alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1911.5 Minor changes in standards.

Section 6(b), when construed in light of the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), is read as permitting the making of minor rules or amendments in which the public is not particularly interested without the notice and public procedure which is otherwise required. Whenever such a minor rule or amendment is adopted, it shall incorporate a finding of good cause to this effect for not providing notice and public procedure.

[37 FR 8664, Apr. 29, 1972]
#### PAUL FIGULI v ROSIE FIGULI

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10974.

Decided Oct 20, 1930

Harry R. Scobie, Cleveland, for Paul Figuli.

Young, Meyers & Young, Cleveland, for Rosie Figuli.

Judges WILLIAMS and RICHARDS (6th Dist) and CROW (3rd Dist) sitting.

CROW, J.

Plaintiff in error, the husband, asks the reversal of the judgment on the ground that it is void so far as it clothes the wife with sole possession of the property, and the reason urged is that the husband has been deprived of his property in violation of constitutional guaranties, but no provision was specially pointed to, either in the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Ohio, having such effect.

Agreeable to the statutes of Ohio, the court had in the present case jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person, and the jurisdiction of the subject matter included the power to adjudge to the wife such portion of the husband’s property as the circumstances justified, even to the extent of awarding the wife the entire interest of the husband in the real estate; consequently a lesser interest was award-able.

Whether the circumstances established by the evidence warranted the judgment, can not be determined here because of the absence of the bill of exceptions or finding of facts. In this situation there is a conclusive presumption that the trial court had before it such facts by way of evidence or stipulation as will support the judgment; this rule is elementary, and also declared in many reported cases in Ohio.

Therefore the judgment will be affirmed.

Williams and Richards, JJ, concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne Ambrose, Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 616]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered *27June 18, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his plea was coerced is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to withdraw the plea before sentencing or to vacate the judgment of conviction and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the record, which includes a careful allocution by the court, establishes the voluntariness of the plea. There was nothing coercive about the court’s discussion of the permissible scope of sentencing in the event of a conviction after trial *(People v Leamon,*254 AD2d 139).

To the extent that the existing record permits review of defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we find that defendant received meaningful representation in connection with his guilty plea *(see, People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404). We note specifically that there is no indication in the record of any desire by defendant to have his attorney make a motion to withdraw the plea. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Schedule of courses**
 
2007-2008 | 2008-2010 | 2011-2012
 
SuDoc Number:S 1.114/3-10:
Item Number:0872-A-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000935533
 
April 2, 2018
#### Randall v. Ort

*Gerald A. McNellis, Jr.,*for plaintiff.

*Quinn, Leemhuis, Plate & Dwyer,*for defendant.

*534November 3, 1958.

Evans, P. J.,

— This matter is before the court on a motion to strike off the allowance of an appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace entered April 21, 1958, in the amount of $75.

It is true, as contended by plaintiff, that the petition sets forth nothing from which the court could determine anything concerning the underlying merits of the case which would justify the special allowance of appeal under the provisions of the Act of May 17, 1956, P. L. 1626, 42 PS §913a.

This brings us to a problem which has given us concern since the passage of said act of assembly. Under its provisions a court may deny the right of trial by jury, and this is in contravention of our basic law preserving that right.

Although the constitutionality of said act has not been passed upon by the appellate court, we are in accord with the reasoning and conclusions reached by Judge Bretherick in Booz v. Reed, 13 D. *&*C. 2d 283, and, therefore, conclude in the matter before us that the right to appeal existed with or without our approval and allowance.

Under article I, sec. 6, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania the Act of May 17, 1956, supra, insofar as it gives the court the right to determine whether or not an appeal may be taken from a judgment in trespass entered in an amount of $100 or less by an alderman or justice of the peace is in our opinion unconstitutional.

And now, to wit, November 3, 1958, the motion to strike off the allowance of appeal in the above entitled matter is refused and the motion discharged.
§ 2705.1 Purpose and scope. The purposes of these regulations are to: ( a ) Establish a procedure by which an individual can determine if the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, hereafter the “Commission,” maintains a system of records which includes a record pertaining to the individual. This does not include Commission files generated in adversary proceedings under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act; and
( b ) Establish a procedure by which an individual can gain access to a record pertaining to him or her for the purpose of review, amendment and/or correction.
[49 FR 38542, Oct. 1, 1984, as amended at 71 FR 44210, Aug. 4, 2006]
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3388 — FORD MOTOR COMPANY LTD / POLAR MOTOR GROUP LTD)

(2004/C 180/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 April 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

CELEX: subscriber information

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

----
EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  in the  form  10-K  of  Lincoln
International  Corporation of our report dated January 31, 2004, relating to the
audited financial statements of Lincoln International  Corporation as of and for
the year ended July 31, 2003 as well as the  adjustments  described in Note B to
the financial statements that were applied to restate the July 31, 2002 and 2001
financial statements.



                                Carpenter, Mountjoy & Bressier, PSC

                                /s/ CARPENTER, MOUNTJOY & BRESSIER, PSC
                                _______________________________________

                                Date:  April 5, 2004
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

4 August 2004

(2004/C 198/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
§ 32.17 Labor unions and recruiting and training agencies. ( a ) The performance of a recipient's obligations under the nondiscrimination provisions of these regulations may necessitate a revision in a collective bargaining agreement(s). The policy of the Department of Labor is to use its best efforts, directly or through the recipients, subgrantees, local officials, vocational rehabilitation facilities, and other available instrumentalities, to cause any labor union, recruiting and training agency or other representative or workers who are or may be engaged in work under programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance to cooperate with, and to comply in the implementation of section 504.
( b ) To effectuate the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the Assistant Secretary may hold hearings, public or private, with respect to the practices and policies of any such labor union or recruiting and training agency.
( c ) Whenever compliance with section 504 necessitates a revision of a collective bargaining agreement or otherwise significantly affects a substantial number of employees represented by the union, the collective bargaining representatives shall be given an opportunity to present their views to the Assistant Secretary.
( d ) The Assistant Secretary may notify any Federal, State, or local agency of his/her conclusions and recommendations with respect to any such labor organization or recruiting and training agency which in his/her judgment has failed to cooperate with the Department of Labor, recipients, subgrantees or applicants in carrying out the purposes of section 504. The Assistant Secretary also may notify other appropriate Federal agencies when there is reason to believe that the practices of any such labor organization or agency violates other provisions of Federal law.
[45 FR 66709, Oct. 7, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51368, Aug. 26, 2003]
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Integrative Activities (1193).                    

*Date and Time:*                         June 29, 2000, 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         Room 1235 and 530, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Anthony Maddox, CISE Educational Innovation, Experimental and Integrative Activities, Room 1160, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1981.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate CISE Educational Innovation proposals submitted in response to the program announcement (NSF) 00-33).                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 522b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-12448  Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 36 ) ll-K - (B ) -2 4 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:49 AM Sheet 36 of 325P. 2 

# ft=8
II-K-(B)-2 4
REGULATOR YSCENARIO S FORTH E FOURT H ROUND O F IFCA M RUNS . Lette r fro

m E . Medine , EE

A t o A . Wehe , EPArSASD . Januar y 30 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-2 4
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

	I, John B. Dicus, certify that:

	1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Capitol Federal Financial;

	2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or 			omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances 			under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this 			report; 

	3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 			report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash 			flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

	4.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining 			disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 			for the registrant and have:

		a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and 				procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information 				relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by 				others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being 				prepared;

		b)	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and 				presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls 				and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such 					evaluation; and

c)	disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

	5.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation 			of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 			registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

		b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who 				have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 5, 2005

					By:	/s/ John B. Dicus                                    

						John B. Dicus, President and 

						Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Land for the Establishment of a Public Beach in the Borough of Queens. Metro Investing and Credit Corporation et al., Appellants; Harry Lambros, Respondent.

Argued April 22, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*537
      *Leo B. Mittelman, A. Joseph Geist, Isaac Katz*and *Charles Lamb*for Metro Investing and Credit Corporation et al., appellants.

*F. Campbell Good*for Harry Lambros, respondent.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*and *Reuben Levy*of counsel), for City of New York, respondent.

*538Appeal as to the City of New York dismissed, with costs; otherwise order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
§ 1990.132 Factors to be considered. ( a ) The setting of priorities is a complex matter which requires subjective and policy judgments. It is not appropriate to establish a rigid formula or to assign predetermined weight to each factor. The identification of some of the elements is to guide the OSHA staff and inform the public on the development of priorities. It is not intended to create any legal rights with respect to the setting of priorities.
( b ) Some factors which may be taken into account in setting priorities for regulating potential occupational carcinogens, when such data are available, are: ( 1 ) The estimated number of workers exposed;
( 2 ) The estimated levels of human exposure;
( 3 ) The levels of exposure to the substance which have been reported to cause an increased incidence of neoplasms in exposed humans, animals or both;
( 4 ) The extent to which regulatory action could reduce not only risks of contracting cancer but also other occupational and environmental health hazards;
( 5 ) Whether the molecular structure of the substance is similar to the molecular structure of another substance which meets the definition of a potential occupational carcinogen;
( 6 ) Whether there are substitutes that pose a lower risk of cancer or other serious human health problems, or available evidence otherwise suggests that the social and economic costs of regulation would be small; and
( 7 ) OSHA will also consider its responsibilities for dealing with other health and safety hazards and will consider the actions being taken or planned by other governmental agencies in dealing with the same or similar health and safety hazards.
# ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number012 Attachment Name Attachment 12PbNbTiZrO processFiow 

# Associated PMN Section Number Pt.2,SecA, 1d. (#5) Does notcontainCBI



# Report Number CONSi 103177868553510 0 00 '-4 0 

# oo 0 'o 

# z 0z

I 0
- 

# ccn to 0 

## 7 

# k C:) (D 4-4 0 40 0

# 00

n 644 00 0- 00 N0

### k 0 m0~ 00 04'~ 

# Et 0-0 0 N S~ 00 A0. 0 cjz-4~ 

# 0- 0 00 -j c 

## 2 > 

# Zcoo 0 0 

# o - H 0 0 0 @ 0 0 00m

ot E 

# -o V :5

- 0 4- 0 00 0 

# S 0 0: 'o "-. 

# o 0 

# -o. 0.,2 

# .o~ 4;4 Q c(
00 : 

## L4- CO) 0 0

.4-400 00 0 

### 0

4 -4;- 

# 00 00

4-4 1-4 0 (D-C
0 

# ~ ~ ~ f +MC 4, 4 U - 1 CL 

### 0 o C.Ii c 00

-;-
§ 1985.112 Judicial review. ( a ) Within 60 days after the issuance of a final order (including a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) for which judicial review is available, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of the violation.
( b ) A final order is not subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
( c ) If a timely petition for review is filed, the record of a case, including the record of proceedings before the ALJ, will be transmitted by the ARB or the ALJ, as the case may be, to the appropriate court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local rules of such court.
[81 FR 14383, Mar. 17, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 30625, May 20, 2020]
# Euroopa Liidu C 194A/30.

| | ISSN 1725-5171 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 194A |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 47. köide30. juuli 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5171

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 194A

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

47. köide30. juuli 2004

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Teatised |
| | Nõukogu |
| 2004/C 194A/1 | Teade vaba töökoha kohta — Euroopa Kaitseagentuur — Direktorid | 1 |
| | Euroopa Rassismi ja Ksenofoobia Järelevalvekeskus |
| 2004/C 194A/2 | Konkursi teade HOUA-A-2004 | 2 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

III   Teatised

Nõukogu

2004/C 194A/1

Teade vaba töökoha kohta — Euroopa Kaitseagentuur — Direktorid

1

Euroopa Rassismi ja Ksenofoobia Järelevalvekeskus

2004/C 194A/2

Konkursi teade HOUA-A-2004

2

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

III Teatised

Nõukogu

| 30.7.2004 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 194/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2004

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 194/1

---

TEADE VABA TÖÖKOHA KOHTA

Euroopa kaitseagentuur

Direktorid

(2004/C 194 A/01)

Euroopa Kaitseagentuur kavatseb tööle võtta neli direktorit oma nelja direktoraati:

| — | Sõjalise võimsuse arendamine (viitenumber EDA/A/2004/012), |
| --- | --- |

—

Sõjalise võimsuse arendamine (viitenumber EDA/A/2004/012),

| — | Uuringud ja tehnoloogia (viitenumber EDA/A/2004/0029), |
| --- | --- |

—

Uuringud ja tehnoloogia (viitenumber EDA/A/2004/0029),

| — | Relvastus (viitenumber EDA/A/2004/042), |
| --- | --- |

—

Relvastus (viitenumber EDA/A/2004/042),

| — | Kaitsetööstus ja turg (viitenumber EDA/A/2004/051). |
| --- | --- |

—

Kaitsetööstus ja turg (viitenumber EDA/A/2004/051).

Lisateavet (inglise keeles) ja taotlusvorme on võimalik saada nõukogu veebilehelt järgmisel aadressil: http://ue.eu.int (kontaktid/tööpakkumised).

Tähtaeg: 3. september 2004, postitamise kuupäeva tõendab postitempel.

---

Euroopa Rassismi ja Ksenofoobia Järelevalvekeskus

| 30.7.2004 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 194/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2004

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 194/2

---

KONKURSI TEADE HOUA-A-2004

(2004/C 194 A/02)

Euroopa Rassismi ja Ksenofoobia Järelevalvekeskus (EUMC) otsib kandidaate vabade ametikohtade täitmiseks. Üksikasjalik informatsioon vabade ametikohtade, keskuse ülesannete ning taotluste vormistamise kohta avaldatakse EUMC veebilehel järgmisel aadressil: http://eumc.eu.int

---
#### LAKEWOOD (city) v S. H. KLEINMAN REALTY CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10148.

Decided March 17, 1930

R. G. Curren, Director of Law, Lakewood for City.

• Holding, Duncan & Leekie, Cleveland, for Rlty Co.

Judges WILLIAMS & RICHARDS (6th Dist) sitting.

*296BY THE COURT

We hold that the court erred in two respects: First, in permitting the plaintiff below to recover for the excess of assessments collected more than one year before the action was commenced, and, second, in permitting the plaintiff below to recover for excess of assessments which were paid in fact by purchasers of lots, the title to which was not in plaintiff below at the time of the commencement of the action. We hold that where, at the time of the commencement of the action, plaintiff below was then the owner of lots on which assessments were paid, it could, as to such assessments, recover the excess even though the money paid for such assessments was advanced by a purchaser of the lot, but as to lots which plaintiff below did not own at the time it began the action, it could only recover excess of assessments paid where the money was not paid by it from funds advanced by the purchaser but from funds of the plaintiff itself.

There being two assessments yet unpaid, the contest among the parties involved can no doubt be worked out equitably.

We find no other error apparent upon the face of the record, but for the reasons given the judgment of the court below will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.