alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25353]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8931]

Department of State Performance Review Board Members; 
Appointments

    In accordance with section 4314(c)(4) of 5 United States Code, the 
Department of State has appointed the following individuals to the 
Department of State Performance Review Board for Senior Executive 
Service members:
    Christopher H. Flaggs, Chairperson, Comptroller, Bureau of the 
Comptroller and Global Financial Services, Department of State;
    Kelly Clements, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, 
Refugees, and Migration, Department of State;
    Hoyt B. Yee, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and 
Eurasian Affairs, Department of State; and
    Mary Catherine Malin, Assistant Legal Advisor, Office of the Legal 
Advisor, Department of State.

    Dated: October 14, 2014.
Hans Klemm,
Acting Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human 
Resources, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-25353 Filed 10-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-15-P
```
### Request for Information Spektiv LLC (FAA-2015-4219) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) Dear Mr. Harmon: This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA − 2015 − 4219). This information is necessary for the Fede ral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your p etition. z Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed - wing, rotorcraft, lighter - than - air) for the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions shou ld include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manuals. Please submit the additional informati on (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, plea se also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comm ent tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we mu st receive the information de scribed above by December 9. 2015. If we do not receive the information, we wi ll close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feelfree to contact me at (202) 267-2999. FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent : Wednesday , November 25, 2015 11:04 AM To: keon@spectivsolutions.com
#### Dr. Robert C. PYLE, Jr., M. D., Petitioner, v. Bruce TAYLOR and Diane Taylor, husband and wife, Respondents.

No. KK-1.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 27, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1978.

Robert D. Bell of Fisher, Bell, Hahn, Winn & Rubel, P. A., Pensacola, for petitioner.

Grover C. Robinson, Jr., W. H. F. Wilt-shire of Harrell, Wiltshire, Stone & Swear-ingen, Don J. Catón, Pensacola, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order of a judicial referee in medical liability mediation proceedings conducted pursuant to Section 768.44, Florida Statutes (1977). The hearing on respondents’ claim was concluded on March 16, 1978, within 10 months of the date the claim was filed. Thereafter, on April 5, 1978, and after 10 months had elapsed from the date their claim was filed, the respondents moved to disqualify the physician member of the panel, a Dr. Allen, because petitioner had been the physician on a medical liability mediation panel which had heard a claim against Allen and found no negligence. The judicial referee heard and granted the motion. Petitioner asserts the judicial referee and the panel were without jurisdiction to do anything but put their decision into writing and file it within 30 days of the hearing. Section 768.44(7), Florida Statutes (1977). We agree. Section 768.44(2)(g) provides a 10-day time limit within which the prospective panel members may disqualify themselves and within which the parties may challenge the panel members for cause. Since respondents failed to timely challenge Dr. Allen, they waived that right.

Moreover, Section 768.44(3) is clear that the subject matter jurisdiction of the panel terminated 10 months after the claim was filed. See *Aldana v. Holub,*354 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

*791The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judicial referee’s order of April 11, 1978 is quashed.

McCORD, G. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28218]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice of Change in Subject of Meeting

    The National Credit Union Administration Board determined that its 
business requires the deletion of one item from the previously 
announced closed meeting (Federal Register, 62 FR 54481, October 20, 
1997) scheduled for Wednesday, October 22, 1997.

2. One (1) Administrative Action under Section 206 of the Federal 
Credit Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (5) and (8).

    The Board voted unanimously that agency business required that this 
item be deleted from the closed agenda and that no earlier announcement 
of this change was possible.
    The previously announced items were:
    1. Two (2) Administrative Actions under Sections 125, 205, and 206 
of the Federal Credit Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemption (8).
    2. Three (3) Administrative Actions under Section 206 of the 
Federal Credit Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (5), (7), (8) 
and (10).
    3. One (1) Personnel Action. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) and 
(6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone (703) 518-6312.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-28218 Filed 10-21-97; 9:57 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
# L_2008050DE.01007102.xml

| 23.2.2008 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 50/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 50/71

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 183/2005 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 12. Januar 2005 mit Vorschriften für die Futtermittelhygiene

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 35 vom 8. Februar 2005
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 35 vom 8. Februar 2005

Seite 7, Artikel 10 Absatz 1 Buchstabe c:

anstatt:

„Herstellung für das Inverkehrbringen oder Erzeugung ausschließlich für den Bedarf des eigenen landwirtschaftlichen Betriebs von Mischfuttermitteln, die Futtermittelzusatzstoffe oder Vormischungen mit in Anhang IV Kapitel 3 dieser Verordnung genannten Futtermittelzusatzstoffen enthalten;“

muss es heißen:

„Herstellung für das Inverkehrbringen oder Erzeugung ausschließlich für den Bedarf des eigenen landwirtschaftlichen Betriebs von Mischfuttermitteln unter Verwendung von Futtermittelzusatzstoffen oder Vormischungen, die Futtermittelzusatzstoffe enthalten, und die in Anhang IV Kapitel 3 dieser Verordnung genannt sind;“.

---
September 22, 1998

 Refer to: HNG-14

Dr. Hayes E. Ross, Jr.

Professor and Research Engineer

Texas Transportation Institute

Structural Research Division

The Texas A&M University System

College Station, Texas 77843-3135

Dear Dr. Ross:

In your September 3 letter to Mr. Henry H. Rentz, you requested the Federal Highway

Administration to approve the use of two 3810-mm long w-beam panels as an alternative to the

single 7625 mm panel that was originally tested and accepted for use with the ET-2000 guardrail

terminal. The use of two shorter panels would result in the bolted splice at post 3 being forced

through the extruder head in an end-on impact with the 2000-kg pickup truck (test 3-31), but not

with the 820-kg car (test 3-30) which was stopped at that point in the original certification test.

To support this request, you ran test 3-31 into an ET-2000 installation which used the shorter rail

lengths. Test results were given in your report entitled “Testing and Evaluation of the ET-2000

with 3.8 m W-Beam Sections,” by Hayes E. Ross, Jr., Wanda L. Menges, and Barbara G. Baker,

Project/Report No. 520201-1, August 1998. The results of this test and the earlier test with the

single 7625 mm panel were essentially the same, with 7600 mm of rail being extruded in both

instances and with all NCHRP Report 350 evaluation criteria being met in both cases.

Based on these results, we agree that the ET-2000 can be used with either length rail element.

Sincerely yours,

(original signed by Dwight A. Horne)

Dwight A. Horne

Chief, Federal-Aid and Design Division

Acceptance letter CC12E
Exhibit 31.2

**CERTIFICATION OF ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

I, David Koos, Chief Financial Officer of Bio-Matrix Scientific Group, Inc. (“Registrant”) certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Registrant.

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

(a)      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting

 

| Date:   November 29, 2011

By:  

/s/ David R. Koos

 

 

Acting Chief Financial Officer |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28037]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-19-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

October 17, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 9, 1997, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch Gateway), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251-1478, filed in 
Docket No. CP98-19-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 157.211, 
and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 
(18 CFR 157.205, 157.211, 157.216) for approval to abandon three 
delivery taps and establish new delivery taps, under the blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-430-000 pursuant to Section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is 
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Koch Gateway states that the certificate authorization for the 
construction and operation of the taps which Koch Gateway now seeks 
abandonment authorization was issued in FPC Docket No. G-232. Koch 
Gateway states that these taps are used for delivery of natural gas to 
end-users on behalf of Entex, Inc. (Entex) a local distribution 
Company, in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Koch Gateway asserts that 
Entex concurs with the proposed abandonment and tie-over measures.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28037 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32

CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bank Building Corporation,
certifies that to the best of his knowledge and belief the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2000, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bank Building Corporation at the dates and for
the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to
update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: March 27, 2006



/s/ Worth Harris Carter, Jr.Worth Harris Carter, Jr.Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer




29
Designing a Safer System for Pedestrians

pedbikeinfo.org

@pedbikeinfo
pedbikeinfo.org

Methods to reduce fatalities are well-known

Source: Hierarchy of Controls adapted from the 2019 Washington State Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan and the 2017 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

1
pedbikeinfo.org

Safe System approaches involve limiting 

opportunities for exposure to a crash

Less of this... And more of this...

Predictability

(of bike traffic)

Forgiveness 

(buffer)

Restrictiveness

(turning 

movements)

Simplicity

(color)

Separation

(of modes)

Speed control

Source: www.pedbikeimages.org.

2
pedbikeinfo.org

Managing speed manages both risk of a 

crash and injury severity

3
pedbikeinfo.org

Many energy transfer management tools exist

• Speed control

• Road diets, traffic

calming

• Speed governors on

vehicles and automatic

emergency braking

• Speed feedback signs

• Speed harmonization

• Slow speed zones /

speed limit reductions

• Access management

Sources: www.pedbikeimages.org and 

https://www.portlandoregon.gov.

4
pedbikeinfo.org

Safe System = Proactive approaches to 

manage risks system-wide

Source: Thomas, Sandt, et al. NCHRP Report 893. Source: Arizona Department of Transportation: 

Preliminary Identification of High-Risk Segments (2017).

5
pedbikeinfo.org

Thank you!

Laura Sandt, PhD

sandt@hsrc.unc.edu

@pedbikeinfo
#### In re FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

No. 37079.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1, 1970.

Order Correcting Errors and Clarifying Rules

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are hereby corrected and clarified in .the following respects, viz:

I. It was the intention of this Court in its opinion filed June 19, 1968 [211 So.2d 206 (Fla.1968)] to amend Rule 1.370(a), 30 F.S.A. Said amendment should have been numbered Rule 1.370(a), Rule 1.370 (b) reading as follows, viz:

> “b) Effect of Admission. Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action only and neither constitutes an admission by him for any other purpose nor may be used against him in any other proceeding.”

was not repealed.

II. Rule 1.640(a) is amended to read as follows:

> “An application for writ of certiorari to the circuit court shall be made by petition filed within 30 days from the date of the proceeding, order, or judgment sought to be reviewed. It shall be accompanied by either the original record or a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings the petitioner seeks to have reviewed or so much of it as is essential. Unless shown by another party to be necessary, no other record shall be required. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the proceeding and the reasons relied on ' for granting the writ and shall be accompanied by a supporting brief.”

III.Form 1.918 [211 So.2d 174, 183 (Fla. 1968)] is amended to read as follows:

> “TO DEFENDANT-, AND ALL OTHERS WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

> YOU ARE NOTIFIED of the institution of this action by plaintiff-against you seeking (“to foreclose a mortgage on” or “to partition” or “to quiet title to” or “a divorce and relief concerning” or other type of action) the following property in_County, Florida:

> (legal description of property)

> DATED on_, 19_

> 

This Order shall become effective Midnight, September 30, 1970.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Aníbal SOTTO and Joaquin A. Amor, Respondents.

No. 77-39.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 26, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1977.

*1223Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Kurt Marmar, Asst. State Atty., for petitioner.

Max B. Kogen and Geoffrey C. Fleck, Miami, for respondents.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and HUBBART, JJ.

HUBBART, Judge.

The state petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review orders of a trial court which mitigated a three year prison sentence imposed upon the defendants for various lottery law violations. The trial court vacated the defendants’ prison sentences and placed the defendants on five years probation. The trial court’s mitigation orders were entered more than sixty days after the denial of certiorari by the Florida Supreme Court upon review of the defendants’ convictions.

The law is clear that a trial court pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b) may reduce a legal sentence at any time within sixty days after the imposition of sentence or within sixty days after the highest state or federal court, to which a timely appeal or petition for writ of certiorari has been taken, has entered an order of affirmance, an order dismissing the appeal or an order denying certiorari. A trial court lacks the jurisdiction to mitigate a legal sentence after the above sixty day periods have elapsed or to mitigate a legal sentence by vacating it and placing the defendant on probation. *Moss v. State,*330 So.2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); *State v. Rodriguez,*326 So.2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); *State v. Brown,*308 So.2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); *Smith v. State,*289 So.2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); *Sayer v. State,*267 So.2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); *Ware v. State,*231 So.2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); *Jefferson v. State,*320 So.2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); *State v. Evans,*225 So.2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. den. 229 So.2d 261 (Fla.1969), cert. den. 397 U.S. 1053, 90 S.Ct. 1393, 25 L.Ed.2d 668 (1970).

The orders under review are quashed because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter them. The sixty day time periods under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b) had elapsed at the time the mitigation orders were entered. Since this is a jurisdictional matter, we must of necessity reject the defendants’ contentions which seek to excuse the trial court’s delay in mitigating the *1224sentences. Moreover, the mitigation orders are further invalid because they do not reduce legal sentences; they vacate the sentences and place the defendants on probation.

The state’s petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the orders vacating the defendants’ sentences and placing the defendants on five years probation are quashed, and the original three year sentences imposed on the defendants are reinstated with credit given for any time served. The cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
#### Robert K. OVERSTREET et al., Appellant, v. PARK TOWERS ASSOCIATES, INC., Ltd., et al., Appellee.

No. 69-55.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 23, 1969.

Thomas C. Britton, County Atty. and Murray Greenberg, Asst. County Atty., for appellant.

*445Irwin J. Block and Barry N. Semet, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Homer v. Claughton, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 414; Bal Harbour Club, Inc. v. Dade County, Fla.App. 1969, 222 So.2d 428; Williams v. Simpson, Fla. App. 1968, 209 So.2d 262; Staninger v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, Fla. App.1966, 182 So.2d 483, 22 A.L.R.3d 950. See also Lanier v. Overstreet, Fla.1965, 175 So.2d 521.
#### Arthur J. BASEHART, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-889.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 12, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Lewis Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

See Sears v. State, 265 F.2d 301 (5th Cir. 1959); Childs v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 605; and Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 529.
#### McKENZIE TANK LINES, INC., Appellant, v. SHERMAN AND SONS, INC., Appellee.

No. R-308.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 2, 1973.

Robert C. Dean, Carswell, McKenzie, Dean & Owens, Tallahassee, for appellant.

John F. Daniel, Ellinor, Rish, Daniel & Mann, Panama City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The record, briefs and oral arguments of counsel for the respective parties having been considered and it appearing therefrom that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed herein is

Affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.