alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 383.95 Restrictions. ( a ) *Air brake.* ( 1 ) If an applicant either fails the air brake component of the knowledge test, or performs the skills test in a vehicle not equipped with air brakes, the State must indicate on the CLP or CDL, if issued, that the person is restricted from operating a CMV equipped with any type of air brakes.
( 2 ) For the purposes of the skills test and the restriction, air brakes include any braking system operating fully or partially on the air brake principle.
( b ) *Full air brake.* ( 1 ) If an applicant performs the skills test in a vehicle equipped with air over hydraulic brakes, the State must indicate on the CDL, if issued, that the person is restricted from operating a CMV equipped with any braking system operating fully on the air brake principle.
( 2 ) For the purposes of the skills test and the restriction, air over hydraulic brakes includes any braking system operating partially on the air brake and partially on the hydraulic brake principle.
( c ) *Manual transmission.* ( 1 ) If an applicant performs the skills test in a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission, the State must indicate on the CDL, if issued, that the person is restricted from operating a CMV equipped with a manual transmission.
( 2 ) For the purposes of the skills test and the restriction, an automatic transmission includes any transmission other than a manual transmission as defined in § 383.5.
( d ) *Tractor-trailer.* If an applicant performs the skills test in a combination vehicle for a Group A CDL with the power unit and towed unit connected with a pintle hook or other non-fifth wheel connection, the State must indicate on the CDL, if issued, that the person is restricted from operating a tractor-trailer combination connected by a fifth wheel that requires a Group A CDL.
( e ) *Group A passenger vehicle.* If an applicant applying for a passenger endorsement performs the skills test in a passenger vehicle requiring a Group B CDL, the State must indicate on the CDL, if issued, that the person is restricted from operating a passenger vehicle requiring a Group A CDL.
( f ) *Group A and B passenger vehicle.* If an applicant applying for a passenger endorsement performs the skills test in a passenger vehicle requiring a Group C CDL, the State must indicate on the CDL, if issued, that the person is restricted from operating a passenger vehicle requiring a Group A or B CDL.
( g ) *Medical variance restrictions.* If the State is notified according to § 383.73(o)(3) that the driver has been issued a medical variance, the State must indicate the existence of such a medical variance on the CDLIS driver record and the CDL document, if issued, using the restriction code “V” to indicate there is information about a medical variance on the CDLIS driver record.
Note:
In accordance with the agreement between Canada and the United States (see footnote to § 391.41 of this chapter), drivers with a medical variance restriction code on their CDL are restricted from operating a CMV in the other country.
[76 FR 26887, May 9, 2011]
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# Certificate of the
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer 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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March
31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) by
FCCC, Inc. (the Registrant), I, Bernard Zimmerman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

|1. |  | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. |  | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of
Registrant.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | 
| |  | 
| |  | 

| | Name: Bernard Zimmerman                                                                                                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Title: President, Chief Executive Officer
                                                              and Principal Financial Officer

Dated:  June   26,  2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6968
TIMOTHY GENE HARPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERIFF SUSAN JOHNSON; ALBERT BESS; DAVID CASTELOW, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-ct-03033-D) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Gene Harper, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Gene Harper appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harper v. Johnson , No. 5:08-ct-03033-D (E.D.N.C. May 27, 2008). 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. AFFIRMED
|Exhibit 32
|----------



|COGENCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.
|---------------------------

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

To my knowledge: the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A-1 for the period ended March 31, 2008, containing financial statements for the period then ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB/A-1 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cogenco International, Inc. for the periods presented.



|August 13,  2008
|----------------



|/s/ David Brenman_______________David W. Brenman, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT TOMAS S. BURGESS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-403 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed June 20, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Laura E. Ward, Judge. Tomas S. Burgess, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2005); McCall v. State, 862 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gadsen v. State, 805 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Clark v. State, 54 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Westberry v. State, 906 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Weford v. State, 784 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### Jane Wilson et al., Respondents, *v.*Thomas A. Nevins, Appellant.

Reported below, 142 App. Div. 932.

(Submitted April 24, 1911;

decided May 2, 1911.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 7, 1911, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered to plaintiff’s wife.

The motion was made upon the ground that the exceptions were frivolous and presented no question of law for review.

*Godfrey Goldmark*for motion.

*Louis T. Noonan*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                          39,689
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,363
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,442
<INVENTORY>                                     73,482
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               253,020
<PP&E>                                         280,436
<DEPRECIATION>                                 137,710
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 459,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          157,174
<BONDS>                                         73,929
<COMMON>                                        15,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     24,494
<OTHER-SE>                                     143,198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   459,856
<SALES>                                        621,836
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               621,836
<CGS>                                          436,857
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  436,857
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,389
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,912
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,942
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,559
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,383
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,383
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.72
        

</TABLE>
#### J. Addison Howland, Respondent, v. Mary D. S. Dewey, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment modified in accordance with the opinion. Opinion by

Barker, J.;

Haight, J., not voting.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6767

CURTIS JEROME MCCRAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JIM TOWNLY, Superintendent; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-95-940-R)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Jerome McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McCray

v. Townly, No. CA-95-940-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 9, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         August 31, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 21, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 31 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-236, CP2023-239.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-18793 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: Austin Richardson

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA

Subject: Towards common sense to

Date: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:32:53 AM

Towards common sense

The commotion surrounding vaccinations used for waging political battles will eventually turn against

communities.

The 1918-1919 flu pandemic, nicknamed “the Spanish flu”, was also caused by the A/H1N1 swine

flu virus. Its first wave had a similar course to the current incidence of disease. In spring 1918, the first

wave of the pandemic hit. Although highly contagious, it did not bring with it a significant death rate.

The second outbreak, which commenced in September 1918, was marked by an incredibly high

number of fatalities, whilst the third took place in 1919.

The course of the current A/H1N1 pandemic without a great number of fatalities (if one can

describe the death of 20,000 people in such a way) is not conducive to a rational assessment of the

preventive vaccination programme. For many politicians, populism and the desire to win over voters are

the only determinants of their actions. Such politicians prey on the low awareness on the part of

society, which notices only events, and imagining what could potentially happen is outside their visible

realm. Also, a lack of knowledge about the course of the “Spanish flu” pandemic of 1918-1919 and its

death toll, estimated at between 50 million and 100 million people, is not conducive to preventive

vaccinations.

If an anti-vaccination attitude is reinforced in social beliefs, then the future may see the deaths of

millions of people as a result of abandoning general preventive vaccinations. The message to inform

people of the risk carried by an influenza pandemic is an important one. Let us hope that the situation

will be different from the regularity, which often accompanies capital markets, where world crunches

occur within cycles every few decades or so, and awareness of the threat dies with the generation.

We find ourselves in a place and time where the future of mankind’s existence in the conflict with

mortal viruses is clinched. Let us stop the feverish bus ride, fed with political populism and shortsighted electoral perspective. Let us look at the warning signs, which mankind encountered in his path

in the years 1918-1919.

If you believe that it is worthwhile doing something for the common good, then forward this

appeal to others or link to: www.right-to-health.org so that the information has a chance to spread.

We are the ones who can influence whether common sense prevails.

Sense is sometimes in the minority and loses out to populism, but let us not give up just yet!
Hillsborough, )

March 5,1912.

#### Harrington *v.*Manchester Street Railway.

Case, for personal injuries. Trial by jury. Transferred from the January term, 1911, of the superior court by *Mitchell,*J.

At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the defendants moved for a nonsuit on one of the issues of the declaration, namely, the defendants’ failure to provide a suitable place for the plaintiff to alight from their car, and that all the evidence bearing upon that issue be stricken from the record. The motion was granted, and the plaintiff excepted.

*James A. Broderick,*for the plaintiff.

*Burnham, Brown, Jones & Warren,*for the defendants.

Bingham, J.

It could be found from the evidence that the plaintiff’s injury was due to her being thrown to the ground by the *576sudden starting of.the car while she was attempting to step from the floor of the car to the running-board, or from the running-board to the ground. It could also be found from the evidence that in stepping from the running-board to the ground her fall was caused by the unsuitable character of the place where she was invited to alight, or to that cause combined with the sudden starting of the car.

*Exception sustained.*

All concurred.
#### Edgar J. Levey, Respondent, *v.*The Brooklyn Union Publishing Company, Appellant.

*Levey*v. *Brooklyn Union Pub. Co.,*137 App. Div. 947, affirmed.

(Argued April 26, 1911;

decided May 16, 1911.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 29, 1910, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action for libel.

The following question was certified: “Does the complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? ”

*Paul Eugene Jones*for appellant.

*William F. Clare*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
The Board of Directors
Silverado Mines Ltd.
1111 West Georgia Street Suite 505
Vancouver, B.C.


We  consent to the use of our  reports  included  in the Form 10-K of  Silverado
Mines Ltd. for the year ended November 30, 1996.

Our auditors' report referred to in the preceeding  paragraph is supplemented by
our report  entitled  "Comments  By  Auditors  For U.S.  Readers On  Canada-U.S.
Reporting  conflict" that states that Canadian reporting standards do not permit
reference to uncertainties  such as the company's ability to continue as a going
concern as discussed in Note 1(a) to the consolidated  financial statements when
the  uncertainties  are  adequately  disclosed in the financial  statements  and
accompanying  notes. Under United States reporting  standards such uncertainties
would be described in an explanatory paragraph following the opinion paragraph.

/S/ KPMG
Vancouver, Canada

February 27, 1997
CONSIGNE DE NAVIGABILITE

N° F-2004-176

Diffusion :

A

Date d’émission :

10 novembre 2004

Page :

1/2

Cette consigne de navigabilité est publiée par la DGAC pour le compte 

de l'AESA, autorité du pays de conception du matériel concerné. Cette consigne de navigabilité fait l'objet d'une 

traduction en anglais.

Le texte français constitue la référence.

Direction 

générale

de 

l’aviation

civile

France

Edition

du GSAC

Un aéronef concerné par une consigne de navigabilité ne peut être utilisé 

qu’en conformité avec les exigences de cette consigne de navigabilité,

sauf accord de l’autorité du pays d’immatriculation.

Airworthiness Directive(s) étrangère(s) correspondante(s) :

Sans objet

Consigne(s) de navigabilité remplacée(s) :

Néant

Responsable de la navigabilité du matériel :

EUROCOPTER

Certificat(s) de type n° 168

Fiche(s) de données n° 168

Type(s) de matériel(s) :

Hélicoptères AS 355

Chapitre ATA :

64

Objet :

Rotor de queue - Languette bord de fuite des pales arrière

1. APPLICABILITE :

Hélicoptères AS 355 E, F, F1, F2 et N, équipés de pales arrière référencées : 355A 12.0040 tous points et 

355A 12.0050 tous points, du numéro de série 8400 à 9224 inclus avant application de la fiche de

réparation FR n° 238 ou de la CT 64.10.00.872 (voir FME).

2. RAISONS :

Cette consigne de navigabilité (CN) fait suite à la découverte de plusieurs cas de décollements importants 

de la languette de bord de fuite sur des pales arrière.

La perte de cette languette conduit à une augmentation importante du niveau vibratoire de l'appareil.

3. ACTIONS IMPERATIVES ET DELAIS D’APPLICATION :

Les mesures suivantes sont rendues impératives à compter de la date d'entrée en vigueur de la présente 

CN :

3.1. Au plus tard dans les 100 heures de vol sans dépasser 3 mois (à la première échéance atteinte), 

poser des rivets supplémentaires sur la languette de bord de fuite des pales référencées au § 1 selon 

les directives décrites dans le § 2.B de l'Alert Service Bulletin EUROCOPTER AS 355 n° 64.00.04 

cité en référence.

3.2. Avant montage de pales détenues en rechange et référencées au § 1, appliquer les directives 

décrites dans le § 2.B de l'ASB en référence.

4. DOCUMENT DE REFERENCE :

Alert Service Bulletin EUROCOPTER AS 355 n° 64.00.04 "correspond à la fiche de réparation FR n° 283".

(Toute révision ultérieure approuvée de cet ASB est acceptable).

n/CG
CONSIGNE DE NAVIGABILITE

N° F-2004-176

Diffusion :

A

Date d’émission :

10 novembre 2004

Page :

2/2

5. DATE D'ENTREE EN VIGUEUR :

20 novembre 2004.

6. REMARQUE :

Pour les questions concernant le contenu technique des exigences de cette CN, contacter :

EUROCOPTER (STXI) - Aéroport de Marseille Provence 13725 Marignane Cedex - France

Tél. : 33 (0) 4 42 85 97 97 - Fax : 33 (0) 4 42 85 99 66

E-Mail : Directive.technical-support@eurocopter.com

7. APPROBATION :

Cette CN est approuvée sous la référence AESA n° 2004-10841 du 03 novembre 2004.