alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20590 

January 22, 2020 

Policy Statement on the Prevention of Harassment 

The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to creating a work environment free from 

harassment on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, marital 

status, pregnancy, genetic information, sexual orientation, gender identity, or retaliation. 

Harassment, in this context, is defined as conduct that is so offensive as to create a work 

environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or offensive. As 

Secretary of Transportation, I am committed to our longstanding policy that harassment will not 

be tolerated and must not occur. 

Employees, contractors, and applicants for employment who believe that they have been victims 

of harassment may, without fear of retaliation, seek the immediate assistance of a management 

official, their Office of Human Resources, or the designated anti-harassment coordinator. All 

reports of alleged harassment will be promptly, thoroughly, and impartially investigated. All 

information provided regarding concerns about harassment will be maintained on a confidential 

basis to the greatest extent possible. I expect a manager or supervisor who becomes aware of 

harassment or behavior that, if left unchecked, may rise to the level of legally actionable 

harassment to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to ensure that the harassment or 

behavior stops and does not recur. Violations ofthe law prohibiting harassment or violations of 

this policy will result in appropriate disciplinary actions against the offenders, up to and 

including dismissal. This also includes cases where a manager or supervisor should have known 

about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action. All employees 

and contractors are prohibited from retaliating against and/or harassing those who report such 

conduct or behavior. Employees and applicants for employment who believe they have been 

subjected to harassment or discrimination should also contact an Equal Employment Opportunity 

Counselor or their Office of Civil Rights to file a complaint within 45 calendar days of the 

alleged harassment or discrimination or the date on which they reasonably became aware of the 

harassment or discrimination. If a formal complaint is filed and accepted, there will be a prompt, 

thorough, and impartial investigation. 

I am committed to providing a workplace free from harassment where every employee, 

contractor, and applicant is treated with respect and dignity. I expect each employee and 

contractor to join me in ensuring a harassment-free workplace by engaging in conduct that is 

consistent with this policy. 

Elaine L. Chao
AAM-12-435-E June 25, 2012

Exemption No. 10573 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0616

Mr. Ronald Ludema

President Tulip City Air Service, Inc. 1581 South Washington Avenue Holland, MI 49423

Dear Mr. Ludema:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 30, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Tulip City Air Service, Inc. (Tulip City Air Service), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Tulip City Air Service, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Tulip City Air Service.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Tulip City Air Service, Inc., an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Tulip City Air Service, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Tulip City Air Service are subj ect to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Tulip City Air Service part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/S/
James R Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
Served: March 10, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 10th of March, 2010

Essential Air Service at

ADAK, ALASKA

ATKA, ALASKA

NIKOLSKI, ALASKA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET OST-2000-8556

DOCKET OST-1995-363

DOCKET OST-1995-363

NOTICE

By Order 2010-2-8, February 3, 2010, we requested proposals for EAS at Adak, Atka, and 

Nikolski, Alaska, no later than March 10. By email dated March 9, 2010, Peninsula 

Airways, Inc., requested an extension to March 17 to file a proposal.

We have decided to grant PenAir’s request. The amount of time is not unreasonable. All 

parties must now file competitive proposals for EAS at Adak, Atka, and/or Nikolski Alaska, 

no later than March 17, 2010. 

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
CHAPTER 11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................ 11 -1

11.2 GENERAL APPROACH

.................................................................................................. 11-1

11-iCHAPTER 11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

The life-cycle cost (LCC) subgroup analysis evaluates impacts of standards on identifiable groups, such as different consumer populations or business types that may be disproportionately affected by any national energy conservation standard level. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the U.S Depa rtment of Energy (DOE) will analyze the LCCs and payback periods (PBPs) for consumers that fall into such groups. The analysis will determine whether any particular group of consumers would be adversely affected by any of the trial standard levels (TSLs).

Using the LCC spreadsheet model, DOE plans to examine variations in energy prices and energy use that might affect the net present valu e of a standard for consumer sub-populations. As described in chapter 8 of the preliminary t echnical support document, the preliminary LCC analysis includes various consumer types who use fluorescent lamp-and-ballast systems. This analysis includes consumers purchasing systems in different sectors, purchasing systems for different building types, replacing differen t baseline systems, and undergoing different purchasing events.

11.2 GENERAL APPROACH

For fluorescent lamp-and-ballast systems, DOE estimates LCC savings and PBPs for consumers in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Fluorescent lamps will not be regulated under the proposed ballast rulemaking but are considered in the energy use analysis (chapter 6) to determine energy consumption of ballasts. DOE also analyzes the LCC impacts on consumers living in or operating different buildings in the residential, co mmercial, and industrial sectors. For example, DOE analyzes the impact of standards for people running educational facilities and for those who live in a mobile home. DOE also analyzes impacts on consumers in different regions of the country.

In addition, DOE evaluates the LCC impact s on consumers who purchase different baseline lamp-and-ballast systems. For example, the economic impacts of a standard will be

different for a consumer who ow ns a typical 4-foot T8 versus a 4-foot T12 lamp-and-ballast

system.

DOE also analyzes the LCC impact of a standard on consumers faced with a variety of different lamp-and-ballast purch asing events. The LCC impacts on a consumer who must replace a ballast in an existing system versus the purchas e of a lamp-and-ballast system for new building

construction are different.

In the LCC subgroup analysis, DOE will exa mine a variety of consumer sub-populations. This analysis will determine whether any par ticular group of consumers would be adversely affected by any of the TSLs.

11-1
SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY CONVERSION

INJURY CODE CONVERSION DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Suspected Serious Injury 2003 - Present Collision Investigation Manual 2003

Severe Injury A

Severe Injury: An injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or 

distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision 

scene. It does not include minor laceration.

aa. Injury definitions found on PDF pg27-28.

PEDESTRIAN AND PEDALCYCLIST (NON-MOTORIZED) CONVERSION

PERSON TYPE CODE DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Pedestrian 2003-Present CA Traffic Collison Report 2007,

CA Collision Investigation Manual 2003

Pedestrian Check box*

A pedestrian is any person who is afoot or who is using a means of conveyance propelled by 

human power other than a bicycle. (Refer to the definition of a pedestrian in Chapter 2.) 

(1) This includes a person in a fenced yard, however, excludes a person inside a building 

(coded as “other”).(2) A person boarding or falling from a motor vehicle in-transport is 

considered a passenger and is classified as though he/she is a part of the conveyance

24. Involved Party Category (Mark "X" in the 

box which best describes)

definition found on Manual Pg3-18 

(PDF pg66) .

Ped Check box* 8. Injured Was (Mark "X" in the appropriate 

box)

Pedalcyclist 2003-Present

Bicyclist Check box*

Mark this box if the party was riding a bicycle. (Refer to the definition of a bicycle in Chapter 

2.) 

(1) A collision involving a bicycle vs. any object, including a parked vehicle, a pedestrian, or 

another bicycle, is a vehicle collision only if it occurred on a highway. 

(2) A solo bicycle collision occurring on a highway is a vehicle collision

24. Involved Party Category (PAR Checkbox) definition found on Manual Pg3-19 

(PDF pg67) .

Bicyclist Check box* 8. Injured Was (Mark "X" in the appropriate 

box)

* Police Accident Report includes a check box for Pedestrian/Bicyclist - please refer to the State's Data Dictionary for corresponding database value

California
#### Aughtman E. CRUCE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 4, 1977.

*519Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Nikki Clark, Legal Intern, and Frank B. Kessler, Chief, Appellate Div., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Anthony J. Golden and Basil S. Diamond, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

To sustain a charge of aggravated assault there must be proof that the victim was in fear of imminent bodily injury. *Lopez v. State,*345 So.2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). There was no proof of this necessary element offered at the trial of this case. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are reversed. Since the evidence at trial established that appellant was guilty of battery, a lesser offense necessarily included in the charge upon which the appellant went to trial, we remand this cause to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment and sentence for battery, a first degree misdemeanor. See *Clark v. State,*337 So.2d 798 (Fla.1976).

REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.

ANSTEAD, DAUKSCH and MOORE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE LOSS FOUND ON PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE COMPANY'S 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEP-30-1999 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          21,257
<SECURITIES>                                    51,620
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,554
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (95)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,619
<PP&E>                                           5,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,195)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,258
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,410
<OTHER-SE>                                    (20,581)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,134
<SALES>                                          6,297
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,329
<CGS>                                               28
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (580)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (580)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
#### Gerald T. HANSOM, III v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49374.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 22, 1978.

Carl H. Joffe, Biloxi, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen A. Gilfoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appel-lee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; J. Ruble Griffin, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and WALKER and BOWLING, JJ.

PETITION FOR APPEAL DENIED.

SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, BROOM, LEE and COFER, JJ.
258 La. 341

#### Veatrice Mary Perrault Parks CARMOUCHE, Maxey Joseph Parks and Geraldine Parks Ramirez v. SYLVESTER’S HOUSE MOVING, INC., Adam Vidrine, Jr., James Warren Sylvester and Oscar Sylvester, Jr.

No. 51259.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 7, 1971.

In re: Adam Vidrine, Jr., Oscar Sylvester, Jr. and Warren Sylvester applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Evangeline. 244 So.2d 361.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the assignment of error on the refusal to award damages for the wrongful issuance of the restraining order under its reconventional demand is a good assignment. No bond was posted — it was wrongfully issued. The issue of damages is properly before the court.
#### The UNITED STATES v. Harvey E. MEREDITH.

No. 5813.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Oct. 21, 1936.

James R. Fleming, of Fort Wayne, Ind., for appellant.

Floyd O. Jellison and Lewis J. Murphy, both of South Bend, Ind., for the United States.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for appellant, counsel for appellee consenting thereto, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of T REIT, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on
    Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the period ended
    June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with
    the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
    applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
    amended; and
|
| | (ii) the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                       



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ JACK R. MAURER     
| |                        
| | Jack R. Maurer         
| | Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 22, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document. The signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to T REIT, Inc. and will
be retained by T REIT, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3277 

To amend the Marine Debris Act to reauthorize the Marine Debris Program 

of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Marine Debris Act to reauthorize the Marine 

Debris Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MARINE DEBRIS 

4 PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

5 ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION. 

6 Section 9(a) of the Marine Debris Act (33 U.S.C. 

7 1958(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘for’’ the first place it 

8 appears and all that follows through ‘‘carrying out’’ and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3277 IS

1 inserting ‘‘for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2028 for 

2 carrying out’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### WESLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, etc., Petitioner, v. STRAN-STEEL CORPORATION, etc., Respondent.

No. 49353.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 22, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1978.

Richard A. Burt of the Law Offices of Edward C. Vining, Jr., Miami, for petitioner.

Milton R. Adkins of Pallot, Stern, Proby & Adkins, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. Upon further consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that certiorari should not be granted.

The writ is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.

SUNDBERG and KARL, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 12.1




                                  Certification
              Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
       2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
                             18, United States Code)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Grupo Radio Centro, S.A. de C.V., a foreign
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

     The Annual Report on form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
"Form 20-F") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 30, 2003

                                             /s/    Carlos Aguirre Gomez
                                             ----------------------------
                                                    Carlos Aguirre Gomez
                                                    General Director
Dated: June 30, 2003

                                             /s/   Pedro Beltran Nasr
                                             ------------------------------
                                                   Pedro Beltran Nasr
                                                   Chief Financial Officer



     A signed original of this written statement is required by Section 906 has
been provided to Grupo Radio Centro and will be retained by Grupo Radio Centro
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 26, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-15653

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 07-00026-CR-FTM-29SPC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANIEL EDWARD BOLYARD, 

a.k.a. Hill, 

a.k.a. Hillbilly, 

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(August 26, 2009)

Before BIRCH, HULL and HILL, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Ostrander, appointed counsel for Daniel Edward Bolyard in this

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the
appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bolyard’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED. Bolyard’s motion for the appointment of new counsel

is DENIED AS MOOT.

2