alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Entrance Rates and Full-Time Hours of Common Laborers Employed by Cities: September, 1935

              																	Billups, Robert S. (Robert Strother). 						*Entrance Rates and Full-Time Hours of Common Laborers Employed by Cities: September, 1935 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 627*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										1937,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4144,			accessed on September 18, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 825.1 Scope.

This part establishes requirements for certain bituminous surface coal mining activities located west of the 100th meridian west longitude in Wyoming which existed on January 1, 1972, and for surface coal mining activities immediately adjacent thereto which began development after August 3, 1977, in accordance with section 527 of the Act.
Appeal No. 77-52.

#### Mildred I. Baril *et al. v.*Iris C. Brown *et al.*

*Abedon, Stanzler, Biener, Skolnik & Lipsey, Howard I. Lipsey,*for plaintiffs.

*Francis V. Reynolds,*for Iris C. Brown.

*Gunning, LaFazia & Gnys, Inc., Raymond A. LaFazia,*for Elliot F. Webster, for defendants.

The motion of the defendant, Elliot F. Webster, to withdraw his appeal insofar as it relates to the granting of a new trial and his motion that the case be remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial, are granted.

The defendant’s motion for an indefinite stay of time for the filing of his brief is granted.
#### OSHINSKY v. GOTTLIEB.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Appeal—Contempt—Objection not Made Below.

Any objection as to the allegation of service on a debtor of an order for his examination, with injunctive provisions, not being sufficiently specific as to time, place, and manner of the service, should be raised below on proceedings against him for contempt for disposing of his property after the service, the service being admitted. .

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by Abraham Oshinsky against Louis Gottlieb. From an order denying a motion to vacate as on a rehearing an order adjudging defendant in contempt, he appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Charles L. Hoffman and Henry A. Freidman, for appellant.

Miller & Miller, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The order for the judgment debtor’s examination, with the usual injunctive provisions, was served upon him, as-appears from the moving papers to punish him for contempt, and he never disputed the fact of service. If the allegation of service were not deemed to be sufficiently specific as to time, place, and manner of service, the point should have been taken in the course of the proceedings below, but upon the record before us the fact was established for the purposes of jurisdiction. Upon the merits the probabilities favor the conclusion that the money disposed of by the debtor while the injunction was in force was his own, and that the disposal was his act as principal, not as agent for his wife. The wife’s testimony, as brought out upon her examination in the proceedings,- could properly be taken as more probably true than her later statement made in an affidavit to contradict her testimony, and, the order adjudging the debtor in contempt being sufficient in form for jurisdictional purposes, the denial of the motion to vacate it upon any ground asserted below presents no subject for reversal.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.343 Underground shops. ( a ) Underground shops shall be equipped with an automatic fire suppression system meeting the requirements of § 75.1107-3 through § 75.1107-16, or be enclosed in a noncombustible structure or area.
( b ) Underground shops shall be ventilated with intake air that is coursed directly into a return air course.
§ 886.22 What records must I maintain? You must maintain complete records in accordance with 43 CFR part 12. Your records must support the information you reported to us. This includes, but is not limited to, books, documents, maps, and other evidence. Accounting records must document procedures and practices sufficient to verify: ( a ) The amount and use of all Title IV funds received; and
( b ) The total direct and indirect costs of the reclamation program for which you received the grant.
### §2588. Public participation in planning for defense environmental cleanup

The Secretary of Energy shall consult with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Attorney General, Governors and attorneys general of affected States, appropriate representatives of affected Indian tribes, and interested members of the public in any planning conducted by the Secretary for defense environmental cleanup activities at Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLIV, §4408, formerly Pub. L. 103–337, div. C, title XXXI, §3160(e), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3095; renumbered Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLIV, §4408, and amended Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(g)(9), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1765; Pub. L. 113–66, div. C, title XXXI, §3146(e)(9), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1077.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly set out as a note under section 7274g of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 108–136.

#### Amendments

2013—Pub. L. 113–66 substituted "defense environmental cleanup" for "environmental restoration and waste management at defense nuclear facilities" in section catchline and substituted "attorneys general" for "Attorneys General" and "defense environmental cleanup activities" for "environmental restoration and waste management" in text.

2003—Pub. L. 108–136, §3141(g)(9)(C), substituted "Public participation in planning for environmental restoration and waste management at defense nuclear facilities" for "Public participation in planning" in section catchline.
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 11287]

I hereby determine, in accordance with section 5 of Presidential Proclamation No. 6958, of November 22, 1996, that the suspension of entry into the United States of members or officials of the Government of Sudan (GOS) and members of the Sudanese armed forces is no longer necessary and should be terminated given the termination of the restrictive measures in UN Security Council Resolution 1054 and its successor resolution UNSCR 1070, and the significant shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Sudan following the installation of the new Sudanese Civilian-Led Transitional Government. Restrictions imposed in said proclamation, pursuant to Section 212(f) and 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and section 301 of title 3, United States Code shall therefore lapse, and said proclamation shall terminate effective immediately.

                    This determination will be reported to Congress and published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 15, 2020.

Michael R. Pompeo,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2020-28271 Filed 12-22-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-26-P
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

79–011 2018

115th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 115–109 

SUSPENSION OF THE APPLICATION OF DUTY-FREE 

TREATMENT TO ALL AGOA-ELIGIBLE GOODS 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO SUSPEND THE APPLICATION OF 

DUTY-FREE TREATMENT TO ALL AGOA-ELIGIBLE GOODS IN THE 

APPAREL SECTOR FOR THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA, PURSUANT 

TO 19 U.S.C. 2466A(c)(2); PUBLIC LAW 93–618, SEC. 506A(c)(2) (AS 

ADDED BY PUBLIC LAW 114–27, SEC. 105(b)(2); (129 STAT. 366) 

MARCH 29, 2018.—Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and 

ordered to be printed 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, March 29, 2018. 

Hon. PAUL D. RYAN, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 506A(c)(2) of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2466a(c)(2)), I am providing advance notification of my intent to suspend the application 

of duty-free treatment to all African Growth and Opportunity Act 

(AGOA)-eligible goods in the apparel sector for the Republic of 

Rwanda 60 days after the date of this notification. 

The Government of Rwanda continues to impose barriers to 

United States trade, specifically, barriers affecting certain United 

States exports of apparel products. In spite of intense engagement 

by United States officials with the Government of Rwanda, the 

United States has been unable to resolve this matter. I have therefore determined that the Government of Rwanda is not making 

continual progress toward the elimination of barriers to United 

States trade and investment, as required by section 104 of the 

AGOA. 

The suspension of duty-free treatment described above is a more 

appropriate response in these circumstances than the termination 

of the Government of Rwanda’s designation as a beneficiary subSaharan African country under AGOA, as it promotes the continuation of efforts between the United States and Rwanda to resolve 

outstanding issues. Although the Government of Rwanda has failed 

to meet critical benchmarks required to address these issues to 

date, it continues to express an interest in resolving United States 

concerns. 

I will continue to assess whether the Government of Rwanda is 

making continual progress toward the elimination of barriers to 

United States trade and investment in accordance with the AGOA 

eligibility requirements, as well as whether this suspension of benefits is effective in promoting compliance with those requirements. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD J. TRUMP. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARING
Opinion issued February 21, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00460-CR

———————————

DEIDRIS WOODS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1457437

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Deidris Woods, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of assault on 

a public servant. On September 5, 2015, in accordance with appellant’s plea 

agreement with the State, the trial court signed an order deferring adjudication of 
2

guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for three years.1 Appellant, 

acting pro se, filed notices of appeal on December 1, 2017 and May 11, 2018. We 

dismiss the appeal.

In criminal cases, the appellant must file a notice of appeal “within 30 days 

after the day sentence is imposed.” TEX. R. APP. P 26.2(a)(1). Because the order 

appealed was signed on September 8, 2015, the deadline for filing the notice of 

appeal was October 8, 2015. Appellant’s initial notice of appeal was filed on 

December 1, 2017, over two years too late. If an appeal is not timely perfected, then 

a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal and 

can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 

208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Because appellant’s notices of appeal were

untimely, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1.

Moreover, in a plea-bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters 

that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the 

trial court's permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant 

has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 

see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Here, the clerk’s 

 

1 Although the State moved to adjudicate guilt in June 2017, the record, which 

includes filings up to appellant’s second notice of appeal in May 2018, shows no 

order granting the motion.
3

record supports the trial court’s certification that this is a plea-bargain case and that 

appellant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d); Dears, 154 

S.W.3d at 615. Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal 

without further action. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an 

appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a), must dismiss a 

prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
EXHIBIT 31 (a)





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES


EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-


OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Michael J. Alley, certify that:




1.  I have reviewed this amendment to annual report on Form 10-K/A of Integra Bank Corporation;




2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.




Date: April 25, 2011/s/ Michael J. AlleyMichael J. Alley, Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer
## 1. U.S. EPA FACT SHEET

Proposed Revisions to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality New Source Review Program

March 4 , 2015

Summary of Action:

EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the State Implementation P lan (SIP) submitted by the State of Arizona’s Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) that are primarily intended to replace ADEQ’s current SIP

- approved preconstruction New Source Review (NSR) Program under the Clean
Air Act.

If approved, the proposed revisions would significantly strengthen ADEQ’s current federal NSR program by clarifying and enhancing the NSR permitting requirements for major and minor stationary sources.

Additional Information:

The NSR program establishes the requirements for prec onstruction review and the issuance of permits for stationary sources, including review and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications
under the Clean Air Act.

NSR permits are typically issued by state or local air pollution contr ol agencies. ADEQ has an NSR permit program as part of the State’s EPA

- approved SIP.

EPA has not approved substantial revisions to the preconstruction permitting rules for ADEQ in the Arizona SIP since the early 1980s.

In 2012, after a lengthy stakehold er process and extensive technical and regulatory efforts, ADEQ submitted revisions to its NSR program for EPA approval into the Arizona SIP.

Today’s proposed limited approval and limited disapproval action will update the applicable plan and set the
stag e for remedying certain deficiencies in these rules.

The EPA intends to work with ADEQ to correct the deficiencies identified in this action in a timely manner.

If finalized as proposed, this limited disapproval action would trigger an obligation on EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan unless ADEQ submits and EPA approves plan revisions that correct the deficiencies within two years of the final action.

For certain deficiencies, the limited disapproval would also trigger sanctions unless ADEQ submits and EPA approves SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies within 18 months of final action.

The EPA is also proposing to partially disapprove two portions of the submittal that relate to provisions that have been vacated by the federal courts, and proposes limited approval for a portion of the program for certain nonattainment areas. EPA is also proposing to approve a statutory provision relating to local delegation of state authority.



### Next Steps:

There will be a 30

- day public comment period on ce this proposal is published in the Federal Register.

Further Information: http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/actions/az.html#all
### §4323. Allocation of "unallocated interest fund"

#### (a) Allocation among trusts; basis of allocation

The Alien Property Custodian shall allocate among the various trusts the funds in the "unallocated interest fund" (as defined in section 4325 of this title). Such allocation shall be based upon the earnings (determined by the Secretary of the Treasury) on the total amounts deposited under section 4312 of this title.

#### (b) Payment to persons entitled to distributions

The Alien Property Custodian, when the allocation has been made, is authorized and directed to pay to each person entitled, in accordance with a final decision of a court of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or of an opinion of the Attorney General, to the distribution of any portion of such unallocated interest fund, the amount allocated to his trust, except as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

#### (c) Credit against amount invested in certificates

In the case of persons entitled, under paragraph (12), (13), (14), or (16) of subsection (b) of section 4309 of this title, to such return, and in the case of persons who would be entitled to such return thereunder if all such money or property had not been returned under paragraph (9) or (10) of such subsection, and in the case of persons entitled to such return under subsection (n) of section 4309 of this title, an amount equal to the aggregate amount allocated to their trusts shall be credited against the sum of $25,000,000 invested in participating certificates under paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 4322 of this title. If the aggregate amount so allocated is in excess of $25,000,000, an amount equal to the excess shall be invested in the same manner. Upon the repayment of any of the amounts so invested, under the provisions of section 4 of the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, the amount so repaid shall be distributed pro rata among such persons, notwithstanding any receipts or releases given by them.

#### (d) Availability of unallocated interest fund

The unallocated interest fund shall be available for carrying out the provisions of this section, including the expenses of making the allocation.

(Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 106, §26, as added Mar. 10, 1928, ch. 167, §15, 45 Stat. 273; amended June 11, 1929, ch. 14, 46 Stat. 6.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 4 of the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, referred to in subsec. (c), is section 4 of act Mar. 10, 1928, ch. 167, 45 Stat. 260, which is not classified to the Code.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 26 of the former Appendix to this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

1929—Subsec. (a). Act June 11, 1929, struck out "average rate of" before "earnings" in second sentence.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions vested by law in Alien Property Custodian and Office of Alien Property Custodian transferred to Attorney General by Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1947, §101, eff. July 1, 1947, 12 F.R. 4534, 61 Stat. 951, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
#### GILMOUR v. KENNY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Pleading—Municipal Courts—Denial.

Under Municipal Court Act, g 150 (Laws 1902, p. 1538), providing that in a Municipal Court the answer must contain a general or specific denial of each material allegation, or of any knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form a belief, an answer that defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to any of the allegations in the complaint, and therefore denies the same, constitutes a denial.

¶ 1. See Pleading, vol. 39, Cent. Dig. § 245

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.

Action by J. Morrison Gilmour against Patrick F. Kenny. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

J. J. Fitzgerald, for appellant.

Moore, Ashley & Linton, for respondent.

FREEDMAN, P. J.

Judgment was given for the plaintiff in this action on the ground answer no answer was, in substance, as follows: “The defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to any of the allegations in said complaint, and therefore denies the same.” Section 150 of the new Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1538) provides the form in which an answer may now be set up in a Municipal Court, and is exactly similar to section 500 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The *503form used.by the appellant herein has been held to be a denial, even without the words, “and therefore denies the same.” Meehan v. Harlem Savings Bank, 5 Hun, 439; Grocers’ Bank v. O’Rorke, 6 Hun, 18; Flood v. Reynolds, 13 How. Prac. 112.

. Judgment reversed. New trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.