alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2.12 Audiovisual coverage permitted. The following are the types of hearings where the Department encourages audiovisual coverage: ( a ) All hearings involving notice and comment and on-the-record rule making proceedings. The Administrative Procedure Act provides for notice of proposed rule making with provision for participation by interested parties through submission of written data, views, or arguments, with or without opportunity for oral presentation (5 U.S.C. 553). (In many cases the Department follows the above procedure in matters exempted from these requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553.) On-the-record rule making proceedings under 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557 are also hearings where audiovisual coverage of hearings is encouraged. Examples of hearings encompassed by this paragraph are: ( 1 ) Hearings to establish or amend safety or health standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651.
( 2 ) Hearings to determine the adequacy of State laws under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
( b ) Hearings to collect or review wage data upon which to base minimum wage rates determined under various laws, such as the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a) and related statutes and the Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 353, as amended by Pub. L. 92-473 approved October 9, 1972).
( c ) Hearings under section 4(c) of the Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 353, subsection (c) added by Pub. L. 92-473 approved October 9, 1972) to determine if negotiated rates are substantially at variance with those which prevail in the locality for services of a character similar.
( d ) Hearings before the Administrative Review Board (parts 1, 3, 5, and 7 of this chapter).
( e ) Hearings held at the request of a Federal agency to resolve disputes under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, involving prevailing wage rates or proper classification which involve significant sums of money, large groups of employees or novel or unusual situations.
( f ) Hearings of special industry committees held pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 201 *et seq.*) for the purpose of recommending minimum wage rates to be paid in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.
( g ) Hearings pursuant to section 13(a) of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act (29 U.S.C. 308d) to determine whether a bond in excess of $500,000 may be prescribed.
( h ) Hearings where the Department is requesting information needed for its administrative use in determining what our position should be (e.g., our hearings on the 4-day, 40-hour workweek).
[38 FR 5631, Mar. 2, 1973, as amended at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996]
§ 23.560 Petition for review. ( a ) *Filing a petition for review.* Within 30 calendar days after the date of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (or such additional time as is granted by the Administrative Review Board), any party aggrieved thereby who desires review thereof shall file a petition for review of the decision with supporting reasons. Such party shall transmit the petition in writing to the Administrative Review Board with a copy thereof to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. The petition shall refer to the specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, or order at issue. A petition concerning the decision on debarment shall also state the disregard of obligations to workers and/or subcontractors, or lack thereof, as appropriate. A party must serve the petition for review, and all briefs, on all parties and the Chief Administrative Law Judge. It must also timely serve copies of the petition and all briefs on the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.
( b ) *Effect of filing.* If a party files a timely petition for review, the Administrative Law Judge's decision shall be inoperative unless and until the Administrative Review Board issues an order affirming the letter or decision, or the letter or decision otherwise becomes a final order of the Secretary. If a petition for review concerns only the imposition of debarment, however, the remainder of the decision shall be effective immediately. No judicial review shall be available unless a timely petition for review to the Administrative Review Board is first filed.
§ 1905.22 Hearing examiners; powers and duties. ( a ) *Powers.* A hearing examiner designated to preside over a hearing shall have all powers necessary or appropriate to conduct a fair, full, and impartial hearing, including the following: ( 1 ) To administer oaths and affirmations;
( 2 ) To rule upon offers of proof and receive relevant evidence;
( 3 ) To provide for discovery and to determine its scope;
( 4 ) To regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the parties and their counsel therein;
( 5 ) To consider and rule upon procedural requests;
( 6 ) To hold conferences for the settlement or simplification of the issues by consent of the parties;
( 7 ) To make, or to cause to be made, an inspection of the employment or place of employment involved.
( 8 ) To make decisions in accordance with the Act, this part, and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 5); and
( 9 ) To take any other appropriate action authorized by the Act, this part, or the Administrative Procedure Act.
( b ) *Private consultation.* Except to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters, a hearing examiner may not consult a person or a party on any fact at issue, unless upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.
( c ) *Disqualification.* ( 1 ) When a hearing examiner deems himself disqualified to preside over a particular hearing, he shall withdraw therefrom by notice on the record directed to the Chief Hearing Examiner.
( 2 ) Any party who deems a hearing examiner for any reason to be disqualified to preside, or to continue to preside, over a particular hearing, may file with the Chief Hearing Examiner of the Department of Labor a motion to disqualify and remove the hearing examiner, such motion to be supported by affidavits setting forth the alleged grounds for disqualification. The Chief Hearing Examiner shall rule upon the motion.
( d ) *Contumacious conduct; failure or refusal to appear or obey the rulings of a presiding hearing examiner.* ( 1 ) Contumacious conduct at any hearing before the hearing examiner shall be grounds for exclusion from the hearing.
( 2 ) If a witness or a party refuses to answer a question after being directed to do so, or refuses to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, the hearing examiner may make such orders with regard to the refusal as are just and appropriate, including an order denying the application of an applicant or regulating the contents of the record of the hearing.
( e ) *Referral to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.* On any procedural question not regulated by this part, the Act, or the Administrative Procedure Act, a hearing examiner shall be guided to the extent practicable by any pertinent provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SERENA Software, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2006 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

I, Mark E. Woodward, Chief Executive Officer of SERENA Software, Inc. certify that, to my knowledge:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of SERENA Software, Inc. at the dates and for the
periods indicated.
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/S/    MARK E. WOODWARDMark E. Woodward President and Chief Executive Officer And Director


Date: December 15, 2006

This Certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### § 2520.104-28 [Reserved]
#### MOTOR FREIGHT INC v P U C

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21396.

Decided Feb. 13, 1929

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ

COMMON CARRIERS

(130 D2) A contract to provide for transportation is equivalent to a contract to transport but other elements than the fact of transportation are necessary to constitute a common carrier.

Carriers operating under private contract of carriage are not subject to public regulation unless such carriers hold themselves out as willing to serve the public indiscriminately.

AUTOMOBILES

(50 Pc) By the provisions of Sections 614-2 and 614-84, General Code, only a “motor transportation company” as defined therein is subject to public regulation; such definition requires that the transportation company must own, control, manage or operate the motor vehicles used in transportation.

Kinkade, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur. Robinson and Jones, JJ, dissent.
[Civ. No. 1910.

Second Appellate District.

October 25, 1917.]

#### E. H. JONES, Respondent, v. AMERICAN POTASH COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.

Appeal—Alternative Method—Brief—Insufficient Record.—On an appeal taken from a judgment under the alternative method, the judgment must be affirmed where the appellant fails to print in its brief sufficient of the record to *properly*present the points relied upon for reversal.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Fred H. Taft, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. .

Robert L. Hubbard, for Appellant.

Horace S. Wilson, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

This appeal is taken under the alternative method from a judgment entered against defendant. A number of points appear to be made in the brief of appellant, all of which refer to the evidence presented to the trial court. It is urged, among other things, that the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence; that the court erred in excluding certain evidence, etc. No part of the record is printed in the brief of appellant, except three paragraphs from the findings of the court. Appellant has utterly failed to print in his brief any other matters to which he desires to call the attention of the court. Necessarily, in order to properly consider the points made as to the insufficiency of the evidence and as to the alleged errors of the court in excluding offered testimony, we should have before us the testimony received and offered. The result is that the only order that can properly be made by this court is one in affirmance of the judgment for want of any showing why the same should be reversed. *(Marcucci*v. *Vowinckel,*164 Cal. 693, [130 Pac. 430] ; *Wills*v. *Woolner,*21 Cal. App. 528, [132 Pac. 283] ; *Miller*v. *Oliver,*174 Cal. 404, [163 Pac. 357]; *Pasadena Realty Co.*v. *Clune,*34 Cal. App. 33, [166 *129Pac. 1025] ; *McKinnell*v. *Hansen,*34 Cal. App. 76, [167 Pac. 887]; *California Sav. etc. Bank,*v. *Canne,*34 Cal. App. 768, [169 Pac. 395].)

The judgment is affirmed.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 920 

To provide wage parity for certain prevailing rate employees in Rhode Island. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2007 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide wage parity for certain prevailing rate employees 

in Rhode Island. 

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 ‘‘Rhode Island Federal 

5 Worker Fairness Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WAGE PARITY FOR CERTAIN PREVAILING RATE EM7 PLOYEES IN RHODE ISLAND. 

8 The wage schedules and rates applicable to prevailing 

9 rate employees (as defined in section 5342 of title 5, 

10 United States Code) in the Narragansett Bay, Rhode IsVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:29 Mar 21, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S920.IS S920

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 920 IS

1 land, wage area shall be the same as the wage schedules 

2 and rates applicable to prevailing rate employees in the 

3 Boston, Massachusetts, wage area. 

4 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

5 Section 2 shall take effect beginning with the first 

6 pay period beginning on or after the date of enactment 

7 of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7913

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LACEY LEROY MCCLAM, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:07-cr-01277-TLW-1)

Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lacey McClam, Jr., appeals from the district court’s 

margin order denying his motion to compel defense counsel to 

produce documents. Our review of the record discloses that this 

appeal is without merit. McClam has not demonstrated a 

particularized need or raised any specific issues in regard to 

the requested documents. Accordingly, we affirm. 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. 

AFFIRMED
§ 1952.4 Washington. ( a ) The Washington State plan received initial approval on January 26, 1973.
( b ) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Washington.
( c ) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit *http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/washington.html .*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1187
SIDNEY H. HOGAN, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-2157-BLA) Submitted: October 31, 1997 Decided: December 29, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert S. Baker, Beckley, West Virginia, for Petitioner. J. Davitt McAteer, Acting So licitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor, Patricia M. Nece, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Rita Roppolo, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, ARTER & HADDEN, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decisions and orders affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1997). Our review of the record discloses that the Board'sdecision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Hogan v. Eastern Coal Corp. , Nos. 90-1108; 95-2157-BLA (B.R.B.June 17, 1994; Dec. 11, 1996). We have reviewed the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 1955.10 Publication of notice of formal proceeding. ( a ) The Assistant Secretary, prior to any notice of a formal proceeding under this subpart, shall by letter, provide the State with an opportunity to show cause within 45 days why a proceeding should not be instituted for withdrawal of approval of a plan or any portion thereof. When a State fails to show cause why a formal proceeding for withdrawal of approval should not be instituted, the State shall be deemed to have waived its right to a formal proceeding under paragraph (b) of this section and the Assistant Secretary shall cause to be published in the Federal Register a notice of withdrawal of approval of the State plan.
( b ) ( 1 ) Whenever the Assistant Secretary, on the basis of a petition under § 1955.5 or on his own initiative, determines that approval of a State plan or any portion thereof should be withdrawn, and the State has not waived its right under § 1955.3(b) or paragraph (a) of this section to a formal proceeding, he shall publish a notice of proposed withdrawal in the Federal Register as set out in § 1955.11 and cause such notice, in the form of a complaint, to be served on the State in accordance with § 1955.15.
( 2 ) Not later than 5 days following the publication of the notice in the Federal Register, the State agency shall publish, or cause to be published, within the State reasonable notice containing a summary of the information in the Federal notice, as well as the location or locations where a copy of the full notice is available for inspection and public copying.
( 3 ) Two copies of such notice shall be served on the Assistant Secretary in accordance with § 1955.15.
( c ) Not less than 30 days following publication of the notice in the Federal Register, the State shall submit a statement of those items in the notice which are being contested and a brief statement of the facts relied upon, including whether the use of witnesses is intended. This statement shall be served on the Assistant Secretary in accordance with § 1955.15. When a State fails to respond to the notice of proposed withdrawal under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the State shall be deemed to have waived its right to a formal proceeding and the Assistant Secretary shall cause to be published in the Federal Register a notice of withdrawal of approval.
§ 1919.77 Safe working load increase. ( a ) In no case shall safe working loads be increased beyond the manufacturer's ratings or original design limitations unless such increase meets with the manufacturer's approval. Where the manufacturer's services are not available, or where the equipment is of foreign manufacture, engineering design analysis by, or acceptable to, the accredited certification agency is required. All necessary structural changes shall be carried out.
#### MARTING v BURNS et

Ohio Appeals, 4th' Dist, Lawrence Co

Decided March 31, 1930

Corn & Jenkins, Ironton afid James Collier, Ironton, for Marting .

A. R. Johnson, Ironton, for Burns, et.

BY THE COURT

The judgment must be affirmed. If this set off may be asserted in this way it will, if sustained, defeat the claim of Beulah Burns, who on the face of the pleadings, including the cross petition, is not indebted ta Marting in any way or amount. Doughery v. Cummins, 1 W. L. B, 283. It must be further observed that this cross petition is not addressed to the equity side of the court on any facts which would require an accounting between J. C. Burns and the plaintiff in error but is a straight action at law for a personal judgment against said Burns.

Middleton, PJ., and Mauck, J., concur,

glosser, J., not sitting.
#### Rogers *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided January 30, 1917.

73 South. 994.)

1. Intoxicating Liquors; Indictment. — An indictment charging that defendant sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of prohibited liquors, is sufficiently broad to charge the- offense denounced by § 33, Acts 1915, p. 34.

*4842. Charge of Court; Directing Verdict. — Where the undisputed and direct evidence, as well as defendant’s own admission, shows that he is guilty of the offense charged, the court will not be put in error for giving the general charge with proper hypothesis as requested by the state.

3. Criminal Law; Election; Necessity. — Where the indictment charged that defendant sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of prohibited liquors, but the evidence showed only one transaction and one offense, there was no occasion for an election.

Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. E. Blackwood.

Hugh Rogers was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

J. W. Inzer, and Embry & Embry, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and Harwell G. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.—

(1) The indictment, charging that the defendant sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of prohibited liquors, was sufficiently broad to cover and charge an offense under section 33 of the act approved January 23, 1915. See Acts 1915, p. 34, § 33; *Bush v. State,*12 Ala. App. 260, 67 South. 847; *Harrison v. State,*13 Ala. App. 354, 69 South. 383; *Arrington v. State,*13 Ala. App. 359, 69 South. 385.

(2) The undisputed and direct evidence, as well as the defendant’s own admission, was to the effect that the defendant was guilty of committing the offense prohibited by section 33 of the act referred to and cited in the first paragraph, without affording an adverse inference; and the court cannot be put in error for giving the general charge, with proper hypothesis, requested by the state against the *defendant.*— Jones *v. State,*96 Ala. 56, 11 South. 192; *Johnson v. State,*91 Ala. 70, 9 South. 71; *Olmstead v. State,*89 Ala. 16, 7 South. 775.

(3) There was only one act or transaction shown by the evidence and the commission of but one offense, and there was no occasion for an *election.*— Boice *v. State,*10 Ala. App. 100, 65 South. 83; *McCullough v. State,*63 Ala. 75.

The court committed no error in refusing the special instructions requested by the defendant.

Affirmed.
----

Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 15/05/2004 to 15/06/2004

(Published pursuant to Article 12 or Article 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93)

(2004/C 166/02)

Issuing of a marketing authorization (Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93) Accepted

Modification of a marketing authorization (Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93) Accepted

----