alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1955.17 Determination of parties. ( a ) The designated State agency or agencies and the Department of Labor, OSHA, shall be the initial parties to the proceedings. Other interested persons may, at the discretion of the administrative law judge, be granted the right to participate as parties if he determines that the final decision could substantially affect them or the class they represent or that they may contribute materially to the disposition of the proceedings.
( b ) ( 1 ) Any person wishing to participate in any proceeding as a party under paragraph (a) of this section shall submit a petition to the administrative law judge within 30 days after the notice of such proceeding has been published in the Federal Register. The petition shall also be served upon the other parties. Such petition shall concisely state: ( i ) Petitioner's interest in the proceeding;
( ii ) How his participation as a party will contribute materially to the disposition of the proceeding;
( iii ) Who will appear for petitioner;
( iv ) The issue or issues as set out in the notice published under § 1955.10 of this part on which petitioner wishes to participate; and
( v ) Whether petitioner intends to present witnesses.
( 2 ) The administrative law judge shall, within 5 days of receipt of the petition, ascertain what objections, if any, there are to the petition. He shall then determine whether the petitioner is qualified in his judgment to be a party in the proceedings and shall permit or deny participation accordingly. The administrative law judge shall give each petitioner written notice of the decision on his petition promptly. If the petition is denied, the notice shall briefly state the grounds for denial. Persons whose petition for party participation is denied may appeal the decision to the Secretary within 5 days of receipt of the notice of denial. The Secretary will make the final decision to grant or deny the petition no later than 20 days following receipt of the appeal.
( 3 ) Where the petitions to participate as parties are made by individuals or groups with common interests, the administrative law judge may require all such petitioners to designate a single representative, or he may recognize one or more of such petitioners to represent all such petitioners.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             222
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7799
<ALLOWANCES>                                       256
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  7916
<PP&E>                                            5038
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    9913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3675
<BONDS>                                            412
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                        5788
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      9913
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 36176
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    29555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5171
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    71
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1211
<INCOME-TAX>                                       484
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                727
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       727
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
        23
 
 **CONSENTS
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
        333-86722 and 333-130276 of The Laclede Group, Inc., and 333-86722-01 of
        Laclede
        Capital Trust I on Form S-3, and in Registration Statement Nos. 333-90248,
        333-90252, 333-90254, 333-91432, 333-102835, 333-102836 and 333-131830 of
        The
        Laclede Group, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports dated November 28, 2007, relating
        to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of The Laclede
        Group, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
        explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial
        Accounting Standards No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit
        Pension and Other Postretirement Benefit Plans — an amendment of FASB Statements
        No. 87, 88, 106 and 132 (R),*effective September 30, 2007), and
        the effectiveness of The Laclede Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial
        reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Laclede Group,
        Inc. and Laclede Gas Company for the year ended September 30, 2007.
 
 We
        also
        consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
        333-141439 of Laclede Gas Company on Form S-3 of our reports dated November
        28,
        2007, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule
        of
        Laclede Gas Company (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
        an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption of Statement of
        Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for
        Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Benefit Plans — an amendment of
        FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 132 (R),*effective September
        30, 2007) and the effectiveness of Laclede Gas Company’s internal control over
        financial reporting, appearing in Exhibit 99.1 of this Annual Report on Form
        10-K of The Laclede Group, Inc. and Laclede Gas Company for the year ended
        September 30, 2007.
 
 
 /s/
        DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 St.
        Louis, Missouri
 November
        28, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section  906 of the Public  Company  Accounting  Reform and
Investor  Protection  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.  1350,  as adopted),  I, Dianne
Hatton-Ward, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

         1. The Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
June 30, 2005, and to which this  Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the
"PERIODIC  REPORT")  fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects,  the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period  covered by the Periodic  Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: August 11, 2005


S/Dianne Hatton-Ward
--------------------
Dianne Hatton-Ward
CEO & CFO

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Yummies, Inc. and will be retained by Yummies, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request

THIS  CERTIFICATION   ACCOMPANIES  THIS  REPORT  PURSUANT  TO  SS.  906  OF  THE
SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED  "FILED" BY THE  COMPANY FOR
PURPOSES OF SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.
[Nos. 48019-7-I; 48078-2-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Edgar Anaya, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for Ring County, Nos. 99-1-07341-6 and 99-1-07342-4, Charles W. Mertel, J., entered February 2, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Baker and Appelwick, JJ.
§ 1919.75 Determination of crane or derrick safe working loads and limitations in absence of manufacturer's data. ( a ) In the event neither manufacturer's data nor design data on safe working loads (including any applicable limitations) are obtainable, the safe working load ratings assigned shall be based on the owner's information and warranty that those so assigned are correct. Unit test certificates shall state the basis for any such safe working load assignment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1317

SABRINA RENEE BROWN, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

PARK PLACE FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00045-RAJ-DEM) 

Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 30, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Sabrina Renee Brown, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Sabrina Renee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) without prejudice for failure to state a 

claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). 

Because it is possible that Brown could cure the defects in her complaint through 

amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 

623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 

10 F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Brown to 

file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0238 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0238

**98/238/EC, ECSC: Decision of the Council and the Commission of 26 January 1998 on the conclusion of a Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part **

*
Official Journal L 097 , 30/03/1998 P. 0001 - 0001 *

DECISION OF THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION of 26 January 1998 on the conclusion of a Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part (98/238/EC, ECSC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 238 in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 228(2), and the second subparagraph of Article 228(3) thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 95 thereof,

After consultation of the Consultative Committee and on the assent of the Council,

Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament,

Whereas the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 17 July 1995, should be approved,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, the Protocols annexed thereto and the declarations attached to the Final Act are hereby approved on behalf of the European Community and the European Coal and Steel Community.

The texts of the Agreement, the Protocols annexed thereto and the Final Act are attached to this Decision.

Article 2

1. The position to be taken by the Community within the Association Council and the Association Committee shall be laid down by the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, or, where appropriate, by the Commission, each in accordance with the corresponding provisions of the Treaties establishing the European Community and the European Coal and Steel Community.

2. The President of the Council shall in accordance with Article 79 of the Agreement, preside over the Association Council and present the position of the Community. A representative of the President of the Council shall preside over the Association Committee, in accordance with Article 82 of the Agreement, and present the position of the Community.

Article 3

The President of the Council shall deposit the act of notification provided for in Article 96 of the Agreement on behalf of the European Community. The President of the Commission shall deposit that act on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community.

Done at Brussels, 26 January 1998.

For the Commission

The President

J. SANTER

For the Council

The President

R. COOK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT KINCHELOE; VONNA RUDINE; SANDRA CHRISTAFFERSON, on behalf of them selves and all others sim ilarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 22-15726 D.C. No. 5:21-cv-00515-BLF
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Beth Labson Freem an, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Subm itted April 21, 2023 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Appellants are three form er flight attendants who appeal the district court’s dism issal of their Age Discrim ination in Employm ent Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq . 

# FILED
MAY 8 2023 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.(“ADEA”) claim . They challenge Am erican Airlines’ March 2020 Voluntary

Early Out Program (“VEOP”). The ADEA contains a safe harbor for bona fide early retirem ent program s. See 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(2)(B)(ii). An early retirem e nt program is not an adverse
em ploym ent action unless the employee can establish it am ounts to a constructive discharge, i.e., that conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt com

pelled to resign. See Pa. State Police v. Suders , 542 U.S. 129, 141 (2004); Poland v. Chertoff , 494 F.3d 1174, 1184 (9th Cir. 2007). Appellants have alleged that they were constructively discharged in March 2020 when Am erican Airlines discouraged them from wearing face m a sks and denied leaves of absence and reduced work schedules until enough flight attendants accepted the VEOP. The VEOP was a response to the extraordinary drop in dem and for air travel caused by the COVID-19 pandem ic. The
em ploym ent conditions im posed were consistent with federal policy guidelines at that tim e. To constitute constructive discharge, there m ust be intolerable working conditions that are “a result of discrim ination.” Poland , 494 F.3d at 1184 (quoting Brooks v. City of San Mateo , 229 F.3d 917, 930 (9th Cir. 2000)). Even assum ing the federal policy guidelines were unreasonable, the situation was not attributable to any conduct by Am erican Airlines.
2The district court correctly ruled that Appellants had not m ade out a

violation of the ADEA. AFFIRMED.

3
#### Jeselnik v. Crossley

*Ambrose R. Campana,*for plaintiff.

*Martin M. Fine,*for defendant.

June 11, 1958.

Williams, P. J.,

— As a result of a collision at the intersection of two narrow streets in the city of Williamsport, plaintiff sued defendant, and arbitrators awarded plaintiff $258.05. Defendant appealed from this award and a jury who heard the case brought a verdict in for plaintiff in the amount of $258.05. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, giving as her reason that verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

In addition, defendant complains that the court allowed a witness to testify that defendant offered to pay the full amount of the damage to plaintiff’s car by installments. According to this testimony, the witness, Swanson, alleged that defendant offered to pay plaintiff’s damages in installments if plaintiff would not send in a report of the accident to the De: partment of Revenue. Defendant complains that this line of testimony was a compromise offer and as such, inadmissible. We fail to see where defendant objected to this line of questioning. In addition, the testimony indicates an offer to pay, not an offer to compromise, therefore becoming admissible: Wallace v. Hussey, 63 Pa. 24.

*472We have read the testimony in this case and in our opinion the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence.

And now, June 11, 1958, the motion for a new trial is refused, costs on defendant.
#### § 1602.38 Applicability of State or local law.

The requirements imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in these regulations, subparts I and J, supersede any provisions of State or local law which may conflict with them.

[38 FR 12605, May 14, 1973]
###### Editorial Note on Subpart Z of Part 1910

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1910 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### §§ 1910.1451-1910.1499 [Reserved]
§ 1978.114 District court jurisdiction of retaliation complaints under STAA. ( a ) If there is no final order of the Secretary, 210 days have passed since the filing of the complaint, and there is no showing that there has been delay due to the bad faith of the complainant, the complainant may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United States, which will have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in controversy. The action shall, at the request of either party to such action, be tried by the court with a jury.
( b ) Within seven days after filing a complaint in federal court, a complainant must file with the Assistant Secretary, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending, a copy of the file-stamped complaint. A copy of the complaint also must be served on the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor.
§ 1401.22 Requirements for making requests. ( a ) *General information.* ( 1 ) A requester can submit requests through one of the following ways: Submitting a request through the public portal on the FMCS FOIA website; sending an electronic request to the Office of General Counsel, *foia@fmcs.gov ;* or writing directly to the FMCS FOIA office at 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20427. Any additional requirements for submitting a request to the Agency are listed in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section and in the submitted form available by selecting “FOIA” at the bottom of the FMCS website *www.fmcs.gov/foia .*
( 2 ) A requester who is making a request for records about the requester must comply with the verification of identity requirements as determined by the FMCS to include providing documentation and completing a verification of identity form.
( 3 ) Where a request for records pertains to another individual, a requester may receive greater access by submitting either a notarized authorization signed by that individual or a declaration made in compliance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 by that individual authorizing disclosure of the records to the requester, or by submitting proof that the individual is deceased (*e.g.,* a copy of a death certificate or an obituary). As an exercise of administrative discretion, the Agency can require a requester to supply additional information, if necessary, to verify that a particular individual has consented to disclosure.
( b ) *Description of records sought.* Requesters must describe the records sought in sufficient detail to enable agency personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. To the extent possible, requesters should include specific information that may help the Agency identify the requested records, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, subject matter of the record, case number, file designation, or reference number. Before submitting requests, requesters may contact the Agency's FOIA Public Liaison, as identified at *www.fmcs.gov/foia ,* to discuss the records they seek and to receive assistance in describing the records. If after receiving a request the FMCS determines that it does not reasonably describe the records sought, the FMCS will inform the requester what additional information is needed or why the request is otherwise insufficient. If a request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the FMCS's response to the request may be delayed.
( c ) *Format for requests.* Requests may specify the preferred form or format (including electronic formats) for the records. The FMCS will accommodate the request if the record is readily reproducible in that form or format.
( d ) *Content of requests.* Requesters must provide contact information, such as their full name, organization, phone number, email address, and/or mailing address, to assist the Agency in communicating with them and providing released records.
#### Hampton Estate

No. 1

*M. Paul Smith,*for accountant.

September 30, 1958.

Taxis, P. J.,

— . . . A question for determination is presented as to whether in paying the remainder tax on the trust estate the tax should be assessed at the rate of two percent on funds expended for the funeral expenses of the widow-life tenant or whether the tax on such funeral expenses should be paid at the rate of 15 percent, being the rate attributable to the remainder interests passing under the provisions of the will.

By his will decedent provided that his entire estate be placed in trust “for the benefit of my beloved wife Florence B. Hampton for life; she to receive the income and enough of the principal for a comfortable maintenance . . .”

The account shows that the trustee paid the widow-life tenant’s funeral expenses out of the trust, corpus. The remainder interests are strangers to the blood *762and were notified of such payment by the trustee but have not seen fit to make a claim for reimbursement at audit. I find such payment by the trustee to be proper and it is herewith approved and to be taxed at the rate of two percent. See A. L. I. Restatement of the Law of Trusts §128 *(e) ;*Swinson Estate, 167 Pa. Superior Ct. 293 .. .