alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: April 9, 2015 519753

________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of JILL WILLETTE, Respondent. PARK RIDE FLY USA, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: February 24, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________ Tabner, Ryan & Keniry, LLP, Albany (Brian M. Quinn of counsel), for appellant. Cynthia Feathers, Glens Falls, for Jill Willette, respondent.

__________ Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 13, 2013, which ruled, among other things, that Park Ride Fly USA was liable for unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated. Substantial evidence supports the decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant and others similarly situated were the employees of Park Ride Fly USA. Park Ride operates a website where individuals can reserve parking near airports across the United States, and claimant worked for it as a customer service agent. Claimant was required to answer telephone calls from customers, which were routed to her home-2- 519753

using specialized equipment that Park Ride provided. She received several weeks of training to perform that work, and thereafter worked hours selected by her and approved by her supervisor. Customer complaints were handled by Park Ride, and supervisors monitored calls in order to ensure quality control. Claimant was further required to detail the hours she worked, was paid a set amount per hour on a weekly basis, and was reimbursed for expenses. Notwithstanding contrary evidence in the record, the Board could readily find from the foregoing that Park Ride "exercised sufficient direction and control over the services performed by claimant and other persons similarly situated to establish their status as employees" (Matter of Noblitt [Oxford Univ. Press–Hudacs], 193 AD2d 1033, 1033 [1993]; see Matter of Noel [Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 38 AD3d 1082, 1083-1084 [2007]; Matter of Frattallone [Victor Addressing Corp.–Levine], 39 AD2d 984, 984 [1972]). Park Ride's remaining argument has been considered and found to be lacking in merit. Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
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 Annual  Report of Golden  Enterprises,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 2, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark W.
McCutcheon,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of my 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.


Dated: August 25, 2006



/s/ Mark W. McCutcheon
----------------------
Mark W. McCutcheon
President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.



                                       71
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<MULTIPLIER>                                                                1

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                                      DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                                                    $54
<SECURITIES>                                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                           54
<PP&E>                                                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                             54
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                   4,080
<BONDS>                                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                                1,359
<OTHER-SE>                                                             (5,385)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                                0
<SALES>                                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                            0
<CGS>                                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                             0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                                0
<EPS-BASIC>                                                             .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                             .00


</TABLE>
did not abuse its discretion at sentencing, see Chavez v. State, 125 Nev.

328, 348, 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Hardesty
& zojk Parraguirre cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk ,J.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 6 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 6

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT AUTHORIZED.

    (a) In General.--A commemorative document in memory of the late 
President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, shall be 
printed as a House document, with illustrations and suitable binding, 
under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing.
    (b) Contents.--The document shall consist of the eulogies and 
encomiums for George Herbert Walker Bush, as expressed in the Senate 
and the House of Representatives, together with the texts of each of 
the following:
            (1) The state funeral ceremony at the United States Capitol 
        Rotunda.
            (2) The national funeral service held at the Washington 
        National Cathedral, Washington, District of Columbia.
            (3) The memorial service held at St. Martin's Episcopal 
        Church, Houston, Texas.
            (4) The interment ceremony at the George Herbert Walker 
        Bush Presidential Library Center, College Station, Texas.

SEC. 2. PRINTING OF DOCUMENT.

    In addition to the usual number of copies printed, there shall be 
printed the lesser of--
            (1) 32,500 copies of the commemorative document, of which 
        22,150 copies shall be for the use of the House of 
        Representatives and 10,350 copies shall be for the use of the 
        Senate; or
            (2) such number of copies of the commemorative document 
        that does not exceed a production and printing cost of 
        $1,000,000, with distribution of the copies to be allocated in 
        the same proportion as described in paragraph (1).

            Passed the Senate February 28, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. CON. RES. 6

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Authorizing the printing of a commemorative document in memory of the 
    late President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush.
```
#### § 1b.20 Request for confidential treatment.

Any person compelled to produce documents in an investigation may claim that some or all of the information contained in a particular document(s) is exempt from the mandatory public disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), is information referred to in 18 U.S.C. 1905, or is otherwise exempt by law from public disclosure. In such case, the person making such claim shall, at the time said person produces the document to the officer conducting the investigation shall also produce a second copy of the document from which has been deleted the information for which the person wishes to claim confidential treatment. The person shall indicate on the original document that a request for confidential treatment is being made for some or all of the information in the document and shall file a statement specifying the specific statutory justification for non-disclosure of the information for which confidential treatment is claimed. General claims of confidentiality are not sufficient. Sufficient information must be furnished for the officer conducting the investigation, or other appropriate official, to make an informed decision on the request for confidential treatment. If the person states that the information comes within the exception in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) for trade secrets and commercial or financial information, the person shall include a statement specifying why the information is privileged or confidential. If the person filing a document does not submit a second copy of the document with the confidential information deleted, the Officer conducting the investigation may assume that there is no objection to public disclosure of the document in its entirety. The Commission retains the right to make the determination with regard to any claim of confidentiality. Notice of the decision by the investigating Officer or other appropriate official to deny a claim, in whole or in part, and an opportunity to respond shall be given to a person claiming confidentiality no less than 5 days before its public disclosure.
### §9542. Agency study on alternative financing solutions

#### (a) Purpose

The purpose of this section is to provide information relating to alternative financing solutions to minority business enterprises, as those business enterprises are more likely to struggle in accessing, particularly at affordable rates, traditional sources of capital.

#### (b) Study and report

Not later than 1 year after November 15, 2021, the Under Secretary shall—

(1) conduct a study on opportunities for providing alternative financing solutions to minority business enterprises; and

(2) submit to Congress, and publish on the website of the Agency, a report describing the findings of the study carried out under paragraph (1).

(Pub. L. 117–58, div. K, title II, §100202, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1456.)
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 14674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6281]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Research 
Career Enhancement Awards.
    Date: April 1, 2011.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Blvd., 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Christopher Moore, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of 
Health/NIDCD, 6120 Executive Blvd, Rm 400C, Bethesda, MD 20892-7180, 
301-402-3587, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#167b79796473757e647f656279667e736456787f72757238787f7e38717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c5a8aaaab7a0a6adb7acb6b1aab5ada0b785abaca1a6a1ebabacadeba2aab3">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: March 11, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-6281 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
June, 11 th 2015

Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: 

### Exemption Amendment Request to Exemption #11295, Regulatory Document

# FAA

- 2014

- 0995

Dear Sir/Madam

,

This request is to amend the RoboFlight Systems, LLC, exemption #11295 to include the DJI S

1000 , DJI F550, and the DJI Phantom 3 sUAS platforms. These systems are very similar to the

systems already approved under the original exemption.

Sincerely

,

Kirk Demuth

Chief Operating Officer

RoboFlight Systems LLC

5530 W. Parkway Suite 300

Johnston, IA 50131

785

- 410

- 6823
DENY; and Opinion Filed July 2, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00790-CV

IN RE JOHN CLOUD, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F93-61603

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Whitehill

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial 

court to conduct a hearing pursuant to rule 34.5(e) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Relator was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of two children under age fourteen and 

sentenced to life imprisonment in each case. Cloud v. State, No. 05–96–00732–CR, 1998 WL 

227941, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 8, 1998, pet. ref'd). We affirmed the convictions

seventeen years ago. Id. Relator now argues that “the record has been altered, amended, 

changed, redacted, and is not reliable” because there “are instruments spanning decades that 

conflict with the alleged RR [reporter’s record] from the trial, police reports show alteration, 

outcry stmt [statement] amended . . . .”

To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that the 

trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. 
–2–

Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). We conclude relator 

has failed to establish his right to relief.

150790F.P05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
#### § 50.10 Interventions.

Notices of applications, as provided by § 50.9, will fix the time within which any person desiring to participate in the proceeding may file a petition to intervene, and within which any interested regulatory agency, as provided by § 385.214 of this chapter, desiring to intervene may file its notice of intervention.
§ 807.2 Time limits. ( a ) Except for agricultural water use projects, all registration forms shall be submitted within one year after May 11, 1995, or within six months of initiation of the water withdrawal or diversion, whichever is later; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall limit the responsibility of a project sponsor to apply for and obtain an approval as may be required under part 806 of this chapter. All registered withdrawals shall re-register with the Commission within five years of their initial registration, and at five-year intervals thereafter, unless the withdrawal is sooner discontinued. Upon notice by the Executive Director, compliance with a registration or reporting requirement, or both, of a member state that is substantially equivalent to this requirement shall be considered compliance with this requirement.
( b ) Project sponsors whose existing agricultural water use projects i.e., projects coming into existence prior to March 31, 1997) withdraw or divert in excess of an average of 10,000 gpd for any consecutive 30-day period from a ground or surface water source shall register their use no later than March 31, 1997. Thereafter, project sponsors of new projects proposing to withdraw or divert in excess of 10,000 gpd for any consecutive 30-day period from a ground or surface water source shall be registered prior to project initiation.
###### Editorial Note on Part 0

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

#### § 0.197 Agreements, in connection with criminal proceedings or investigations, promising non-deportation or other immigration benefits.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) shall not be bound, in the exercise of its authority under the immigration laws, through plea agreements, cooperation agreements, or other agreements with or for the benefit of alien defendants, witnesses, or informants, or other aliens cooperating with the United States Government, except by the authorization of the Commissioner of the Service or the Commissioner's delegate. Both the agreement itself and the necessary authorization must be in writing to be effective, and the authorization shall be attached to the agreement.

[Order No. 2055-96, 61 FR 48406, Sept. 13, 1996]
[Cite as Rockaway Park Holdings Corp. v. Davey Kent, Inc. , 2018-Ohio-4728.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO

ROCKAWAY PARK HOLDINGS CORP., : MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2018-P-0073 - vs - : DAVEY KENT, INC., : Defendant, : J. THOMAS MYERS, II, : Defendant-Appellant. :

Civil Appeal from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2017 CV 00988. Judgment: Appeal dismissed.

Aaron Matthew Cole , Thomas & Thomas, 2323 Park Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45206 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). J. Thomas Myers, II , pro se, 200 West Williams Stre et, Kent, OH 44240 (DefendantAppellant).

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J. {¶1} On September 28, 2018, appellant, J. Thomas Myers, II, filed a notice of appeal from an August 31, 2018 entry of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas. In that entry, the trial court overruled appellant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction.2 {¶2} On October 22, 2018, appellee, Rockaway Park Holdings Corp., filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. Appellee posits that appellant has appealed from the denial of a motion to dismiss, which is not a final order within the meaning of R.C. 2505.02. {¶3} Appellant filed no response to the motion to dismiss the appeal. {¶4} For this court to have jurisdiction over this matter, the appealed entry must be final and appealable pursuant to R.C. 2505.02. This court has held that an order denying a motion to dismiss not a final appealable order. Stanek v. Stanek , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2009-Ohio-6859; see , also , Ferrell v. Standard Oil Co. of Ohio , 11 Ohio St.3d 169, 171 (1984). {¶5} Based upon the foregoing analysis, the judgment of the trial court in this matter is not a final appealable order. Thus, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and this appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. {¶6} Appeal dismissed.

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,

concur.
#### McNabb *v.*Avera & McMillan.

May 11, 1910.

Trover. Before Judge Mitchell. Berrien superior court.

June 8, 1909.

*Hendricks Christian,*for plaintiff in error.

*Alexander & Gary*and W. *D. Buie,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

The motion for a new trial contained *many*grounds. But when considered in the light of the evidence contained in the record, none of them require a reversal; nor is there anything in any of them which requires discussion.

*Judgment affirmed.'*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### G. W. Falstrom, appellee, v. J. T. Banning et al., Impleaded with William Franklin, appellant.

Filed April 2, 1902.

No. 11,572.

Judicial Sale: Confirmation: Objections: Defective Record: Presumption.

Appeal from the district court for Ouster county. Heard below before Sullivan, J.

*Affirmed.*

*J. R. Dean,*for appellant.

*Talbot & Allen*and *Alpha Morgan, contra.*

Per Curiam.

The presumptions are all in favor of the regularity of the proceedings had in the district court when a cause is brought here by appeal for review of the proceedings had in that tribunal, and such presumptions will be indulged in until from the record the contrary appears. When objections are made to an order of confirmation of sale of real estate made in judicial proceedings, and the grounds of objections do not appear in the record, it will be presumed that no valid objection was presented, and the order appealed from will accordingly be affirmed. In the record in the present case no grounds for the objection interposed appear in the record, which simply recites that the objections to confirmation were considered and overruled. This ruling will be presumed to be right until it is made to appear affirmatively that some valid objection *340existed against the right to order confirmation, which can not be be said by an inspection of the record presented for our consideration. Order

Affirmed.