alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6124. Flexible schedules; holidays

Notwithstanding sections 6103 and 6104 of this title, if any employee on a flexible schedule under section 6122 of this title is relieved or prevented from working on a day designated as a holiday by Federal statute or Executive order, such employee is entitled to pay with respect to that day for 8 hours (or, in the case of a part-time employee, an appropriate portion of the employee's biweekly basic work requirement as determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management).

(Added Pub. L. 97–221, §2(a)(2), July 23, 1982, 96 Stat. 229.)
#### § 2700.14 Challenges to classification.

If holders of classified information believe the information is improperly or unnecessarily classified, or that original classification has been extended for too long a period, they should discuss the matter with their immediate superiors or the classifier of the information. If these discussions do not satisfy the concerns of the challenger, the matter should be brough to the attention of the chairman of the OMSN Information Security Oversight Committee, established pursuant to § 2700.51. Action on such challenges shall be taken within 30 days from date of receipt and the challenger shall be notified of the results. When requested, anonymity of the challenger shall be preserved.
HUC_CODE HOLE_DIRECTION_TYPE 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957

19020301 D

19020302 D

19020505 V

19020601 D

19020601 V

19020602 V 1

19050404 V

19060205 D

19060304 D

19060304 V

19060401 D

19060401 H

19060402 D

19060402 V

19060403 D
1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

1
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

1 32 38 5 22 12 1 9

2

7 29 23 6 29 29 9 13

1 1

2 1 3 3 12 7 9

1
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 3 1

1 1 1 4 1 3 1

8

1 1

1

2 1

1

7 13 1 8 4 5 3 8 3 7 2

1 27 20 24 10 3 7 8 12 7 4 1

1 1 4 1

1
- 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 > Wartime Development of the Aircraft Industry

              																	Levenson, Leonard George					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Wartime Development of the Aircraft Industry : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 800*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1944,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4271,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 245.30 ESCAT test procedures restrictions. ( a ) Aircraft will not be grounded or diverted.
( b ) Test messages will not be broadcast over air/ground frequencies.
( c ) Radio communications will not be interrupted.
( d ) Navigation Aids will not be affected.
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 11
- 00124
- CV
MICHAEL V. PISHKO , Appellant
v.
DR. LALE YURTTAS , Appellee

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 10
- 003350
- CV
- 361

No. 10
- 11
- 00125
- CV
N.K. ANAND , Appellant
v.
DR. LALE YURTTAS , Appellee

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 10
- 003351
- CV
- 272Pishko v. Yurttas Page 2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
The appellant in each of these two cases has appealed the respective trial court’s order allowing Appellee to take their presuit depositions pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 202. Appellants also sought mandamus relief from the trial court orders in separate but practically identical original proceedings, and today we have denied mandamus relief in the original proc eedings. “Presuit deposition orders are appealable only if sought from someone against
whom suit is not anticipated.” In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. 2008). That is, if the order allows the presuit deposition of a person against whom suit is con templated, the order is interlocutory and there is no appellate jurisdiction. Thomas v. Fitzgerald, 166 S.W.3d 746, 747

- 48 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2005, no pet.). In the trial courts and in the original proceedings, Appellee has taken the position that she is investigating potential claims against not only her employer, but also against the Appellants. Because Appellee contemplates or anticipates a possible suit against Appellants, the trial courts’ orders are interlocutory, and these appeals are
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeals dismissed Opi nion delivered and filed July 20 , 2011 [CV06]
§ 1701.9 Requests for an accounting of record disclosures. ( a ) *How to request.* Except where accountings of disclosures are not required to be kept (see paragraph (b) of this section), record subjects (or their guardians or representatives) may request an accounting of disclosures that have been made to another person, organization, or agency as permitted by the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(b). This accounting contains the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure, as well as the name and address of the person, organization, or agency to which the disclosure was made. Requests for accounting should identify each record in question and must be made in writing to the D/IMO, as indicated in § 1701.3 of this subpart, or to the contact designated in a specific Privacy Act System of Records.
( b ) *Accounting not required.* The ODNI is not required to provide accounting of disclosure in the following circumstances: ( 1 ) Disclosures for which the Privacy Act does not require accounting, i.e., disclosures to employees within the agency and disclosures made under the FOIA;
( 2 ) Disclosures made to law enforcement agencies for authorized law enforcement activities in response to written requests from the respective head of the law enforcement agency specifying the law enforcement activities for which the disclosures are sought; or
( 3 ) Disclosures from systems of records that have been exempted from accounting requirements under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k), by notice published in the Federal Register.
EXHIBIT 23



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                                   ----------






The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Healthy Planet Products, Inc.

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  registration  statement of
Healthy  Planet  Products,  Inc. on Form S-8 (File No.  33-84740)  of our report
dated February 6, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated  financial  statements
and  financial  statement  schedules  of Healthy  Planet  Products,  Inc.  as of
December  31, 1997 and 1996,  and for each of the two fiscal years in the period
ended December 31, 1997,  which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-KSB.







                                                     /s/ Moss Adams LLP



Santa Rosa, California
_______________, 1998
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00344

- CV

TRINITY SCRAP PROCES SORS, INC. D/B/A POR T OF BROWNSVILLE

RECYCLING AND INTERC OASTAL SALVAGE, INC. v. BROW N SVILLE NAVIGATION DI STRICT OF CAMERON CO UNTY, TEXAS
On Appeal from the 138th District Court of Ca meron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2019

- DCL

- 00037

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs o f the appeal are adjudged against appellant s

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 1, 2019
### §464b. Staffing accreditation function

In fiscal year 2004 and thereafter, the Center is authorized to accept detailees from other Federal agencies, on a non-reimbursable basis, to staff the accreditation function.

(Pub. L. 108–90, title IV, Oct. 1, 2003, 117 Stat. 1150.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Center, referred to in text, means the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004, and not as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation act:

Pub. L. 108–7, div. J, title I, Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 431.
#### Barbara Cordes, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. Charlotte McGowan et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal, denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
§ 2102.1 Introduction. ( a ) Insofar as the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies to the National Security Council (hereafter NSC), it provides the American public with expanded opportunities to gain access to records maintained by the NSC Staff which may pertain to them as individuals. These regulations are the exclusive means by which individuals may request personally identifiable records and information from the National Security Council.
( b ) The NSC Staff, in addition to performing the functions prescribed in the National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 401), also serves as the supporting staff to the President in the conduct of foreign affairs. In doing so the NSC Staff is acting not as an agency but as an extension of the White House Office. In that the White House Office is not considered an agency for the purposes of this Act, the materials which are used by NSC Staff personnel in their role as supporting staff to the President are not subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. A description of these White House Office files is, nevertheless, appended to the NSC notices of systems of files and will be published annually in the Federal Register.
( c ) In general, Records in NSC files pertain to individual members of the public only if these individuals have been ( 1 ) employed by the NSC,
( 2 ) have corresponded on a foreign policy matter with a member of the NSC or its staff, or
( 3 ) have, as a U.S. Government official, participated in an NSC meeting or in the preparation of foreign policy-related documents for the NSC.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 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/ Jack C. BridgesJack C. BridgesExecutive Vice-President05/16/05Date
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-121

_____________________________

CHRISTOPHER DONNIE WARRICK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Judge.

July 26, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., M.K. THOMAS, J., and SHARRIT, MICHAEL S., Associate 

Judge, concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Busharis, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appeal No. 76-428.

#### Notre Dame Cemetery *v.*State Labor Relations Board.

*David F. Sweeney, Abedon, Stanzler, Biener, Skolnik & Lipsey, Richard A. Skolnik,*for Intervenor, for plaintiff.

*Vincent F. Kane,*for defendant.

The Intervenors’ motion to dismiss the defendant’s appeal and the defendant’s motion to remand this case to the Superior Court are assigned to the calendar for May 3, 1977, 9:30 a.m., for oral argument.
EXHIBIT 32.3



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of
Duquesne Light Company (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Morgan K. OBrien, as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WITNESS the due execution hereof this 24th day of March, 2005.



/s/ Morgan K. OBrienMorgan K. OBrien President and Chief Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to Duquesne Light Company and will be retained by Duquesne Light Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §1001. Designation of liaison office of Department of State

The Secretary of State shall designate a liaison office within the Department of State to assist the Secretary, as appropriate, in negotiating cargo security-related international agreements.

(Pub. L. 109–347, title III, §301(b), Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1920.)

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

#### Rule of Construction

Nothing in this section to be construed to affect the authorities, functions, or capabilities of the Coast Guard to perform its missions or the requirement under section 468 of this title that those authorities, functions, and capabilities be maintained intact, see section 301(c) of Pub. L. 109–347, set out as a note under section 239 of this title.
### §8432d. Qualified Roth contribution program

(a) Definitions.—For purposes of this section—

(1) the term "qualified Roth contribution program" means a program described in paragraph (1) of section 402A(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which meets the requirements of paragraph (2) of such section; and

(2) the terms "designated Roth contribution" and "elective deferral" have the meanings given such terms in section 402A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(b) Authority To Establish.—The Executive Director shall by regulation provide for the inclusion in the Thrift Savings Plan of a qualified Roth contribution program, under such terms and conditions as the Board may prescribe.

(c) Required Provisions.—The regulations under subsection (b) shall include—

(1) provisions under which an election to make designated Roth contributions may be made—

(A) by any individual who is eligible to make contributions under section 8351, 8432(a), 8440a, 8440b, 8440c, 8440d, or 8440e; and

(B) by any individual, not described in subparagraph (A), who is otherwise eligible to make elective deferrals under the Thrift Savings Plan;

(2) any provisions which may, as a result of enactment of this section, be necessary in order to clarify the meaning of any reference to an "account" made in section 8432(f), 8433, 8434(d), 8435, 8437, or any other provision of law; and

(3) any other provisions which may be necessary to carry out this section.

(Added Pub. L. 111–31, div. B, title I, §103(a), June 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1853.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 402A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (a), is classified to section 402A of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
#### §§ 1906.161-1906.169 [Reserved]
### [§5345. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–454, title VIII, §801(a)(2), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1221]

Section, added Pub. L. 92–392, §1(a), Aug. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 569, related to retained rate of pay on reduction in grade or reassignment.

A prior section 5345, added Pub. L. 90–206, title II, §223(a), Dec. 16, 1967, 81 Stat. 641, which provided for position classification appeals, was omitted in the general amendment of this subchapter, and is covered by section 5346(c) of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on first day of first applicable pay period beginning on or after 90th day after Oct. 13, 1978, and an employee receiving pay on day before such effective date not to have such pay reduced or terminated and, unless section 5362 applies, employee is entitled to continuation of such pay, etc., see section 801(a)(4) of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5361 of this title.
#### Otto A. Benson *vs.*Ernest Dean.

May 8, 1889.

Action for Goods Sold — Proof of Sale to Third Person, etc. — Variance. — In an action to recover the value of goods alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to defendant, proof only of á sale by plaintiff to a third party, and of a subsequent contract between such third party and the defendant, whereby the latter agreed to pay to the plaintiff the original price of the goods sold, presents a ease of fatal variance.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, *Rea, J.,*presiding, refusing a new trial.

*Merrick & Merrick,*for appellant.

*Little é Nunn,*for respondent.

Dickinson, J.1

This action is for the recovery of the value of a quantity of brick, alleged .in the complaint to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The answer denied the sale. It appeared upon the trial that the plaintiff sold and delivered the brick to one Anderberg, who commenced using them in the construction of a building upon land which this defendant, Dean, had contracted to sell to an association of persons with whom Anderberg was connected. It appears that the contract for the sale of the land was afterwards rescinded. Dean resumed possession of the land, and used the brick, or some part of them, in the further work of constructing the building, having agreed with Anderberg, as the evidence tended to show, that he (Dean) would pay Benson for them. The testimony on the part of the defendant denied this agreement.

The court submitted the case to the jury upon the theory that if Dean, in consideration of being allowed by Anderberg to use the brick, promised the latter to pay Benson for them, Benson should recover in this action. The jury were so instructed, and they were also instructed that that was the only question in the case. The defendant excepted to this. From the course pursued at the trial the defendant cannot be deemed to have consented to a trial of the case upon *446any other issue than that presented in the pleadings. The variance between the case as thus submitted to the jury and the issue made by the pleadings is obvious, and is, as we consider, such as cannot be disregarded. The complaint seeks a recovery upon a contract of sale made between the plaintiff and the defendant. The recovery must be regarded as founded upon a wholly different contract, made between different parties, — the defendant and a third person, Anderberg, who had purchased and acquired title to the property from the plaintiff, — by the terms of which the defendant agreed with the third party to pay to the plaintiff the unpaid price of the property.-

Order reversed.

1

 G-ilfillan, C. J., took no part in the decision of this case.