alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §414. Right to copies of collective bargaining agreements

It shall be the duty of the secretary or corresponding principal officer of each labor organization, in the case of a local labor organization, to forward a copy of each collective bargaining agreement made by such labor organization with any employer to any employee who requests such a copy and whose rights as such employee are directly affected by such agreement, and in the case of a labor organization other than a local labor organization, to forward a copy of any such agreement to each constituent unit which has members directly affected by such agreement; and such officer shall maintain at the principal office of the labor organization of which he is an officer copies of any such agreement made or received by such labor organization, which copies shall be available for inspection by any member or by any employee whose rights are affected by such agreement. The provisions of section 440 of this title shall be applicable in the enforcement of this section.

(Pub. L. 86–257, title I, §104, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 523.)
#### Edward G. Mullen, an Infant, by Edward T. Mullen, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. B. J. Fayette, Doing Business under the Name of Vermont Fruit and Grocery Company, et al., Appellants.

Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Santry, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 527.]
###### Editorial Note on Part 124

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 124 appear at 72 FR 50040, Aug. 30, 2007, and 76 FR 8253, Feb. 11, 2011.

#### § 124.203 What must a concern submit to apply to the 8(a) BD program?

Each 8(a) BD applicant concern must submit information and supporting documents required by SBA when applying for admission to the 8(a) BD program. This information may include, but not be limited to, financial data and statements, copies of filed Federal personal and business tax returns, individual and business bank statements, personal history statements, and any additional information or documents SBA deems necessary to determine eligibility. Each individual claiming disadvantaged status must also authorize SBA to request and receive tax return information directly from the Internal Revenue Service. In all cases, the applicant must provide a signature from each individual claiming social and economic disadvantage status. The electronic signing protocol will ensure the Agency is able to specifically identify the individual making the representation. The individual(s) upon whom eligibility is based take responsibility for the accuracy of all information submitted on behalf of the applicant.

[81 FR 48581, July 25, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 66185, Oct. 16, 2020]
### §1392. Obligation to contribute

#### (a) "Obligation to contribute" defined

For purposes of this part, the term "obligation to contribute" means an obligation to contribute arising—

(1) under one or more collective bargaining (or related) agreements, or

(2) as a result of a duty under applicable labor-management relations law, but

does not include an obligation to pay withdrawal liability under this section or to pay delinquent contributions.

#### (b) Payments of withdrawal liability not considered contributions

Payments of withdrawal liability under this part shall not be considered contributions for purposes of this part.

#### (c) Transactions to evade or avoid liability

If a principal purpose of any transaction is to evade or avoid liability under this part, this part shall be applied (and liability shall be determined and collected) without regard to such transaction.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, §4212, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, §104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1233.)
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323

Tel. 404-331-5503 or 7878

No. II-96-48 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark 404-331-5503 (Friday, May 31, 1996)

Roger Hannah 404-331-7878

NRC STAFF ISSUES NOTICES OF VIOLATION TO GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

FOLLOWING PERSONNEL DISCRIMINATION RULINGS BY SECRETARY OF LABOR

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has cited Georgia Power Company for two

violations of NRC requirements for discrimination against employees engaged in protected

activities related to safety concerns at nuclear power plants.

NRC officials said the violations, cited following decisions by the Secretary of Labor in

favor of two former company employees, were each determined to be Severity Level 1, the most

serious of four NRC violation levels for which enforcement actions are taken. However, no

monetary civil penalty is proposed in either case because the five-year Statute of Limitations for

such action expired while the employees were pursuing complaints and appeals at the

Department of Labor. The NRC's policy is to base enforcement action on DOL decisions when

the NRC has no independent investigatory findings.

In one case, the Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order on August 4,

1995, which overturned an Administrative Law Judge's finding of November 8, 1991, that

company actions taken against Mr. Marvin B. Hobby were not motivated by his engaging in

protected activity. Specifically involved was the raising of safety concerns in 1989 in the

operation of the Vogtle nuclear power plant near Waynesboro, Georgia. Mr. Hobby expressed

concerns that the organizational structure governing the company's operation of its nuclear

facilities violated NRC requirements.

In the other case, the Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order on

November 20, 1995, reversing an Administrative Law Judge's finding of October 30, 1992, that

the company did not discriminate against Mr. Allen L. Mosbaugh for engaging in protected

activities. The Labor Secretary concluded that Mr. Mosbaugh was engaged in protected activity

"by making lawful tape recordings that constituted evidence gathering in support of a nuclear

complaint" and that other employees' potential unwillingness to communiate with him was not a

legitimate reason to discharge him.

The NRC adopted the Secretary of Labor's determination that the firings were acts of
discrimination because the two were engaged in protected activities.

NRC officials said employees who raise real or percieved safety concerns

may not be discrimined against for raising such concerns and that holders of an NRC operating

license must provide an environment in which all employees may freely raise safety issues.

The company has 30 days from May 30 to respond.

####
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1526-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1526-DR), dated June 18, 2004, and related determinations.

# DATES:

Effective October 8, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is now May 7, 2004, through and including July 3, 2004.

                        (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services                               ( print page 61515)                            Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individual and Household Housing; 97.049, Individual and Household Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individual and Household Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)                    

Michael D. Brown,

Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 04-23309 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****HIV/AIDS among youth.**
 
2005 | 2006 | 2008
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.7320/3:Y 8/
Item Number:0494-K-12 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000593818
 
February 20, 2020
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 10, 2016

No. 04-16-00287-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.S. AND D.S., MINOR CHILDREN,

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-0046-CV

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights which 

must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. TEX.

R.JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. 

Although the reporter’s record was due on June 6, 2016, no reporter’s record has been 

filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(b) (requiring the reporter’s record in an accelerated appeal to be 

filed within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed). It is therefore ORDERED that the 

reporter’s record must be filed in this appeal no later than ten days from the date of this order. 

See id. 35.3(c) (limiting extensions of time in an accelerated appeal). No motions for extension 

of time will be granted absent extenuating circumstances. See id.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### Mr. JosephMattingly 

### Department of 

### Energy Washington, DC 20585

DirectorofGovernment Affairs and General Counsel Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association 1901 NorthMoore Street P.O. Box 9245 Arlington, VA 22209

Dear Joe:

On May IS, 1998, the Department ofEnergy (DOE or the Department) held a meeting with the American 

### Gas Association, the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and certain member companies regarding the cooking products rule. During the meeting, theDepartment requested information.from the gas industry. The Department's most important question pertained to the number ofshipments ofgas ranges with and without power cordsbefore the enactment ofNAECAin 1987. This information would help theDepartment to estimate the number ofhomes using gas cooking products that did not have electricity available prior to 1987. Itis important to analyze data prior to the enactment ofNAECA because this data would not be skewed due to regulatory effects.

OnJuly 2, 1998, Harper-Wyman Company sent DOE a letter providing some ofthe information requested at the meeting onMay 15, 1998. However, this letter did not address shipments ofgas ranges with and without power cords before 1987. Following the receipt ofthis letter, DOE staff (Kathi Epping and Carl Adams) had phone conversations with GAMA regarding this letter. Based on these discussions, the Department believes that neither GAMA nor any ofits members have information regarding the shipments ofgas ranges with and without power cords prior to 1987. Ifthe Department's understanding is incorrect, please contact Ms. Kathi Epping ofmy staff. 

# (L/ //', ; 

# 1/ "

d /

. ael McCabe, Director Office ofCodes and Standards Office ofBuilding Technologies, State, and

Community Programs Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

# *

Printed wrth soy ink on recycled paper
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 NuTech Digital, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lee
Kasper, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 and 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/Lee Kasper
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    By:  Lee Kasper
                                    President and Chief Financial Officer
                                    March 23, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Floyd JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4896.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 25, 2002.

Decided May 6, 2002.

Stanton D. Levenson, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Jones appeals the sixty-month sentence he received after he pled guilty to aiding and abetting interstate travel to facilitate a conspiracy to distribute crack, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1952(a)(3) (West 2000). He contends that, at sentencing, the district court incorrectly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining the amount of drugs attributable to the underlying offense. *See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§§ 2E1.2, 2D1.1 (2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Jones contends that, if the district court had found him to be a credible witness at sentencing, his,base offense level would have been twelve instead of thirty-four. Relying on *United States v. Kikumura,*918 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir.1990), Jones asserts that the court should have used the clear and convincing standard because it increased his base offense level by twenty-two levels. We disagree.

This court has consistently held that “facts relevant to a sentencing determination need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” *United States v. Lewis,*235 F.3d 215, 218 (4th Cir.2000) (citing *United States v. Urrego-Linares,*879 F.2d 1234, 1237-38 (4th Cir.1989)), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 39, 151 L.Ed.2d 12 (2001). In addition, the resolution of the disputed amount of drugs turned on the district court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses at the sentencing hearing, and we conclude that the court’s determination was not clearly erroneous. *See United States v. Williams,*977 F.2d 866, 870 (4th Cir.1992).

Accordingly, we affirm Jones’ sentence. 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.*
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

TERI WALTERS and KIM WALTERS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED August 16, 2016

v No. 319016 Eaton Circuit Court DONALD S. FALIK, D.D.S., d/b/a FALIK FAMILY DENTISTRY, ROBERT C. FALIK, D.D.S., and JANE DOE, LC No. 12-000658-NH

Defendants-Appellees.

ON REMAND

Before: M URPHY , P.J., and M ETER and S ERVITTO , JJ.

M ETER , J. ( dissenting ).

I respectfully dissent for the same reasons expressed in my ea rlier dissenting opinion. Walters v Falik , unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issue d January 29, 2015 (Docket No. 319016) (M ETER , J., dissenting). If anything, Elher v Misra , 499 Mich 11; ___ NW2d ___ (2016), serves to strengthen my position.

I would affirm the tri al court’s ruling.

/s/ Patrick M. Meter
§ 206.1 Purpose. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this subpart is to prescribe the policies and procedures to be followed in implementing those sections of Public Law 93-288, as amended, delegated to the Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The rules in this subpart apply to major disasters and emergencies declared by the President on or after November 23, 1988, the date of enactment of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 *et seq.*
( b ) *Prior regulations.* Prior regulations relating to major disasters and emergencies declared by the President before November 23, 1988 were published in 44 CFR part 205 (see 44 CFR part 205 as contained in the CFR edition revised as of October 1, 1994).
[59 FR 53363, Oct. 24, 1994]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61505-61506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23320]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency


Notice of Adjustment of Countywide Per Capita Impact Indicator

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the countywide per capita impact 
indicator under the Public Assistance program for disasters declared on 
or after October 1, 2004 will be increased.

DATES:  Effective October 1, 2004 and applies to major disasters 
declared on or after October 1, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Walke, Recovery Division, 
Federal Emergency Management

[[Page 61506]]

Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Response and Recovery Directorate Policy No. 
9122.1 provides that FEMA will adjust the countywide per capita impact 
indicator under the Public Assistance program to reflect annual changes 
in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the 
Department of Labor.
    FEMA gives notice of an increase in the countywide per capita 
impact indicator to $2.84 for all disasters declared on or after 
October 1, 2004.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price 
Index for All Urban Consumers of 2.7 percent for the 12-month period 
ended in August 2004. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. 
Department of Labor released the information on September 16, 2004.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants.)

Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 04-23320 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 1 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 2 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 3 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 4 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 5 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 6 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 7 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 8 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 9 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 10 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 11 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 12 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 13 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 14 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 15 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 16 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 17 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 18 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 19 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 20 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 21 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 22 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 76-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 23 of 23
#### §§ 204.27-204.40 [Reserved]