alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1620.5 What goods are considered as “produced for commerce.”

Goods (as defined in section 3(i) of the FLSA) are “produced for commerce” if they are “produced, manufactured, mined, handled or in any other manner worked on” in any State for sale, trade, transportation, transmission, shipment, or delivery, to any place outside thereof. Goods are produced for commerce where the producer intends, hopes, expects, or has reason to believe that the goods or any unsegregated part of them will move (in the same or in an altered form or as a part of ingredient of other goods) in interstate or foreign commerce. If such movement of the goods in commerce can reasonably be anticipated by the producer when the goods are produced, it makes no difference whether the producer or the person to whom the goods are transferred puts the goods in interstate or foreign commerce. The fact that goods do move in interstate or foreign commerce is strong evidence that the producer intended, hoped, expected, or had reason to believe that they would so move. Goods may also be produced “for commerce” where they are to be used within the State and not transported in any form across State lines. This is true where the goods are used to serve the needs of the instrumentalities or facilities by which interstate or foreign commerce is carried on within the State. For examples, see 29 CFR 776.20.
[Nos. 48802-3-I; 48803-1-I.

Division One.

December 23, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Darius Paige, et al., *Defendants,*Isaac Crispin, *Appellant.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-00959-8, Jeffrey M. Ramsdell, J., entered July 12, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
§ 1918.96 Maintenance and repair work in the vicinity of longshoring operations. ( a ) *Noise interference* (See also § 1918.1(b)(6).) Longshoring operations shall not be carried on when noise interferes with communications of warnings or instructions.
( b ) *Falling objects.* Longshoring operations shall not be carried on in the hold or on deck beneath work being conducted overhead whenever such work exposes the employee to a hazard of falling objects.
( c ) *Hot work.* Longshoring operations shall not be carried on where the employee is exposed to damaging light rays, hot metal, or sparks from welding or cutting.
( d ) *Abrasive blasting and spray painting.* Longshoring operations shall not be carried on in the immediate vicinity of abrasive blasting or spray painting operations.
( e ) *Machine guarding.* (See also § 1918.2, definition of “Danger zone”.) ( 1 ) Danger zones on machines and equipment used by employees shall be guarded.
( 2 ) The power supply to machines shall be turned off, locked out, and tagged out during repair, adjustment, or servicing.
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF
SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)





Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Unit
Corporation a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such
officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007 and for the three and six
month periods ended June 30, 2008 and 2007.








Dated:
August 5, 2008





By: /s/ Larry D.
Pinkston


Larry D.
Pinkston


Chief
Executive Officer








Dated:
August 5, 2008





By: /s/ David T.
Merrill


David T.
Merrill


Chief
Financial Officer and


Treasurer








The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been
provided to Unit Corporation and will be retained by Unit Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff on
request.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 1825]]

Public Law 113-152
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To amend title XII of the Public Health Service Act to expand the 
     definition of trauma to include thermal, electrical, chemical, 
 radioactive, and other extrinsic agents. <<NOTE: Aug. 8, 2014 -  [H.R. 
                                3548]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Improving Trauma 
Care Act of 2014. 42 USC 201 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Trauma Care Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. TRAUMA DEFINITION.

    (a) Revised Definition Under Trauma Systems Grants Programs.--
Paragraph (4) of section 1231 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 300d-31) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(4) Trauma.--The term `trauma' means an injury resulting 
        from exposure to--
                    ``(A) a mechanical force; or
                    ``(B) another extrinsic agent, including an 
                extrinsic agent that is thermal, electrical, chemical, 
                or radioactive.''.

    (b) Revised Definition Under Interagency Program for Trauma 
Research.--Paragraph (3) of section 1261(h) of the Public Health Service 
Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-61(h)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(3) The term `trauma' means an injury resulting from 
        exposure to--
                    ``(A) a mechanical force; or
                    ``(B) another extrinsic agent, including an 
                extrinsic agent that is thermal, electrical, chemical, 
                or radioactive.''.

    Approved August 8, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3548 (S. 2406):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113-458 (Comm. on Energy and Commerce).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            June 24, considered and passed House.
            July 31, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# I--AA-

# 2009
- 122Cj

9. Contacts. With whom outside the FAA hasthis proposal been discussed? 

## Organization Person Contacted Date Response Transport Canada Richard Topham 5/5/09 No Objections

613-952-4428 Bombardier Chester Liburski 5/5/09 No Objections Aerospace 5]4-855-5001

ext 89036 Regional Airline Dave Lotterer 5/7/09 Sent Message on 5/7J09 No response Association 202-367-1252 Yet.

lotterer@raa.org
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable William E. Smith, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BURMAA CHOGSOM,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71756

Agency No. A098-256-197

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 9, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: KLEINFELD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District

Judge.*** 

FILED

NOV 30 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Petitioner Burma Chogsom petitions for review of a BIA decision denying

her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

reject her arguments and deny her petition for review.

We review factual findings underlying the BIA’s denial of asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture for

substantial evidence. Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Chogsom claims that she was persecuted in Mongolia because of her membership

in the Mongolian Democratic Party and because she was a descendent of

Mongolian nobility. However, reviewing the record as a whole, substantial

evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Chogsom’s political opinions and

social group were not a central reason for any mistreatment she may have suffered. 

Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009). Since Chogsom

cannot meet her burden of proof for asylum, she necessarily cannot qualify for

withholding of removal. Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Chogsom claims she is entitled to relief under the Convention Against

Torture because she suffered torture when her ex-husband’s ex-wife attacked and
3

harassed her. However, the record shows that the police protected Chogsom from

the alleged attacks on multiple occasions, and Chogsom has no evidence to show

that the government in any way participated in her mistreatment. Therefore, even

if Chogsom’s mistreatment constituted torture, substantial evidence supports the

BIA’s determination that the mistreatment was not done “with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official.” Abufayad v. Holder, 632 F.3d 623, 632 (9th

Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2)).

Finally, Chogsom argues that she was denied due process in her proceeding

before the IJ because she received inadequate translation. We cannot consider this

claim because Chogsom failed to exhaust it in her appeal to the BIA. Meihua

Huang v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

PETITION DENIED.
§ 93.352 Hudson River Exclusion specific operating procedures. In addition to the requirements in § 93.351, the following procedures apply: ( a ) Pilots must self announce, at the charted mandatory reporting points, the following information: aircraft type, current position, direction of flight, and altitude.
( b ) Pilots must fly along the west shoreline of the Hudson River when southbound, and along the east shoreline of the Hudson River when northbound; while remaining within the boundaries of the Hudson River Exclusion as defined in § 93.350(d).
( c ) Aircraft transiting the area within the Hudson River Exclusion in accordance with § 93.350(b) must transit the Hudson River Exclusion at or above an altitude of 1,000 feet MSL up to, but not including, the floor of the overlying Class B airspace.
Exhibit 32  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 amended Quarterly Report of Intelligent Living Corp. (formerly Elgrande International, Inc., the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended August 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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 to the best of my knowledge:  (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 result of operations of the Company.   Date: July 17, 2008 /s/ Michael F. Holloran --------------------------------------- Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, James C. Clinard, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Heartland Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2004; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company 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 Company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; 

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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 

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Company’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 Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

Date: November 12, 2004
#### FOSHEE v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 30, 1917.)

Appeal from Bullock Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. S. Williams.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
§ 1912a.9 Assistance to the committee. ( a ) At the request of the Committee or the person calling a meeting, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health may make available to the Committee any needed experts or consultants. Any expert or consultant so made available may participate in the deliberations of the Committee with the consent of the Committee.
( b ) The Assistant Secretary shall furnish the Committee an executive secretary. He shall also furnish such secretarial, clerical, and other services as are deemed necessary to the conduct of its business.
( c ) The Solicitor of Labor shall provide such legal assistance as may be necessary or appropriate for the Committee to carry out its functions in accordance with the requirements of this part.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31596-31597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12490]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ID-010-0777-XQ]


Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Lower Snake River District, Bureau of Land Management, 
Interior.

ACTION: Meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Lower Snake River District Resource Advisory Council will 
meet in Boise. Potential agenda topics are the Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Plan, the Integrated Natural Resources Management 
Plan for the U.S. Air Force

[[Page 31597]]

Enhanced Training in Idaho project, sage grouse habitat management, 
implementation of rangeland standards and guidelines, off-highway 
vehicle management and other land management issues.

DATES: June 22, 2000. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. Public comment 
periods will be held at 9:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Lower Snake River District 
Office, located at 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Rose, Lower Snake River District 
Office (208-384-3393).

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Howard Hendrick,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-12490 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-4036

___________ Mark B. Price, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. GKN Aerospace North America, * Inc.; John Mink; Mike Bishop, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 14, 2007 Filed: December 4, 2007

___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Mark B. Price appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his lawsuit brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Having conducted de novo review of the record and having c onsidered Price’s arguments for reversal, see Hanger v. Lake County , 390 F.3d 579, 582 (8th Ci r. 2004) (standard of review), we agree with the district cour t that defendants’ actions did not amount to willful FMLA violations, and that Price’ s lawsuit was time-barred because the two--2- year limitations period applied, see 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c) (action may be brought no later than two years after date of last event constituting alleged FMLA violation, unless violation is willful, in which case lim itations period is extended to three years). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
§ 61.83 Eligibility requirements for student pilots. To be eligible for a student pilot certificate, an applicant must: ( a ) Be at least 16 years of age for other than the operation of a glider or balloon.
( b ) Be at least 14 years of age for the operation of a glider or balloon.
( c ) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft.
§ 18.608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness. ( a ) *Opinion and reputation evidence of character.* The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: ( 1 ) The evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and
( 2 ) Evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.
( b ) *Specific instances of conduct.* Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in § 18.609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the judge, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness, concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.
The giving of testimony by any witness does not operate as a waiver of the witness' privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters which relate only to credibility.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                            PARENTS AND SUBSIDIARIES

   The Company and its subsidiaries* as of July 2, 1999 are as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
State (Country) of                             Percentage of Voting Securities
Name of Company                                   Incorporation       Owned
------------------                             -------------------- ----------
<S>                                            <C>                  <C>
Kellwood Company..............................    Delaware            Parent
American Recreation Products, Inc.............    Delaware              100%
Kellwood Asia Limited.........................    Hong Kong             100%
Smart Shirts Limited..........................    Hong Kong             100%
South Asia Garment Limited....................    Hong Kong             100%
KWD Holdings, Inc.............................    Delaware              100%
Robert Scott & David Brooks Outlet Stores,
 Inc..........................................    Delaware              100%
Tri-W Corporation.............................    North Carolina        100%
Halmode Apparel, Inc..........................    Delaware              100%
Fritzi California, Inc........................    Delaware              100%
Koret, Inc....................................    Delaware              100%
</TABLE>
--------
*  Some of the above subsidiaries also have subsidiaries which are not listed
   because, in the aggregate, they are not considered to be significant.

                                       14
#### Selma Blumenstein, an Infant, by Julia Blumenstein, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, *v.*Sarah Jabloner et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Another.

Argued March 25, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*486
      *Joseph S. Robinson, Emile Z. Berman*and *Louis Helfenstein*for appellants.

*Shepard Broad*and *Irvin Husin*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3773MN

_____________

Katheryn Lynn Critzer, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Blue Earth County Housing and * Appeal from the United States

Redevelopment; HRA; Public Housing; * District Court for the District

City of Mankato; Mary Barrett; * of Minnesota.

Roxanne Johnson; Elmo Dodd, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendants-Appellees, *

*

United States Department of Housing *

and Urban Development, *

*

Defendant. *

_____________

 Submitted: May 11, 1998

Filed: May 21, 1998

_____________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Katheryn Lynn Critzer appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to

a public housing authority and others in her lawsuit for discrimination based on

disability. Having considered the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude the
-2-

district court correctly granted summary judgment for the reasons given in its

memorandum opinion and order. We thus affirm without further discussion. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.