alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Garrison *v.*The State.

Kidnapping.

(Decided March 27, 1917.

74 South. 726.)

Kidnapping, — Under § 6212, Code 1907, girls 13, 15 and 16 years of age in the custody of their father are “children” within the protection of the statute.

Appeal from Cleburne Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Hugh D. Merrill.

Steve Garrison was convicted of decoying from the custody of the father his three minor girls, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Hugh Walker, for appellant.

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

BROWN, P. J.

The appellant was convicted of the offense denounced by section 6212 of Code 1907. The evidence shows that the girls alleged to have been decoyed away from their father’s custody were 13, 15, and 16 years of age; and appellant’s only contention is that neither of these girls was á child within the meaning of this section of the Code. Its language is that: “Any person who unlawfully takes or decoys away any child with intent to detain or conceal it from its parents, guardian,. *597or other person having the lawful charge of it, or who unlawfully detains any child from its parents, guardian, or other person having lawful charge of it, must, on conviction, be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than two years.”

The purpose of this statute, as its language clearly imports, is to protect the custody of the “parents or guardian or other person having the lawful custody.”

The law imposes on the parent the duty of maintenance, education, and moral training of his offspring; and in order that he may perform this duty, ordinarily, the law guarantees him their custody and control during their minority. — 29 Cyc. 1583, 1584. The lawful custody of the parent, guardian, or other lawful custodian of any young person that has not reached his or her majority is within the protection of this statute. The word “child” or “children,” when used irrespective of parentage, may denote that class of-persons-under the age of *majority.*— Miller *v. Finnegan,*26 Fla. 29, 7 South. 140, 6 L. R. A. 813.

This disposes of the only question presented adverse to appellant’s contention, and the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 867 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 867

  To adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2007

Mr. Kennedy (for himself and Mr. Kerry) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lowell National Historical Park 
Boundary Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. LOWELL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

    (a) Boundary Modification.--Section 101(a) of Public Law 95-290 (16 
U.S.C. 410cc-11(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Additional land.--The boundaries of the park are 
        modified to include the 5 parcels of land identified on the map 
        entitled `Boundary Adjustment, Lowell National Historical 
        Park', numbered 475/81,424B, and dated September 2004, and more 
        particularly described in section 202(a)(2)(G).''.
    (b) Acquisition of Property.--Section 202(a)(2) of Public Law 95-
290 (16 U.S.C. 410cc-22(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                    ``(G) The following parcels of land, as identified 
                on the map entitled `Boundary Adjustment, Lowell 
                National Historical Park', numbered 475/81,424B, and 
                dated September 2004:
                            ``(i) 91 Pevey Street.
                            ``(ii) The portion of 607 Middlesex Place.
                            ``(iii) Eagle Court.
                            ``(iv) The portion of 50 Payne Street.
                            ``(v) 726 Broadway.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                2442
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      4298
<PP&E>                                               62480
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       66768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 4794
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                              9040
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         66778
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       (34695)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (34695)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (34695)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0587 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0587

**96/587/EC: Commission Decision of 30 September 1996 on the publication of the list of recognized organizations which have been notified by Member States in accordance with Council Directive 94/57/EC (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 257 , 10/10/1996 P. 0043 - 0043 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 September 1996 on the publication of the list of recognized organizations which have been notified by Member States in accordance with Council Directive 94/57/EC (Text with EEA relevance) (96/587/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organizations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (1), and in particular Article 4 (5) thereof,

Whereas Member States have notified organizations recognized by them pursuant to Article 4 (1) of Directive 94/57/EC,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The organizations recognized by Member States pursuant to Article 4 (1) of Council Directive 94/57/EC are those listed in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 1996.

For the Commission

Neil KINNOCK

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 319, 12. 12. 1994, p. 20.

ANNEX

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)

Bureau Veritas (BV)

China classification Society (CCS)

Det Norske Veritas (DNV)

Germanischer Lloyd (GL)

Hellenic Register of Shipping (HR)

Korean Register of Shipping (KR)

Lloyd's Register of Shipping (LR)

Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK)

Registro italiano navale (RINA)
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY
-----------------

The undersigned, directors of Kellwood Company (the Company), do hereby
constitute and appoint Robert C. Skinner, Jr. or W. Lee Capps III as his or
her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him or her and in his or 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
February 3, 2007, 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 15, 2007



/s/ Robert J. Baer                     /s/ Philip B. Miller
-----------------------------          -------------------------------
Robert J. Baer                         Philip B. Miller


/s/ Ben B. Blount, Jr.                 /s/ Janice E. Page
-----------------------------          -------------------------------
Ben B. Blount, Jr.                     Janice E. Page


/s/ Kitty G. Dickerson                 /s/ Robert C. Skinner, Jr.
-----------------------------          -------------------------------
Kitty G. Dickerson, Ph.D.              Robert C. Skinner, Jr.


/s/ Jerry M. Hunter                    /s/ Harvey A. Weinberg
-----------------------------          -------------------------------
Jerry M. Hunter                        Harvey A. Weinberg


/s/ Larry R. Katzen
-----------------------------
Larry R. Katzen
#### In the Matter of Joseph A. Sisson, Appellant, v Antoinette Lech et al., Respondents.

[697 NYS2d 805]

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and new trial granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting respondents’ motion for a directed verdict dismissing the petition. Petitioner alleged therein that he was terminated from his public employment in violation of Civil Service Law § 75-b, commonly referred to as the “whistleblower’s law”, and that he was terminated in bad faith. As a provisional employee, petitioner could be discharged at will, absent proof that such discharge “was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law” *(Matter of York v McGuire,*63 NY2d 760, 761). Petitioner presented evidence at trial that the termination of his employment was related to the fact that he reported to the Community Service Board that his superior, respondent Antoinette Lech, acted in an improper manner with respect to him and two other employees *(see,*Civil Service Law § 75-b [2] [a] [ii]; *Bordell v General Elec. Co.,*88 NY2d 869, 871). Viewing the evidence in the light most *859favorable to petitioner, we conclude that there is a “rational basis whereby [a] jury might find for the [petitioner] as against the moving [respondents]” *(Lacy v Guthrie Clinic,*184 AD2d 1057) with respect to both causes of action, and thus respondents are not entitled to a directed verdict. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.
IC Burden Analysis Table

 1845-0099 v4

1845-0099 v2

Respondent Type # of Respondents # of Responses Hours/Response

Total Burden 

Hours Reporting Requirement

Cost per 

Repondent

Total Costs 

per 

Respondent

Burden by Affected Entity:

Federal Government 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

 Individuals or Households 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

 Farms 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Sub-total 0 0 0 $0

 Private Sector

 Business or other for-profits 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

 Not-for profits - application 5 5 0.33 2 Recordkeeping $0 $0

 Not-for profits - LEA contact 9 0.25 2 Recordkeeping

 Not-for profits - Other qualified professional 1 0.75 1 Recordkeeping

Sub-total 5 15 1.33 5 24.61 $164

 State, Local, or Tribal Governments

 Public - application 20 20 0.33 7 Recordkeeping $0 $0

 Public - LEA contact 34 0.25 9 Recordkeeping

 Public - Other qualified professional 6 0.75 5 Recordkeeping

 Private Institutions 0 0 0 0 $0

Sub-total 20 60 1.33 21 24.61 $655

Total 25 75 26 $819

CURRENT INVENTORY

Current # of Respondents 400

Current # of Responses 2,560

Current Inventory of Hours 834

Difference (375) (2,485) (808)

Document Type Other

Available Electronically?

Can be submitted Electronically? Yes

Percent Reporting Electronically? 0.50

Obligation to Respond? Required to obtain the benefit.

Frequency? On Occasion

Revised: 1/28/2013 1
IC Burden Analysis Table

(XXXX) XXXX-XXXX vX

IC Title

Affected 

Public

Reporting 

Requirement

Available 

Electronically

Can be 

Submitted 

Electronically

Percent 

Reporting 

Electronically

Electronic 

Capability

Obligation to 

Respond

# of 

Respondents

# of 

Responses Hrs/Resp Total Hours 

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

Total 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

CURRENT INVENTORY

Current # of Respondents

Current # of Responses

Current Inventory of Hours

Difference 0 0 #DIV/0!

Revised XX/XX/XXXX 1
IC Burden Analysis Table

(XXXX) XXXX-XXXX vX

IC Title Instrument Filename Frequency

Number of 

Respondents

Cost Per 

Respondent

Total Cost 

Per 

Respondent

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Total Costs $0

Revised XX/XX/XXXX2
§ 215.5 Processing of amendments. ( a ) Grant modifications in the form of grant amendments will be transmitted by the Federal Transit Administration to the Department for review. Applications amending a grant for which the Department has already certified fair and equitable arrangements to protect the interests of transit employees affected by the project, will be processed by the Department following one of the two procedures described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. ( 1 ) When an application amends a grant for which the Department has previously certified fair and equitable arrangements and the amendment makes changes to a project that may necessitate alternative employee protections, the Department will conclude that the amendment materially amends the existing assistance agreement. The Department will refer and/or process the labor certification provisions of such an amended grant according to procedures specified under §§ 215.3 and 215.4, as appropriate.
( 2 ) When an application amends in a manner that is not material a grant for which the Department has already certified fair and equitable arrangements, the Department will, on its own initiative and without referral to the parties, certify the subject grant on the same terms and conditions as were certified for the project as originally constituted. The Department's processing of these applications will be expedited and copies will be forwarded to interested parties.
( b ) Budget Revisions that make minor changes within the scope of the existing grant agreement and do not require a Federal Transit Administration grant amendment, as set forth in Federal Transit Administration guidance, will be covered under the Department's original certifications.
[73 FR 47056, Aug. 13, 2008]
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0630 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0630

**1999/630/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Council Decision of 13 September 1999 appointing the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union **

*
Official Journal L 248 , 21/09/1999 P. 0034 - 0034 *

COUNCIL DECISION

of 13 September 1999

appointing the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union

(1999/630/EC, ECSC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 30(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 121(2) thereof,

Whereas the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union should be appointed,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Pierre De Boissieu is hereby appointed Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union for a period of five years with effect from 18 October 1999.

Article 2

This Decision shall be notified to Mr Pierre De Boissieu by the President of the Council.

It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 13 September 1999.

For the Council

The President

T. HALONEN
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.

§ 1926.1212 Employee participation. ( a ) Employers must consult with affected employees and their authorized representatives on the development and implementation of all aspects of the permit space program required by § 1926.1203.
( b ) Employers must make available to each affected employee and his/her authorized representatives all information required to be developed by this standard.
§ 1921.19 Depositions. ( a ) *When, how, and by whom taken.* For good cause shown, the testimony of any witness may be taken by deposition in any proceeding, when a complaint has been filed, whether at issue or not. Depositions may be taken orally or upon written interrogatories before any person designated by the hearing examiner and having power to administer oaths.
( b ) *Application.* Any party desiring to take the deposition of a witness shall make application in writing to the hearing examiner, setting forth the reasons why such deposition should be taken; the time when, the place where, and the name and post office address of the person before whom the deposition is to be taken; the name and address of each witness; and the subject matter concerning which each witness is expected to testify.
( c ) *Notice.* Such notice as the hearing examiner shall order shall be given for the taking of a deposition, but this shall not be less than 5 days' written notice when the deposition is to be taken within the United States and not less than 15 days' written notice when the deposition is to be taken elsewhere.
( d ) *Taking and receiving in evidence.* Each witness testifying upon deposition shall be sworn, and the adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine. The questions propounded and the answers thereto, together with all objections made, shall be reduced to writing, read to the witness, subscribed by him, and certified by the officer. Thereafter, the officer shall seal the deposition, with two copies thereof, in an envelope and mail the same by registered mail to the hearing examiner. Subject to such objections to the questions and answers as were noted at the time of taking the deposition and would be valid were the witness personally present and testifying, such deposition may be read and offered in evidence by the party taking it as against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof. No part of a deposition shall be admitted in evidence unless there is a showing that the reasons for the taking of the deposition in the first instance exist at the time of hearing.
countyID fuelYearID monthGroupID fuelFormulationID marketShare marketShareCV

1127 2012 1 20011 1 0.5

1127 2012 1 3910 1 0.5

1127 2012 2 3910 1 0.5

1127 2012 2 20011 1 0.5

1127 2012 3 20011 1 0.5

1127 2012 3 3911 1 0.5

1127 2012 4 3911 1 0.5

1127 2012 4 20011 1 0.5

1127 2012 5 20011 1 0.5

1127 2012 5 3911 1 0.5

1127 2012 6 3912 1 0.5

1127 2012 6 20011 1 0.5

1127 2012 7 20011 1 0.5

1127 2012 7 3912 1 0.5

1127 2012 8 3912 1 0.5

1127 2012 8 20011 1 0.5

1127 2012 9 20011 1 0.5

1127 2012 9 3912 1 0.5

1127 2012 10 3911 1 0.5

1127 2012 10 20011 1 0.5

1127 2012 11 20011 1 0.5

1127 2012 11 3911 1 0.5

1127 2012 12 3910 1 0.5

1127 2012 12 20011 1 0.5
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
A1               7477133.72      57207158.75                0       159414841.26
A2               3488987.67                0                0           93019000
A3               4253416.51                0                0          111152000
A4               3591027.09                0                0           91336000
A5                881171.97                0                0           21127000
A6                  1160250                0                0           30000000
A7                1734687.5                0                0           37500000
B1               1100212.41        132759.08                0        26867240.93
B2                618889.85         74679.42                0        15113320.56
B3                343795.99         41484.75                0         8395515.25
B4                495095.59         59741.58                0        12090258.42
B5                233815.52         28213.76                0         5709786.24
B6                 233794.3         28211.21          1626.48         5707641.98
P                 822173.84                0                0                100
RI                     0.58              100                0                  0
RII                    0.58              100                0                  0
XSN              3309532.71                0                0                  0
XSS              2003892.06                0                0                  0
XST              5841592.45                0                0                  0


</TABLE>
#### STATE ex FLEISHER ENGINEERING & CONSTR CO v STATE OFFICE BLDG COMM

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22545.

Decided Nov 19, 1930

Marshall, CJ, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Day and Allen, JJ, concur.