alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7521. Actions against administrative law judges

(a) An action may be taken against an administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of this title by the agency in which the administrative law judge is employed only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing before the Board.

(b) The actions covered by this section are—

(1) a removal;

(2) a suspension;

(3) a reduction in grade;

(4) a reduction in pay; and

(5) a furlough of 30 days or less;

but do not include—

(A) a suspension or removal under section 7532 of this title;

(B) a reduction-in-force action under section 3502 of this title; or

(C) any action initiated under section 1215 of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title II, §204(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1137; amended Pub. L. 101–12, §9(a)(2), Apr. 10, 1989, 103 Stat. 35.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7521, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 528; Pub. L. 95–251, §2(a)(1), Mar. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 183, related to removal of an administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 95–454, §204(a).

#### Amendments

1989—Subsec. (b)(C). Pub. L. 101–12 substituted "1215" for "1206".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–12 effective 90 days following Apr. 10, 1989, see section 11 of Pub. L. 101–12, set out as a note under section 1201 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 1101 of this title.
[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. (Historical purposes)

**Title:** Detained youth processed in juvenile andadult court 

PDF,epub,mobi

 
SuDoc:J 32.10:Y 8/19
Item Number:0718-A-09 (online)
CGP system Number:001056039
Exhibit 23.1

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-144336) on Form S-1 of CVD Equipment Corporation of our report dated March 24, 2009 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements which, appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CVD Equipment Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

 

|   | **MSPC** |
|--------|----------|

Certified Public Accountants and Advisors,

A Professional Corporation

 

Cranford, New Jersey

March 24, 2009
#### § 915.1 Scope.

This part contains all rules applicable only within Iowa which have been adopted under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

[46 FR 5891, Jan. 21, 1981]
1

The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4189

___________

Coy Stephen Lyons, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

Davison Transport, Inc., *

* Appeal from the United States

Intervenor-Plaintiff, * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Potlatch Corporation, *

* 

Defendant-Appellee. *

*

___________

Submitted: October 14, 2005

Filed: March 6, 2006

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Coy Stephen Lyons, a tanker-truck driver for Davison Transport, Inc., appeals

the district court's1

 grant of summary judgment to Potlatch Corporation (Potlatch) in
-2-

Lyons' diversity suit against Potlatch for negligence under Arkansas law. The district

court held that Potlatch owed Lyons, a business invitee, a duty to use ordinary care to

maintain its Cypress Bend mill facilities in a reasonably safe condition while Lyons

unloaded sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) at the mill in September of 1996. The court

found that Potlatch did not violate that duty. The court also found that Potlatch did

not exercise control over the NaHS unloading process, rendering inapplicable a duty

under Arkansas law to exercise reasonable care in exercising such control. See Elkins

v. Arkla, Inc., 849 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Ark. 1993). We agree with both conclusions. 

We have carefully considered Lyons' arguments to the contrary. Upon de novo

review, Liszewski v. Target Corp., 374 F.3d 597, 599 (8th Cir. 2004), we find no error

in the district court's grant of summary judgment and affirm on the basis of its wellreasoned memorandum order, see 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05219**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  05219\05219_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 05219\05219_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05219\05219_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05219\05219_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

05219\Certification Statement_05219.pdf Plant certification statement 05219\Supporting Documentation\05219_FEIS.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05219\Supporting Documentation\5219_WaterBalanceDiagram.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05219\5219_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05219\05219_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9923 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9923

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 505 East 9th Avenue in Amarillo, Texas, as the ``Mayor Jerry H. 
                     Hodge Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2024

Mr. Jackson of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
            to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 505 East 9th Avenue in Amarillo, Texas, as the ``Mayor Jerry H. 
                     Hodge Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MAYOR JERRY H. HODGE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 505 East 9th Avenue in Amarillo, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Mayor Jerry H. Hodge Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mayor 
Jerry H. Hodge Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 12.1****DUQUESNE LIGHT HOLDINGS AND SUBSIDIARIES****Calculation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred and Preference Stock DividendRequirements**                           (Millions of Dollars)   Nine Months Ended      September 30,  Year Ended December 31,   **2006**  2005  2004  2003  2002  2001 **Fixed Charges:**                        Interest on long-term debt **$****46.0**  $54.2  $55.2  $53.1  $55.3  $62.3 Other interest  **4.6**   1.1   2.0   12.3   13.3   25.6 Portion of lease payments representingan interest factor  **2.6**   3.1   3.9   4.9   3.2   3.1 Dividend requirement (a)  **5.9**   8.0   6.6   9.5   15.8   16.0                    Total Fixed Charges **$****59.1**  $66.4  $67.7  $79.8  $87.6  $107.0                                             **Earnings:**                        Income (loss) from continuing operations **$****26.6**  $112.9  $87.2  $93.2  $26.7  $(44.5)Income taxes  **27.3**   53.0   20.6   17.7   (11.6)  (77.4)Fixed charges as above  **59.1**   66.4   67.7   79.8   87.6   107.0                    Total Earnings **$****113.0**  $232.3  $175.5  $190.7  $102.7  $(14.9)                                            **Ratio Of Earnings To Fixed Chargesand Preferred and Preference StockDividend Requirements**  **1.91**   3.50   2.59   2.39   1.17   (0.14) (b)                    (a) Includes annual dividend requirements of $12.6 million for the Monthly Income PreferredSecurities (MIPS) per year for 2002 and prior. For 2003, only $6.3 million is included forthe period January 1 – June 30. From July 1, 2003 until their redemption in 2004, MIPSdividends were included with interest on long-term debt due to the adoption of SFAS No.150. (b) In order to achieve a ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred and preferencestock dividend requirements of one to one, Total Earnings would need to increase byapproximately $122 million.
42
#### W. H. Rodgers, appellee, v. Kipp’s Express & Van Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 7,412.

Action for damage to plaintiff’s ear in collision with defendant’s truck. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. Arthur W. De Seim, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 27, 1925.

H. H. Whittemore, for appellant.

Robillard & Henry, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,638
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      962
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (264)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,497
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,073
<PP&E>                                          16,025
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,814
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,580
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,492
<SALES>                                          7,507
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,507
<CGS>                                            3,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,925
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,027
<INCOME-TAX>                                        59
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,968
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
#### Floyd C. Gregory et al., Respondents, v. Samuel Sharac et al., Appellants.

The appeal concerns the two defenses and counterclaims interposed in a foreclosure action. Plaintiffs’ conveyance to defendants and defendants’ purchase-money mortgage to plaintiffs were given, each on December 22, 1960, pursuant to contract of sale of December 15, 1960, whereby, among other things, plaintiffs agreed to execute a “ guarantee !? ° * that any damage caused prior to August 1,1961 by the settling of the floor of the garage shall be repaired by the sellers”. The first defense and counterclaim pleads this guarantee, its breach, a consequent failure of consideration for the mortgage, and damage in the amount of $850. It is conceded that the floor did settle, that plaintiffs’ contractor performed some work to correct the condition and that additional work remains to be done. Plaintiffs do not dispute the validity of the guarantee or their liability thereunder but assert that their contractor *“*substantially completed ” the necessary repairs, that a “few repairs remained to be done” but that their liability therefor was extinguished when their contractor “ agreed with the defendants to defer final completion until the following spring ”, In respect of this contention, the trial court found only that, *“*Whatever may ha.ve been the damage * * * the contractor 9 * 9 testified that * 9 s' he had always been willing to correct the condition *‘*and still will ’.” Plaintiffs did not, in their reply, plead in defense a new agreement in substitution of the guarantee but, on the contrary, alleged full performance of the latter. Neither, so far as the record discloses, was such a theory urged upon the trial. Under *674such circumstances, this ground of argument would not ordinarily be considered when advanced for the first time upon appeal; but, in any event, we find no proof in this record upon which a new and enforcible agreement upon a good consideration could be posited; and, indeed, the trial court found no such agreement, holding merely that, *“*On the entire record, no failure of consideration for the execution and delivery of the *bond*and mortgage is found.” Even upon the theory of failure of consideration and'upon assuming *arguendo*that the contract of guarantee did not survive the execution of the deed, bond and mortgage (but of. *Terry*v. *Baif,*205 Mise. 1059, and cases there cited), the record does not support the conclusion thus stated by the trial court, as plaintiffs’ contractor testified to the cost -of the work necessarily to be done as $53 and defendants’ expert testified to a cost of $690. Ineidéntally, even the smaller figure is slightly in excess of the aggregate of the monthly mortgage payments in default, upon the basis of which plaintiffs elected to declare the entire principal due and to commence foreclosure. The allegations of the second defense were not sustained and were, indeed, in large part negated by the testimony of one of the defendants. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, -and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ., concur.
§ 191.2 Applicability and scope. This part: ( a ) Applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and activities supported administratively by OSD, the Military Departments, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as an element of the OSD for the purposes of this program), the Unified and Specified Commands, the Defense Agencies, the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the National Guard Bureau, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Office of Civilian Health and Medical Programs of the Uniformed Services, and the DoD Dependents Schools (hereafter referred to collectively as “DoD Components”).
( b ) Applies worldwide to all civilian employees and applicants for civilian employment within the Department of Defense in appropriated and non-appropriated fund positions.
( c ) Does not apply to military personnel, for whom equal opportunity is covered by DoD Directive 1350.2[1] .
( d ) Covers Federal employment issues under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, even though DoD Directive 1020.1[2] implements section 504 with respect to programs conducted and assisted by the Department of Defense. The standards established under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (29 U.S.C. 791, 792, 793, and 795), are to be applied under section 504 of the Act with respect to civilian employees and applicants for civilian employment in Federal Agencies.
[53 FR 30990, Aug. 17, 1988, as amended at 56 FR 10170, Mar. 11, 1991] Footnotes -
191.2
[1] Copies may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
[2] See footnote 1 to § 191.2(c).
#### § 1800.43 Determination(s) by Office Chief(s).

Each Office Chief in charge of an office which originated or has an interest in any of the records subject to the appeal, or designee, is a required party to any appeal; other interested parties may become involved through the request of the Coordinator when it is determined that some or all of the information is also within their official cognizance. These parties shall respond in writing to the Coordinator with a finding as to the exempt status of the information. This response shall be provided expeditiously on a “first-in, first-out” basis taking into account the business requirements of the parties and consistent with the information rights of members of the general public under the various information review and release laws.
M. P. No. 77-115.

#### Lester Fayerweather *v.*Rhode Island State Board of Elections *et al.*

*Keven A. McKenna,*for petitioner.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Stephen F. Achille,*for respondents.

This is a petition for certiorari seeking a review of actions taken by the Rhode Island State Board of Elections and the Providence Board of Canvassers in certifying or counting ballots cast by certain shut-in or absentee voters in the Democratic Primary which was held in the city of Providence’s Tenth Ward on March 29, 1977. The petitioner claims that those voting were not duly registered voters.

For reasons set forth in our ruling in *McCormick*v. *Rhode Island State Board of Elections,*No. 77-114-M.P., filed April 27, 1977, and for other reasons which will appear in a subsequent opinion, the petition for certiorari is denied, and the writ previously issued is quashed.
### §1510. Effective period

#### (a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), this subchapter and the amendments made by this subchapter shall be effective during the period beginning on December 18, 2015 and ending on September 30, 2025.

#### (b) Exception

With respect to any action authorized by this subchapter or information obtained pursuant to an action authorized by this subchapter, which occurred before the date on which the provisions referred to in subsection (a) cease to have effect, the provisions of this subchapter shall continue in effect.

(Pub. L. 114–113, div. N, title I, §111, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2956.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The amendments made by this subchapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "the amendments made by this title", meaning title I of div. N of Pub. L. 114–113, which is classified generally to this subchapter.
### §214. Separate budget request for Customs

The President shall include in each budget transmitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31 a separate budget request for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title IV, §414, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2180; Pub. L. 114–125, title VIII, §802(g)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), Feb. 24, 2016, 130 Stat. 211.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2016—Pub. L. 114–125 substituted "U.S. Customs and Border Protection" for "the United States Customs Service".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Land Border Projects

Pub. L. 112–74, div. D, title II, Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 949, provided in part: "That for fiscal year 2012 and thereafter, the annual budget submission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection for 'Construction and Facilities Management' shall, in consultation with the General Services Administration, include a detailed 5-year plan for all Federal land border port of entry projects with a yearly update of total projected future funding needs delineated by land port of entry".

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 111–83, title II, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2148.

Pub. L. 110–329, div. D, title II, Sept. 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 3658.
#### David J. Elmer, Appellant, v. John B. Byrd et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying plaintiff’s oral motion for denial of defendant’s motion for discovery and inspection of plaintiff’s Federal income tax returns of 1959 and 1960 and resettling order of November 9, 1961 which granted motion of defendant Byrd for discovery and inspection of said returns.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ. [32 Misc 2d 408.]
#### In the Matter of Harriet Goldberg, Appellant, v. Robert Goldberg, Respondent.

Appeal from order entered on April 8,1963, granting respondent’s motion for a bill of particulars unanimously dismissed, without costs (see Family Ct. Act, § 1012). No leave to appeal was granted in this case. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
§ 245.18 Transportation security operations center (TSOC). TSOC will direct appropriate FSDs and field offices to implement ESCAT restrictions as specified by the appropriate military authority. FSDs and field offices will take the following actions when directed to implement ESCAT: ( a ) Provide the appropriate military authority feedback through the TSOC on the impact of restrictions and when the restrictions have been implemented.
( b ) Impose restrictions on civil aviation as directed by DOT/DHS.
( c ) Disseminate ESCAT implementation instructions to U.S. civil aircraft operators and airports.