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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP00-224-001]

Take notice that on May 11, 2000, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, proposed to be effective March 27, 2000:

Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 95E

Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 95I

Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 95K

                    Transwestern states that this filing is made to: (1) Comply with the Commission's April 26, 2000 order                           ( print page 33315)                        accepting Transwestern's March 27, 2000 filing, subject to Transwestern's submitting within 15 days of such order, tariff sheets consistent with the requirements of Order No. 637; and (2) to clarify its tariff provisions to allow a releasing shipper to subject its prearranged deal at maximum rates or above maximum rates to further posting and bidding if it desires.                

Transwestern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.

Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12862  Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### GUTIERREZ v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 85-124 AC (County Court Case No. 79155 MK)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

January 21, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and N. Joseph Durant, Jr.,

Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and Michele L. Crawford, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before TENDRICH, FEDER, SHAPIRO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SIDNEY SHAPIRO, Judge.

The opinion filed in this case on December 31, 1986, is withdrawn and the following opinion substituted.

Appellant, GUTIERREZ, appeals from his conviction and sentence in the lower Court. He raises two issues for review, only one of which is necessary to consider. He contends the trial Court committed error *188in limiting defense counsel to three minutes for closing argument. We concur.

Article 1, § 16 of the Constitution of the State of Florida provides, in part, that:

> “. . . [The] accused shall . . . have the right ... to be heard in person, by counsel or both. ...”

As stated by the Florida Supreme Court in *Cooper v. State,*106 Fla. 254, 143 S.Ct. 217, 218 (1932):

> “To arbitrarily limit counsel for defendant who is on trial, charged with a criminal offense, to the space of five minutes in which to present the defendant’s case to the jury, is upon its face an abuse of discretion, and amounts to denying the defendant the benefit of counsel in violation of the Declaration of Rights.”

The State contends that no harm befell Appellant in that the Judge allowed defense counsel to continue beyond the allotted three minutes and, in fact, allowed seven. We do not agree.

The chilling effect created on the young public defender by the authority of the Court could only be said to deprive Appellant of his constitutional right to effective counsel. Certainly, a Court can reasonably limit the time allowed for closing argument; however, to arbitrarily limit counsel to three minutes, then extend it to seven, denies that counsel’s client a fundamental right to be properly represented. For that reason alone, the conviction and sentence of the trial Court must be vacated and reversed and the matter remanded for new trial.

It is so Ordered.
SEQUENCE FOR PUTTING ON PERSONAL 

PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE)

The type of PPE used will vary based on the level of precautions required, such as 

standard and contact, droplet or airborne infection isolation precautions. The procedure 

for putting on and removing PPE should be tailored to the specific type of PPE.

1. GOWN

•	 Fully cover torso from neck to knees, arms 

to end of wrists, and wrap around the back

•	 Fasten in back of neck and waist

2. MASK OR RESPIRATOR

•	 Secure ties or elastic bands at middle of 

head and neck

•	 Fit flexible band to nose bridge

•	 Fit snug to face and below chin

•	 Fit-check respirator

3. GOGGLES OR FACE SHIELD

•	 Place over face and eyes and adjust to fit

4. GLOVES

•	 Extend to cover wrist of isolation gown

USE SAFE WORK PRACTICES TO PROTECT YOURSELF 

AND LIMIT THE SPREAD OF CONTAMINATION

•	 Keep hands away from face

•	 Limit surfaces touched

•	 Change gloves when torn or heavily contaminated

•	 Perform hand hygiene CS250672-A
SEQUENCE FOR REMOVING 

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE)

Except for respirator, remove PPE at doorway or in anteroom. Remove respirator after 

leaving patient room and closing door.

1. GLOVES

•	 Outside of gloves is contaminated!

•	 Grasp outside of glove with opposite gloved hand; 

peel off

•	 Hold removed glove in gloved hand

•	 Slide fingers of ungloved hand under remaining 

glove at wrist

•	 Peel glove off over first glovet

•	 Discard gloves in waste container

2. GOGGLES OR FACE SHIELD

•	 Outside of goggles or face shield is 

contaminated!

•	 To remove, handle by head band or ear pieces

•	 Place in designated receptacle for reprocessing 

or in waste container

3. GOWN

•	 Gown front and sleeves are contaminated!

•	 Unfasten ties

•	 Pull away from neck and shoulders, touching 

inside of gown only

•	 Turn gown inside out

•	 Fold or roll into a bundle and discard

4. MASK OR RESPIRATOR

•	 Front of mask/respirator is contaminated 

— DO NOT TOUCH!

•	 Grasp bottom, then top ties or elastics 

and remove

•	 Discard in waste container

PERFORM HAND HYGIENE BETWEEN STEPS 

IF HANDS BECOME CONTAMINATED AND 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER REMOVING ALL PPE CS250672-A
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0372 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0372

**2000/372/EC: Commission Decision of 6 June 2000 setting the date on which dispatch of fighting bulls from Portugal to Spain may commence by virtue of Article 3(7) of Decision 98/653/EC (notified under document number C(2000) 1564) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 134 , 07/06/2000 P. 0035 - 0035 *

Commission Decision

of 6 June 2000

setting the date on which dispatch of fighting bulls from Portugal to Spain may commence by virtue of Article 3(7) of Decision 98/653/EC

(notified under document number C(2000) 1564)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/372/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market(1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC(2),

Having regard to Commission Decision 98/653/EC of 18 November 1998 concerning emergency measures made necessary by the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal(3), as last amended by Decision 2000/104/EC(4), and in particular Article 3(7) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 3(7) of Decision 98/653/EC requires the Commission to set the date on which dispatch of fighting bulls may commence, after having assessed the protocols referred to in Annex II point 13 and after having informed the Member States.

(2) The protocols submitted by Spain have been assessed and found to be satisfactory,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The date referred to in Article 3(7) of Decision 98/653/EC shall be 7 June 2000 for dispatch of fighting bulls to Spain.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 June 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.

(3) OJ L 311, 20.11.1998, p. 23.

(4) OJ L 29, 4.2.2000, p. 36.
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. James I. SMITH, Appellant, v. Edward J. HENDRICK.

No. 16460.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued June 8, 1967.

Decided June 20, 1967.

H. Robert Fiebach, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Charles A. Haddad, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Alan J. Davis, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Division, Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before STALEY, Chief Judge, KALODNER, Circuit Judge, and SHERIDAN, District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

On review of the record we find no error. The Order of the District Court will be affirmed.
§ 4022B.1 Aggregate payments limitation. ( a ) *Benefits with respect to two or more plans.* If a person (or persons) is entitled to benefits payable with respect to one participant in two or more plans, the aggregate benefits payable by PBGC from its funds is limited by § 4022.22 of this chapter (without regard to § 4022.22(a)). The PBGC will determine the limitation as of the date of the last plan termination.
( b ) *Benefits with respect to two or more participants.* The PBGC will not aggregate the benefits payable with respect to one participant with the benefits payable with respect to any other participant (e.g., if an individual is entitled to benefits both as a participant and as the spouse of a deceased participant).
[67 FR 16959, Apr. 8, 2002]
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
             PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Lancaster Colony Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John B. Gerlach, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my 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 operations of
         the Company.

/s/JOHN B. GERLACH, JR.
-----------------------
John B. Gerlach, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
September 25, 2002



                                       42
|                                  |                   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------|
| Signature                   | Date              |
|                             |              |
| /s/ Richard R. Cole         |              |
| Richard R. Cole, Director        | December 10, 2010 |
|                             |              |
| /s/ Nancy S. Donovan        |              |
| Nancy S. Donovan, Director       | December 10, 2010 |
|                             |              |
| /s/ Leonard J. Elmore       |              |
| Leonard J. Elmore, Director      | December 10, 2010 |
|                             |              |
| /s/ Brent Magid                  |              |
| Brent Magid, Director            | December 10, 2010 |
|                             |              |
| /s/ William E. Mayer        |              |
| William E. Mayer, Director       | December 10, 2010 |
|                             |              |
| /s/ Herbert W. Moloney III  |              |
| Herbert W. Moloney III, Director | December 10, 2010 |
|                             |              |
| /s/ Andrew E. Newman        |              |
| Andrew E. Newman, Director       | December 10, 2010 |
|                             |              |
| /s/ Gordon D. Prichett      |              |
| Gordon D. Prichett, Director     | December 10, 2010 |
|                             |              |
| /s/ Gregory P. Schermer     |              |
| Gregory P. Schermer, Director    | December 10, 2010 |
|                             |              |
| /s/ Mark Vittert            |              |
| Mark Vittert, Director           | December 10, 2010 |
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Kootenai National Forest's Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, February 15, 2011 at 6 p.m. at the Forest Supervisor's Office in Libby, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.

# DATES:

February 15, 2011.

# ADDRESSES:

Forest Supervisor's Office, 31374 U.S.  Hwy 2, Libby, Montana.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Janette Turk, Committee Coordinator, Kootenai National Forest at (406) 283-7764, or e-mail                         *jturk@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda will include community outreach for project proposals, grizzly bear DNA study update, and planning the spring field trip. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Daily Interlake based in Kalispell, Montana.

Dated: January 20, 2011.

Maggie Pittman,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2011-2005 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




Summary of Board and Committee Compensation




     On November 19, 2009,
the Board of Directors of the Company approved cash director fees,
committee member fees and chairperson fees to be paid to non-management directors of the Company in
the 2010 fiscal year beginning with the January 2010 meetings. Director fees, committee fees and chairperson fees are only paid to
non-management directors as summarized below:




Each non-management director will receive a director fee of $15,000 per Board
meeting attended in person or by tele-conference, paid quarterly and not to exceed
$60,000 per year.




Each non-management director who serves on a committee of the Board of Directors
will receive a fee of $1,250 per committee meeting attended in person or by
tele-conference, paid quarterly and not to exceed $5,000 per year.




Each
non-management director who serves as the chairperson of a committee of the Board
of Directors shall receive a fee of $625 per committee meeting attended in person or
by tele-conference, paid quarterly and not to exceed $2,500 per year.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40308 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RODOLFO GAMBOA, also known as Rudy Gamboa, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-03-CR-1-1

-------------------- Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rodolfo Gamboa appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. He argues that revocation was error because it was based on unreliable and conflicting hearsay information that he had assaulted his wife. The district court did not err in revoking Gamboa’s supervised release. United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz , 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994). There was sufficiently reliable evidence inNo. 03-40308 -2- the form of the police report, the assault victim’s statement, and the testimony of the probation officer to support the district court’s determination that Gamboa assaulted his wife. Id. at 791 & n.8 . The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
#### THEODORE S. WILKINSON v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 43352.

Decided May 3, 1937]

*Mr. Rees B. Gillespie*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. Louis R.*Mehlinger, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General James W.*Morris, for the defendant.

*330Littleton, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff contends that inasmuch as he completed twenty-seven years of service June 30, 1932, he became entitled on. that date to receive the automatic increase of 5 per centum of his base pay for longevity, and that section 201 of th& Economy Act of June 30, 1932, did not operate to deprive him of this increase in pay upon the completion of twenty-seven years of service. Section 201 of the Economy Act. provided that all provisions of law which conferred upon civilian or noncivilian officers or employees of the United' States Government automatic increases in compensation, by reason of length of service or promotion, were suspended during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933. This section further provided that it should not be construed to “deprive' any person of any increment of. compensation received through an automatic increase in compensation prior to-July 1, 1932.” We are of opinion that this section applied to plaintiff and operated to suspend the automatic increase in compensation for longevity pay to which he did not become entitled until the beginning of the first day of July 1932. Plaintiff was not entitled to receive'the incréase in compensation through an automatic increase prior to the beginning of the first day of July 1932 for the reason that he did not complete twenty-seven years of service until midnight of June 30, 1932. Cf. *Cook*v. *United*States, 77 C. Cls. 343, 3 Fed. Supp. 47. When, therefore, the automatic increase in compensation became effective on the first moment of July 1, 1932, by reason of his having completed twenty-seven years of service, it became suspended at the same moment by section 201 of the Economy Act of June 30,1932. The Economy Act was approved on June 30,1932, and by the express provisions of section 201 it operated to suspend all automatic increases in pay accruing at or *331after midnight of June 30, 1932. Inasmuch as the statutory suspension of the right to receive the increase in pay became applicable to the 5 per centum increase in plaintiff’s pay at the very moment his right to receive it accrued, it cannot be said that this increment of compensation was received by him through an automatic increase in compensation prior to July 1, 1932. In other words, the statute clearly intended that an officer should not acquire on July 1, 1932, a benefit in the form of an automatic increase in pay which he was not receiving, or entitled to receive, prior to the beginning of the first day of July 1932.

For these reasons we think plaintiff was correctly denied the automatic increase for longevity during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933, and subsequent years during which the Economy Act was in force. He is, therefore, not entitled to recover and his petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Whaley, *Judge \*Williams, Judge,; Geeen, *Judge\*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Distribution of Occupational Employment in States and Areas by Race and Sex, 1978

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Distribution of Occupational Employment in States and Areas by Race and Sex, 1978 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 2053*,												Washington, DC: 								U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 										April 1980,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4924,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER