alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NIOSH Respiratory Protective Device 

Information

NIOSH CA 2018-1006 

August 2018 

Self-contained breathing apparatus user information regarding compressed 

breathing gas containers (cylinders), NIOSH approval holder user 

instructions, and Department of Transportation (DOT) permit and marking 

SUPERSEDED
Document Number

NIOSH CA 2018-1006

Page 2 of 2

On October 5, 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued special permit 16320 (DOT-SP-16320) Third Edition, to the 

Digital Wave Corporation. DOT-SP-16320 authorizes the extension of the cylinder original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) 15-year service life for certain carbon-fiber reinforced aluminum-lined cylinders 

(DOT-CFFC) in 5-year increments, up to 15 additional years, for those devices that pass modal acoustic 

emissions (MAE) requalification testing. DOT-CFFC cylinders include those used by fire departments 

and first responders as a component of a NIOSH-approved SCBA. 

NIOSH has heard from stakeholders who are concerned that allowing the requalification of SCBA 

beyond the original 15-year service life may result in health and safety issues for users. Accordingly, 

NIOSH will publish a request for information in the Federal Register to seek information and data about 

safety problems documented by manufacturers or users.

Respiratory protection program administrators and SCBA users with questions or concerns about the 

application of DOT-SP-16320 to approved and deployed SCBA must review the user instructions, 

supplemental informational inserts, safety precautions, and SCBA warranty information provided by 

the NIOSH approval holder. NIOSH encourages approval holders to provide respiratory protection 

program administrators and SCBA users with current recommendations regarding DOT-SP-16320 and 

service life limitations. 

Further questions can be addressed by the approval holder of NIOSH-approved SCBA with type 

CFFC originally marked with DOT-SP-10915, 10945, 11194, 13381, 13179, 13853, 14232, and 14339.

Supplemental Information:

The following previously issued Respirator User Notices may also be instructive for respiratory program 

administrators and users: 

Meaning of NIOSH Approvals, March 17, 2006

Use of Replacement and Spare Parts, May 4, 2007

Care and Maintenance of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) Units, June 29, 2012

Subject: Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) user information regarding 

compressed breathing gas containers (cylinders), NIOSH approval holder user 

instructions, and Department of Transportation (DOT) permit and marking 

SUPERSEDED
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sungro Minerals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended May 31, 2010 (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




2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




Date:           July 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Erwin Vahlsing, Jr.Name:
Erwin Vahlsing, Jr.Title:
Chief Financial Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided Sherb & Co., LP and will be retained by Sungro Minerals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

GOLF TRUST OF AMERICA, INC.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-56251, No. 333-39624 and No. 333-39622) and Form S-8 (No. 333-46657, No. 333-39628 and No. 333-46659) of Golf Trust of America, Inc. of our report dated March 19, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appears in this Form 10-K.



/s/ Cherry Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.







Charlotte, North Carolina
March 19, 2009
Case 4:09-cv-00311-RH-WCS Document 18 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 1 of 1
DIONEL RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

IPC INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION and LIBERTY 

MUTUAL,

Respondents.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0210

Opinion filed August 7, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Original Jurisdiction.

Date of Accident: January 22, 2012.

Martha D. Fornaris of Fornaris Law Firm, P.A., Coral Gables, for Petitioner.

Kip O. Lassner and Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, 

for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

LEWIS and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR; WETHERELL, J. CONCURS WITH 

OPINION. 
2

WETHERELL, J., concurring.

I agree that the petition seeking review of the order denying the claimant’s 

motion to determine his competency must be dismissed because the claimant did 

not establish the irreparable harm necessary for certiorari review. See F.T.M.I. 

Operator, LLC v. Limith, 140 So. 3d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). However, in 

my view, even if the claimant had established the requisite irreparable harm, the 

petition would have been denied because the record establishes that the judge of 

compensation claims (JCC) applied the correct law and reasonably based her finding 

that the claimant failed to prove that he was incompetent on the overwhelming

evidence that the claimant was malingering and feigning his mental condition. The 

argument to the contrary in the petition is, in my view, nothing more than a thinlyveiled request for this court to reweigh the evidence presented to the JCC. That, 

however, is not the proper function of this court, particularly in an extraordinary writ 

proceeding.

With these additional observations, I concur in the disposition of this case.
Presidential Documents

9231 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 39 

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of February 26, 2007 

Continuation of the National Emergency Relating to Cuba 

and of the Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation 

of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels 

On March 1, 1996, by Proclamation 6867, a national emergency was declared 

to address the disturbance or threatened disturbance of international relations 

caused by the February 24, 1996, destruction by the Cuban government 

of two unarmed U.S.-registered civilian aircraft in international airspace 

north of Cuba. In July 1996 and on subsequent occasions, the Cuban government stated its intent to forcefully defend its sovereignty against any U.S.- 

registered vessels or aircraft that might enter Cuban territorial waters or 

airspace while involved in a flotilla or peaceful protest. Since these events, 

the Cuban government has not demonstrated that it will refrain from the 

future use of reckless and excessive force against U.S. vessels or aircraft 

that may engage in memorial activities or peaceful protest north of Cuba. 

On February 26, 2004, by Proclamation 7757, the scope of the national 

emergency was expanded in order to deny monetary and material support 

to the repressive Cuban government, which had taken a series of steps 

to destabilize relations with the United States, including threatening to 

abrogate the Migration Accords with the United States and to close the 

United States Interests Section. Further, Cuba’s most senior officials repeatedly asserted that the United States intended to invade Cuba, despite explicit 

denials from the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense that such action 

is planned. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National 

Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency 

with respect to Cuba and the emergency authority relating to the regulation 

of the anchorage and movement of vessels set out in Proclamation 6867 

as amended and expanded by Proclamation 7757. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
9232 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Presidential Documents 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted 

to the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

February 26, 2007. [FR Doc. 07–941 

Filed 2–27–07; 8:49 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICESGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED UNDER ITEM 8 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,009
<SECURITIES>                                    22,199
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (505)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,821
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,180
<PP&E>                                          19,259
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,478)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,533
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           184
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,611
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,862
<SALES>                                         52,839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,839
<CGS>                                           26,423
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,619
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,247)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,956)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (684)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,272)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,272)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
## NUMBER 13
- 21
- 00 115
- CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

ARTHUR KELVIN LOVELL, Appellant ,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

.

On appeal from the 183rd District Court of Harris County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina Order Per Curiam
This appeal was abated by this Court on March 25, 2022, following appellant’s motion requesting appointment of new counsel

. In our order of abatement, the trial court was instructed to determine whether appellant is entitled to newly appointed counsel after
his current appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in this matter. Pursuant to our order,
the trial court held a hearing and filed a reporter’s record and a supplemental clerk’s2 record containing the trial court’s findings of fact. Accordingly, this case is hereby
reinstated

. Upon review of the supplemental reporter’s record and clerk’s record in this matter, appellant was present remotely from the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for his hearing, however, before the trial court called his case, appellant voluntarily signed a document indicating he did not wish to attend the hearing. According to the testimony of Andreya Bagley, the law librarian where appellant was being held, appellant indicated he “was hungry” and became impatient, causing him to sign his refusal to participate. After appellant failed to appear b efore the trial court, the trial court determined that appellant “has abandoned this appeal and new counsel is not being appointed in his case.” Upon our review of the documents on file, we are of the opinion that appellant’s motion to appoint new counsel should be denied. In a separate motion, appellant requested a se cond extension of time to file his pro se response. We hereby grant appellant’s second motion for extension of time and order appellant to file his pro se response, if any, no later than Monday, August 8 , 2022.

PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the 2 3rd day of June, 2022.
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 5:10cv283-RH/CJK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MATTHEW LEE FOSTER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv283-RH/CJK

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s second report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 28. No objections have been filed. Upon 

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s 

opinion. The plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED. 

The Secretary must pay attorney’s fees of $16,124.75 to the plaintiff’s attorney 

from the plaintiff’s past due benefits. The plaintiff’s attorney must refund to the 

Case 5:10-cv-00283-RH-CJK Document 29 Filed 03/20/15 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 5:10cv283-RH/CJK

plaintiff $2,968.75, the amount of the Equal Access to Justice Act fees previously 

awarded in this case.

SO ORDERED on March 20, 2015.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00283-RH-CJK Document 29 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7387

RANDY SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden of FCI-Edgefield,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-05-1223-9)

Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Randy Smith, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), raising a claim under United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Although the district court construed

the § 2241 petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000),

Smith clearly intended to file a § 2241 petition. Smith argues on

appeal that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the

legality of his detention, contending that his Booker claim should

be considered in the context of his § 2241 petition. Because Smith

does not meet the standard under In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34

(4th Cir. 2000), we affirm the denial of relief. 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
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 37 (Monday, February 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-851]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Availability for Non-Exclusive, Exclusive, or Partially Exclusive 
Licensing of U.S. Patent Application Concerning a Coherent Radar and 
Ladar Polarimeter

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6 and 404.7, announcement is 
made of the availability for licensing of the invention set forth in 
U.S. Patent Application No. 10/631,218 entitled ``A Coherent Radar and 
Ladar Polarimeter,'' filed on July 25, 2003. The United States 
Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights in 
this invention.

ADDRESSES: Office of Research and Technology Applications, SDMC-RDTC-
TDL (Ms. Susan D. McRae), Bldg. 5220, Von Braun Complex, Redstone 
Arsenal, AL 35898.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Joan Gilsdorf, Patent Attorney, e-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c7ada8a6a9e9a0aeabb4a3a8b5a187b4aaa3a4e9a6b5aabee9aaaeab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aec4c1cfc080c9c7c2ddcac1dcc8eeddc3cacd80cfdcc3d780c3c7c2">[email protected]</span></a> (256) 955-3213 or Ms. Susan D. McRae, 
Office of Research and Technology Applications, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7a4a2a4b6b9f9bab4a5b6b297a4bab3b4f9b6a5baaef9babebb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="55262026343b7b383627343015263831367b3427382c7b383c39">[email protected]</span></a>; (256) 955-1501.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention pertains to determining the 
state of polarization of an electromagnetic signal. A polarimeter 
includes a receiver that receives a first polarization (P1) of the 
signal and splits the first polarization of the signal into the in-
phase (I<INF>P1</INF>) and quadrature (Q<INF>P1</INF>) components, and 
receives a second poplarization (P2) of the signal and splits the 
second polarization of the signal into the in-phase (I<INF>P1</INF>) 
and quadrature (Q<INF>P2</INF>) components. The polarimeter may also 
include a processor that receives each of the in-phase and quadrature 
components ((I<INF>P1</INF>), (Q<INF>P1</INF>), (I<INF>P2</INF>), and 
(Q<INF>P2</INF>)) of the first and second polarizations and determines 
the Stokes polarization vector components (s<INF>0</INF>, 
s<INF>1</INF>, s<INF>2</INF>, and s<INF>3</INF>) of the signal.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-851 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3470

___________

Delta Remanufacturing of Mariana, *

LLC, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

Carlos Crisp, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Bobby Mott, * District of Arkansas.

*

Plaintiff, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

v. * 

*

Jim O’Connor; Gary Lynch, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: May 3, 2001

 Filed: May 15, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Carlos Crisp appeals from the district court’s1 order awarding attorneys’ fees to

defendants under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-308 in this diversity-jurisdiction action for

breach of contract. Upon de novo review of the application of state law, see Lincoln

Benefit Life Co. v. Edwards, 243 F.3d 457, 461 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), we agree

with the district court that defendants were prevailing parties when Crisp voluntarily

dismissed his complaint with prejudice. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse

its discretion in the extent of the award or in denying Crisp’s motion for

reconsideration. See Jarrett v. ERC Properties, Inc., 211 F.3d 1078, 1084-85 (8th Cir.

2000) (attorneys’ fees); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169-70 (8th Cir.

1988) (motion for reconsideration).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1




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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2008 of Auburn Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Allen
T. Sterling, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




The
foregoing certification shall not be deemed to be filed for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liability
under that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act
except to the extent this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically
incorporated by reference in any such filing.


Date:
      November 14, 2008
            /s/
      Allen T. SterlingName:
            Allen
      T. SterlingTitle:
            President
      and Chief Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# C_2010228EN.01000502.xml

| 25.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5838 — Bertelsmann/Planeta/Circulo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 228/03

On 5 July 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5838. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5838. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---