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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 391 

Reaffirming a strong commitment to U.S. producers and American-made 

commodities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 31, 2019 

Mr. TESTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

RESOLUTION 

Reaffirming a strong commitment to U.S. producers and 

American-made commodities. 

Whereas the U.S. farmers and ranchers raise the best meat 

in the world; 

Whereas Americans should have the right to knowingly buy 

made in America products; 

Whereas American farmers, ranchers, workers and consumers 

benefit from transparency on the origin of food; 

Whereas Congress overwhelmingly supported Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–246; 122 Stat. 1651) 

because 87 percent of consumers want to know the country of origin of their meat; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 391 IS 

Whereas in 2015, Congress repealed the Country-of-Origin 

Labeling (COOL) law for beef and pork, reducing the 

competitive advantage of products born, raised, and 

slaughtered in the U.S.; 

Whereas there is no standardized definition of the term 

‘‘truth in labeling’’, disadvantaging American producers; 

Whereas Congress supports American products, and consumers deserve the right to know where their food comes 

from; 

Whereas the United States has the highest phytosanitary 

standards in the world while other countries place less 

emphasis on food safety; 

Whereas foreign commodities, like beef and pork, are 

misleadingly labeled ‘‘Product of USA’’ if they are processed or packed in the United States; 

Whereas technological advancements make it possible to accurately and efficiently identify the origin of beef and pork 

without costly segregation of imported and domestic commodities; 

Whereas this gives producers and consumers the ability to 

identify true American products from foreign imported 

meat; and 

Whereas Country-of-Origin labeling is good for farmers, 

ranchers, workers, and packers, because it allows them to 

identify their products as born and raised in the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports legislation to rein2 state Country-of-Origin labeling for pork and beef to allow 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 391 IS 

1 consumers to make an informed and free choice about 

2 where their food comes from. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
After a review of original response to the ecological risk assessment, it appears that Syngenta’s

calculation of the mg/kg/day dose level may not have been clearly described, which has led to the Agency confusion. The 50 mg a.i./kg – bw/day value used in the preliminary ecological risk assessment appears to be a generic default value used in the T- REX model. However, the study report used for this risk assessment contains data, which when used to calculate the actual exposures on a mg a .i./kg bw/day basis, provides evidence that the actual time -weighted dose levels to these animals exceeded this default value. Therefore, time -weighted average (TWA) dose levels were calculated using group mean values for body weight, food consumption, a n d dietary concentrations (ppm). T hese calculations were conducted as follows: 1. The mean body weight recorded at the end of each dosing week was used in these calculations . This value was considered conservative, in that a mid - week body weight value is typic ally calculated for use in determining TWA doses. Use of this higher body weight at the end of each measurement period results in lower TWA values than would be calculated using a mid - week value. 2. Average food consumption values (g food/animal/day) were extracted from the study report (Table 5) 3. Duplicate analyses were conducted on a weekly basis on all diets (Appendix H) . Therefore, the mean analytical values were utilized for diet concentrations rather than the nominal targeted value of 1000 ppm. 4. Weekly dose levels were then calculated by dividing the average food consumption (g/animal/day) by mean body weight (kg/rat), and multiplied by the analytically determined concentrations ( ppm) divided by 1000.

Food Consumption (g/day) x Concentration (ppm= mg/k g)

Body weight (kg) x 1000 (g/kg) Based on the use of these values, the TWA dose levels for the F0 males and females were 70.0 and 84.5 mg/kg/day, respectively. It is important to note that calculation of the dose for the F1 males using this same scenario resulted in a TWA dose of 54.6 mg/kg/day. However, as the 70 mg/kg/day dose level for the F0 males was considered an NOAEL, the use of this lower value in the risk assessment is not considered appropriate.
#### § 79.1 Purpose.

The purpose of the regulations in this part is to implement the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (“Act”), as amended by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 (“2000 Amendments”) and by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (“Appropriations Authorization Act”). The Act authorizes the Attorney General of the United States to establish procedures for making certain payments to qualifying individuals who contracted one of the diseases listed in the Act. The amount of each payment and a general statement of the qualifications are indicated in § 79.3(a). The procedures established in this part are designed to utilize existing records so that claims can be resolved in a reliable, objective, and non-adversarial manner, quickly and with little administrative cost to the United States or to the person filing the claim.
§ 490.315 Establishment of minimum level for condition of pavements. ( a ) For the purposes of carrying out the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1), the percentage of lane-miles of Interstate System in Poor condition, as computed per § 490.313(e)(3), shall not exceed 5.0 percent except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) For the purposes of carrying out the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119(f)(1), the percentage of lane-miles of Interstate System in Poor condition within the State of Alaska, as computed per § 490.313(e)(3), shall not exceed 10.0 percent.
ALASKA SEAFOOD CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0652

DCN: 00052CBI

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
### §580j. Injury benefits for temporary employees

Appropriations of the Forest Service chargeable with salaries and wages shall be available for payment to temporary employees of the Forest Service for loss of time due to injury in official work at rates not in excess of those provided by subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5, when the injured person is in need of immediate financial assistance to avoid hardship: Provided, That such payment shall not be made for a period in excess of fifteen days and the Secretary of Labor shall be notified promptly of the amount so paid, which amount shall be deducted from the amount, if any, otherwise payable by the Secretary of Labor to the employee on account of the injury, the amount so deducted by the Secretary of Labor to be paid to the Forest Service for deposit to the credit of the Forest Service appropriation from which the expenditure was made: Provided further, That when any person assisting in the suppression of forest fires or in other emergency work under the direction of the Forest Service, without compensation from the United States, pursuant to the terms of a contract, agreement, or permit, is injured in such work, the Forest Service may furnish hospitalization and other medical care, subsistence, and lodging for a period of not to exceed fifteen days during such disability, the cost thereof to be payable from the appropriation applicable to the work upon which the injury occurred, except that this proviso shall not apply when such person is within the purview of a State or other compensation act: Provided further, That determination by the Forest Service that payment is allowable under this section shall be final as to payments made hereunder, but such determination or payments with respect to employees shall not prevent the Secretary of Labor from denying further payments should the Secretary of Labor determine that compensation is not properly allowable under the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5.

(Apr. 24, 1950, ch. 97, §16, 64 Stat. 86.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

"Subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5" substituted in text for references to the United States Employees' Compensation Act, on authority of Pub. L. 89–554, §7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631, the first section of which enacted Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

References to Secretary of Labor substituted in text for references to the United States Employees' Compensation Commission. United States Employees' Compensation Commission, created by section 28 of act Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 458, 39 Stat. 748, abolished and functions thereof transferred to Federal Security Agency to be performed in such manner and under such rules and regulations as Federal Security Administrator shall prescribe, by section 3 of Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1946. These functions subsequently transferred to Department of Labor, to be administered under direction and supervision of Secretary of Labor, by section 1 of Reorg. Plan No. 19, of 1950.
§ 667.7 Timing of evaluations. ( a ) Not later than November 23, 2018, the State DOT must complete the statewide evaluation for all NHS roads, highways and bridges. The State DOT shall update the evaluation after every emergency event to the extent needed to add any roads, highways, or bridges subject to this paragraph that were affected by the event. The State DOT shall review and update the entire evaluation at least every 4 years. In establishing its evaluation cycle, the State DOT should consider how the evaluation can best inform the State DOT's preparation of its asset management plan and STIP.
( b ) Beginning on November 23, 2020, for all roads, highways, and bridges not included in the evaluation prepared under paragraph (a) of this section, the State DOT must prepare an evaluation that conforms with this part for the affected portion of the road, highway, or bridge prior to including any project relating to such facility in its STIP.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7



FLUOR CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
        Management  Manual

================================================================================

Section:      Compensation                                 Page:        136

Subject:     OFFICER AUTOMOBILE OR AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE    Effective:   07-01-98

Applies To:  Fluor Corporation and Selected Subsidiaries   Supersedes:  NEW

================================================================================

GENERAL POLICY

The company may provide company automobiles or automobile allowances as
perquisites to attract, retain and reward officers of Fluor Corporation and
selected subsidiaries.

ELIGIBILITY

Executives who are officers of Fluor Corporation, Fluor Daniel, Inc. and Fluor
Constructors, Inc. and who are eligible to participate in the Fluor Corporation
and subsidiaries Executive Incentive Plan.

PROCEDURE

A.    An automobile or automobile allowance may be provided to company officers
      at the discretion of the company.

B.    Whether to provide company owned automobiles or automobile allowances will
      be based on applicable tax legislation, local competitive practices and at
      the convenience of the company.

C.    Officers provided an automobile or automobile allowance are expected to
      have a clean, well maintained, four-door vehicle suitable for transporting
      clients, business associates or company guest.

D.    The Chief Executive Officer of Fluor Corporation will be provided an
      automobile allowance of $1,900 per month. The President of Fluor
      Corporation $1,600 per month. Inside Directors of Fluor Corporation $1,400
      per month. The company will provide these officers with company provided
      automobile insurance, and reimbursement for automobile maintenance and
      business related gasoline expenditures.

E.    Designated Senior Executive Officers will receive $800 per month and all
      other eligible officers $600 per month. All automobile maintenance and
      gasoline expenses will be at the employee's expense.

G.    Officers, receiving an automobile allowance, will be provided automobile
      insurance coverage by the company for one automobile of the employee's
      choice.

H.    Officers outside of the United States may be provided an automobile in
      lieu of an automobile allowance when local customs and competitive
      practices dictate.
#### Gonzales-Mandelbaum Company v. Joseph Broghamer.

Filed March 5, 1902.

No. 11,329.

Bill of Exceptions: Quashed: Assignments: Verdict: Evidence: Motion to Quash. Where a bill of exceptions is quashed, and the only assignments of error relate to the introduction of evidence, and a general assignment that the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence, the reviewing court will only inquire whether the pleadings will support the judment rendered.

Error from the district court for Dawes county. Tried below before Hollenbeck, J.

*Affirmed.*

*Albert W. Grites,*for plaintiff in error.

*Allen G. Fisher, contra.*

Holcomb, J.

The trial court found generally in favor of the defendant in an action brought for the recovery of the value of certain merchandise alleged to have been sold and delivered to him by the plaintiff, and on such finding dismissed the action. Plaintiff prosecutes error. The only errors assigned relate to the rulings of the court in sustaining objections to the introduction of certain evidence, and a general assignment that the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence. The bill of exceptions having heretofore been quashed, we are only required, in the consideration of such assignments of error, to ascertain from the record whether the judgment complained of can be sustained by the pleadings; and, the most casual examination disclosing such to be the case, the judgment of the trial court should be, and accordingly is,

Affirmed.
Notice Recipients

District/Off: 0422−1 User: douglasse Date Created: 10/5/2018

Case: 17−13497−BFK Form ID: igmoti16 Total: 1

Recipients of Notice of Electronic Filing:

aty Ioannis Laskaris ioannis.laskaris@maryland.gov

TOTAL: 1

Case 17-13497-BFK Doc 187-1 Filed 10/05/18 Entered 10/05/18 08:11:26 Desc

 Checksheet - Motion/NTC: Notice Recipients Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Kurt R. Moore, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of Ablest Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         */s/ Kurt R. Moore*   Kurt R. Moore   President and Chief Executive Officer   Date: April 25, 2007
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Charles W. Berger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Nuance Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Nuance Communications, Inc.



By:

/s/    CHARLES W. BERGERCharles W. Berger, Chief Executive Officer May 15, 2003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 97152 / March 16, 2023

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-19716

In the Matter of

Sica Wealth Management, LLC and 

Jeffrey C. Sica,

Respondents.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER DIRECTING 

DISBURSEMENT OF FAIR FUND

On April 19, 2022, the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority, 

published a Notice of Proposed Plan of Distribution and Opportunity for Comment (“Notice”),1

pursuant to Rule 1103 of the Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans 

(“Commission’s Rules”);2and simultaneously posted the Proposed Plan of Distribution (the 

“Proposed Plan”). The Notice advised interested persons that they could obtain a copy of the 

Proposed Plan from the Commission’s public website or by submitting a written request to Noel 

Gittens, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 

20549-5876. The Notice also advised that all persons desiring to comment on the Proposed Plan 

could submit their comments, in writing, within 30 days of the Notice. The Commission 

received no comments on the Proposed Plan during the comment period. On July 16, 2022, the 

Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority, issued an order approving the 

Proposed Plan,3and posted the approved Plan of Distribution (the “Plan”).

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 94759 (April 19, 2022).

2

 17 C.F.R. § 201.1103.

3

 See Exchange Act Rel. No. 95110 (July 16, 2022).
The Plan provides for the distribution of the Fair Fund, plus accumulated interest, less 

taxes, fees, and expenses, to the harmed investors according to the methodology set forth in the 

Plan. 

In accordance with the Plan, the Fund Administrator has compiled the payee information 

and prepared a payment file in a Commission-approved format. The Commission staff has 

reviewed and accepted the payment file and requests, pursuant to Rule 1101(b)(6) of the 

Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans,4that the Commission direct the 

payment of $382,902.00 from the Fair Fund to the escrow account at The Huntington National 

Bank for distribution in accordance with the Plan. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Commission staff shall direct the payment 

of $382,902.00 from the Fair Fund to the escrow account at The Huntington National Bank for 

distribution in accordance with the Plan.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.5

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary 

 

4

 17 C.F.R. § 201.1101(b)(6).

5

 17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(21)(v).
Mr. Kevin D. Schlemmer Chief, Essential Air Service and Domestic Analysis Division United States Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590

Dear Kevin, 

# SUNAIREXPRESS

3201 Griffin Road Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 Tel: 954-660-9865 Fax: 954-894-0367

October 2, 2014

As you may be aware, we have been working closely with the Lancaster, PA community with respectto developing air service to become more sustainable on a long term basis and match it more closely to their needs. Together, we have concludedthatthe community would be best served by shifting some orall ofthe existing EAS flight frequencies from lAD to Pittsburgh International Airport. There is significant interest among the local communityto see PIT service reinstated, we have heard numerous similar comments from Western Pennsylvania communities about flights from there to LNS, and the demographic analyses suggest it canbe successful. There are a number ofcommunities inEasternPennsylvaniathat have lost nonstop service to PIT, and LNS has the potential to fill at least a portion ofthat void. We requestthe Department's approval in establishing PIT as an authorized EAS destination from LNS, in addition to lAD. No change to the existing per-departure EAS subsidy level is being requested. We are prepared to begin a transition in the late October/early November time frame, and ofcourse would ensure that any passenger itineraries already booked beyond that point are eitherre-accommodated orrefunded, based upon the passengers' interests.
Thank you for your assistance, and we look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convienence. Sincerely, 

### Vcwi.dt

## f. Hetekett David F. Hackett ChiefExecutive Sun Air Express, LLC



### YourPersonalAirline
### §521g. Road rights-of-way subject to State or local law

Conveyance of any road rights-of-way under sections 521c to 521i of this title shall not be construed as permitting any designation, maintenance, or use of such rights-of-way for road or other purposes except to the extent permitted by State or local law and under conditions imposed by such law.

(Pub. L. 97–465, §5, Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2536.)
#### Samuel Sackheim, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Stockholders of Reiter-Foster Oil Corporation, Appellant, v. Reiter-Foster Oil Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Ho opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.