alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 2700.71 Review by the Commission on its own motion.

At any time within 30 days after the issuance of a Judge's decision, the Commission may, by the affirmative vote of at least two of the Commissioners present and voting, direct the case for review on its own motion. Review shall be directed only upon the ground that the decision may be contrary to law or Commission policy or that a novel question of policy has been presented. The Commission shall state in such direction for review the specific issue of law, Commission policy, or novel question of policy to be reviewed. Review shall be limited to the issues specified in such direction for review.
§ 3.3 Certified payrolls. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) Each contractor or subcontractor engaged in the construction, prosecution, completion, or repair of any public building or public work, or building or work financed in whole or in part by loans or grants from the United States, each week must provide a copy of its weekly payroll for all laborers and mechanics engaged on work covered by this part and part 5 of this chapter during the preceding weekly payroll period, accompanied by a statement of compliance certifying the accuracy of the weekly payroll information. This statement must be executed by the contractor or subcontractor or by an authorized officer or employee of the contractor or subcontractor who supervises the payment of wages, and must be on the back of Form WH-347, “Payroll (For Contractors Optional Use)” or on any form with identical wording. Copies of WH-347 may be obtained from the contracting or sponsoring agency or from the Wage and Hour Division website at *https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts/construction/forms* or its successor site. The signature by the contractor, subcontractor, or the authorized officer or employee must be an original handwritten signature or a legally valid electronic signature.
( c ) The requirements of this section do not apply to any contract of $2,000 or less.
( d ) Upon a written finding by the head of a Federal agency, the Secretary of Labor may provide reasonable limitations, variations, tolerances, and exemptions from the requirements of this section subject to such conditions as the Secretary of Labor may specify.
[88 FR 57729, Aug. 23, 2023]
Exhibit
32
 
 **CONTINENTAL
BEVERAGE AND NUTRITION, INC.**
 
 **Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Continental Beverage and Nutrition,
Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB of the period ended May 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David
Sackler, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the
quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the
quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date:
      November 22, 2005/s/
      David SacklerChief
      Executive Officer and Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 1904

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 20548, May 3, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-21, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration removed all amendments to part 1904 published at 81 FR 91792, Dec. 19, 2016.

#### § 1904.34 Change in business ownership.

If your business changes ownership, you are responsible for recording and reporting work-related injuries and illnesses only for that period of the year during which you owned the establishment. You must transfer the part 1904 records to the new owner. The new owner must save all records of the establishment kept by the prior owner, as required by § 1904.33 of this part, but need not update or correct the records of the prior owner.

[82 FR 20549, May 3, 2017]
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.118 Contracts for carriage subject to published tariff rates.

The Act, in paragraph (3) of section 7, exempts from its provisions “any contract for the carriage of freight or personnel by vessel, airplane, bus, truck, express, railway line or oil or gas pipeline where published tariff rates are in effect”. In order for this exemption to be applicable, the contract must be for such carriage by a common carrier described by the terms used. It does not, for example, apply to contracts for taxicab or ambulance service, because taxicab and ambulance companies are not among the common carriers specified by the statute. Also, a contract for transportation service does not come within this exemption unless the service contracted for is actually governed by published tariff rates in effect pursuant to State or Federal law for such carriage. The contracts excluded from the reach of the Act by this exemption are typically those where there is on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission or an appropriate State or local regulatory body a tariff rate applicable to the transportation involved, and the transportation contract between the Government and the carrier is evidenced by a Government bill of lading citing the published tariff rate. An administrative exemption has been provided for certain contracts where such carriage is subject to rates covered by section 10721 of the Interstate Commerce Act and is in accordance with applicable regulations governing such rates. See § 4.123(d). However, only contracts principally for the carriage of “freight or personnel” are exempt. Thus, the exemption cannot apply where the principal purpose of the contract is packing, crating, handling, loading, and/or storage of goods prior to or following line-haul transportation. The fact that substantial local drayage to and from the contractor's establishment (such as a warehouse) may be required in such contracts does not alter the fact that their principal purpose is other than the carriage of freight. Also, this exemption does not exclude any contracts for the transportation of mail from the application of the Act, because the term *freight* does not include the mail. (For an administrative exemption of certain contracts with common carriers for carriage of mail, see § 4.123(d).)
#### NACHKO v STATE ex KOSHUTE

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided October 4, 1929

Mr. Ford Agey, Youngstown, for State ex Koshute.

Mr. John Willo, Youngstown, for Nachko.

ROBERTS, J.

Anria Koshute was a widow, twenty-five years of age. Her husband had died, leaving two sons as the result of that marriagé, seven and four years of age respectively. She had lived with her husband in West Virginia and after his death came and resided with her parents here, doing household work, and among boarders or roomers at th» house was the plaintiff in error. She testifies that from April 8th until the 17th_of June, 1927, she submitted to his importunities for sexual relations four times under promise of marriage, as she claims. At the latter date the plaintiff in error left the boarding place of the parents of Anna and his whereabouts were unknown to her until about September, and on the 18th of that month, having located him in Youngstown, she came to see him and insisted that he should carry out his promise to marry her. He at different times agreed to do so but continually postponed the fulfillment of his promise, finally refusing to do so after the child was born, claiming that the child was born too soon to be his offspring. He admits that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant on the 5th, 11th and 17th of June. The dates alleged by her are somewhat earlier. The only proposition which is observable in this case is that the plaintiff in error contends that he could not have been the father of the child, taking into consideration the date of the birth.

Sarah Sims testifies in the case. She is a graduate nurse of many years experience and is matron and Manager of the Florence Crittenden Home, where this child was born. She says that the ordinary period of gestation is 280 days, __ which, figured from the 4th of April, the 'date of the last menstrual period of the complainant, as testified by her, would result in a period of 284 davs intervening previous to the birth, only about four days more than the regularly recognized period of 280 days. However, Miss Sims testifies that this period is not at all absolutely certain but may vary a week or two either way. So that there is nothing inconsistent in the testimony of plaintiff, so far as the birth of the child was concerned. We think the weight of the evidence sustains the verdict and find no grounds for reversal, and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Pollock and Farr, JJ., concur.
#### § 1915.1200 Hazard communication.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1200 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1200).

[[61 FR 31431](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31431), June 20, 1996]
#### E. H. Tomlinson, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. Peninsular Naval Stores Company, a Corporation, and Others, *Defendants in Error.*

1. In a joint action *ex contractu*against several, and possible proof as against but one, there can be no recovery.

2. Prior immaterial statements of a witness, may affect his credibility, but are not evidence to prove a fact.

This case was decided by Division A.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Duval County.

*454The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Robert W. Davis*and *Richard P. Marks,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*D. G. McMullen,*for Defendants in Error.

Cockrell, J.

This is an action for commissions by a real estate agent against the Naval Stores Company and A. P. Stuckey and D. R. Henderson jointly, the declaration consisting of a special count and the common count for work and labor done and performed, the plaintiff taking a nonsuit with a bill of exceptions.

There is no evidence as against Stuckey and Henderson, tending to show liability as to them and as the action proceeds upon a joint liability there could be no recovery in it. We need not therefore concern ourselves as to whether a case of some kind might be made out, if the proper action had been brought against the Naval Stores Company alone. Somers v. Florida Pebble Phosphate Co., 50 Fla., 275, 39 South. Rep., 61, and cases cited.

Much stress is laid upon alleged inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness for. the defendants and that given by him on the trial of another case. This is wholly immaterial; prior inconsistent statements may affect credibility, but they are not evidence to prove a fact, not otherwise shown.

Judgment affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford, J., concur;

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Florence J. Magill, Appellant, against Cunard White Star Limited, Respondent. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

Submitted September 28, 1937;

decided October 12, 1937.

*569
      *Jeremiah F. Connor*for appellant.

*Thaddeus G. Cowell*for Cunard White Star Limited, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Exhibit 32


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




The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of  1934,  and the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the Registrant.



                                 By:/s/ James C. McGill
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Name: James C. McGill
                                    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer



                                 By:/s/ A. Christine Baker
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Name:   A. Christine Baker
                                    Title: Chief Financial Officer, Secretary
                                            and Treasurer


Date: August 12, 2004
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 981 

To authorize the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 

waive the prohibition on duplication of certain disaster relief assistance. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 23, 2007 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To authorize the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to waive the prohibition on duplication of 

certain disaster relief assistance. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Catastrophic Disaster 

5 Recovery Enhancement Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF PROHIBITION ON DUPLICATION OF 

7 CERTAIN BENEFITS. 

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 981 IS

1 (1) the term ‘‘applicable period’’ means the pe2 riod beginning on August 29, 2005, and ending on 

3 October 24, 2005; and 

4 (2) the term ‘‘major disaster’’ has the meaning 

5 given that term in section 102 of the Robert T. 

6 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

7 Act (42 U.S.C. 5122). 

8 (b) WAIVER OF PROHIBITION ON DUPLICATION OF

9 CERTAIN BENEFITS.—In providing assistance under para10 graph (1) or (2) of section 7(b) of the Small Business Act 

11 (15 U.S.C. 636(b)), for any major disaster declared dur12 ing the applicable period, the Administrator of the Small 

13 Business Administration shall waive the prohibition on the 

14 duplication of benefits, including whether damage or de15 struction has been compensated for by, credit is available 

16 from, activities are reimbursable through, or funds have 

17 been made available from any other source. 

18 (c) APPLICABILITY AND RETROACTIVITY FOR VIC19 TIMS OF HURRICANES KATRINA, RITA, AND WILMA.— 

20 This section shall apply to any assistance under section 

21 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) pro22 vided on or after August 29, 2005. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
----

Action brought on 19 May 2004 by DJ (*1) against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-187/04)

(2004/C 201/41)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 May 2004 by DJ (*1), represented by Carlos Mourato, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant claims first of all that there has been a series of breaches of the assessment procedure and of the provisions for the implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, namely:

The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the principle of the independence of internal auditors, on the ground that one of the members of the Joint Assessment Committee was from a Directorate-General audited by the applicant and that the applicant's Appeal Assessor was the Secretary-General of the Commission, who was himself liable to be audited. The applicant claims that in the light of that situation, it is the Vice-President responsible for the reform of the Commission who should have been his Appeal Assessor. Last, the applicant relies on breach of the obligation to state reasons and of the principle of equal treatment and also on manifest errors of assessment by the assessor.

----

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

----
§ 38.2 Applicability. ( a ) *Applicability.* This part applies to: ( 1 ) Any recipient, as defined in § 38.4;
( 2 ) Programs and activities that are part of the one-stop delivery system and that are operated by one-stop partners listed in section 121(b) of WIOA, to the extent that the programs and activities are being conducted as part of the one-stop delivery system; and
( 3 ) As provided in § 38.18, the employment practices of a recipient and/or one-stop partner, to the extent that the employment is in the administration of or in connection with programs and activities that are being conducted as a part of WIOA Title I or the one-stop delivery system.
( b ) *Limitation of application.* This part does not apply to: ( 1 ) Programs or activities that are financially assisted by the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) exclusively under laws other than Title I of WIOA, and that are not part of the one-stop delivery system (including programs or activities implemented under, authorized by, and/or financially assisted by the Department under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA));
( 2 ) Contracts of insurance or guaranty;
( 3 ) The ultimate beneficiary to a program of Federal financial assistance; and
( 4 ) Federal procurement contracts, with the exception of contracts to operate or provide services to Job Corps Centers.
#### MILLER v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 84-251 AC (County Court Case No. 84-70118)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

February 3, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Sharon B. Jacobs for appellant.

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and Mark J. Berkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before TENDRICH, NADLER, KAYE, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes before the Court on Appellant’s claim that the lower Court erred in refusing to grant Appellant a jury trial; refusing to find entrapment as a matter of law or fact and that the lower Court erred in the imposition of sentence.

We find the overriding issue being that of whether the Appellant was *152entitled to a jury trial and answer that question in the affirmative, relying on the Florida Supreme Court’s pronouncements in *Whirley v. State,*450 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1984) and *Reed v. State,*470 So.2d 1382 (Fla. 1985).

It is the finding of this Court that the issue of prostitution is one of moral turpitude and should be resolved in trial by jury.

Having decided that issue, we do not find it necessary to decide the other issues in this case at this time. Consequently, this case is Reversed and Remanded to the lower Court for trial by jury.

Reversed and remanded.
#### § 2570.36 Where to file an application.

The Department's prohibited transaction exemption program is administered by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). Any exemption application governed by this subpart may be emailed to the Department at *e-OED@dol.gov.* The applicant is not required to submit a paper copy if an electronic copy is submitted. An applicant may submit a paper copy of the application by mailing it via first-class mail to: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Office of Exemption Determinations, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20210 or via private carrier service to Employee Benefit Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Exemption Determinations, 122 C Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20001-2109. The mail or private carrier service addresses, however, are subject to change, and the applicant should confirm the address with the Office of Exemption Determinations before submitting a paper copy of an application.
#### Margaret E. MacNair, Respondent, *v.*Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Association of America, Appellant.

Argued October 6, 1937;

decided October 22, 1937.

*631
      *Henry C. Moses*and *Charles J. Nehrbas*for appellant.

*Joshua D. Jones*and *Alfred H. Sarno*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. .
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:

 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

 May 15, 2000, 65 FR 30985.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING:

 May 17, 2000, 10 a.m.

# CHANGE IN THE MEETING:

 The following Docket No. and Company has been added as Item CAE-34 on the Agenda scheduled for May 17, 2000 meeting.

*Item No.*

CAE-34

*Docket No. and Company*

EL00-75-000, Notice of Interim Procedures to Support Industry Reliability Efforts and Requests for Commission

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12909  Filed 5-18-00; 11:49 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 26, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50773

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERARDO RAMIREZ-LEIJA, 

also known as Jerry Ramirez, 

also known as Geraldo Ramirez,

Defendant-Appellant,

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-214-ALL-DB

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court appointed counsel for Gerardo Ramirez-Leija has moved

for leave to withdraw in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramirez has responded to counsel’s motion

and brief, asking the court to consider the issue raised by

counsel, challenging the prior deportation upon which his

8 U.S.C. § 1326 conviction is based, challenging the district
No. 02-50773

-2-

court’s use of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) in calculating his

sentence, and arguing that he had ineffective assistance of

counsel. Ramirez’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not

cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. Brewster, 137

F.3d 853, 859 (5th Cir. 1998).

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

the issues raised by Ramirez discloses no nonfrivolous appellate

issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.