register as direct final rules. These include noncontroversial rules that: ( 1 ) Affect internal procedures of the Federal Railroad Administration, such as filing requirements and rules governing inspection and copying of documents,
( 2 ) Are nonsubstantive clarifications or corrections to existing rules,
( 3 ) Update existing forms, and
( 4 ) Make minor changes in the substantive rules regarding statistics and reporting requirements.
( b ) The Federal Register document will state that any adverse comment must be received in writing by the Federal Railroad Administration within the specified time after the date of publication and that, if no written adverse comment or request for oral hearing (if such opportunity is required by statute) is received, the rule will become effective a specified number of days after the date of publication.
( c ) If no adverse comment or request for oral hearing is received by the Federal Railroad Administration within the specified time of publication in the Federal Register, the Federal Railroad Administration will publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse comment was received and confirming that the rule will become effective on the date that was indicated in the direct final rule.
( d ) If the Federal Railroad Administration receives any written adverse comment or request for oral hearing within the specified time of publication in the Federal Register, a notice withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the final rule section of the Federal Register and, if the Federal Railroad Administration decides a rulemaking is warranted, a notice of proposed rulemaking will be published in the proposed rule section of the Federal Register.
( e ) An “adverse” comment for the purpose of this subpart means any comment that the Federal Railroad Administration determines is critical of the rule, suggests that the rule should not be adopted, or suggests a change that should be made in the rule.
[72 FR 10087, Mar. 7, 2007, as amended at 84 FR 71733, Dec. 27, 2019]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, August 3, 1995 (108), Para 108.16 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1251]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.108.16  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. SKAGGS:

       Page 76, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 
     88, line 7.

It was decided in the

Yeas

187

negative

Nays

232
```
-----Original Message----- 

From: DEBRA TANNER BRINSON [mailto:peoplescaring@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:02 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: federal partners? 

Hi from People's Outreach 

We are faith based 510c3 interested in contracting with federal only no 

county or state
###### Editorial Note on Part 193

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 193 appear at 71 FR 33408, June 9, 2006.

#### § 193.2011 Reporting.

Incidents, safety-related conditions, and annual pipeline summary data for LNG plants or facilities must be reported in accordance with the requirements of Part 191 of this subchapter.

[75 FR 72906, Nov. 26, 2010]
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ARTURO GALLEGOS-DIAZ, 

a.k.a. Alaquin and Nahum Copado-Nieto,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30074

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00144-JLR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Arturo Gallegos-Diaz appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 216-

month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of

FILED

APR 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-30074

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gallegos-Diaz’s

counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion

to withdraw as counsel of record. We have considered the claims raised by

Gallegos-Diaz’s pro se letter submitted on June 19, 2009. No answering brief has

been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, Gallegos-Diaz’s

request for appointment of new counsel is denied, and the district court’s judgment

is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                  ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Manfred F. Dyck, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Hydromer, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Hydromer, Inc.


Date: November 11, 2004                    By: /s/ Manfred F. Dyck
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Manfred F. Dyck
                                               Chairman, President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer


                                       11
§ 260.15 Credit risk premium. ( a ) Where available Federal appropriations are inadequate to cover the subsidy cost, a non-Federal infrastructure partner may pay to the Administrator a Credit Risk Premium adequate to cover that portion of the subsidy cost not covered by Federal appropriations. Where there is no Federal appropriation, the Credit Risk Premium must cover the entire subsidy cost.
( b ) The amount of the Credit Risk Premium required for each direct loan or loan guarantee, if any, shall be established by the Administrator. The Credit Risk Premium shall be determined based on the credit risk and anticipated recovery in the event of default, including the recovery of collateral.
( c ) The Credit Risk Premium must be paid before the disbursement of a direct or guaranteed loan. Where the borrower draws down the direct or guaranteed loan in several increments, the borrower may pay a portion of the total Credit Risk Premium for each increment equal to the proportion of that increment to the total amount of the direct or guaranteed loan.
( d ) Each direct loan and loan guarantee made by the Administrator will be included in one cohort of direct loans or one cohort of loan guarantees, respectively, made during that same fiscal year, or longer period, as may be determined by the Administrator. When all obligations in a cohort have been satisfied or liquidated, the amount of Credit Risk Premiums, paid by applicants or infrastructure partners, remaining in the cohort, after deductions made to mitigate losses from any loan or loan guarantee in the cohort, together with interest accrued thereon, will be repaid on a pro rata basis to each original payor of a Credit Risk Premium for any obligation which was fully satisfied. If the Administrator's estimate of the default risk cost of each loan is accurate, the aggregate of Credit Risk Premiums associated with each cohort of loans will fully offset all losses in the cohort and none will remain to be returned to the payees.
§ 238.11 Penalties. ( a ) Any person, as defined in § 238.5, who violates any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of at least $1,086 and not more than $35,516 per violation, except that: Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful violations, and, where a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death or injury to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to exceed $142,063 per violation may be assessed. Each day a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. See FRA's website at *www.fra.dot.gov* for a statement of agency civil penalty policy.
( b ) Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies a record or report required by this part may be subject to criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 21311.
[64 FR 25660, May 12, 1999, as amended at 69 FR 30595, May 28, 2004; 72 FR 51198, Sept. 6, 2007; 73 FR 79704, Dec. 30, 2008; 77 FR 24422, Apr. 24, 2012; 81 FR 43112, July 1, 2016; 82 FR 16135, Apr. 3, 2017; 83 FR 60749, Nov. 27, 2018; 84 FR 23736, May 23, 2019; 84 FR 37075, July 31, 2019; 86 FR 1759, Jan. 11, 2021; 86 FR 23255, May 3, 2021; 87 FR 15869, Mar. 21, 2022; 88 FR 1128, Jan. 6, 2023; 88 FR 89564, Dec. 28, 2023]
§ 176.118 Electrical requirement. ( a ) Electrical equipment and cables installed in compartments in which Class 1 (explosive) materials are stowed which do not need to be energized during the voyage must be isolated from the supply so that no part of the circuit within the compartment is energized. The method of isolation may be by withdrawal of fuses, opening of switches or circuit breakers, or disconnection from bus bars. The means, or access to the means, of disconnection/reconnection must be secured by a locked padlock under the control of a responsible person.
( b ) Electrical equipment and cables in a cargo space in which Class 1 (explosive) materials are stowed which are energized during the voyage for the safe operation of the ship must meet the requirements of subchapter J of 46 CFR chapter I. Before Class 1 (explosive) materials are loaded aboard a vessel, all cables must be tested by a skilled person to ensure that they are safe and to determine satisfactory grounding, insulation resistance, and continuity of the cable cores, metal sheathing or armoring.
( c ) All Class 1 (explosive) materials must be stowed in a safe position relative to electrical equipment and cables. Additional physical protection must be provided where necessary to minimize possible damage to the electrical equipment or cables, especially during loading and unloading.
( d ) Cable joints in the compartments must be enclosed in metal-clad junction boxes.
( e ) All lighting equipment and cables must be of the fixed type, and must meet the relevant inspection, test, and installation standards of 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter J.
[Amdt. 176-30, 55 FR 52696, Dec. 21, 1990, as amended by Amdt. 176-34, 58 FR 51533, Oct. 1, 1993]