alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 30, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 8

- 1 6 3 0 5 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 6

- 2 0 3 9 7

- C R

- U U B

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

K A R E E M J A C K S O N , a

. k

. a

. J a m a r F i e l d s , a

. k

. a

. F a c e ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e C A R N E S , W I L S O N a n d C O X , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :N a t h a n D

. C l a r k , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r K a r e e m J a c k s o n , h a s m o v e d t o

w i t h d r a w f

r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d f i l e d a b r i e f p u r s u a n t t o
A n d e r s v
. C a l i f

o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r
i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e

r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e

e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s
G R A N T E D , a n d J a c k s o n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
#### § 102.182 Representation cases should be processed to certification.

During any period when the Board lacks a quorum, the second proviso of § 102.67(b) regarding the automatic impounding of ballots will be suspended. To the extent practicable, all representation cases may continue to be processed and the appropriate certification should be issued by the Regional Director notwithstanding the pendency of a request for review, subject to revision or revocation by the Board pursuant to a request for review filed in accordance with this subpart.

[82 FR 11786, Feb. 24, 2017]
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------


          CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of North
American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. (the "Company") that the Annual Report of
the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of
the Company.



                                    NORTH AMERICAN GALVANIZING & COATINGS, INC.
                                                  (Registrant)



                                    /s/ Ronald J. Evans
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Ronald J. Evans
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)



                                    /s/ Paul R. Chastain
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Paul R. Chastain
                                    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)

Date: March 26, 2004
**Exhibit 18.1**

October 24, 2006 

Board of Directors 

American Rock Salt Company LLC 

3846 Retsof Road 

Retsof, New York 14539 

Dear Directors: 

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-Q filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K. 

We have been provided a copy of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006. Note 2 therein describes a change in accounting principle of the amortization of minedevelopment costs from the straight line method over 20 years to the units-of-production method over the estimated remaining reserves. It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for minedevelopment costs has not been addressed in any authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on management’s determination that this change in accounting principle is preferable. Based on ourreading of management’s stated reasons and justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form 10-Q, and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the change, weconcur with management that such change represents, in the Company’s circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 154, *Accounting Changes and ErrorCorrections*. 

We have not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to September 30, 2005.Accordingly, our comments are subject to change upon completion of an audit of the financial statements covering the period of the accounting change. 

Verytruly yours, 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31351-31352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12405]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


Working Group on Benefit Continuity After Organizational 
Restructuring, Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension 
Benefits Plans; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, a 
public meeting will be held Friday, June 2, 2000 of the Advisory 
Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans Working Group 
assigned to study benefit continuity after organizational 
restructuring.
    The session will take place in Room N-5437 A-D, U.S. Department of 
Labor Building, Second and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20210. The purpose of the open meeting, which will run from 9:30 a.m. 
to approximately noon, is for working group members to continue taking 
testimony on the legal framework governing employee benefit plan 
continuity during organizational restructuring and ramifications for 
these plans under Title I and II of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act (ERISA).
    Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement 
pertaining to the topic by submitting 20 copies on or before May 26, 
2000 to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, 
U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5677, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20210. Individuals or representatives of organizations 
wishing to address the Working Group should forward their request to 
the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations 
will be limited to 10 minutes, but an extended statement may be 
submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need 
special accommodations should contact Sharon Morrissey by May 26 at the 
address indicated in this notice.
    Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the 
record without testifying Twenty (20) copies of such statements should 
be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above 
address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the 
meeting if received on or before May 26.


[[Page 31352]]


    Signed at Washington, DC this 12th day of May 2000.
Leslie Kramerich,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Benefits 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-12405 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
§ 1691.6 General rules concerning EEOC action on complaints. ( a ) A complaint of employment discrimination filed with an agency, which is transferred or referred to EEOC under this regulation, shall be deemed a charge received by EEOC. For all purposes under title VII and the Equal Pay Act, the date such a complaint was received by an agency shall be deemed the date it was received by EEOC.
( b ) When EEOC investigates a joint complaint it shall, where appropriate, seek sufficient information to allow the referring agency to determine whether the alleged employment discrimination is in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance and/or whether the alleged employment discrimination causes discrimination with respect to beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of the assisted program.
( c ) Upon referral of a joint complaint alleging a pattern or practice of employment discrimination, EEOC generally will limit its investigation to the allegation(s) which directly affect the complainant.
( d ) If EEOC, in the course of an investigation of a joint complaint, is unable to obtain information from a recipient through voluntary means, EEOC shall consult with the referring agency to determine an appropriate course of action.
( e ) If EEOC agrees to defer its investigation of a complaint of employment discrimination pending an agency investigation of the complaint, then EEOC shall give due weight to the agency's determination concerning the complaint.
#### FRAZIER v. THE STATE.

(Decided December 19, 1916.)

Appeal from Bessemer City Court.

Heard before Hon. J. C. B. Gwin.

Mathews *&*Mathews, for appellant.

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

Pelham, P. J.

No bill of exceptions and no error of record. Affirmed.
#### Thomas Chamberlain *versus*Susannah Doty *et al.*

*Oct. 25th*

*Oct. 28th*

The extent of an execution upon an estate for life, is not rendered invalid by the circumstance, that the reversioner acted as one of the appraisers.

Where an execution was extended upon real estate, and the certificate of the appraisers and the return of the officer, indorsed on the execution, recited, that the appraisers were *e<*duly sworn,” but it did not appear from such certificate and return, that they were sworn before any justice of the peace, it was *held,*that the extent was invalid.

This was a complaint instituted under *St.*1825, c. 89, to recover possession of certain real estate.

*Marston,*for the complainant.

Miller, for the respondents.

Shaw C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The question is upon the validity of the evy of the complainant’s execution.

*496The first exception is, that the estate levied upon was a life estate, and it is alleged that one of the appraisers was tenant of the estate in reversion. This exception cannot be sustained. He had no interest in diminishing or enhancing the estimated value of the life estate, which was wholly independent of the reversion ; he had no more interest in purchasing in the life estate than any other freeholder ; nor would a false appraisment aid him in such purchase.

The other exception, however, is fatal to the levy. Where, according to the usual practice, the certificate of the magistrate who administered the oath, and that of the appraisers who made the appraisement, are indorsed on the execution, courts have gone very far, in considering these certificates in connexion with the officer’s return, and as aiding any defects in the return itself. *Williams*v. *Amory,*14 Mass. R. 28. But it nowhere appears in the present case, either from the officer’s return or from the accompanying certificates, that the appraisers were sworn before any justice of the peace or magistrate. Both in the certificate of the appraisers, and the return of the officer, it is simply recited, .that they were first “duly sworn.” The Court are all of opinion, that upon the current of authorities, this is not sufficient to show a compliance with the requirements of the statute, and to pass the estate by force of tin levy. *Davis*v. Maynard, 9 Mass. R. 242; *Wellington*v. *Gale,*13 Mass. R. 483; *Howard*v. *Turner,*6 Greenleaf, 106.

*Complainant nonsuit*
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0617 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0617

**97/617/EC: Commission Decision of 29 July 1997 amending Commission Decision 97/252/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorize imports of milk and milk-based products for human consumption (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 250 , 13/09/1997 P. 0015 - 0018 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 29 July 1997 amending Commission Decision 97/252/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorize imports of milk and milk-based products for human consumption (Text with EEA relevance) (97/617/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States are authorized to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs (1), as last amended by Council Decision 97/34/EC (2), and in particular Articles 2 (1) and 7 thereof,

Whereas Commission Decision 95/340/EEC (3), as last amended by Decision 96/584/EC (4), draws up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorize imports of milk and milk-based products;

Whereas the health and veterinary certification requirements for imports of milk and milk-based products from the countries appearing on that list have been laid down in Commission Decision 95/343/EEC (5), as last amended by Decision 97/115/EC (6);

Whereas Commission Decision 97/252/EC (7), as last amended by Decision 97/598/EC (8), draws up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorize imports of milk and milk-based products for human consumption;

Whereas a Community on-the-spot inspection in Poland has shown that certain establishments do not meet the Community health requirements and that the guarantees provided by the competent authorities have not been complied with;

Whereas the appropriate measures should therefore be taken;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 97/252/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision for Poland.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 July 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11. 10. 1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 13, 16. 1. 1997, p. 33.

(3) OJ L 200, 24. 8. 1995, p. 38.

(4) OJ L 255, 9. 10. 1996, p. 20.

(5) OJ L 200, 24. 8. 1995, p. 52.

(6) OJ L 42, 13. 2. 1997, p. 16.

(7) OJ L 101, 18. 4. 1997, p. 46.

(8) OJ L 240, 2. 9. 1997, p. 8.

ANEXO - BILAG - ANHANG - ÐÁÑÁÑÔÇÌÁ - ANNEX - ANNEXE - ALLEGATO - BIJLAGE - ANEXO - LIITE - BILAGA

>TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Subpart Z of Part 1910

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1910.1002 Coal tar pitch volatiles; interpretation of term.

As used in § 1910.1000 (Table Z-1), coal tar pitch volatiles include the fused polycyclic hydrocarbons which volatilize from the distillation residues of coal, petroleum (excluding asphalt), wood, and other organic matter. Asphalt (CAS 8052-42-4, and CAS 64742-93-4) is not covered under the “coal tar pitch volatiles” standard.

[48 FR 2768, Jan. 21, 1983]
#### § 1928.1 Purpose and scope.

This part contains occupational safety and health standards applicable to agricultural operations.
§ 1918.67 Notifying the ship's officers before using certain equipment. ( a ) The employer shall notify the officer in charge of the vessel before bringing aboard ship internal combustion or electric powered tools, equipment or vehicles.
( b ) The employer shall also notify the officer in charge of the vessel before using the ship's electric power for the operation of any electric tools or equipment.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

In the interest of E.A.O. * From the 446 th District Court

and R.R.B., children, of Ector County,

Trial Court No. E

- 3554

- PC

.

No. 11

- 17

- 00297

- CV * November 2 , 2017

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the appe al is dismissed.
#### POWELL v. THE STATE.

(Decided November 28, 1916.)

Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

No counsel marked for appellant.

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

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed on motion of Attorney General.
#### § 1912a.5 Advice and recommendations.

Any advice or recommendations of the Committee shall be given or made with approval of a majority of all Committee members present. The Chairman shall include in any report of such advice or recommendations any concurring or dissenting views as well as abstentions and absences. Any member may submit his own advice and recommendations in the form of individual views with respect to any matter which has been considered by the Committee.
#### §§ 431.28-431.30 [Reserved]
05/25/201 1 15:1 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 001/00 2

U.S . DHPARTMFN T O F TRAN S PORT ATIO N :J ^ j ^ FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N ' ^ ^* ^ 

## K ^ 

# I L

I n th e Matter

of" : CISC O AVIATION , LL C ^ \\ 

# HEARIN G COCK

^ FA A Cas e No . 2009SWI70I2 9 FA A Docke t C P No . CP l ISWOOO

l Judg e RichardC . Goodwi n

•-." 1 RESPONDEN T CISC O AVIATION , LLC* S WITHDRAWA L O F APPEA L RESPONDEN T Cisc o Aviation , LL C pursuan t

t o asettlemen t

agreemen t

wit h The Administrato r

mad e aroun dMa

y C , 201 1 hereb y withdraw s it s Appeal .

Respectfully submitted , Georg e E . Cro w Texa s State Ba

r No . 0515190 0 Pos t Offic e Bo

x 3 0 Kaiy , Texa s 77492-003 0 281-391-927 5 tJeortJeLrowC5).earthlink.ne t Fo r Overnight

Deliver y u.s e Physical Addres.s : 151 9 Mille r

Avenu e Katy , T X 7749 3 ATTORNE Y I

N CHARG E FO R RESPONDENl

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E 1 ccrtil y tha

t aLm e cop y o f Responden t

Cisc o Aviation , LLC' s Withdrawal o f Appea l wa s served/file do

n Ma y 11 , 201 1 a s follows : Cisc o Aviaikm , LLC' ^ Withdrawa

l o f Ajjpca ! Pag e 1 o f 205/25/201 1 15:1 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ QM S @1002/00 2

Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Pedcra l Aviatio n Administratio n Wilbur Wright Buildmg , Suite 2W 1 00 0 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 (1 ) Original (1 ) Cop y Vi aCM/RR R710 2 382 3 052 1 519 2 926 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings . M-2 0 U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington . D C 2059 0 (l)Cop y Vi aFa x 202-366-753 6 Voland aAyal aBema l Attorney , Safet

y Enforcemen t

Branc h Offic e of th e Regional Counse l Southwes t Region , ASW-7E 3 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 260 1 McachamBlvd. , Roo m66 3 I'Or t Worth , T X 7613 7 (l)Cop y Vi aI-ax : 817-222-594 5 Vi aE-Mai l Yolanda.A.Bemalfg.faa.go v
GEoTg e E . Cro w 

# (ML ^

Cisc o Aviation , LLC' s Wilhdrawal o f Appeal Pag e 2 o f 2
Case: 16-14814 Date Filed: 10/30/2018 Page: 1 of 2Case: 16-14814 Date Filed: 10/30/2018 Page: 2 of 2
Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O.B. 25082 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-0082 

Administrator (s) 

Greetings; 

· i~Pt.RTI··'IF!\ T Q· r -· ···' n .. , v _ 'l, f 

-- '\. rs·r'QR~.\~101· 1 'f..i'h rJ . I;.-. I .'l 

· :::~:f~ET OPER/ATIONS 

Z 0 lZ OCT ! ! P ! : 2 2 

I have constructed an FAR 103 ultralight of my own design. My self; being a 

somewhat large individual, during subsequent flights and various trials it has 

come to my attention that for safety's sake, some areas need to be strengthened. 

I have ran the gamut from carbon fiber to the prohibitively expensive 2024 and 

7075 aluminum grades which have a better strength/weight ratio, all to no avail. 

for reasons of safety, Under FAR 103.5 I respectfully apply for a waiver from 254# 

to 309#of FAR 103.1.e.1 

I understand that there may be a need for additional contact communications or 

even inspection, in any .case I encourage you to contact me and have listed all 

numbers below. · ' ' 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

lee Kenneth Fischer (Certificate#S85168901} Issued 03-15-1981 

~~ D''!-10- 1').. 

6008 Lakeview Rd. 

~~rsen, Wi. 549,47 .(12 miles from Oshkosh ... ). ·, '• '· . I ' .r ' 

920-836-3074. (w) 

920-S36-2325 (fa~) . 

~20-836-.9977 (hJ 

920-?i2~1781 (cell) 

.. 1 • 

; ~: . 

; • . : .. J. :·"'' .. 

..·
§ 1987.114 District court jurisdiction of retaliation complaints. ( a ) 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, either: ( 1 ) Within 90 days after receiving a written determination under § 1987.105(a) provided that there has been no final decision of the Secretary; or
( 2 ) If there has been no final decision of the Secretary within 210 days of the filing of the complaint.
( b ) At the request of either party, the action shall be tried by the court with a jury.
( c ) A proceeding under paragraph (a) of this section shall be governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in § 1987.109. The court shall have jurisdiction to grant all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including injunctive relief and compensatory damages, including: ( 1 ) Reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the discharge or discrimination;
( 2 ) The amount of back pay, with interest;
( 3 ) Compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discharge or discrimination; and
( 4 ) Litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
( d ) Within seven days after filing a complaint in federal court, a complainant must file with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending, a copy of the file-stamped complaint. In all cases, 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 Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.