alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Civ. No. 45052.

First Dist., Div. Three.

June 4, 1979.]

#### In re the Marriage of JO ANN and MICHAEL DE MORE. JO ANN DE MORE, Appellant, v. MICHAEL DE MORE, Respondent.

*786Counsel

John F. Foley for Appellant.

Muth, Zanzinger & Johnson, Lyon, Muth & Zanzinger and Gerald J. Zanzinger for Respondent.

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

An interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered requiring respondent to pay certain sums to appellant monthly for support of their minor children. Respondent failed to make payments for one year and two months. Appellant caused an order to show cause for a wage assignment to be filed. After the filing of the order to show cause, respondent paid all child support due. The lower court then made its order that appellant was not entitled to a wage assignment.

The issue before this court is whether the lower court had discretion to deny the motion for a wage assignment once it found that respondent was in arrears. Civil Code section 4701, subdivision (b) provides in part that where the court has ordered payment for support of a minor child, “upon both a petition by the person to whom support has been ordered to have been paid and a finding by the court that the parent so ordered is in arrears in payment in a sum equal to the amount of two months of such payments within the 24-month period immediately preceding submission of such petition, the court *shall*order the defaulting *787parent to assign” that portion of his wages as will be sufficient to pay the amount ordered by the court for support. (Italics added.)

Respondent argues that this court should construe the statute as directory, not mandatory. However, a reading of the statute clearly indicates that the Legislature intended an assignment in these circumstances to be mandatory. Subdivision (a) of the statute describes situations in which an assignment “may” be ordered, whereas subdivision (b) states situations “Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a)” in which the court *shall*order an assignment. This mandatory construction is further supported by the portion of the statute which states that “the fact that the defaulting parent may have subsequently paid such arrearages shall not relieve the court of its *duty*under this subdivision to order the assignment.” (Italics added.)

The statute does not deprive respondent of due process because the statute bears a rational relationship to a valid state interest. It is evident that the Legislature has made a determination that a mandatory statute is necessary to ensure the timely and adequate support of minor children and to minimize the necessity of the parent who has custody of the minors to resort to the courts in order to enforce support orders. It is not within the power of this court to ignore the clear intent of the Legislature.

The order is reversed with directions to the trial court to order assignment. Costs are awarded to appellant.

White, P. J., and Halvonik, J., concurred.
§ 1905.14 Action on applications. ( a ) *Defective applications.* ( 1 ) If an application filed pursuant to § 1905.10(a), § 1905.11(a), § 1905.12(a), or § 1905.13 does not conform to the applicable section, the Assistant Secretary may deny the application.
( 2 ) Prompt notice of the denial of an application shall be given to the applicant.
( 3 ) A notice of denial shall include, or be accompanied by, a brief statement of the grounds for the denial.
( 4 ) A denial of an application pursuant to this paragraph shall be without prejudice to the filing of another application.
( b ) *Adequate applications.* ( 1 ) If an application has not been denied pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the Assistant Secretary shall cause to be published in the Federal Register a notice of the filing of the application.
( 2 ) A notice of the filing of an application shall include: ( i ) The terms, or an accurate summary, of the application;
( ii ) A reference to the section of the Act under which the application has been filed;
( iii ) An invitation to interested persons to submit within a stated period of time written data, views, or arguments regarding the application; and
( iv ) Information to affected employers, employees, and appropriate State authority having jurisdiction over employment or places of employment covered in the application of any right to request a hearing on the application.
( 3 ) Where the requested variance, or any proposed modification or extension thereof, involves a Federal standard, or any portion thereof, identical to a State standard, or any portion thereof, as provided in §§ 1905.10(b)(11) and 1905.11(b)(8) of this chapter, the Assistant Secretary will promptly furnish a copy of the application to the appropriate State authority and provide an opportunity for comment, including the opportunity to participate as a party, on the application by such authority, which shall be taken into consideration in determining the merits of the proposed action.
( 4 ) A copy of each final decision of the Assistant Secretary with respect to an application filed under § 1905.10, § 1905.11, or § 1905.13 shall be furnished, within 10 days of issuance, the State authorities having jurisdiction over the employment or place of employment covered in the application.
[36 FR 12290, June 30, 1971, as amended at 40 FR 25449, June 16, 1975]
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                            THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.


                          DIRECTORS' POWER OF ATTORNEY


         Each of the undersigned members of the Board of Directors of The Lamson
& Sessions Co., an Ohio corporation, which anticipates filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D. C., an annual report of the
Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2005 ("2004 Form
10-K") under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, does
hereby constitute and appoint James J. Abel and John B. Schulze, jointly and
severally, with full power and substitution and re-substitution, as attorney(s)
to sign for him and in his name, in the capacities indicated below, the 2004
Form 10-K, including any amendments and exhibits thereto, with full power and
authority to do and perform any and all acts and things whatsoever necessary and
required to be done in connection with such signing as fully to all intents and
purposes as he would do if personally present, hereby ratifying and approving
the acts of said attorney(s) and any substitute(s) therefor in connection with
such signing:


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands as of
the 17th day of February 2005.




/s/ James T. Bartlett                        /s/ John C. Dannemiller
----------------------------------           -----------------------------------
James T. Bartlett                              John C. Dannemiller
Director                                       Director


/s/ Francis H. Beam, Jr.                     /s/ George R. Hill
----------------------------------           -----------------------------------
Francis H. Beam, Jr.                           George R. Hill
Director                                       Director


/s/ William H. Coquillette                   /s/ A. Malachi Mixon, III
----------------------------------           -----------------------------------
William H. Coquillette                         A. Malachi Mixon, III
Director                                       Director


/s/ Martin J. Cleary                         /s/ D. Van Skilling
----------------------------------           -----------------------------------
Martin J. Cleary                               D. Van Skilling
Director                                       Director
§ 1601.20 Negotiated settlement. ( a ) Prior to the issuance of a determination as to reasonable cause the Commission may encourage the parties to settle the charge on terms that are mutually agreeable. District Directors, Field Directors, Area Directors, Local Directors, the Director of the Office of Field Programs, the Director of Field Management Programs, or their designees, shall have the authority to sign any settlement agreement which is agreeable to both parties. When the Commission agrees in any negotiated settlement not to process that charge further, the Commission's agreement shall be in consideration for the promises made by the other parties to the agreement. Such an agreement shall not affect the processing of any other charge, including, but not limited to, a Commissioner charge or a charge, the allegations of which are like or related to the individual allegations settled.
( b ) In the alternative, the Commission may facilitate a settlement between the person claiming to be aggrieved and the respondent by permitting withdrawal of the charge pursuant to § 1601.10.
[44 FR 4669, Jan. 23, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 46275, Oct. 18, 1982; 49 FR 13024, Apr. 2, 1984; 49 FR 13874, Apr. 9, 1984; 54 FR 32061, Aug. 4, 1989; 71 FR 26828, May 9, 2006; 85 FR 65218, Oct. 15, 2020]
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.86 Non-waiver of rights by payments.

An employee's involuntary payment, of all or any portion of a debt being collected under 5 U.S.C. 5514, shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights which the employee may have under 5 U.S.C. 5514 or any other provision of contract or law, unless there are statutory or contractual provisions to the contrary.
Before the United States Department of Transportation 

_ Washington, DC 

January 6, 2010 

DEPTOFTBANS.^ 

iA;;.'".t:lo 

Essential Air Service at: 

SALINA, KANSAS 

under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et.seq. 

Docl<etOST-2002-11376 

This document contains Great Lal<es Aviation, Ltd.'s response to Order Requesting 

Proposals 2009-11-25. 

Great Lal<es Aviation, Ltd. is pleased to submit this proposal to provide essential 

air transportation at Salina, Kansas. 

Great Lakes will continue to provide service to Kansas City International Airport or Denver 

International Airport as an alternative hub. Great Lakes maintains code share and interline 

e-ticketing agreements with United Airlines and Frontier Airlines. Additionally, Great 

Lakes has Interline agreements in place with other carriers serving Kansas City and Denver, 

including interline e-ticketing agreements with U.S. Airways and Continental Airlines. 

The proposed service is submitted without any upline scheduling restrictions for either our 

current Kansas City hub schedules, or Denver as an alternative hub option. We 

contemplate the use of 19 seat Beechcraft 1900D airliner equipment. 

Questions and comments may be referred to: 

Michael O. Matthews 

Chief Financial Officer 

Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

1022 Airport Parkway 

Cheyenne, WY 82001 

(307)432-7000 
Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

Annual Compensation Requirements for Essential Air Service at 

Salina, Kansas to Kansas Gity or Denver 

Two Round Trips - B1900 

98.0% completion factor 

Departures: 

Block Hours: 

Revenue Passenger Miles: 

Available Seat Miles: 

1,227 

1,022 

885,500 

2,541,117 

Operating Revenues: 

Passenger: SLN 5,200 psgrs at $82.17 $427,284 

other: (at 0.62% of passenger revenue) 

Total Operating Revenues: 

$2,643 

$429,927 

Operating Expenses: 

Direct: Aircraft and Hull Insurance 

Fuel and Oil 

Flying Operations 

Maintenance 

Total Direct Expenses: 

Total Indirect Expenses: 

Total Operating Expenses: 

Operating Loss 

Profit Element (5.0% of Total Operating Expenses) 

Annual Compensation Requirement: 

Representative Schedule 

Flt# Freq Flow Schedule 

5033 123456 SLN-MCI 620-710 

5096 123456 MCI-SLN 1230-1320 

5097 12345.7 SLN-MCI 1444-1534 

5032 12345.7 MCI-SLN 1955-2045 

$338,710 

$540,212 

$167,884 

$301,802 

Block 

Time 

50 

50 

50 

50 

Miles 

109 

109 

109 

109 

ASMS 

2071 

2071 

2071 

2071 

Equip 

BE1 

BE1 

BE1 

BE1 

$1,348,608 

$505,739 

$1,854,347 

($1,424,420) 

$92,717 

$1,517,138 

No Upline scheduling restrictions for either a Kansas City or Denver Hub
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31513-31514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12500]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Wisconsin Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Wisconsin Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 
12:00 p.m. and adjourn at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 7, 2000, at the 
Milwaukee Hilton, 509 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 
53202. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss civil rights issues and 
plan future activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Geraldine 
McFadden, 414-444-1952, or Constance M. Davis, Director of the 
Midwestern Regional Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD 312-353-8362). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign

[[Page 31514]]

language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten 
(10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Lisa M. Kelly,
Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Regional Programs Coordination 
Unit.
[FR Doc. 00-12500 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6823** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. MICHAEL COWEN, a/k/a Mr. Ross , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from th e United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Lynchburg
. Norman K. Moon , District Judge. ( 6:07

- cr - 00034

- NKM

- 2; 6:10

- cv - 80282

- NKM

- mfu )

Submitted : October 13, 2011 Decided: October 18, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN , Cir cuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael Cowen, Appellant Pro Se. Charlene Day, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, C. Patrick Hogeboom, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Cowen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge iss ues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies re lief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cowen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispen se with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Office of the Secretary 

# AGENCY: 

Office of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture. 

# ACTION: 

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY: 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture. In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), notice is hereby given of a meeting in June of the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture. The purpose of the meeting on June 14-16, 2000 is a working session, which will be to address issues regarding agricultural policy initiatives to be included in the Commission report. The meeting is open to the public. 

# PLACE, DATE, AND TIME OF MEETING: 

This meeting will be held June 14, 2000 from 12-5 p.m. EST in Room 108-A, Whitten Building; June 15, 2000 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. EST in Room 108-A, Whitten Building; June 16, 2000 from 9 a.m.-12 EST in Room 221-A, Whitten Building. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mickey Paggi on (202-720-3139), Director, Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture, Room 3702 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-0524. 

Dated: May 15, 2000. 

Keith J. Collins, 

Chief Economist. 

[FR Doc. 00-12656  Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-01-M
#### CENTRAL NAT BANK OF CLEVELAND et KAMMER

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10190.

Decided November 18, 1929

Mr. D. J. Needham, Cleveland, for Bank.

Mr. Arthur Krause, Cleveland, for Kammei\

SULLIVAN, J.

. The issues arise from money judgment and foreclosure proceedings and the same situation applies to the first and second mortgage excepting as to the second mortgage a question arises as to the assumption of a mortgage' indebtedness but there is no issue observable from the pleadings that raises the question of the validity of either one of the mortgages. If this issue arosé in the case there would be some foundation fo.r claiming that the case at bar is a chancery proceeding. We have authorities as bearing upon mechanics liens that in a suit for foreclosure 'where the validity of the liens is at issue that a chancery question arises. Authorities are cited to show that the cases are analogous. In the inst.ant case, however, there is no question that pertains to the second mortgage that requires the court to review the question of validity. Neither Is there any question that arises as to the priority of one mortgage over the other. There is no question as to the execution of the instrument of indebtedness or the mortgagees themselves. The consideration with respect to them, or any other issue that would bring the proceeding within the vale of chancery. The paramount and ultimate auestion is that of money. In other words, there is nothing at issue excepting a question of fact which has for its foundation the question of indebtedness.

The question as to the assumption of mortgage is also a question of fact because whether there was an assumption of such an indebtedness is determined by the evidence. To determine the question of assumption would be a review of a contract either oral or written, and this would be a question of fact properly to have been submitted to a jury and not. to a court sitting in chancery.

We are aware of the decisions that even though a suit upon a note and foreclosure of a mortgage is purely a law case, where there is no question as to the validity of the mortgage which hold that even though a money judgment is sought yet if the final issue turns upon a chancery question that that is paramount and the element of money judgment becomes immaterial.

We do not find such a question involved in this case. It was a law case when it was commenced and it is a law case now, notwithstanding the question has arisen as to the second mortgagee as to whether there is an assumption of a mortgage indebetedness. That, as we have noted' is a question of fact.

Thus holding, our conclusion is that the cause is not one in chancery and therefore we have no jurisdiction upon appeal, and a decree may be entered accordingly.

Vickery, PJ., and Levine, J, concur.
#### § 2570.170 Scope of review.

The review of the Secretary shall not be a de novo proceeding but rather a review of the record established before the administrative law judge. There shall be no opportunity for oral argument.
§ 1910.11 Scope and purpose. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart B adopt and extend the applicability of, established Federal standards in effect on April 28, 1971, with respect to every employer, employee, and employment covered by the Act.
( b ) It bears emphasis that only standards (i.e., substantive rules) relating to safety or health are adopted by any incorporations by reference of standards prescribed elsewhere in this chapter or this title. Other materials contained in the referenced parties are not adopted. Illustrations of the types of materials which are not adopted are these. The incorporations by reference of parts 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 in §§ 1910.13, 1910.14, 1910.15, and 1910.16 are not intended to include the discussion in those parts of the coverage of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act or the penalty provisions of the Act. Similarly, the incorporation by reference of part 1926 in § 1910.12 is not intended to include references to interpretative rules having relevance to the application of the Construction Safety Act, but having no relevance to the application to the Occupational Safety and Health Act.