alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
128 STAT. 1806 PUBLIC LAW 113–149—AUG. 8, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2291: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

July 14, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–149 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 450 Lexington 

Avenue in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. VINCENT R. SOMBROTTO POST OFFICE. 

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

Service located at 450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Vincent R. Sombrotto Post 

Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office’’. 

Approved August 8, 2014. 

Aug. 8, 2014 

[H.R. 2291] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1 with PUBLAWLAW
# ~VERMONT

State ofVermont DeparbnentofEnvironniental Conservation WasteManagement & Prevention Division 1 National Life Drive- Davis 1 Montpelier,VT05620-3704 (802) 828-1138

Mr. H. Curtis Spaulding Regional Administrator EPA Region 1(Mail Code ORAOI-4) 5 Post Office Square, Suite I00 Boston, MA 02109-3912

Dear Mr. Spaulding: AGENCYOFNATURAL RESOURCES

August 20,2013

The State ofVermont hereby submits its application for authorization ofrevisions made to Vermont'shazardous waste management program under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous & Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). The application consists ofthe following documents: a copy ofthe Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (VHWMR)that became effective on March 15, 2013 (previously submitted to your staff); a copy of 10 V.S.A. § 6680 (Act No. 58 ofthe 2013 Session (Adj. Session)), which designates postconsumerpaint as universal waste; authorization revision checklists (previously submitted to your staff); and an Attorney General's Statement. At the request ofEPA Region I, Vermont is not submitting VHWMR § 7-502(o)(8), and the VHWMR § 7-103 definition of"wastewaterevaporation unit" as part of its authorization application. Through this application, Vermont is seeking authority for rules within RCRA Clusters XVI, XVII, XIX, XX and XXI. Followingthorough review by this Division and the Office ofVermont's Attorney General, it is ourbeliefthat Vermont's revised·hazardous waste program meets the statutory criteria ofRCRA § 3006 and therefore can be granted authorization to implement these provisions as part ofits program in lieu ofthe federal program. The application documents are enclosed with the copy ofthis letter directed to Beth Deabay in the Office of Ecosystem Protection. I am confidentthat the continued cooperation between our agencies will lead to expeditious completion ofthis authorization process.

eorge Desch, Director Waste Management & Prevention Division Cc: Beth Deabay

Regional Offices- BarrejEssexJct./RutlandjSpringfield/St.Johnsbury
#### LIGHTFRITZ v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Washington Co

Decided Feb 21, 1929

Charles D. Fogle, for Lightfritz.

Fred E. Meyers, Marietta, for State.

BLOSSER, J.

Before the swearing of the jury Brady Lightfritz moved for a separate trial and for a change of venue for certain reasons stated in the motion. It is well settled in this state that the granting of a separate trial to one of two defendants jointly indicted and also the matter of a change of venue are within the discretion of the trial court. No affidavit or other evidence was offered in support of the motion. It is presumed the court properly exercised its discretion. Therefore it can not be said that the trial court erred in overruling the motion.

The court in substance directed the jury to return a verdict of guilty against Clayton Lightfritz, and it is claimed that this is error. A Parallel question was presented to this court in Ross County in the case of Myers v State. Sayre, J., speaking for the court said:

> “In the Myers case the court directed a verdict of guilty. This was not prejudicial error because the defendant had admitted his guilt on the witness stand. It was the duty of the jury to convict him. The only chance for a verdict of not guilty or a disagreement was that all or part of the jurors would refuse to do their duty. The defendant has no right to a reversal because possibly the jurors might have disagreed or acquitted him despite their duty.”

Where there is any dispute as to the facts in a criminal case the defendant is entitled to have his case determined by a jury under the constitutional guarantee of a fair and impartial jury trial. In this case the state presented two witnesses who claimed to be eye witnesses to the crime. The defendant Clayton Lightfritz voluntarily testified under oath to the court and jury, admitting every material element of the crime charged in the indictment. There was no conflict in the evidence and no dispute as to the facts so far as he was concerned. What issue was there to be submitted to the jury? He can not complain of a violation of his constitutional rights, because having, admitted his guilt in open court he no longer had a case to be tried to a jury. Under such a state of facts he should not be allowed to speculate with the verdict in the hope .that the jurors would possibly violate their oaths.

As to the contention that the court’s instruction as to Clayton Lightfritz was prejudicial to Brady Lightfritz, we can not agree in view of the court’s instruction that one defendant could be acquitted and the other convicted.

It is urged that the court erred in charging the jury with reference to the character of Br,ady Lightfritz. While the *198charge of the court was not as full and complete as it might have been under the circumstances, yet it substantially covered the subject, and as the defendant made no request at the time for further charge upon this subject we find no error in this respect.

Having, found no error in .the record prejudicial to the rights of the accused the judgment is affirmed.

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

[113th Congress Public Law 165]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 1878]]

Public Law 113-165
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal 
              Stamp. <<NOTE: Sept. 19, 2014 -  [S. 231]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Multinational 
Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act of 
2013.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 39 USC 101 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Multinational Species Conservation 
Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 2(c)(2) of the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 
Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 (39 U.S.C. 416 note) is amended by striking 
``2 years'' and inserting ``6 years''.

    Approved September 19, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 231:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 113-235 (Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            July 31, considered and passed Senate.
            Sept. 8, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Gonzalez, Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 662]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.), rendered October 29, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The admission into evidence of a photograph of the victim did not constitute error. The photograph was relevant to prove several material issues and was not admitted for the sole *233purpose of arousing the emotions of the jury or prejudicing the defendant (see, *People v Wood,*79 NY2d 958).

Further, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 86).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.913 Blasting in excavation work under compressed air. ( a ) Detonators and explosives shall not be stored or kept in tunnels, shafts, or caissons. Detonators and explosives for each round shall be taken directly from the magazines to the blasting zone and immediately loaded. Detonators and explosives left over after loading a round shall be removed from the working chamber before the connecting wires are connected up.
( b ) When detonators or explosives are brought into an air lock, no employee except the powderman, blaster, lock tender and the employees necessary for carrying, shall be permitted to enter the air lock. No other material, supplies, or equipment shall be locked through with the explosives.
( c ) Detonators and explosives shall be taken separately into pressure working chambers.
( d ) The blaster or powderman shall be responsible for the receipt, unloading, storage, and on-site transportation of explosives and detonators.
( e ) All metal pipes, rails, air locks, and steel tunnel lining shall be electrically bonded together and grounded at or near the portal or shaft, and such pipes and rails shall be cross-bonded together at not less than 1,000-foot intervals throughout the length of the tunnel. In addition, each low air supply pipe shall be grounded at its delivery end.
( f ) The explosives suitable for use in wet holes shall be water-resistant and shall be Fume Class 1.
( g ) When tunnel excavation in rock face is approaching mixed face, and when tunnel excavation is in mixed face, blasting shall be performed with light charges and with light burden on each hole. Advance drilling shall be performed as tunnel excavation in rock face approaches mixed face, to determine the general nature and extent of rock cover and the remaining distance ahead to soft ground as excavation advances.
#### CONDON et v HAZEN CONTRACTING CO

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21712.

Decided March 19, 1930

*209Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur .
§ ̈¦15 § ̈¦15 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
 

HiLine District 

Vegetation

National Gap Analysis Program

Land Cover Data
 ¬
 Montana GAP Vegitative Land Cover 

Sparse and barren systems 

Shrubland, steppe and savanna systems 

Riparian and wetland systems 

Recently disturbed or modified 

Human land use 

Grassland systems 

Forest and woodland systems 

Aquatic 

RMP Boundary

County Line 

Interstate 

Highway or State Route 

Towns 

Maps show the National Gap

Analysis Program Land Cover

Data (Version 2) Level 1 use 

classes. The lower map depicts 

only those lands administered by

the BLM. 

Boundaries are not intended to 

confer authority, responsibility,

or jurisdiction over lands and 

waters that are not administered

by the BLM. Boundaries reflect

the fact that these lands and 

waters are essential components 

of comprehensively managing

unplanned fires. 

Created by the Malta Field Office in December 2012 Albers Equal Area, NAD83, Meters 

Blackfeet Indian Glacier Reservation National Park 

Cut Bank Browning £¤89

A A

l

l b be er rt ta a

SSaasskka attcchheewwaan n

232 

2 

")

£¤ Shelby 

Chester Havre Chinook 

87 

66 

£¤191

FortBenton 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

")

£¤

Malta

Ft. Belknap Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation Indian Reservation 

Glasgow 

Map W.13 

0 25 50 1:1,750,000 

Miles 

A A

l

l b be er rt ta a

SSaasskka attcchheewwaan n

Blackfeet Indian Glacier

National Park Reservation 

Cut Bank

Browning 

£¤89

Shelby 

")232

2 

Chester Havre £¤

Chinook 

Rocky Boy's Ft. Belknap Malta Indian Reservation Indian Reservation 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty

is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for 

purposes not intended by the BLM. This map may not 

meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product 

was developed through digital means and information 

may be updated without notification. 

")

£¤

£¤87 

66 

191 

Fort Benton 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

Glasgow
#### § 1960.11 Evaluation of occupational safety and health performance.

Each agency head shall ensure that any performance evaluation of any management official in charge of an establishment, any supervisory employee, or other appropriate management official, measures that employee's performance in meeting requirements of the agency occupational safety and health program, consistent with the employee's assigned responsibilities and authority, and taking into consideration any applicable regulations of the Office of Personnel Management or other appropriate authority. The recognition of superior performance in discharging safety and health responsibilities by an individual or group should be encouraged and noted.
Exhibit 10.41A



|TO: | Kurt P. Rindoks
|--- | ---------------



|RE: | EXTENSION OF CHANGE OF CONTROL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------



Pursuant to Section 1(b) of your Change of Control Employment Agreement (the Agreement), dated as of January 20, 2000, the term of the
Agreement, as stated in Section 1(b) thereof, is hereby extended so that the Agreement, as extended, will end on November 12, 2008.



In all other respects, the Agreement is reaffirmed and remains unchanged.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Extension Agreement, pursuant to authorization from the Board of Directors of the Company, is
executed in the Companys name and on its behalf as of the day and year shown herein.



Date: March 22, 2005



/s/ Kurt P. RindoksKurt P. Rindoks


KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATIONBy:

/s/ William A. ShumakerWilliam A. ShumakerIts:

President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                             EXHIBIT 24
                                                             ----------


                          POWER OF ATTORNEY



   The undersigned, directors of Kellwood Company (the "Company"), do
hereby constitute and appoint Thomas H. Pollihan or Donald J. Gramke
his/her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him/her and in his/her name, place
and stead, to sign the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report pursuant to
Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Amended for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2000, and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto the attorney-in-fact
full power and authority to sign such document on behalf of the
undersigned and to make such filing, as fully to all intents and
purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that the attorney-in-fact, or his
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated:  March 2, 2000


             /s                             /s
---------------------------    ------------------------------
     Raymond F. Bentele              Jerry M. Hunter


             /s                             /s
---------------------------    ------------------------------
     Edward S. Bottum                James C. Jacobsen


             /s                             /s
---------------------------    ------------------------------
     Kitty G. Dickerson              James S. Marcus


             /s                             /s
---------------------------    ------------------------------
     Leonard A. Genovese             William J. McKenna


             /s
---------------------------
     Martin J. Granoff


                                  75
#### Commodity Law

July 23, 1958.

Raymond C. Miller, Deputy Attorney General, and Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General,

—In answer to your request for our opinion concerning your continuance of the requirement that the word “net” be included in quantity content declarations of commodities under the provisions of section 7 of the Act of July 24, 1913, P. L. 965, as amended, known as the Commodity Law, 76 PS §247, we have reviewed our Formal Opinion No. 615, 1949-50 Op. Atty. Gen. 121, and the opinion of Judge Flood, filed March 8, 1951, in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, in the case of John Y. Huber, 3d, (Keebler-Weyl Baking Company, Division of United Biscuit Company of America).

Judge Flood’s opinion holds that as long as the weight of the net contents is marked on a package of *610a commodity distributed or sold or in the possession of a person with intent to distribute or sell, there is no necessity of using the word “net” in describing the weight of the contents and a package marked “weight 8 ounces” having a net content of not less than 8 ounces is a sufficient compliance with section 7 of the Commodity Law.

This Philadelphia County opinion is subsequent to and at variance with our Formal Opinion No. 615, wherein we held that the word “net” must be included in all quantity declarations of the content of packages which are subject to the provisions of section 7 of the Commodity Law.

It is our understanding that the Keebler-Weyl Baking Company case is not reported in District and County Reports, and that you had no knowledge of the case until it was brought to your attention by the Keebler-Weyl Baking Company, as authority for its omission of the word “net” on declarations of content of commodities.

Section 5 of the Commodity Law, 76 PS §355.5, provides, inter alia, as follows:

> “The Secretary of Internal Affairs shall have the power to adopt and promulgate such rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this act as may be deemed necessary to carry into effect the intent and purpose of this act.”

For the purpose of clarifying the evident intent of the Commodity Law it is recommended that your department adopt a regulation under the provisions of section 7.1, ante, and in compliance with sections 21-22 of the Administrative Agency Law of June 4, 1945, P. L. 1388, 71 PS §§1710.21-1710.21a, requiring the word “net” to be a part of and included in the designation of the marking of the weight of the contents of packages governed by section 7 of the Commodity Law.

*611After adoption of a proper regulation under section 5 of the Commodity Law, the inclusion of the word “net” in commodity content declarations must be observed.

It is our opinion, therefore, and your are accordingly advised, that upon adoption by your department of a proper regulation under section 5 of the Act of July 24, 1913, P. L. 965, as amended, known as the Commodity Law, 76 PS §247, the word “net” must be made a part of and included in the designation of the marking of the weight of the contents of packages governed by section 7 of the Commodity Law.
#### STATE ex JACKSON v FAYETTE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22270.

Decided June 11, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.
§ 1986.109 Decisions and orders of the administrative law judge. ( a ) The decision of the ALJ will contain appropriate findings, conclusions, and an order pertaining to the remedies provided in paragraph (d) of this section, as appropriate. A determination that a violation has occurred may be made only if the complainant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint.
( b ) If the complainant or the Assistant Secretary has satisfied the burden set forth in the prior paragraph, relief may not be ordered if the respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of any protected activity.
( c ) Neither the Assistant Secretary's determination to dismiss a complaint without completing an investigation pursuant to § 1986.104(e) nor the Assistant Secretary's determination to proceed with an investigation is subject to review by the ALJ, and a complaint may not be remanded for the completion of an investigation or for additional findings on the basis that a determination to dismiss was made in error. Rather, if there otherwise is jurisdiction, the ALJ will hear the case on the merits or dispose of the matter without a hearing if the facts and circumstances warrant.
( d ) ( 1 ) If the ALJ concludes that the respondent has violated the law, the ALJ will issue an order that will require, where appropriate: affirmative action to abate the violation, reinstatement of the complainant to his or her former position, with the same compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of the complainant's employment; payment of compensatory damages (back pay with interest and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the retaliation, including any litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees which the complainant may have incurred); and payment of punitive damages up to $250,000. Interest on back pay will be calculated using the interest rate applicable to underpayment of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will be compounded daily.
( 2 ) If the ALJ determines that the respondent has not violated the law, an order will be issued denying the complaint.
( e ) The decision will be served upon all parties to the proceeding, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor. Any ALJ's decision requiring reinstatement or lifting an order of reinstatement by the Assistant Secretary will be effective immediately upon receipt of the decision by the respondent. All other portions of the ALJ's order will be effective 14 days after the date of the decision unless a timely petition for review has been filed with the ARB, U.S. Department of Labor. The ALJ decision will become the final order of the Secretary unless a petition for review is timely filed with the ARB and the ARB accepts the decision for review.