alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Graduate Education (57).                    

*Date/Time:*                         June 29th and 30th 2000, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 375, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Persons:*                         Dr. Sonia Ortega, Program Director, Mrs. Carolyn L. Piper, Asst. Program Director, Dr. Barbara Mulach, Presidential Management Intern, GK-12 Program and Ms. Deborah A. Daniels, Senior Program Assistant, Division of Graduate Education, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd. Room 907N, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 306-1697.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate applications submitted to the NSF-Graduate teaching Fellows in K-12 Education program as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*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. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 17, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-12829 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.1440 Sideboom cranes. ( a ) The provisions of this standard apply, except § 1926.1402 (Ground conditions), § 1926.1415 (Safety devices), § 1926.1416 (Operational aids), and § 1926.1427 (Operator qualification and certification).
( b ) Section 1926.1426 (Free fall and controlled load lowering) applies, except § 1926.1426(a)(2)(i). Sideboom cranes in which the boom is designed to free fall (live boom) are permitted only if manufactured prior to November 8, 2010.
( c ) Sideboom cranes mounted on wheel or crawler tractors must meet all of the following requirements of ASME B30.14-2004 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 1926.6): ( 1 ) Section 14-1.1 (“Load Ratings”).
( 2 ) Section 14-1.3 (“Side Boom Tractor Travel”).
( 3 ) Section 14-1.5 (“Ropes and Reeving Accessories”).
( 4 ) Section 14-1.7.1 (“Booms”).
( 5 ) Section 14-1.7.2 (“General Requirements—Exhaust Gases”).
( 6 ) Section 14-1.7.3 (“General Requirements—Stabilizers (Wheel-Type Side Boom Tractors)”).
( 7 ) Section 14-1.7.4 (“General Requirements—Welded Construction”).
( 8 ) Section 14-1.7.6 (“General Requirements—Clutch and Brake Protection”).
( 9 ) Section 14-2.2.2 (“Testing—Rated Load Test”), except that it applies only to equipment that has been altered or modified.
( 10 ) In section 14-3.1.2 (“Operator Qualifications”), paragraph (a), except the phrase “When required by law.”
( 11 ) In section 14-3.1.3 (“Operating Practices”), paragraphs (e), (f)(1) - (f)(4), (f)(6), (f)(7), (h), and (i).
( 12 ) In section 14-3.2.3 (“Moving the Load”), paragraphs (j), (l), and (m).
#### STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JOE GRIGGS, Appellant.

Springfield Court of Appeals,

April 1, 1912.

APPEAL AND ERROR: Criminal Law: Failure to File Bill of Exceptions. In a criminal case, where the transcript on file in the Court of Appeals shows that the defendant was given thirty days in which to file his hill of exceptions, hut it does not appear that the hill was ever filed and no copy of the same is found in the transcript, and no errors appear in the record proper, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from Dent Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *L. B. Woodside,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*Wm. P. Elmer*for appellant.

ent. *L. T. McGee,*Prosecuting Attorney, for respond-

*105GRAY, J.

At the April term, 1911, of the circuit court of Lent county, the grand jury returned an indictment against the defendant, charging him with selling intoxicating liquors in violation of the Local Option Law. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and was tried by a jury on the 2nd day of September, 1911, and convicted. ■ A judgment was rendered on the verdict, and he appealed.

The transcript shows that the defendant was given thirty days in which to file his bill of exceptions, but it does not appear that the bill was ever filed, as no copy of the same is found in the transcript.

We have examined the record proper, and finding no error therein, the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.
#### NESBIT v GAZELL

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No 963.

Decided August 11, 1930

Mattern & Mattern, Dayton, for Nesbit.

A. H. & O. B. Scharrer, Dayton, for Gazell.

*699ALLREAD, J.

The burden is upon the plaintiff to prove the facts necessary to constitute a cause of action by clear and convincing evidence. We have reached the conclusion that the proof did not amount to clear and convincing evidence upon any feature of the relief sought except that which related to the flow of excess water from the cistern. Defendant having built the cistern and provided the overflow pipes, was bound to see that the overflow pipe was sufficient and that it would carry the excess water so that it would not inconvenience or damage the plaintiff’s premises. The failure to do so would amount to a cause of .action in favor of plaintiff for whatever damages were caused by the failure to install as sufficient excess water pipe to carry the water to the alley in the rear of defendant’s property. The fact that at the time the action was brought and for some time thereafter the defendant had constructed and maintained about three feet of the cement wall upon lands of the plaintiff and drained the excess water pipe from the cistern onto the plaintiff’s land and onto the apron of the plaintiff’s garage is a sufficient breach of the defendant’s duty to justify a judgment for, damage.

In view of the change in the location of the cement wall madé during the pendency of the' suit, this court would not be justified in ordering a change in the location of s>aid cement wall. The change, however, having been made by the plaintiff during the pendency of the action, this court can only . render a judgment for incidental damages. We .think that these incidental damages may be fairly estimated at the sum of $100.00. We believe this court has jurisdiction, under the facts developed in this case' to render judgment for the amount of said damages. A'judgment is, therefore, rendered for the sum of $100.00 and costs of this action.

Decree accordingly.

Kunkle, PJ, and "Hornbeck, concur.
§ 2.3 Consent of the Secretary. The consent of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative may be obtained as follows: The applicant shall file an application in the form of an affidavit. Such application, directed to the Secretary should: ( a ) State the former connection of the applicant with the Department;
( b ) Identify the matter in which the applicant desires to appear, and
( c ) Contain a statement to the effect that the applicant gave no personal consideration to such matter while he was an employee of the Department.
The application will be denied if the statements contained therein are disproved by an examination of the files, records, and circumstances pertaining to the matter, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative, the public interest so requires. If the Secretary or his duly authorized representative is satisfied that the applicant gave no personal consideration to the matter in question while employed by the Department, and if he is satisfied that it is lawful and consistent with the public interest to do so, he may grant his consent, in writing, to the request of the applicant, subject to such conditions, if any, as he deems necessary and desirable. Any function of the Secretary under this section may be performed by the Under Secretary of Labor.
#### STAHL PROPERTIES CO v LOEBIG et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9203.

Decided Feb 18, 1929

Krueger & Pelton, Cleveland, for Properties Co.

Bulkley, Hauxhurst, Jamison & Sharp, Cleveland for Loebig, et.

*283VICKERY, PJ.

The main error relied upon in this court is that the contract between these persons, the plaintiffs and the defendant below, was in writing, and that the evidence which they sought to introduce and did introduce as to the inducement, would violate the parol evidence rule, and was admitted con-contrary to law and over the objection of the defendant below, as it was an effort to change or modify a written contract by parol agreement, and this has been the main argument before our court. We do not so regard the introduction of this evidence.

Now the books are filled with cases and the text books on contracts all differentiate between the conversations and the promises which were the inducement to the parties entering into the contract from that evidence which tends to modify or change the contract by parol evidence, so that it would be other than appeared in writing. There is no effort to reform this contract; there is no effort to show that these promises which were the inducement to enter into this contract were to be made a part of the contract itself. Consequently the parol evidence rule does not apply.

The evidence was admissable as already stated, not to change or modify the contract by parol, but to show by what inducement these parties were led to enter into this contract.

Having covered all the errors complained of and finding none whereby we would be justified in reversing this judgment, the same will be affirmed.

Sullivan, J, concurs.. Levine, J, dissents.
<PAGE>                                                 Exhibit 24
                        POWER OF ATTORNEY

                     KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
      Annual Report on Form lO-K for the Fiscal Year Ended
                        December 31, 1997                 

     The undersigned directors of KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY, a
Kentucky corporation (the "Company"), do hereby constitute and
appoint E. LINN DRAPER, JR., G. P. MALONEY and P. J. DeMARIA, and
each of them, their attorneys-in-fact and agents, to execute for
them, and in their names, and in any and all of their capacities,
the Annual Report of the Company on Form lO-K, pursuant to Sec-
tion 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1997, and any and all amendments thereto,
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other docu-
ments in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and
each of them, full power and authority to do and perform every
act and thing required or necessary to be done, as fully to all
intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-
in-fact and agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to
be done by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed these
presents this 28th day of January, 1998.


/s/ P. J. DeMaria                  /s/ G. P. Maloney             
P. J. DeMaria                      G. P. Maloney


/s/ E. Linn Draper, Jr.            /s/ James J. Markowsky        
E. Linn Draper, Jr.                James J. Markowsky


/s/ Wm. J. Lhota                   /s/ J. H. Vipperman           
Wm. J. Lhota                       J. H. Vipperman
Exhibit 10.16


 


March 4, 2015


 


Gentlemen,


 


Reference is made to those certain promissory
notes (“Notes”), dated November 19. 2013, December 5, 2013 and April 1, 2014, made by Long Island Brands Beverages
LLC. (“Company”) in favor of Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp.


 


The parties hereby agree that the “Maturity
Date- (as defined in the Notes) shall be extended from March 15, 2015 to March 15, 2016.


 


Except as set forth herein, all terms of the Notes
shall remain in full force and effect.


 


	 	LONG ISLAND BRAND BEVERAGES LLC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Philip Thomas
	 	Name: Philip Thomas
	 	Title: CEO


 


Accepted and Agreed:


 


CULLEN AGRICULTURAL HOLDING CORP.


 


	By:	/s/ Paul Vassilakos	 
	Name: Paul Vassilakos	 
	Title: CEO
§ 1601.19 No cause determinations: Procedure and authority. ( a ) Where the Commission completes its investigation of a charge and finds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred or is occurring as to all issues addressed in the determination, the Commission shall issue a determination to all parties to the charge indicating the finding. This determination does not mean the claims in the charge have no merit. The Commission's determination shall be the final determination of the Commission, unless a final determination of no reasonable cause is vacated pursuant to § 1601.19(b). The determination shall inform the person claiming to be aggrieved or the person on whose behalf a charge was filed of the right to sue in Federal district court within 90 days of receipt of the determination. The Commission hereby delegates authority to the Director of the Office of Field Programs, or upon delegation to the Director of Field Management Programs, and District Directors or upon delegation to Field Directors, Area Directors, or Local Directors, or their designees, except in those cases involving issues currently designated by the Commission for priority review, to issue no cause determinations.
( b ) The Commission may on its own initiative reconsider a final determination of no reasonable cause and a director of the issuing office may, on his or her own initiative, reconsider a final determination of no reasonable cause. If the Commission or the director of the issuing office decides to reconsider a final no cause determination, a notice of intent to reconsider shall promptly issue to all parties to the charge. If such notice of intent to reconsider is issued within 90 days of receipt of the final no cause determination, and the person claiming to be aggrieved or the person on whose behalf a charge was filed has not filed suit and did not request and receive a notice of right to sue pursuant to § 1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider shall vacate the determination and shall revoke the charging party's right to bring suit within 90 days. If the 90-day suit period has expired, the charging party has filed suit, or the charging party has requested a notice of right to sue pursuant to § 1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider shall vacate the determination but shall not revoke the charging party's right to sue within 90 days. After reconsideration, the Commission or a director of the issuing office shall issue a new determination. In those circumstances where the charging party's right to bring suit within 90 days was revoked, the determination shall include notice that a new 90-day suit period shall begin upon the charging party's receipt of the determination. Where a member of the Commission has filed a Commissioner charge, he or she shall abstain from making a determination in that case.
[85 FR 65218, Oct. 15, 2020]
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 Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration 

          - [Docket No. 99N-5325] 

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of March 22, 2000 (65 FR 15343), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and                           ( print page 31180)                        a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0186. The approval expires on April 30, 2003. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/​ohrms/​dockets.                 

Dated: May 9, 2000. 

William K. Hubbard, 

Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning, and Legislation. 

[FR Doc. 00-12179 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
§ 38.65 Authority to monitor the activities of a Governor. ( a ) The Director may periodically review the adequacy of the Nondiscrimination Plan established by a Governor, as well as the adequacy of the Governor's performance under the Nondiscrimination Plan, to determine compliance with the requirements of §§ 38.50 through 38.55. The Director may review the Nondiscrimination Plan during a compliance review under §§ 38.62 and 38.63, or at another time.
( b ) Nothing in this subpart limits or precludes the Director from monitoring directly any recipient or from investigating any matter necessary to determine a recipient's compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA or this part.
( c ) Where the Director determines that the Governor has not complied with the oversight and monitoring responsibilities set forth in the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements of WIOA or this part, the Director may: ( 1 ) Issue a Letter of Findings. The Letter of Findings must advise the Governor, in writing, of: ( i ) The preliminary findings of the review;
( ii ) The proposed remedial or corrective action under § 38. 90 and the time within which the remedial or corrective action should be completed;
( iii ) Whether it will be necessary for the Governor to enter into a conciliation agreement as described in §§ 38.91 and 38.93; and
( iv ) The opportunity to engage in voluntary compliance negotiations.
( 2 ) If a Governor refuses or fails to take remedial or corrective actions or to enter into a conciliation agreement, the Director may follow the procedures outlined in §§ 38.89, 38.90, and 38.91.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COYOTE NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,225
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,502
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (377)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,461
<PP&E>                                           6,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (992)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,120
<BONDS>                                          1,534
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,395
<COMMON>                                        11,167
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,505)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,151
<SALES>                                          6,756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,756
<CGS>                                            5,878
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,893
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,628)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,628)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (5,115)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,743)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.63)


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 20.60 Application of partial payments to amounts owed.

When a debt is paid in partial or installment payments, amounts received by the responsible agency should be applied first to outstanding penalty and administrative cost charges, second to accrued interest, and third to outstanding principal.