alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 417.24 Appeal to the Director. ( a ) Within 15 days after mailing of the report of the Director's Representative, any interested party may appeal the conduct of the hearing or vote or both by filing written exceptions with the Director. Blanket appeals shall not be received. Impertinent or scandalous matter may be stricken by the Director, or an appeal containing such matter or lacking in specifications may be dismissed.
( b ) Upon review of the whole record, the Director shall issue a decision or may order further hearing, a new vote, or such further proceedings as he deems appropriate.
[29 FR 8264, July 1, 1964, as amended at 50 FR 31310, Aug. 1, 1985; 78 FR 8025, Feb. 5, 2013]
PUBLIC LAW 115–187—JUNE 21, 2018 132 STAT. 1489 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2333: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–215 (Comm. on Small Business). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): July 24, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): June 5, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–187 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the amount 

of leverage made available to small business investment companies. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Investment 

Opportunity Act of 2017’’. 

SEC. 2. INDIVIDUAL SBIC LEVERAGE LIMIT INCREASE. 

Section 303(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Small Business Investment Act 

of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking 

‘‘$150,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$175,000,000’’. 

Approved June 21, 2018. 

15 USC 661 note. 

Small Business 

Investment 

Opportunity Act 

of 2017. 

June 21, 2018 

[H.R. 2333]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MVD/Inventory

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROCIO ENRIQUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72238

Agency No. A075-301-637

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Rocio Enriquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review

of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen

FILED

DEC 28 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MVD/Inventory 2 08-72238

removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

dismiss in part and deny in part the petitions for review.

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,

964 (9th Cir. 2002), we conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying

Enriquez’s motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(2) (setting forth

90-day period for filing motion to reopen). The Board did not abuse its discretion

in concluding that any ineffective assistance of counsel that occurred over 10 years

ago did not prevent Enriquez from filing a timely motion to reopen. See

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2003) (allowing for the

possibility of tolling only if petitioner can establish she acted with due diligence in

discovering deception, fraud or error that prevented her from timely filing motion

to reopen).

The Board did not abuse its discretion denying Enriquez’s motion to reissue

its April 6, 2007, order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of

removal, based on the absence of any flaw in issuing the original order that would

have prevented Enriquez from timely petition for review. See Martinez-Serrano v.

INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that 90-day period for filing

timely petition for review begins when Board mails final deportation order to

correct address, in compliance with its regulations).
MVD/Inventory 3 08-72238

To the extent Enriquez challenges the Board’s refusal to reopen proceedings

sua sponte, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Ekimian v. INS,

303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### § 4905.3 General.

No PBGC employee or former employee may appear in any proceeding to which this part applies to testify and/or produce documents or other material unless authorized under this part.
My

name is James King and I would like get a 333 exemption that way I can take aerial photos without any

consequences. I will be using a DJ I phantom 2. I have read the AC9157 suggestions and I will abide by

all of them. Thank you for your considerations .
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-159737, 333-156144, 333-153080, 333-118269, 333-118245, 333-88076, 333-53715, 333-87775, 333-87803, 333-49106, and 333-110243 on Form S-8 and 333-161050 on FormS-3 of our report dated March 1, 2010 relating to the financial statements of Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and subsidiaries (which report expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements and included an explanatory paragraph regardingthe Company’s adoption of accounting guidance related to accounting and reporting for non-controlling interests in a subsidiary codified under Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 810“Consolidation” on January 1, 2009 and accounting guidance related to accounting for uncertainty in income taxes codified under ASC 740 “Income Taxes” on January 1, 2007) and our report dated March 1, 2010 relating tothe effectiveness of Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and subsidiaries internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Louisiana-Pacific Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Nashville,Tennessee 

March 1, 2010
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 133328 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133328 COA: 271583 Wayne CC: 92-001768 DERRICK LAVELLE HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d0618 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2007

Clerk
§ 458.50 Investigations. ( a ) When he believes it necessary in order to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate any provision of §§ 458.26 through 458.30, the Chief, DOE may cause an investigation to be conducted.
( b ) When he believes it necessary in order to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate any provision of this part (other than §§ 458.2, 458.26 through 458.30 or 458.37), a District Director may conduct an investigation.
( c ) The authority to investigate possible violations of this part (other than § 458.2 or 458.37) shall not be contingent upon receipt of a complaint.
[50 FR 31312, Aug. 1, 1985. Redesignated at 50 FR 31311, Aug. 1, 1985, as amended at 59 FR 15117, Mar. 31, 1994; 62 FR 6094, Feb. 10, 1997]
[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:**AtlanticFleet training and testing final environmental impact statement / overseasenvironmental impact statement
 
v1|v2| v3|v4| v5|
 
SuDoc Number:D 201.2:AT 6/FINAL
Item Number:0370 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001090841
January 28, 2019
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 137 

Recognizing the importance of Hot Springs National Park on the 175th 

anniversary of the enactment of the Act that authorized the establishment of Hot Springs Reservation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. PRYOR) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of Hot Springs National Park 

on the 175th anniversary of the enactment of the Act 

that authorized the establishment of Hot Springs Reservation. 

Whereas, with the establishment of the Hot Springs Reservation, the concept in the United States of setting aside a 

nationally significant place for the future enjoyment of 

the citizens of the United States was first carried out 

175 years ago in Hot Springs, Arkansas; 

Whereas the Hot Springs Reservation protected 47 hot 

springs in the area of Hot Springs, Arkansas; 

Whereas, in the first section of the Act of April 20, 1832 (4 

Stat. 505, chapter 70), Congress required that ‘‘the hot 

springs in said territory, together with four sections of 


bajohnson on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 137 IS 

land, including said springs, as near the centre thereof as 

may be, shall be reserved for the future disposal of the 

United States, and shall not be entered, located, or appropriated, for any other purpose whatever’’; 

Whereas the Hot Springs Reservation was the first protected 

area in the United States; 

Whereas the Act that authorized the establishment of the 

Hot Springs Reservation was enacted before the establishment of the Department of the Interior in 1849, and 

before the establishment of Yellowstone National Park as 

the first national park of the United States in 1872; 

Whereas, in 1921, the Hot Springs Reservation was renamed 

‘‘Hot Springs National Park’’ and became the 18th national park of the United States; and 

Whereas the tradition of preservation and conservation that 

inspired the development of the National Park System, 

which now includes 390 units, began with the Act that 

authorized the establishment of the Hot Springs Reservation: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That on 175th anniversary of the Act of 

2 Congress that authorized the establishment of the Hot 

3 Springs Reservation, the Senate recognizes the important 

4 contributions of the Hot Springs Reservation and the Hot 

5 Springs National Park to the history of conservation in 

6 the United States. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
§ 778.218 Pay for certain idle hours. ( a ) *General rules.* Payments which are made for occasional periods when the employee is not at work due to vacation, holiday, illness, failure of the employer to provide sufficient work, or other similar cause, where the payments are in amounts approximately equivalent to the employee's normal earnings for a similar period of time, are not made as compensation for his hours of employment. Therefore, such payments may be excluded from the regular rate of pay under section 7(e)(2) of the Act and, for the same reason, no part of such payments may be credited toward overtime compensation due under the Act.
( b ) *Limitations on exclusion.* The provision of section 7(e)(2) of the Act deals with the type of absences which are infrequent or sporadic or unpredictable. It has no relation to regular “absences” such as regularly scheduled days of rest. Sundays may not be workdays in a particular establishment, but this does not make them either “holidays” or “vacations,” or days on which the employee is absent because of the failure of the employer to provide sufficient work. The term holiday is read in its ordinary usage to refer to those days customarily observed in the community in celebration of some historical or religious occasion; it does not refer to days of rest given to employees in lieu of or as an addition to compensation for working on other days.
( c ) *Failure to provide work.* The term “failure of the employer to provide sufficient work” is intended to refer to occasional, sporadically recurring situations where the employee would normally be working but for such a factor as machinery breakdown, failure of expected supplies to arrive, weather conditions affecting the ability of the employee to perform the work and similarly unpredictable obstacles beyond the control of the employer. The term does not include reduction in work schedule (as discussed in §§ 778.321 through 778.329), ordinary temporary layoff situations, or any type of routine, recurrent absence of the employee.
( d ) *Other similar cause.* The term “other similar cause” refers to payments made for periods of absence due to factors like holidays, vacations, sickness, and failure of the employer to provide work. Examples of “similar causes” are absences due to jury service, reporting to a draft board, attending a funeral, inability to reach the workplace because of weather conditions, attending adoption or child custody hearings, attending school activities, donating organs or blood, voting, volunteering as a first responder, military leave, family medical leave, and nonroutine paid leave required under state or local laws. Only absences of a non-routine character which are infrequent or sporadic or unpredictable are included in the “other similar cause” category.
[33 FR 986, Jan. 26, 1968, as amended at 84 FR 68772, Dec. 16, 2019]
#### § 515.7 Transmission of official mail.

Subject to the requirements of law and of the regulations of the Post Office Department, franked self-addressed envelopes may be used for communications from the field staff to a State official designated by the Division and the Secretary of Labor, and for communication from the State agency to the Division or the Secretary of Labor.
§ 37.67 What information must a Notice to Show Cause contain? ( a ) A Notice to Show Cause must contain: ( 1 ) A description of the violation and a citation to the pertinent nondiscrimination or equal opportunity provision(s) of WIA and this part;
( 2 ) The corrective action necessary to achieve compliance or, as may be appropriate, the concepts and principles of acceptable corrective or remedial action and the results anticipated; and
( 3 ) A request for a written response to the findings, including commitments to corrective action or the presentation of opposing facts and evidence.
( b ) A Notice to Show Cause must give the recipient 30 days to show cause why enforcement proceedings under the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA or this part should not be instituted.
**EXHIBIT 11**

 

STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OFEARNINGS PER SHARE

 

LOSS PER SHARE

 

Computation of loss pershare

(in thousands, exceptper share data)

 

| ** **                                                                                                            | ** ** | **Three months ended  March 30,** | ** ** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                                                                            | ** ** | **2005**                               | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** |
| ** **                                                                                                            | ** ** | ** **                             | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** |
| Net loss                                                                                                              |       | $                                      | (1,226     | ) | $ | (864 | ) |
| Weighted  average shares of common stock outstanding                                                                  |       | 71,871                                 |       | 58,380 |   |
| Weighted  average shares of common stock held for former Women.com stockholders not yet  tendered                     |       | 55                                     |       | 61 |   |
| Weighted  average shares of common stock held for former Promotions.com stockholders  not yet tendered                |       | 2                                      |       | 2 |   |
| Adjusted  weighted average shares of common stock outstanding used in computing basic  and diluted net loss per share |       | 71,928                                 |       | 58,443 |   |
| Basic and  diluted net loss per share                                                                                 |       | $                                      | (0.02      | ) | $ | (0.01 | ) |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary finanical information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Condition at June 30, 1999 (Audited) and the Statement
of Income for the six months June 30, 1999 (Audited) and is unqualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          42,487
<SECURITIES>                                    15,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,487
<PP&E>                                          22,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,906)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,483
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       230,816
<OTHER-SE>                                   (154,206)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,093
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (107,423)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (107,423)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (107,423)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (107,423)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart A of part 5 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 5.13 Rulings and interpretations. ( a ) All questions relating to the application and interpretation of wage determinations (including the classifications therein) issued pursuant to part 1 of this subtitle, of the rules contained in this part and in parts 1 and 3 of this subtitle, and of the labor standards provisions of any of the laws referenced in § 5.1 must be referred to the Administrator for appropriate ruling or interpretation. These rulings and interpretations are authoritative and those under the Davis-Bacon Act may be relied upon as provided for in section 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. 259). Requests for such rulings and interpretations should be submitted via email to *dgceinquiries@dol.gov*; by mail to Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210; or through other means directed by the Administrator.
( b ) If any such ruling or interpretation is made by an authorized representative of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, any interested party may seek reconsideration of the ruling or interpretation by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division. The procedures and time limits set out in § 1.8 of this subtitle apply to any such request for reconsideration.
[88 FR 57743, Aug. 23, 2023]
§ 503.41 Administrator, WHD's determination. ( a ) Whenever the Administrator, WHD decides to assess a civil money penalty, to debar, or to impose other appropriate administrative remedies, including for the recovery of monetary relief, the party against which such action is taken will be notified in writing of such determination.
( b ) The Administrator, WHD's determination will be served on the party by personal service or by certified mail at the party's last known address. Where service by certified mail is not accepted by the party, the Administrator may exercise discretion to serve the determination by regular mail.