alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2730

[Report No. 108–488, Part I] 

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for 

an independent review of citations issued by the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2003

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

MAY 13, 2004

Additional sponsors: Mr. BOEHNER, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. 

HOEKSTRA, Mr. KELLER, Mr. KLINE, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. ISAKSON, 

Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. AKIN, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. CHOCOLA, 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. 

DEMINT, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of 

Texas, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

OTTER, and Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina 

MAY 13, 2004

Reported with an amendment and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

for a period ending not later than May 17, 2004, for consideration of 

such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction 

of that committee pursuant to clause 1(k), rule X 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

to provide for an independent review of citations issued 

by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
2

•HR 2730 RH 

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 ‘‘Occupational Safety 

5 and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act 

6 of 2003 2004’’. 

7 SEC. 2. INDEPENDENT REVIEW. 

8 Section 11(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health 

9 Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 660) is amended by adding the 

10 following at the end thereof: ‘‘The conclusions of the Com11 mission with respect to all questions of law shall be given 

12 deference if reasonable.’’.

Æ
#### Katherine Baktis *v.*Sidney Blumenthal & Company et al.

Maltbie, C. J., Avery, Bbown, Jennings and Ells, Js.

Argued January 7

decided February 7, 1941.

*George J. Grady,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*John E. McNerney,*with whom was *Francis J. Moran,*for the appellees (defendants).

Per Curiam.

The compensation commissioner refused an award of compensation to the plaintiff as a dependent of Michael Baktis, the Superior Court sustained that award, and the plaintiff has appealed to this court. The commissioner found the following facts: The deceased for approximately six months before his death had been engaged in moving bolts of cloth weighing eighty to eighty-five pounds each and the operation involved lifting them off a hand truck and piling them on the floor, one on top of the other. The truck carried a load of four bolts and they were moved by two, three or four men, depending upon the amount of the work. On the night of March 14, 1939, after finishing the piling of some of the bolts on the floor, the deceased fell and died in a few minutes. The work being done by the deceased at the time was the same work and done in the same manner as he had *718been doing it for six months before and there was no over-exertion or unusual exertion about it on that particular night. He died of coronary occlusion. The commissioner also found that there was no causal connection between the work he was doing and the coronary occlusion, and that he did not sustain an injury arising out of his employment which resulted in his death. Whether the coronary occlusion was caused by the employment was a question in regard to which medical testimony offered at the hearing might well be deemed by the commissioner to be controlling. While the doctor called by the plaintiff testified that it was quite probable that the work the deceased was doing caused the coronary occlusion, the physician called by the defendants testified that he had no reason to believe that such a causal relationship existed. In view of this conflict in the medical testimony, the trial court could properly conclude that the finding of the commissioner was conclusive. *Reynolds*v. *Rider Dairy Co.,*125 Conn. 380, 383, 5 Atl. (2d) 855; Conn. App. Proc., § 123. The finding of the commissioner that the deceased was, on the night in question, doing the same work in the same manner as he had been doing it for six months before must stand, and none of the other corrections sought in the finding could affect the conclusion to which the commissioner came. *Mages*v. *Alfred Brown, Inc.,*123 Conn. 188, 191, 193 Atl. 780.

There is no error.
§ 192.475 Definition of liquidation. ( a ) *In general.* A liquidation is a sale of a savings association's assets and settlement of its liabilities with the intent to cease operations and close. Upon liquidation, a savings association must return its charter to the governmental agency that issued it. The government agency must cancel the savings association's charter.
( b ) *Other transactions.* A merger, consolidation, or similar combination or transaction with another depository institution, is not a liquidation. If a savings association is involved in such a transaction, the surviving institution must assume the liquidation account.
#### §§ 226.44-226.45 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT
31.2




CERTIFICATION




I, Peter
Frugone, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arrow Resources Development,
Inc.;




2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:




a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and




5. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial
reporting.




Date: August
19, 2009.




/s/ Peter
Frugone


Principal
Accounting Officer
§ 269b.230 Assessment of costs; posting of bond. ( a ) The panel shall normally bear the costs of an investigation conducted pursuant to § 269b.210, but the panel may require that the charging party, the respondent, and/or other parties in interest or intervenors, or several of them, shall bear a portion or all of the costs therefor. With respect to each case where an investigation is directed by the panel, the charging party may, in the discretion of the panel, be required to file a cost bond, or equivalent security, of $500, unless the panel fixes a different amount.
( b ) Among the circumstances that may be the basis for payment of costs by other than the panel are cases where a clearly spurious charge has been filed or where the filing of a charge was necessary to redress the respondent's flagrant misconduct.
( c ) The bond or equivalent security shall be to secure the payment of the costs of the investigation as may be assessed by the panel. In those cases where the panel does not assess such costs, the bond posted and the cost thereof shall be reimbursed to the charging party. The panel may require also the posting of a cost bond by the respondent or other party to the proceeding, who shall be entitled to reimbursement of the cost of the bond in the event that no costs of investigation are assessed upon such party by the panel.
( d ) Notification of the panel's decision that a bond shall be required shall be effected by registered mail, such notice to advise of the amount of the bond required and the period by which it shall be posted.
( e ) Absent good cause shown, failure of a party to file timely such cost bond or equivalent security may be ground for dismissal or other administrative sanctions deemed appropriate by the Panel.
Before McCarthy and O’Dwyer, JJ.

#### Robert Loughran, Respondent, v. The Continental Hygela Ice Company, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment . entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

J. N. Kahn, for appellant; Little & McCabe, for respondent.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
#### § 308.30 Partial summary disposition.

If the ALJ determines that a party is entitled to summary disposition as to certain claims only, the ALJ will defer submitting a recommended decision as to those claims. A hearing on the remaining issues must be ordered. Those claims for which the ALJ has determined that summary disposition is warranted will be addressed in the recommended decision filed at the conclusion of the hearing.
§ 263.20 Amended pleadings. ( a ) *Amendments.* The notice or answer may be amended or supplemented at any stage of the proceeding. The respondent must answer an amended notice within the time remaining for the respondent's answer to the original notice, or within ten days after service of the amended notice, whichever period is longer, unless the Board or ALJ orders otherwise for good cause.
( b ) *Amendments to conform to the evidence.* When issues not raised in the notice or answer are tried at the hearing by express or implied consent of the parties, they will be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the notice or answer, and no formal amendments are required. If evidence is objected to at the hearing on the ground that it is not within the issues raised by the notice or answer, the ALJ may admit the evidence when admission is likely to assist in adjudicating the merits of the action and the objecting party fails to satisfy the ALJ that the admission of such evidence would unfairly prejudice that party's action or defense upon the merits. The ALJ may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3095

To amend title 4, United States Code, to make sure the rules of etiquette 

for flying the flag of the United States do not preclude the flying 

of flags at half mast when ordered by city and local officials. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend title 4, United States Code, to make sure the 

rules of etiquette for flying the flag of the United States 

do not preclude the flying of flags at half mast when 

ordered by city and local officials.

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 ‘‘Community Recogni5 tion Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FLAG CODE AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, is amend8 ed by inserting after the sentence beginning ‘‘In the event 
2

•HR 3095 IH 

1 of the death of a present or former official of the govern2 ment of any State’’ the following: ‘‘In the event of the 

3 death of a present or former official of any city or other 

4 locality, the chief elected official of that locality may pro5 claim that the National flag shall be flown at half staff.’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4245

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NORMA FAYE CANIPE, a/k/a Norma Pritt, a/k/a Lora Pritt, a/k/a Norma Brown, a/k/a Laura Pritt, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CR-02-130) Submitted: October 24, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David O. Schles, STOWERS & ASSOCIATES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Susan M. Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Norma Faye Canipe appeals her 175-month sentence pursuant to her guilty plea to aiding and abetting wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343 (2000), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On appeal, Canipe asserts the district court erred in denying her a downward adjustment to her offense level for acceptance of responsibility. A district court’s determination of whether a defendant is entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is factual, and is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Ruhe , 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999). Canipe’s claim is meritless. Canipe’s false statements to investigating authorities preclude a finding that the district court erred by failing to grant Canipe an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(a)-(b) (2002). Accordingly, we affirm Canipe’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


Dynamic I-T,Inc.
2504 Eleventh St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phone 310-392-8179 Fax 310-396-3029

April 11, 2000

Ms. Pam J. Schmidt
1659 East Anson Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-3707

Dear Ms. Schmidt:

This letter, when signed by you, shall constitute a valid and binding agreement
pursuant to which you shall render services as a consultant to the distance
learning division of Dynamic I-T, Inc..

The services to be rendered by you hereunder shall be as an employee of a work
for hire commencing on or about April 1, 2000 and shall consist of.

1.  Consultation with management at locations designated by the company. In this
    regard we agree that you shall not be required to travel to distant
    locations at times that conflict with your academic duties.

2.  In consultation with others, from time to time, designated by the company,
    the development of methods of production and the design of seminars intended
    to be delivered to subscribers via the World Wide Web as well as by other
    technologies which may be appropriate to the particular materials.

3.  Introduction to us of other persons with expertise that can form the basis
    for additional courses to be offered by the company.

4.  Introduction to the company of entities with which you have a consulting
    relationship with the intent that they may become subscribers to the
    company's seminars and courses

5.  As full consideration for the services to be rendered to us hereunder we
    agree to pay to you the sum of

        a) $12,500 for your services in connection with the company's first
           seminar. Your fee in connection with subsequent seminars shall be:
<PAGE>


        b) $3,500 with respect to each seminar which incorporates the material
           previously developed by you but upon which you do not render more
           than incidental services; and,

        c) $7,500 with respect to each seminar in connection with which you
           render substantial services.

6.  As additional consideration for your services in connection with the first
    seminar we agree to convey to you options on 10,000 shares, at $0.50 per
    share, in Dynamic I-T.

7.  We agree that in the event you provide the content for one or more
    seminar(s) you shall be paid, in addition to any payments due to you
    hereunder, the sum of $10,000 which shall be an advance against ten per-cent
    (10%) of total world wide gross income in perpetuity without deduction nor
    cross-collateralization.

This letter setting forth all of the terms and conditions of our understanding
shall become a valid and binding agreement, enforceable under the laws of the
State of Colorado, when signed by you in the space provided below.

Sincerely yours,


Dynamic I-T, Inc.

BY:
   -----------------------------------
            Vice President


   Agreed as of: the 1st day of April, 2000


   -----------------------------------
             Pam J Schmidt
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.1.2

                   SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT
                        BETWEEN UCAR CARBON COMPANY INC.
                            AND UCAR GRAPH-TECH INC.

        The Transfer Agreement is hereby amended, in accordance with the
following.

         1.       The second paragraph of Section 4.1 is hereby amended to read
                  in its entirety as follows:


                  "Transferee and its participating subsidiaries hereby agree to
                  be, and from and after the Closing shall continue to be, (1)
                  jointly and severally liable with Transferor and its other
                  participating subsidiaries and affiliates for all benefits
                  owed to participants and their beneficiaries under the Program
                  and the Plan and (2) except as otherwise expressly provided in
                  the Services Agreement, solely liable and responsible for all
                  benefits owed to its employees and retirees, and their
                  beneficiaries, under such plans. Subject to the parties'
                  obligations under clause (1) of the preceding sentence (which
                  the parties expect would not become applicable unless either
                  party is unable to meet its obligations under this sentence),
                  the parties agree that funding, contribution, expense and
                  other costs and payments in respect of the Plan and the
                  Program shall be borne in proportion to the obligations to
                  their respective retirees and employees. The parties agree
                  that all employees of Transferor who retired from the Business
                  after February 25, 1991 (approximately 20 employees), and
                  employees of Transferee and its subsidiaries (including the
                  Employees) who retire after the Closing, shall be considered
                  retirees of Transferee for all purposes (including, but not
                  limited to, funding obligations and administration of
                  benefits) under the Program, the Plan and such plans.
                  Notwithstanding anything contained herein or in the Services
                  Agreement to the contrary, the only assets to be transferred
                  to or for the benefit of Transferee or its subsidiaries or its
                  employee benefit plans in respect of the Program, the Plan or
                  any of such plans shall be those required to be transferred by
                  applicable law in respect of the Program or the Plan at such
                  time as Transferee or its subsidiaries ceases to participate
                  in the Program or the Plan."



         Date: July 24, 2000
#### § 23.10 General rule.

Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 24(Tenth) a national bank may invest in tangible personal property, including vehicles, manufactured homes, machinery, equipment, or furniture, for the purpose of, or in connection with leasing that property, if the aggregate book value of the property does not exceed 10 percent of the bank's consolidated assets and the related lease is a conforming lease. For the purpose of measuring compliance with the 10 percent limit prescribed by this section, a national bank records the investment in a lease entered into pursuant to this subpart net of any nonrecourse debt the bank has incurred to finance the acquisition of the leased asset.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3166

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

57 Old Tappan Road in Tappan, New York, as the ‘‘John G. Dow 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2003

Mr. ENGEL (for himself, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. KING of New York, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Ms. 

SLAUGHTER, Mr. MCNULTY, and Mr. HOUGHTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 57 Old Tappan Road in Tappan, New York, 

as the ‘‘John G. Dow 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. JOHN G. DOW POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 57 Old Tappan Road in Tappan, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John 

7 G. Dow Post Office Building’’. 
2

•HR 3166 IH 

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 John G. Dow Post 

5 Office Building.

Æ