alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 27338-1-II.

Division Two.

December 20, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. D.I., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 01-8-00143-0, John P. Wulle, J., entered May 14, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Morgan and Bridgewater, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Lauralee J. Sluck, Appellant, v Peter J. Sluck, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 790]

—Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Saratoga County (Seibert, Jr., J.), entered March 2, 1998, which, *inter alia,*granted petitioner’s application in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, to direct respondent to pay child support.

Petitioner, who has primary physical custody of the parties’ daughter (born in 1990), initiated this support proceeding; respondent cross-petitioned also seeking support for the child. After a hearing on the petitions, the Hearing Examiner applied the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct Act § 413) (hereinafter CSSA) and arrived at an annual support obligation for respondent of $5,991, but reduced this amount to $3,204 to reflect the fact that respondent’s visitation schedule was such that he had physical custody of the child 28% of the time. Family Court’s denial of petitioner’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s determination prompted this appeal.

Because the sum arrived at by the Hearing Examiner was calculated based upon the recently discredited proportional offset formula, it is unacceptable *(see, Bast v Rossoff,*91 NY2d 723, 732; *Matter of Fernandez v Fernandez,*256 AD2d 901; *Matter of Borowicz v Mancini,*256 AD2d 713). After establishing that petitioner had physical custody a majority of the time, it was incumbent upon the Hearing Examiner to apply the three-step method embodied in the CSSA to arrive at the parties’ respective support obligations *(see, Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 85*NY2d 649, 652; *Matter of Borowicz v Mancini, supra,*at 714). “Application of the CSSA formula creates a rebuttable presumption that the statutory guidelines will yield the correct amount of child support” *(Matter of Keay v Menda,*210 AD2d 483) and departure from the figure determined thereby is allowable only if there are special factors, not present in this record, which would render that amount unjust or inappropriate *(see, Matter of Ballard v Davis,*248 AD2d 858, 860, *lv denied*92 NY2d 803; *see also,*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [fi).

Nor has respondent convinced us that retroactive application *765of *Bast v Rossoff (supra)*would violate his due process rights *(see, e.g., Matter of Borowicz v Mancini,*supra;*Matter of Fernandez v Fernandez, supra).*Lastly, although the Hearing Examiner’s initial application of the CSSA was correct, given petitioner’s concession in her brief that respondent is entitled to an offset for health insurance premium payments — a point of view consistent with this Court’s prior holdings *(see, Matter of Bryant v Bryant,*235 AD2d 116, 121-122; *Matter of Eastburn v Eastburn,*222 AD2d 898, 900) — this matter must be remitted to enable Family Court to consider the impact of this expenditure on respondent’s support obligation.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Saratoga County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
#### § 4000.42 What definitions do I need to know for these rules?

You need to know two definitions from § 4001.2 of this chapter: PBGC and person. You also need to know the following definitions:

*Business day* means a day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday.

*We* means the PBGC.

*You* means the person responsible, under our regulations, for the filing or issuance to which these rules apply.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: March 1, 2006                    By:
                                                -----------------------
                                       Name:    David L.Norris
                                       Title:   President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1980.109 Decision 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 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 OSHA's determination to dismiss a complaint without completing an investigation pursuant to § 1980.104(e) nor OSHA'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 order will provide all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including, reinstatement with the same seniority status that the complainant would have had but for the retaliation; back pay with interest; and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the retaliation, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees. 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. The order will also require the respondent to submit appropriate documentation to the Social Security Administration allocating any back pay award to the appropriate calendar quarters.
( 2 ) If the ALJ determines that the respondent has not violated the law, an order will be issued denying the complaint. If, upon the request of the respondent, the ALJ determines that a complaint was frivolous or was brought in bad faith, the judge may award to the respondent reasonable attorney fees, not exceeding $1,000.
( e ) The decision will be served upon all parties to the proceeding, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, 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 Administrative Review Board (ARB). The decision of the ALJ will become the final order of the Secretary unless a petition for review is timely filed with the ARB, and the ARB accepts the petition for review.
Exhibit 32.1

Statement Furnished Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned are the President and Chief Financial Officer of Patriot Motorcycle Corporation (the Company). This Certificate is made pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three months ended December 31, 2005 (the 10-QSB Report).

The undersigned certifies that the 10-QSB Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that the information contained in the 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: January 26, 2007 
|                       
|/s/ MICHEL ATTIAS      
|Michel Attias          
|President              
|                       
|Date: January 26, 2007 
|                       
|/s/ DAVID M. GERNAK    
|David M. Gernak        
|Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Patriot Motorcycle
Corporation and will be retained by Patriot Motorcycle Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Labor

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jorge Perez-Lopez, Director, Office of International Economic Affairs, Phone: (202) 219-7597.

Signed at Washington, DC this 15th day of May 2000.

Andrew James Samet,

Deputy Under Secretary, International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 00-12937  Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-28-M
RICH
PHARMACUETICALS, INC.


2013
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2


 


April
6, 2015


 


WHEREAS,
Rich Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Corporation"), has adopted the 2013 Equity Incentive Plan
(the “2013 Plan”) and reserved 60,004,800 shares of the Corporation's common stock (the "Shares")
under the 2013 Plan;


 


WHEREAS,
on October 6, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Board of Directors approved an amendment to the 2013 Plan to increase
the amount of shares reserved for issuance to a total of 90,004,800 Shares;


 


WHEREAS,
on April 6, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Board of Directors approved an amendment to the 2013 Plan to increase
the amount of shares reserved for issuance to a total of 390,004,800 shares


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the 2013 Plan is hereby amended to provide that the total number of Shares reserved for issuance under the 2013 Plan
is 390,004,800.


 





	 	By: /s/ Ben Chang
	 	Ben Chang, CEO
§ 1960.87 Objectives. The basic objective of field councils is to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information to assist agencies to reduce the incidence, severity and cost of occupational accidents, injuries, and illnesses. Field councils shall act on behalf of the Secretary or his designees on occupational safety and health activities in carrying out within their respective geographic areas the following functions: ( a ) To act as a clearinghouse on information and data on occupational accidents, injuries, and illnesses and their prevention.
( b ) To plan, organize and conduct field council meetings or programs which will give technical advice and information on occupational safety and health to representatives of participating agencies and employee organizations.
( c ) To promote improvement of safety and health programs and organizations in each Federal agency represented or participating in council activities.
( d ) To promote coordination, cooperation, and sharing of resources and expertise to aid agencies with inadequate or limited resources. These objectives can be accomplished in a variety of ways. For example, field councils could organize and conduct training programs for employee representatives, collateral duty and professional safety and health personnel, coordinate or promote programs for inspections, or, on request, conduct inspections and evaluations of the agencies' safety and health programs.
( e ) To provide Federal Executive Boards, Federal Executive Associations, labor union organizations and other employee representatives with information on the administrative and technical aspects of safety and health programs.
( f ) To evaluate the safety and health problems peculiar to local conditions and facilitate solutions to these problems through council activities.
( g ) To develop a cooperative relationship with local community leaders by informing them of the existing functions and objectives of the council and by calling on them for support and participation in council meetings and activities.
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40907 

Conference Calendar

__________________

DERRYL LEE BUCKINGHAM,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, 

Institutional Division,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CV-560

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Derryl Lee Buckingham appeals the district court’s dismissal

without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to

exhaust state court remedies. Because Buckingham failed to

exhaust his state court remedies, the district court did not err

in dismissing Buckingham’s federal habeas petition. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982).

AFFIRMED.
#### Polis v. Fratkin

*Charles Polis,*for plaintiff.

*Miller, Adelman & Lavine,*for defendant.

June 24, 1958.

Boyle, J.,

— This is an appeal by plaintiff from our' refusal of his motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Plaintiff is a member of the Philadelphia bar who had engaged defendant to perform certain accounting services. A disagreement arose, at which time plaintiff had in his possession certain work records belonging to defendant and defendant had certain bank statements, check stubs, savings account passbooks and miscellaneous employers’ tax returns which belonged to plaintiff.

*299The pleadings disclose that there was an exchange of correspondence between the parties whereby defendant offered to return the papers in its possession if plaintiff would return the accounting records.

Instead of complying with defendant’s request, plaintiff instituted an action in replevin. The complaint sets forth that defendant had been paid in full for its services and demands the return of all his papers and documents. The complaint also avers that plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $2,500.

Defendant filed an answer setting forth the exchange of correspondence previously referred to in this opinion. The answer denies that defendant was paid in full for its services and avers that there is still a balance due in the sum of $1,337.50. The answer avers that “defendant now asserts a lien until the balance of the fee is paid and until plaintiff returns to defendant the defendant’s work papers and records which- defendant loaned to plaintiff and which plaintiff promised to return to defendant as set forth in the attached true copies of plaintiff’s receipts which are incorporated herein by reference.”

In addition to filing the answer defendant instituted an action in replevin to recover from plaintiff the papers and records referred to in the answer. This suit is captioned Fratkin v. Polis, Municipal Court, January term, 1958, no. 2517.

Plaintiff in the instant case filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings because “the defendant does not have a lien which is the sole defense assigned in the answer.”

In disposing of plaintiff’s motion it is not necessary to decide whether defendant does- in fact have a lien. The complaint demands damages in the sum of $2,500. Obviously, the amount of damage suffered by plaintiff, if any, must be determined by a trial. Moreover, if *300plaintiff is in fact holding papers and documents belonging to defendant and has willfully refused to return said documents, as charged by defendant’s answer and by its separate action in replevin, plaintiff may be estopped from forcing his demand for return of the documents belonging to him unless and until he returns to defendant the papers and records in his possession which belong to defendant. Proper disposition of this controversy requires that the two actions be tried together.

We refused plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for these reasons.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12906]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Cancellation of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the National Heart, 
Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, May 17, 2000, 2:30 
p.m. to May 17, 2000, 3:30 p.m., NIH, Rockledge II, Bethesda, MD, 20892 
which was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2000, 65 FR 
24491-24492.
    The meeting is cancelled due to the fact that a review meeting is 
no longer required.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
LeVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-12906 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
1 

Site Visit Report 

Alaska Seafood Processing Industry Petition Response 

Lindsay Guzzo 

Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 10 Permits Division 

guzzo.lindsay@epa.gov

206-553-0268 

 Betsy Bicknell 

 Senior Environmental Engineer 

 Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) 

 betsy.bicknell@erg.com

 703-633-1612 

Plant Name Alaska Fresh Seafood 

Plant Address Kodiak, Alaska 

NPDES Permit # 

Date of Visit Tuesday, August 17, 2010 

People Contacted Rey Blanco, Plant Manager 

Seafood processed Cod (sable fish) 

Halibut 

Salmon (all types) 

Crab 

Pollock 

Products Fresh and frozen 

 Whole (round) fish (H&G) 

 Fillets 

 Roe (ikura and sujiko) 

Range of annual production volume [Confidential Business Information, removed from this 

report] 

Months of operation January – mid December. 

Discharge type Screened solids are trucked to Kodiak Fishmeal Company 

Screened wastewater is discharged through NPDES 

permitted outfall, meets O&G and TSS limits. 

Website 

Alaska Fresh Seafood (AFS) operates year-round, shutting down in mid-December for 

maintenance. In January and February they process cod and crab. In March they process 

black cod (sable fish). In the summer they process salmon. They also process fresh 

halibut and a little bit of pollock. Halibut and black cod are their main products. 

AFS is a co-owner of the Kodiak Fishmeal Company and they take their solid waste to 

the fish meal plant. They pay a dump fee based on the type of fish waste: 

Halibut: $24.05 per ton 

Whitefish: $30.65 per ton 

Crab: $43.50 per ton 

They also pay to have the waste picked up at their plant and trucked to the fishmeal plant. 
2 

Operations. AFS bring fish into the plant in totes or they use a fish pump to transfer fish 

to their fish storage hopper. They hand butcher, and fish heads are conveyed to a tote. 

Guts are dropped from the table into totes. The equipment in the plant can be re-arranged 

as needed for different products. 

Crab are sectioned and cooked and crab shells are placed in totes for the meal plant. 

Waste Management. Some of the wastes produced at the butchering table are dropped 

directly into totes. Other wastes are washed into floor drains which are routed to a sump. 

From the sump wastewater is pumped to a hydrosieve with a 1 mm mesh screen. 

According to Mr. Blanco, the hydrosieve requires very little maintenance.
#### § 1471.25 How is this part organized?

(a) This part is subdivided into ten subparts. Each subpart contains information related to a broad topic or specific audience with special responsibilities, as shown in the following table:

| In subpart . . . | You will find provisions related to . . . |
| --- | --- |
| A | general information about this rule. |
| B | the types of FMCS transactions that are covered by the Governmentwide nonprocurement suspension and debarment system. |
| C | the responsibilities of persons who participate in covered transactions. |
| D | the responsibilities of FMCS officials who are authorized to enter into covered transactions. |
| E | the responsibilities of Federal agencies for the *Excluded Parties List System* (Disseminated by the General Services Administration). |
| F | the general principles governing suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion and settlement. |
| G | suspension actions. |
| H | debarment actions. |
| I | definitions of terms used in this part. |
| J | [Reserved] |

(b) The following table shows which subparts may be of special interest to you, depending on who you are:

| If you are . . . | See subpart(s) . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) a participant or principal in a nonprocurement transaction | A, B, C, and I. |
| (2) a respondent in a suspension action | A, B, F, G and I. |
| (3) a respondent in a debarment action | A, B, F, H and I. |
| (4) a suspending official | A, B, D, E, F, G and I. |
| (5) a debarring official | A, B, D, E, F, H and I. |
| (6) a (n) FMCS official authorized to enter into a covered transaction | A, B, D, E and I. |
| (7) Reserved | J. |