alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Respondent.

No. 81-1070.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 10, 1982.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Peter Winkler, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

W. Bruce Baird, Matthew R. Westfall, Baird, Kirven, Westfall & Talbott, Louisville, Ky., James D. Crawford, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

Before ENGEL, Circuit Judge, PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge, and DUMBAULD,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Edward Dumbauld, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

*422ORDER

This matter is before the court upon cross-petitions for enforcement and review, respectively, of an order issued September 30, 1980, by the National Labor Relations Board against United Parcel Service, Inc., and reported at 252 NLRB No. 145. At issue is whether the company violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by issuing a final warning and then discharging one Robert Bowlds, purportedly because of repeated violations of the company’s rules with respect to over-extension of permissible breaks by Bowlds, who was a feeder-driver at the U.P.S. Owensboro, Kentucky facility. The employee claimed that the Company’s stated reasons were pretextual, and the Administrative Law Judge found the Company’s actions to have been motivated in substantial part by Bowlds’ protected activity in certain union and employee organizations.

Upon a consideration of the record as a whole, the court is of the opinion that substantial evidence supports the finding of the Board that the excessive surveillance of Bowlds and the decision to discharge him were in retaliation for Bowlds’ exercise of rights protected under the Act. The court is also of the opinion that under the particular circumstances of this case the Board did not depart from the standards of its decision in *Spielberg Manufacturing Company,*112 NLRB 1080 (1955), in proceeding to hear Bowlds’ grievance even though it had earlier been the subject of arbitration proceedings under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement. Accordingly,

The order of the Board is enforced.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. MARA v. WALDO, Police Com’r.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 24, 1914.)

Evidence (§ 574*)—Opinion of Expert—Handwriting—Weight.

Evidence of a handwriting expert that the letter was written by relator will not support a finding to that effect against the relator’s positive testimony that he knew nothing about it.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 2400; Dec. Dig. § 574.*]

Certiorari by the People, on the relation of John J. Mara, to review a determination of Rhinelander Waldo, Police Commissioner of New York City, dismissing relator from the police force. Determination annulled, and relator ordered reinstated.

Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, THOMAS, CARR, and RICH, JJ.

Jacob Rouss, of New York City, for appellant.

Frank Julian Price, of Brooklyn (Thomas F. Magner, of Brooklyn, on the brief), for respondent.

*

 For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

RICH, J.

There are four specifications charging a violation of department rules—by writing and mailing an anonymous letter direct to the police commissioner, signed “Patrolman,” complaining of the manner in which police matters were conducted in the Thirty-Fifth precinct; in writing such communication upon paper other than the official department stationery; in not signing his full name thereto, and giving his rank and shield number; and in denying that he wrote, caused to be written, or had any knowledge of such letter being written. The only question is whether the evidence sustains the determination of the respondent that the relator wrote the letter.

The only direct evidence tending to show that the letter was written by the relator is the evidence of a handwriting expert. The relator testified that he did not 'write it, and had no knowledge of its having been written. No reason or motive is disclosed for his writing it, and it appears as a fact that the conditions complained of did not in fact exist. I think the case presented is to be controlled by the decision of this court in People ex rel. Hansen v. Waldo, as Police Commissioner, 163 App. Div. 665, 148 N. Y. Supp. 985.

*986The writ must therefore be sustained, the determination annulled, and the relator restored to his position, with $50 costs and disbursements.

JENKS, P. J., and BURR and THOMAS, JJ., concur. CARR, J.,. not voting.
§ 810.16 Effective date and savings clause. ( a ) The regulations in this part are effective March 25, 2015.
( b ) Except for actions that may be taken by DOE pursuant to § 810.10, the regulations in this part do not affect the validity or terms of any specific authorizations granted under regulations in effect before March 25, 2015 or generally authorized activities under those regulations for which the contracts, purchase orders, or licensing arrangements were already in effect. Persons engaging in activities that were generally authorized under regulations in effect before March 25, 2015, but that require specific authorization under the regulations in this part, must request specific authorization by August 24, 2015 and may continue their activities until DOE acts on the request.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 728 

Reaffirming United States support for Israel and condemning the United 

Nations Human Rights Council for certain wasteful and abusive actions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2018 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the 

Committee on Financial Services, 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 

RESOLUTION 

Reaffirming United States support for Israel and condemning 

the United Nations Human Rights Council for certain 

wasteful and abusive actions. 

Whereas the United Nations Human Rights Council, also 

known as the UNHRC, when targeting Israel as a permanent agenda item with no other country singled out in 

the same manner, wastes United States taxpayer dollars 

and other limited resources; 

Whereas a recent UNHRC report targets at least twenty-two 

United States companies conducting lawful business with 

Israel, which could result in specious legal entanglements; 

Whereas the UNHRC report prepares groundwork for boycotts against companies that do business with Israel; 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 728 IH 

Whereas, on March 24, 2017, the Trump Administration 

stated that this effort falls far outside the scope of the 

UNHRC’s mandate and drains ‘‘precious resources that 

could be used to promote and protect human rights 

around the world’’; 

Whereas in 2007, a United Nations spokesperson noted thenUnited Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s ‘‘disappointment’’ with the UNHRC’s decision to ‘‘single out 

only one specific regional item, given the range and scope 

of allegations of human rights violations throughout the 

world’’; and 

Whereas the UNHRC operates without transparency and 

wastes scarce staff resources on false human rights 

issues, which reduces resources for actual human rights 

cases: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) reaffirms the United States support for 

3 Israel; 

4 (2) condemns the United Nations Human 

5 Rights Council’s (UNHRC) actions as wasteful and 

6 abusive; 

7 (3) urges Congress to support S. 720 and H.R. 

8 1697 that expands anti-boycott laws to extend to 

9 international organizations such as the United Na10 tions and European Union; 

11 (4) supports remarks from Ambassador Nikki 

12 Haley in 2017 stating that the United States ‘‘does 

13 not seek to leave the Council, but to reestablish its 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 728 IH 

1 legitimacy’’, adding that when the Council acts with 

2 clarity and integrity, it has been effective; 

3 (5) calls upon the UNHRC to reform and be4 come competitive and transparent in membership se5 lection; and 

6 (6) calls on UNHRC members to stop singling 

7 out Israel as a permanent item on the Council’s 

8 agenda as no other country-specific human rights 

9 situation is singled out in this manner. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### § 960.3-1-3 Regionality.

In making site recommendations for repository development after the site for the first repository has been recommended, the Secretary shall give due consideration to the need for, and the advantages of, a regional distribution in the siting of subsequent repositories. Such consideration shall take into account the proximity of sites to locations at which waste is generated or temporarily stored and at which other repositories have been or are being developed.
# EUR-Lex - 31984R1798 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31984R1798

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1798/84 of 27 June 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2288/83 establishing the list of biological or chemical substances provided for in Article 60 (1) (b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty **

*
Official Journal L 168 , 28/06/1984 P. 0022 - 0023 Spanish special edition: Chapter 02 Volume 11 P. 0017 Portuguese special edition Chapter 02 Volume 11 P. 0017 *

*****

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1798/84

of 27 June 1984

amending Regulation (EEC) No 2288/83 establishing the list of biological or chemical substances provided for in Article 60 (1) (b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (1), and in particular Article 143 thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2288/83 (2) sets out the list of biological or chemical substances provided for in Article 60 (1) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83; whereas it has emerged from additional information gathered from the Member States that that list should be amended in such a way as to remove from it substances of which there is at present an equivalent production in the customs territory of the Community; whereas, for the sake of clarity, the list set out in the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2288/83 should be replaced by a new list including all the biological or chemical substances eligible for relief from import duties;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2288/83 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1984.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 June 1984.

For the Commission

Karl-Heinz NARJES

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 105, 23. 4. 1983, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 220, 11. 8. 1983, p. 13.

ANNEX

1.2.3 // // // // Reference No // CCT heading No // Description // // // // 20273 // 29.01 A // 3-Methylpent-1-ene // 20274 // 29.01 A // 4-Methylpent-1-ene // 20275 // 29.01 A // 2-Methylpent-2-ene // 20276 // 29.01 A // 3-Methylpent-2-ene // 20277 // 29.01 A // 4-Methylpent-2-ene // 25634 // 29.01 C II // P-Mentha-1(7),2-diene (Beta-Phellandrene) // 14364 // 29.24 B // Decamethonium bromide (INN) // 20641 // 29.27 // 1-Naphtonitrile // 20642 // 29.27 // 2-Naphtonitrile // 14769 // 29.02 C // 4,4'-Dibromobiphenyl // 17305 // 29.03 A // Ethyl methanesulphonate // 22830 // 29.38 B I // Retinyl acetate // 21887 // 35.07 // Phosphoglucomutase // // //
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.28




CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS           101 Hudson Street
                                   Suite 3700
                                   Jersey City, NJ  07302
____________________________




                                 July 13, 2006


VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

IVI Communications, Inc.
5959 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 573
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Attention: Nyhl Henson


         Re:      Pledge and Escrow Agreement

Dear Mr. Henson:

         Pursuant to the Pledge and Escrow Agreement (the "Agreement") dated
March 27, 2006 among Cornell Capital Partners, LP ("Cornell"), IVI
Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), and David Gonzalez, Esq. (the "Escrow
Agent"), the Company has pledged to Cornell 15,000,000 shares of common stock of
the Company (the "Pledged Shares"). Cornell and the Company hereby terminate the
Agreement effective as of the date hereof.

         This letter shall also serve as written notice to the Escrow Agent to
return the Pledged Shares to the Company upon receipt of this letter.

         Please indicate your agreement to the foregoing by signing below where
indicated.


                    CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP

                    By:    Yorkville Advisors, LLC
                    Its:   General Partner

                    By:    /s/ Mark Angelo
                           ------------------------------
                    Name:  Mark Angelo
                    Title: President and Portfolio Manager




Agreed and acknowledged

IVI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


By:    /S/ Nyhl Henson
       ------------------------
Name:  Nyhl Henson
Title: Chief Executive Officer


cc:    David Gonzalez, Esq.
       By HAND
2007-1965.

#### State v. Matthews.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-060669 and C-060692, 2007-Ohio-4881. Discretionary appeal accepted; cause held for the decision in 2007-0595 and 2007-0651, *State v. Cabrales,*Hamilton App. No. C-050682, 2007-Ohio-857; and briefing schedule stayed.
§ 600.502 What must DOE determine. A company shall be eligible to receive an award of financial assistance under a covered program only if DOE finds that— ( a ) Consistent with § 600.503, the company's participation in a covered program would be in the economic interest of the United States; and
( b ) The company is either— ( 1 ) A United States-owned company; or
( 2 ) Incorporated or organized under the laws of any State and has a parent company which is incorporated or organized under the laws of a country which— ( i ) Affords to the United States-owned companies opportunities, comparable to those afforded to any other company, to participate in any joint venture similar to those authorized under the Act;
( ii ) Affords to United States-owned companies local investment opportunities comparable to those afforded to any other company; and
( iii ) Affords adequate and effective protection for the intellectual property rights of United States-owned companies.
#### Harry Butler, Assignee of S. A. Calhoun, Appellants, v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, Appellee.

Gen. No. 9,543.

opinion filed June 28, 1940.

Fremont M. Kaufman, for appellant; Fred E. Gardner, for appellee.

Opinion by

Justice Huffman.

“Not to be published in full.”
Editorial Note on Part 851
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 851 appear at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023.

§ 851.41 Settlement. ( a ) DOE encourages settlement of a proceeding under this subpart at any time if the settlement is consistent with this part. The Enforcement Director and a contractor may confer at any time concerning settlement. A settlement conference is not open to the public and DOE does not make a transcript of the conference.
( b ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the Enforcement Director may resolve any issues in an outstanding proceeding under this subpart with a consent order. ( 1 ) The Enforcement Director and the contractor, or a duly authorized representative thereto, must sign the consent order and indicate agreement to the terms contained therein.
( 2 ) A contractor is not required to admit in a consent order that a requirement of this part has been violated.
( 3 ) DOE is not required to make a finding in a consent order that a contractor has violated a requirement of this part.
( 4 ) A consent order must set forth the relevant facts that form the basis for the order and what remedy, if any, is imposed.
( 5 ) A consent order shall constitute a final order.
[71 FR 6931, Feb. 9, 2006, as amended at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023]
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA- 2015 - 4808 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM134AD

A340 - 57 - 4124 --- 4/4/13 Technical Dis position LR57D11023270, Issue B --- 7/ 12 / 11 Technical Disposition LR57D11029171, Issue B --- 9/ 6 / 11 Technical Dis position LR57D11029173, Issue B --- 9/ 6 / 11 Technical Disposition LR57D11030741, Issue B --- 9/22 /2011 Technical Disposition LR57D11029170, Issue C --- 9/ 6 / 11 Technical Disposition LR57D11023714, Issue B --- 7/ 12 / 11 Technical Disposition LR57D11029172, Issue B --- 9/ 6 / 11 Technical Dispos ition LR57D1 1030740, Issue C --- 9/22 / 11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 585 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 585

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3861) to amend title 
  XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide extended and additional 
   protection to Medicare beneficiaries who enroll for the Medicare 
                 prescription drug benefit during 2006.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2005

 Ms. Herseth submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3861) to amend title 
  XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide extended and additional 
   protection to Medicare beneficiaries who enroll for the Medicare 
                 prescription drug benefit during 2006.

    Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
House shall without intervention of any point of order consider in the 
House the bill (H.R. 3861) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act to provide extended and additional protection to Medicare 
beneficiaries who enroll for the Medicare prescription drug benefit 
during 2006. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to 
recommit.
                                 <all>
```
§ 71.103 Quality assurance organization. ( a ) The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a Certificate of Compliance shall be responsible for the establishment and execution of the quality assurance program. The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a Certificate of Compliance may delegate to others, such as contractors, agents, or consultants, the work of establishing and executing the quality assurance program, or any part of the quality assurance program, but shall retain responsibility for the program. These activities include performing the functions associated with attaining quality objectives and the quality assurance functions.
( b ) The quality assurance functions are— ( 1 ) Assuring that an appropriate quality assurance program is established and effectively executed; and
( 2 ) Verifying, by procedures such as checking, auditing, and inspection, that activities affecting the functions that are important to safety have been correctly performed.
( c ) The persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions must have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to— ( 1 ) Identify quality problems;
( 2 ) Initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and
( 3 ) Verify implementation of solutions.
( d ) The persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions shall report to a management level that assures that the required authority and organizational freedom, including sufficient independence from cost and schedule, when opposed to safety considerations, are provided.
( e ) Because of the many variables involved, such as the number of personnel, the type of activity being performed, and the location or locations where activities are performed, the organizational structure for executing the quality assurance program may take various forms, provided that the persons and organizations assigned the quality assurance functions have the required authority and organizational freedom.
( f ) Irrespective of the organizational structure, the individual(s) assigned the responsibility for assuring effective execution of any portion of the quality assurance program, at any location where activities subject to this section are being performed, must have direct access to the levels of management necessary to perform this function.
[69 FR 3796, Jan. 26, 2004, as amended at 80 FR 34014, June 12, 2015]
**Exhibit 32.1**WESTCORPCERTIFICATION OF CEOIn connection with the Quarterly Report of Westcorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, to thebest of his knowledge and belief and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Chapter 63, Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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) ofthe Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.The foregoing Certification is furnished solely for purposes of complying with the provisions ofSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to be used for any other purpose.**WESTCORP**   /s/ Ernest S. Rady     Ernest S. Rady  Chairman of the Board and  Chief Executive Officer  Date:November 7, 2005