alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States of America 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor 

Washington, DC 20036-3457 

SECRETARY OF LABOR, 

Complainant, 

v. OSHRC Docket No. 10-0265 

JESCO, INC., 

Respondent. 

BRIEFING NOTICE 

The Commission requests that the parties brief the following issue: 

Did the judge err in finding that Jesco, Inc. “field modified” an aerial lift, as 

contemplated by 29 C.F.R. § 1910.67(b)(2), during each of the following two 

time periods: (1) “[o]n or about two weeks prior to August 29, 2009,” as 

alleged in Serious Citation 1, Item 1(a), and (2) “[o]n or about August 29, 

2009,” as alleged in Serious Citation 1, Item 1(b)? 

The parties are advised that when the merits or characterization of an item are before the 

Commission for review, the appropriateness of the penalty is also subject to review. 

Accordingly, the parties may address the amount of the penalty if they so choose. 

All briefs are to be filed in accordance with Commission Rule 93.1 The first brief is to be 

filed within 40 days of this notice. A party who does not intend to file a brief must notify the 

Commission in writing setting forth the reason therefor within the applicable time for filing 

1 The Commission requests that all briefs include an alphabetical table of authorities with 

references to the pages on which they are cited, and that an asterisk be placed in the left-hand 

margin of the table to indicate those authorities on which the brief principally relies. The 

Commission also requests that copies of cited authority, other than statutes, case law, law journal 

articles and legal treatises, be provided to the Commission and to the opposing party. Parties 

should be cautioned that these materials will be considered only if appropriate. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

briefs, and shall serve a copy on all other parties. The time for filing briefs (or similar notices of 

intent) of opposing parties shall commence on the date of service. 

BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION 

Dated: February 2, 2011	 ___/s/_____________________________ 

Ray H. Darling, Jr. 

Executive Secretary 

2
Exhibit 32


                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Roger S. Marcus, Chief Executive Officer, and Howard N. Feist III, Chief
Financial Officer, of American Biltrite Inc. ("the Company"), each hereby
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

      1.    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
            December 31, 2005 (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 represents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


Date: March 27, 2006            /s/ Roger S. Marcus
      ----------------------    -----------------------------
                                Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board,
                                Chief Executive Officer and Director


                                /s/ Howard N. Feist III
                                -----------------------------
                                Howard N. Feist III, Vice President
                                Finance and Chief Financial Officer
#### State, Plaintiff, vs. Becker, Defendant.

*November 5, 1929.*

*John W. Reynolds,*attorney general, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This matter was certified here under the provisions of sec. 358.08, Stats., which provides:

> “If upon the trial of any person who shall be convicted in said circuit court any question of law shall arise which, in the opinion of the judge, shall be so important or so doubtful as to require the decision of the supreme court, he shall, if the defendant desire it or consent thereto, report the case so far as may be necessary to present the question of law arising therein, and thereupon all proceedings in that court shall be stayed.”

A careful examination of the certificate reveals an entire absence of anything indicating that the defendant ever desired or consented to the certification of the proposed question to this court. The matter was not briefed either by the State or by the defendant. When the case was called for argument the attorney general moved that the proceeding in this court be dismissed for want of prosecution.

If the question is properly here it is considered that it should be answered, as the statute in question makes it the *152duty of this court to answer a question so certified. Whether or not the consent of the defendant or his request for the certification should appear of record seems not to have been determined. However, it would seem to be jurisdictional. Without the consent or request of the defendant the certification may not be made.

In *State v. Wentler, 76*Wis. 89, 44 N. W. 841, 45 N. W. 816, it was held that an attorney appointed by the trial court under the statute in force at that time to defend an accused person was authorized to represent the defendant in this court when the matter was certified here under the statute. This is apparently upon the theory that the circuit court retains jurisdiction and the proceedings are stayed at the request or upon the consent of the defendant for the sole purpose of having the question of law determined in this court. This court could not conclude the defendant by assuming a fact to exist which did not exist. Therefore it is considered that a certificate made under this statute should show in some way that the defendant had consented to or requested the certification.

From the certificate it appears that the defendant -is objecting to the introduction of evidence secured on a search of licensed premises, the search, however, extending into the living quarters of Skibba, the father-in-law of the defendant. A door led from the saloon, restaurant, or soft-drink parlor into the living room of Skibba. A warrant was issued for the search of these premises but the warrant was void. The question is whether or not privately distilled intoxicating liquor found during the search of Skibba’s premises can be received in evidence against the defendant. The record is incomplete and for that reason the question cannot be answered. The attention of the trial court is directed to *Millin v. State,*191 Wis. 188, 210 N. W. 411.

The clerk of this court is directed to remit the report of the case with this memorandum to the trial court.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed January 17, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-697

Lower Tribunal No. 19-11245 

________________

Vincenzo Bruno, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Thomas Drechsler, et al., 

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. 

Manno Schurr, Judge.

Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., and Robert J. Hauser (West Palm Beach), 

for appellants.

Venable LLP, and Aaron S. Blynn, Jonathan E. Perlman and Avi 

Zemel, for appellees.

Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. Escobar v. Marino, 342 So. 3d 748, 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2022) (“We review the denial of a motion to vacate a default under an 

abuse of discretion standard.” (quoting Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. 

Dimanche, 338 So. 3d 408, 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)); Schwartz v. Bus. 

Cards Tomorrow, Inc., 644 So. 2d 611, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“[I]n 

setting aside a default, the trial court must determine inter alia (1) whether 

the defendant has demonstrated excusable neglect in failing to respond; (2) 

whether the defendant has demonstrated a meritorious defense; and (3) 

whether the defendant, subsequent to learning of the default, has 

demonstrated due diligence in seeking relief.”); Techvend, Inc. v. Phoenix 

Network, Inc., 564 So. 2d 1145, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (“[I]t is 

uncontradicted that the defendant-appellant did not move to set aside the 

judgment until more than three months after it became aware of its 

existence . . . [i]t is entirely clear that such a delay constituted a lack of the 

due diligence which is required to justify setting aside a default.”); Kraus v. 

Kraus, 344 So. 3d 634, 635 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“We review a trial 

court’s order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo.”); 

Perez Escalona v. City of Miami Beach, 227 So. 3d 722, 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2017) (“A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be decided wholly on 

the pleadings and is granted only if the pleadings establish that the movant 
3

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”) (internal quotations omitted); 

Kraus, 344 So. 3d at 635 (“The trial court properly denied the [party’s]

motion for judgment on the pleadings.”) (footnote omitted).
U

.S

. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration



### DEC 012015

Mr. David M. McDonald Vice President Aeronautical Engineers, Inc. 7765 Northwest 54111 Street Miami, Florida 33166 Dear Mr. McDonald: Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W

. Renton, Washington 98057-3356

We have received your petition letter dated August 28, 2015, requesting exemption from §§ 25.785U), 25.810(a)(1), 25

.812(e), 25

.855(a), 25.857(e), 25.1447(c)(1), and 25.1449 of Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations. This exemption, ifgranted, would allow the carriage ofup to seven non-crewmembers (commonly referred to as supernumeraries) on Boeing 737-800 passenger airplanes that have been converted to freighters. The supernumeraries would occupy existing flight attendant and observer seats within or immediately aft ofthe flight deck as well as additional added seats forward ofthe 9G smoke barrier that separates the supernumerary area from the Class E cargo compartment. Aeronautical Engineers, Inc., also requests that the seven supernumeraries be allowed in the Class E cargo compartment during flight. This request was posted to the Department ofTransportation's Federal Docket Management System (at Regulations.gov) on November 17,2015, and has been assigned Docket No. FAA-2015-6277. We are in the process ofreviewing your request, and will contact you if we need additional information. Ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact Mr. John Shelden at (425) 227-2785, or by e-mail atjohn.shelden@faa.gov. Sincerely,



# ~~ Deana M. Stedman Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
EXHIBIT 23


[LETTERHEAD OF HAZLETT, LEWIS & BIETER, PLLC]



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We  consent  to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report of American
Consumers, Inc. (Form 10-K), of our report, dated July 19, 2007, with respect to
the  financial  statements  of  American  Consumers, Inc. included in the Annual
Report  to  security  holders  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  2,  2007.


/S/ HAZLETT, LEWIS & BIETER, PLLC


Chattanooga,  Tennessee
August  27,  2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5                                                 
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000                 
<CURRENCY>                    U.S Dollars       
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996          
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996    
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1996    
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1    
<CASH>                                  743    
<SECURITIES>                              0    
<RECEIVABLES>                          5806    
<ALLOWANCES>                              0    
<INVENTORY>                          24,325    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     31,912    
<PP&E>                               17,334    
<DEPRECIATION>                       (4,910)    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       54,033   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                16,655    
<BONDS>                              16,547    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0    
<PREFERRED>                               0    
<COMMON>                             14,220    
<OTHER-SE>                            5,804    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         54,033    
<SALES>                              69,528    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     69,528    
<CGS>                                59,869    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        68,451    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      395    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         444    
<INCOME-TAX>                            173    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     271    
<DISCONTINUED>                            0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0    
<CHANGES>                                 0    
<NET-INCOME>                            271    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .04    
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .04    
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 32


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 Mymetics Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2005 (the
"Form 10-Q") 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 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: August __, 2005              /s/ Christian Rochet
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: August __, 2005              /s/ Ernst Lubke
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Principal financial and Chief Financial
                                    Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as a separate
disclosure document.
Exhibit 32
                                                                      ----------



                            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 AMREP  Corporation  (the  "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each of the undersigned
does hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

     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 results of operations
          of the Company.




/s/ Peter M. Pizza
-------------------------------
Peter M. Pizza*
Date: July 16, 2007

/s/ James Wall
-------------------------------
James Wall*
Date: July 16, 2007

/s/ Michael P. Duloc
-------------------------------
Michael P. Duloc*
Date: July 16, 2007


-----------------------
*The Registrant is a holding company that does substantially all of its business
through two indirect wholly-owned  subsidiaries (and their subsidiaries).  Those
indirect  wholly-owned  subsidiaries  are AMREP Southwest Inc. ("ASW") and Kable
Media Services, Inc. ("Kable"). James Wall is the principal executive officer of
ASW,  and  Michael P. Duloc is the  principal  executive  officer of Kable.  The
registrant has no chief executive officer.  Its executive officers include James
Wall,  Senior  Vice  President  and Peter M.  Pizza,  Vice  President  and Chief
Financial Officer,  and Michael P. Duloc, who may be deemed an executive officer
by reason of his position with Kable.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000885

22-NOV-2016

08:50 AM
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE00562A2

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-8433 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-194-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection and Retorque

5.0 $ 425.00 $0 $ 425.00 959 $407,575.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $407,575

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 110 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the exclusion from gross income of discharge of qualified principal residence 

indebtedness. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Ms. BROWNLEY of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the exclusion from gross income of discharge 

of qualified principal residence indebtedness. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mortgage Debt Tax 

5 Forgiveness Act of 2017’’. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 110 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF EXCLUSION FROM 

2 GROSS INCOME OF DISCHARGE OF QUALI3 FIED PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE INDEBTEDNESS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 108(a)(1)(E) of the Inter5 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘which 

6 is discharged’’ and all that follows and inserting a period. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall apply to indebtedness discharged after 

9 December 31, 2016. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
IA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 50 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit 

the number of terms a Representative or Senator may serve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2017 

Mr. LABRADOR (for himself, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. 

DESJARLAIS, Mr. RICE of South Carolina, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. BABIN, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. BUDD, Mr. DAVIDSON, Mr. ZELDIN, 

Mr. HUDSON, and Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia) submitted the following 

joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to limit the number of terms a Representative 

or Senator may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 50 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has been a Senator for 

5 two terms shall again be eligible for election or appoint6 ment to the Senate. 

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has been a Representa8 tive for six terms shall again be eligible for election to the 

9 House of Representatives. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 3. For the purposes of this article, any 

11 term a person serves as a Senator or Representative to 

12 fill a vacancy shall not be included in determining the 

13 number of terms that the person has been a Senator or 

14 Representative unless the period of time for which the per15 son fills the vacancy is greater than three years in the 

16 case of a Senator or greater than one year in the case 

17 of a Representative. 

18 ‘‘SECTION 4. For the purposes of this article, any 

19 term that began before the date of the ratification of this 

20 article shall not be included in determining the number 

21 of terms that a person has been a Senator or Representa22 tive.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
OPERATING ZONE: 300ft Circle

CENTER POINT 32° 54’ 01.93” N 96° 26’ 02.89”

ALTITUDE 50ft

Project: Ray’s Park

Location: 32° 54’ 01.25” N 96° 25’58.84” W

Date: 1 JAN 15

TIMELINE: 

- 11:00am Show Time

-11:15am Brief

- 11:30am Take Off

- 11:50am Land

- 12:00pm Debrief

REMARKS: 

None

PILOT/OBSERVER: John Doe/Sam Smith

CONCEPT OF PROJECT: 

Orthorectified Photo of Park for City

- 70,686 square feet

- 1 Photo per second

- Fly N/S grid

- 20% overlap N/S 40% overlap E/W

FREQs :

Controller 5.876 GHz

Camera 2.456 GHz

WiFi Extender 2.456 GHz

Handheld NA

Ground Station NA

Other 1 NA

Other 2 NA

Other 3 NA

Example Example

Example