alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### First Union Trust and Savings Bank, appellee, v. Bernard A. Stol et al., defendants, on appeal of Architectural Decorating Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 37,004.

*615Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

Rehearing denied November 15, 1934.

Alfred Lubin, for appellant. Tatge & Tatge, for appellee; Robert F, Kolb, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.
<TABLE>
RYAN, BECK & CO., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO 
COMBINED FIXED 
CHARGES
<CAPTION>
	Years Ended December 31,
	Pro-Forma	1996	1995	1994	1993	1992
<S>	<C>	<C>	<C>
	<C>	<C>	<C>
Earnings:

Income (loss) before provision 
	(benefit) for income taxes	$112	$357	$2,866
	$7,880	$6,785	$5,586
Add:
Interest expense	1,332	1,096	473	200	127	107
Rental expense representative
	of interest factor	     225	    214	    196	    172	    
193	    197
Earnings for 
	computation purposes	$1,669	$1,667	$3,535	$8,252
	$7,105	$5,890
Fixed charges:
Interest expense - net	$1,332	$1,096	$473	$200	$127
	$107
Rental expense representative
	of interest factor	225	214	196	172	193
	197
Pretax effect of dividends on
	preferred stock	       79	    317	   299	   435	       
-	       -
Combined fixed charges	$1,636	$1,627	$ 968	$ 807	$ 
320	$ 304
Ratio of earnings to combined 
fixed charges	      1.0	1.0	3.7	10.2	22.2	19.4
</TABLE>
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2316 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 

the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf in the 

Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning areas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2006 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the 

outer Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic and North 

Atlantic planning areas. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Ocean and Safe 

5 Tourism Anti-Drilling Act’’ or the ‘‘COAST Anti-Drilling 

6 Act’’. 
2 

•S 2316 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CER2 TAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 

3 SHELF. 

4 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

5 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(p) PROHIBITION OF OILAND GAS LEASING IN

8 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— 

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or any 

10 other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue a 

11 lease for the exploration, development, or production of 

12 oil, natural gas, or any other mineral in— 

13 ‘‘(1) the Mid-Atlantic planning area; or 

14 ‘‘(2) the North Atlantic planning area.’’. 

Æ
§ 3201.98 Wastewater systems coatings. ( a ) *Definition.* Coatings that protect wastewater containment tanks, liners, roofing, flooring, joint caulking, manholes and related structures from corrosion. Protective coatings may cover the entire system or be used to fill cracks in systems.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 47 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than November 19, 2013, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased wastewater systems coatings. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased wastewater systems coatings.
[77 FR 69386, Nov. 19, 2012]
June 29 , 2015

Mr. Matthew Johnson

Prestige Aerial

14711 Burtons Oak

San Antonio, TX 78254

Dear Mr. Johnson :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we c an not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your March 11 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0629 ),

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your req uest any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
§ 29.91 How to obtain an appeal. An appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the Division or the office of inspection for the type of tobacco involved. Such appeal shall show: ( a ) The date;
( b ) the name and post office address of the appellant and of the person, if any, making the appeal in his behalf;
( c ) the financial interest of the appellant in the tobacco;
( d ) the reasons for making the appeal; and such other information as may be required by the Director. The appeal shall be accompanied by the certificate or sample from which the appeal is taken, unless such requirement is waived by the Division when it is impracticable for the appellant to furnish such certificate. The appeal inspector may require the appellant to furnish any other relevant and necessary information for the proper consideration of the appeal.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2578 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend for one year 

the hold harmless provision for small rural hospitals and sole community 

hospitals under the Medicare prospective payment system for hospital 

outpatient department services, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2013 

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend 

for one year the hold harmless provision for small rural 

hospitals and sole community hospitals under the Medicare prospective payment system for hospital outpatient 

department services, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Hospital Fair5 ness Act of 2013’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2578 IH

1 SEC. 2. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF OUTPATIENT HOLD 

2 HARMLESS PROVISION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1833(t)(7)(D)(i) of the 

4 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(7)(D)(i)), as 

5 amended by section 3002(a) of the Middle Class Tax Re6 lief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–96), 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) in subclause (II)— 

9 (A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘Jan10 uary 1, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 

11 2014’’; and 

12 (B) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘or 

13 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘, 2012, or 2013’’; and 

14 (2) in subclause (III)— 

15 (A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘Jan16 uary 1, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 

17 2014’’; and 

18 (B) in the second sentence, by striking 

19 ‘‘March 1, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 

20 2014’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

22 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact23 ment of section 3002 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and 

24 Job Creation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–96). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
§ 33.11 Inspection and certification. ( a ) Each person shipping, or offering for shipment, apples to any foreign destination shall cause them to be inspected by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service in accordance with regulations governing the inspection and certification of fresh fruits, and vegetables and other products (part 51 of this chapter) and certified as meeting the requirements of the Act and this part. No carrier shall transport, or receive for transportation, apples to any foreign destination unless they have been so inspected and certified. Inspection and certification may be obtained at any time prior to exportation of the apples. Such a Federal or Federal-State certificate shall be designated as an “Export Form Certificate” and shall include the following statement: “Meets requirements of Export Apple Act.” The shipper shall deliver a copy of the Export Form Certificate or Memorandum of Inspection to the export carrier. Whenever apples are inspected and certified at any other point other than the port of exportation, the shipper shall deliver a copy of the Export Form Certificate or Memorandum of Inspection to the agent of the first carrier that thereafter transports such apples and such agent shall deliver such copy to the proper official of the carrier on which the apples, covered by such certificate or memorandum, are to be exported. A copy of the Export Form Certificate or Memorandum of Inspection shall be filed by the export carrier for a period of not less than three (3) years after date of export.
( b ) If the inspector has reason to believe that samples of a lot of apples have been obtained for a determination as to compliance with tolerance for spray residue, established under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended (52 Stat. 1040; U.S.C. 301 *et seq.*), he shall not issue a certificate on the lot unless it complies with such tolerances.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following is a list of the Subsidiaries of the Company:

     Subsidiary                                           Place of Incorporation
     ----------                                           ----------------------

     Groundwater Technology Government Services, Inc.     Delaware
     GTI Investment Company, Inc.                         Delaware
     Fluor Daniel GTI International, Inc.                 Delaware
     Fluor Daniel GTI Canada, Inc.*                       Province of Ontario,
                                                          Canada
     Fluor Daniel GTI International Limited*              United Kingdom
     Fluor Daniel GTI Australia PTY, Limited*             Australia
     Groundwater Technology Italia S.r.l.*                Italy
     Fluor Daniel Environmental Services, Inc.            California


   * Fluor Daniel GTI Canada, Inc. ("Canada"), Fluor Daniel GTI International
     Limited ("UK"), Fluor Daniel GTI Australia PTY, Limited ("Australia") and
     Fluor Daniel GTI Italia S.r.l. ("Italy") are indirect or "second-tier"
     subsidiaries of the Company. Canada, UK, Australia and Italy are
     subsidiaries of Fluor Daniel GTI International, Inc., which, in turn, is a
     wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:93cr4028-WS

EZELL COLLINS,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 878)

docketed September 5, 2006. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

motion for sentence credit be summarily dismissed. The defendant has filed no

objections to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 878) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-WCS Document 887 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:93cr4028-WS

2. The defendant’s motion for sentence credit (doc. 877) is hereby summarily

DISMISSED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of October , 2006.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-WCS Document 887 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 223 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to repeal any weakening 

of overtime protections and to avoid future loss of overtime protections 

due to inflation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2005 

Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. 

LEVIN, Mr. DAYTON, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. STABENOW, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. 

LAUTENBERG, Mr. DODD, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, and Mr. SARBANES) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to repeal 

any weakening of overtime protections and to avoid future loss of overtime protections due to inflation.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Overtime Rights Pro5 tection Act’’. 
2

•S 223 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 

2 OF 1938. 

3 Section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

4 (29 U.S.C. 213) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(k)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subchapter 

7 II of chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title 5, United States 

8 Code (commonly referred to as the Administrative Proce9 dures Act) or any other provision of law, any portion of 

10 the final rule promulgated on April 23, 2004, revising part 

11 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, that exempts 

12 from the overtime pay provision of section 7 of this Act 

13 any employee who would not otherwise be exempt if the 

14 regulations in effect on March 31, 2003 remained in ef15 fect, shall have no force or effect and that portion of such 

16 regulations (as in effect on March 31, 2003) that would 

17 prevent such employee from being exempt shall be rein18 stated. 

19 ‘‘(2) The Secretary shall adjust the minimum salary 

20 level for exemption under section 13(a)(1) in the following 

21 manner: 

22 ‘‘(A) Not later than 60 days after the date of 

23 enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall in24 crease the minimum salary level for exemption under 

25 subsection (a)(1) for executive, administrative, and 

26 managerial occupations from the level of $155 per 
3

•S 223 IS

1 week in 1975 to $591 per week (an amount equal 

2 to the increase in the Employment Cost Index (pub3 lished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) for execu4 tive, administrative, and managerial occupations be5 tween 1975 and 2005). 

6 ‘‘(B) Not later than December 31 of the cal7 endar year following the increase required in sub8 paragraph (A), and each December 31 thereafter, 

9 the Secretary shall increase the minimum salary 

10 level for exemption under subsection (a)(1) by an 

11 amount equal to the increase in the Employment 

12 Cost Index for executive, administrative, and mana13 gerial occupations for the year involved.’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Napoli, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County, imposed October 23, 1978. Case remitted to the County Court (1) for appointment of an independent physician to examine the defendant to ascertain his ability to withstand imprisonment; (2) to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue; and (3) to report the court’s findings to this court. The County Court shall file its report with all convenient speed. In the interim, the appeal is held in abeyance. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.
Top of page

Skip to main content

Library of Congress

              - Discover
              - Services
              - Visit
              - Education
              - Connect
              - Shop *external link*
              - Donate
              - About
              - Ask a Librarian
              - Help
              - Contact
              - Search Online Catalog
              - Copyright.gov
              - Congress.gov

Library of Congress
Digital Collections
September 11, 2001, Documentary Project
#### § 29.42 Receiving station.

Points at which producer tobacco is offered for marketing (other than sale at auction on a designated market), including tobacco auction warehouses, packing houses, prizeries, or places where tobacco is handled or stored.

[67 FR 36080, May 23, 2002]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WILLIS J. FOSTER, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2124

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed November 30, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Collier County; Fredrick R. Hardt,

Judge.

Willis J. Foster, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011); Mendenhall 

v. State, 48 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 2010); Johnson v. State, 149 So. 3d 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2014); Flowers v. State, 69 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). 

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr69-SPM

MARCUS NEAL MANNING,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s report

and recommendation (doc. 176) dated October 31, 2007. Defendant was

furnished a copy and has filed objections (docs. 178). Pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I conducted a de novo review and I find

that the report and recommendation is correct and should be adopted.

The amended laboratory report (doc. 161-2) confirms that the 153.7 grams

and 74.0 grams of cocaine recovered from Defendant’s apartment was in the

base form, i.e. crack cocaine. Defendant has failed to demonstrate any

prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel regarding this

matter. 

As for ineffective assistance of counsel on the Franks challenge,

introducing Officer Hunnings’ investigation report (doc. 156-2 at 15-18) would not

have resulted in suppression of any evidence. The investigation report was

Case 4:03-cr-00069-MW-CAS Document 179 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

prepared on October 16, 2003; after the search warrant (doc. 46-2 at 5-8) had

been issued on October 3, 2003. The misstatement in the investigation report

regarding Officer Hunnings’ observation of a hand to hand exchange of crack

cocaine for money was not repeated in the probable cause affidavit (doc. 46-2 at

7). It therefore did not affect the finding of probable cause. Officer Hunnings

acknowledged the misstatement during his testimony at the suppression hearing. 

Despite the misstatement, the Court found credible Officer Hunnings’ testimony

that he believed three crack cocaine transactions took place between Defendant

and the confidential informant, as stated in the probable cause affidavit. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 176) is

adopted and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Defendant’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or

correct sentence (doc. 156) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2007.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00069-MW-CAS Document 179 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.9281 Preclusion.

The provisions of this subpart shall not preclude the application of other administrative remedies or the institution of criminal proceedings in appropriate cases as provided by the act.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T20:43:09-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### § 3560.621 Loan closing.

Applicants for on-farm labor housing loans must execute an Agency-approved loan agreement. In addition, if determined appropriate by the Agency, on-farm labor housing loans made on or after the effective date of this regulation may be subject to the restrictive-use provisions as stated in § 3560.72(a)(2)(ii). All other on-farm labor housing loans are subject to the restrictive-use provisions contained in their loan documents and as outlined in subpart N of this regulation.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2212 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Brown GN Liquid Crude. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2006 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Brown GN 

Liquid Crude. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DIRESUL BROWN GN LIQUID CRUDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.08.03 Diresul Brown GN Liquid 

Crude (CAS No. 110392– 

46–6) (provided for in subheading 3204.19.50) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•S 2212 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ