alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4413]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Minor Boundary Revision of Pinnacles National Monument

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Announcement of boundary revision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the revision to the boundary of 
Pinnacles National Monument, pursuant to the authority specified below, 
to include three adjacent and contiguous tracts of land in San Benito 
County, California, totaling 114.79 acres. Tract 02-105 contains 31.58 
acres and is further identified by Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 028-
130-012. Tract 02-106 contains 81.71 acres and is further identified by 
APNs 028-130-032 and 028-130-033. Tract 02-107 contains 1.5 acres and 
is further identified by APN 028-130-018.
    The tracts are depicted on Drawing No. 114/80,014, Sheet 2 of 3, 
Segment Map 01 (Consolidated 01-02), revised March 11, 2009. This map 
is on file and available for inspection at the following locations: 
National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Pacific West 
Region, 1111 Jackson St., Suite 700, Oakland, CA 94607, and National 
Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 16 U.S.C. 460l-9(c)(1) provides that after 
notifying the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Resources, the Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized to make this boundary revision. This action will add three 
tracts containing a total of 114.79 acres to the Pinnacles National 
Monument. The National Park Service proposes to acquire these parcels 
from the individual tract owners, who have consented to the 
acquisition.
    The National Park Service has determined that it will be feasible 
to administer these lands. The views of and impacts on local 
communities have been considered. Other alternatives for the management 
and protection of resources on these lands are not adequate.

DATES: The effective date of this boundary revision is March 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: National Park Service, Chief, Pacific 
Land Resources Program Center, Pacific West Region, 1111 Jackson St., 
Suite 700, Oakland, CA 94607, (510) 817-1414. Before including your 
address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying 
information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire 
comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made 
publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment 
that your personal identifying information be withheld from public 
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: February 25, 2010.
Rory D. Westberg,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 2010-4413 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-EP-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8558
MICHAEL WAYNE MONTGOMERY, a/k/a Shaka Zulu X, a/k/a Thomas Edward Howard, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus LAURA BESSINGER, Warden/Head Administrator, Kirkland Correctional Institute; CAPTAIN JACKSON, Captain over other Security Staff atKirkland Correctional Institute; NURSE STANLEY, Nurse, Maximum Security Unit, Kirkland Correctional Institute; LIEUTENANT DAVIS, Second Shift Supervisor at Maximum Security Unit of Kirkland Correctional Institute; DOCTOR NEAL, Physician, Kirkland Correctional Institute; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; B. LYMORE, Sergeant, Kirkland Correctional Institute; B. RUTHERFORD, Correctional Officer, Kirkland Correctional Institute, Maximum Security Unit; DWAYNE WALKER, Correctional Officer, Kirkland Correctional Institute, Maximum Security Unit; VAUGHN JACKSON, Captain; LIEUTENANT MARTIN, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-896-6-3AK, CA-93-909-6-3AK, CA-93-2158-6-3AK, CA-93- 2159-6-3AK, CA-94-247-6-3AK) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 31, 19962 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Wayne Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Andrew Frederick Lindemann, Elizabeth Krawcheck Rodgers, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Montgomery v. Bessinger , Nos. CA-93-896-6-3AK; CA-93-909-6-3AK; CA-93-2158-6-3AK; CA-2159-6-3AK; CA-94-247-6-3AK (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 573.240 Calcium periodate. The food additive calcium periodate may be safely used in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The additive is produced by reacting calcium iodate with calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide to form a substance consisting of not less than 60 percent by weight of penta calcium orthoperiodate containing 28 to 31 percent by weight of iodine.
( b ) It is used or intended for use in salt for livestock as a source of iodine.
Editorial Note on Part 570
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 88 FR 45066, July 14, 2023.

§ 570.230 Part 2 of a GRAS notice: Identity, method of manufacture, specifications, and physical or technical effect. In Part 2 of your GRAS notice, you must include: ( a ) Scientific data and information that identifies the notified substance. ( 1 ) Examples of appropriate data and information include the chemical name, applicable registry numbers (such as a Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number or an Enzyme Commission (EC) number), empirical formula, structural formula, quantitative composition, and characteristic properties.
( 2 ) When the source of a notified substance is a biological material, you must include data and information sufficient to identify: ( i ) The taxonomic source (*e.g.,* genus, species), including as applicable data and information at the sub-species level (*e.g.,* variety, strain);
( ii ) The part of any plant or animal used as the source; and
( iii ) Any known toxicants that could be in the source;
( b ) A description of the method of manufacture of the notified substance in sufficient detail to evaluate the safety of the notified substance as manufactured;
( c ) Specifications for material that is of appropriate grade for use in animal food; and
( d ) When necessary to demonstrate safety, relevant data and information bearing on the physical or other technical effect the notified substance is intended to produce, including the quantity of the notified substance required to produce such effect.
# C_2014235EN.01001001.xml

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/10

---

Action brought on 13 May 2014 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-238/14)

2014/C 235/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and D, Martin, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1);

1

| — | order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the framework agreement.

The Commission considers that, for that category of workers, Luxembourg law does not provide for any objective reason allowing for the prevention of abuse of successive fixed-term contracts, contrary to Clause 5(1)(a) of the Annex to the framework agreement in question.

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

1

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30990 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT PINSINCE, also known as Lenes Jackson, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. CR-94-50077-01

- - - - - - - - - - July 2, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Pinsi nce appeals his guilty plea conviction and

sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (His motion to file an out-oftime reply brief is GRANTED .)
Pinsince contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and physical evidence seized at the- 2 -

time of his arrest. But, as the Government notes, a valid and unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in

the proceedings leading to the conviction, including a Fourth

Amendment claim. S ee United States v. Smallwood , 920 F.2d 1231,
1240 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 501 U.S. 1238 (1991).

In light of this, Pinsince asserts, for the first time in his reply brief, that his guilty plea was unknowing because counsel inadvertently overlooked the fact that the plea agreement did not contain a reservation of Pinsince's right to review the denial of
his mot ion to suppress. Pursuant to our usual practice, we will

not consider on this direct appeal an ineffective -assistance-ofcounsel claim. S ee United States v. Bounds , 943 F.2d 541, 544 (5th
Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 135 (1993). Finally, Pinsince claims that the district court e rred in awarding a two-level enhanc ement to his base offense level,
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), based on its finding that he possessed a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense

of conviction. The court did not clearly err in awarding this

enhancement. S ee United States v. Aguilera-Zapata , 901 F.2d 1209,
1215 (5th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 741 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide that an employee’s ‘‘regular rate’’ for purposes of calculating overtime compensation 

will not be affected by certain additional payments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2023 

Mr. CALVERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 

that an employee’s ‘‘regular rate’’ for purposes of calculating overtime compensation will not be affected by certain additional payments. 

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 ‘‘Employee Bonus Pro5 tection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REGULAR RATE FOR OVERTIME PURPOSES. 

7 Section 7(e) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

8 is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 741 IH

1 (1) by inserting before the semicolon at the end 

2 of paragraph (3) the following: ‘‘; or (d) the pay3 ments are made to reward an employee or group of 

4 employees for meeting or exceeding the productivity, 

5 quality, efficiency, or sales goals as specified in a 

6 gainsharing plan, incentive bonus plan, commission 

7 plan, or performance contingent bonus plan’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘A plan described in clause (d) of paragraph (3) shall be 

10 in writing and made available to employees, provided that 

11 the amount of the payments to be made under the plan 

12 be based upon a formula that is stated in the plan, and 

13 be established and maintained in good faith for the pur14 pose of distributing to employees additional remuneration 

15 over and above the wages and salaries that are not de16 pendent upon the existence of such plan or payments made 

17 pursuant to such plan.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
§ 80.22 Samples to accompany requests for certification. A sample of a batch of color additive which is to accompany a request for certification shall: ( a ) Be taken only after such batch has been so thoroughly mixed as to be of uniform composition throughout.
( b ) Held under the control of the person requesting certification until certified.
( c ) Be labeled to show: ( 1 ) The name of the color additive.
( 2 ) The manufacturer's batch number.
( 3 ) The quantity of such batch.
( 4 ) The name and post-office address of the person requesting certification of such batch.
( 5 ) Be accompanied by any label or labeling intended to be used.
II 

Calendar No. 542 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7606 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1087 Route 47 South in Rio Grande, New 

Jersey, as the ‘‘Carlton H. Hand Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CARLTON H. HAND POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1087 Route 47 South in Rio 

6 Grande, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Carlton H. Hand Post Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7606 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Carlton H. Hand Post 

5 Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 542 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7606 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. Grande, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Carlton H. Hand al Service located at 1087 Route 47 South in Rio 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2419** 

In re: JANISON VEAL, a/k/a Jason , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. (No. 3:02

- cr - 00043

- JPB

- JES

- 1)

Submitted : January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD , and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Janison Veal, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Janison Veal petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to append its findings of fact from Veal’s first resentencing to the presentence report provided to the Bureau of Prisons . We conclude that Veal is not entitled t o mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamu s relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Veal is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
- 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 > An Act to Establish in the Department of Labor a Bureau to be Known as the Women's Bureau

              														An Act to Establish in the Department of Labor a Bureau to be Known as the Women's Bureau, June 5, 1920.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5564,			accessed on September 26, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Annual Report of Avery Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2001 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Thomas C. Ratchford, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant 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) 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/ Thomas C. Ratchford
------------------------------
Thomas C. Ratchford
Chief Financial Officer
September 3, 2002
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 13
                                                                      ----------

INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Essef Corporation
Chardon, Ohio


We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Essef
Corporation and Subsidiaries (the "Company") as of March 31, 1998, and the
related condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and
six-month periods ended March 31, 1998 and 1997, and their cash flows for the
six-month periods ended March 31, 1998 and 1997. These financial statements are
the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a
whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to such condensed consolidated financial statements for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of the Company as of September 30,
1997, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our report
dated November 19, 1997, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those
consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in
the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 1997
is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated
balance sheet from which it has been derived.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
April 20, 1998



                                  Page 15 of 16
§ 212.20 What activities must I perform to ensure drug quality? ( a ) *Production operations.* You must oversee production operations to ensure that each PET drug meets the requirements of the act as to safety and has the identity and strength, and meets the quality and purity characteristics, that it is supposed to have.
( b ) *Materials.* You must examine and approve or reject components, containers, closures, in-process materials, packaging materials, labeling, and finished dosage forms to ensure compliance with procedures and specifications affecting the identity, strength, quality, or purity of a PET drug.
( c ) *Specifications and processes.* You must approve or reject, before implementation, any initial specifications, methods, processes, or procedures, and any proposed changes to existing specifications, methods, processes, or procedures, to ensure that they maintain the identity, strength, quality, and purity of a PET drug. You must demonstrate that any change does not adversely affect the identity, strength, quality, or purity of any PET drug.
( d ) *Production records.* You must review production records to determine whether errors have occurred. If errors have occurred, or a production batch or any component of the batch fails to meet any of its specifications, you must determine the need for an investigation, conduct investigations when necessary, and take appropriate corrective actions.
( e ) *Quality assurance.* You must establish and follow written quality assurance procedures.