alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued and submitted March 1,

reversed and remanded May 12, 1993

#### BUSINESS MEN’S SERVICE CO., an Oregon corporation, *Appellant, v.*UNION GOSPEL MINISTRIES, dba Union Gospel Ministries Thrift Store, aka Union Gospel Mission, *Respondent.*

(92C760654; CA A76525)

852 P2d 199

Jeffrey I. Hasson, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Hasson & Zimmerman, Portland.

Mark L. DeLapp, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*229PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals a judgment that dismissed its complaint on the ground that its claims are barred by claim preclusion, because the complaint alleges claims arising out of the same breach of contract that had previously been litigated to judgment. The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to ORCP 21A. Although the court did not further specify which subsection applied, the only relevant one is subsection (8). On a pretrial motion under ORCP 21A(8), the trial court can dismiss only if the pleading *on it's face*fails to state a claim. *See O’Gara v. Kaufman,*81 Or App 499, 503, 726 P2d 403 (1986). Nothing on the face of the complaint mentions a former action. The trial court erred when it went outside the complaint to conclude that the claims were barred.1

Reversed and remanded.

1

 Defendant cites two California cases that held that *res judicata*can be grounds for a motion to dismiss: *Olwell v. Hopkins,*28 Cal 2d 147, 168 P2d 972 (1946); *Stafford v. Yerge,*129 Cal App 2d 165, 276 P2d 649 (1954). We decline to adopt the reasoning in those cases in the light of the express language of ORCP 21A that only motions to dismiss under ORCP 21A(l)-(7) can be supported by facts outside the complaint.
§ 570.9 States in which State certificates of age are accepted. ( a ) The States in which age, employment, or working certificates or permits have been found by the Administrator to be issued by or under the supervision of a State agency substantially in accordance with the provisions of §§ 570.6 and 570.7 and which are designated as States in which certificates so issued shall have the force and effect specified in § 570.5, except as individual certificates may be revoked in accordance with § 570.11 of this subpart, are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
( b ) State certificates requiring conditions or restrictions additional to those required by this subpart shall not be deemed to be inconsistent herewith.
( c ) The designation of a State under this section shall have force and effect indefinitely unless withdrawal of such designation is deemed desirable for the effective administration of the Act. No withdrawal of the designation of a State under this section shall make any certificate invalid if it was issued by or under the supervision of a State agency as herein provided prior to such withdrawal.
§ 520.501 How do I obtain authority to employ student-learners at subminimum wages? ( a ) Employers wishing to employ student-learners at subminimum wages must apply for authority to do so from the Administrator at the Wage and Hour Division's Regional Office having administrative jurisdiction over the geographic area in which the employment is to take place. To obtain the address of the Regional Office which services your geographic area, please contact your local Wage and Hour Office (under “Department of Labor” in the blue pages of your local telephone book).
( b ) Application must be made on the official form furnished by the Wage and Hour Division and must be signed by the employer, the appropriate school official and the student-learner. A separate application must be filed by the employer for each student-learner the employer proposes to employ at subminimum wages.
(The information collection requirements contained in paragraph (b) were approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1235-0001) [62 FR 64959, Dec. 9, 1997, as amended at 82 FR 2228, Jan. 9, 2017]
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 15 

Authorizing the Rotunda of the Capitol to be used on March 29, 2007, 

for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee 

Airmen. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2007 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. STEVENS) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the Rotunda of the Capitol to be used on March 

29, 2007, for a ceremony to award the Congressional 

Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized 

3 to be used on March 29, 2007, for a ceremony to award 

4 a Congressional Gold Medal collectively to the Tuskegee 

5 Airmen in accordance with Public Law 109–213. Physical 

6 preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in ac7 cordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Cap8 itol may prescribe. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,065
<SECURITIES>                                       584
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (605)
<INVENTORY>                                     32,761
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,728
<PP&E>                                         254,827
<DEPRECIATION>                               (164,868)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 221,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,943
<BONDS>                                          9,103
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,892
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   221,366
<SALES>                                        242,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               242,519
<CGS>                                          209,877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  209,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,013)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (745)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,268)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,268)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)


</TABLE>
§ 531.3 General determinations of “reasonable cost.” ( a ) The term *reasonable cost* as used in section 3(m) of the Act is hereby determined to be not more than the actual cost to the employer of the board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by him to his employees.
( b ) *Reasonable cost* does not include a profit to the employer or to any affiliated person.
( c ) Except whenever any determination made under § 531.4 is applicable, the “reasonable cost” to the employer of furnishing the employee with board, lodging, or other facilities (including housing) is the cost of operation and maintenance including adequate depreciation plus a reasonable allowance (not more than 51 ⁄ 2 percent) for interest on the depreciated amount of capital invested by the employer: *Provided,* That if the total so computed is more than the fair rental value (or the fair price of the commodities or facilities offered for sale), the fair rental value (or the fair price of the commodities or facilities offered for sale) shall be the reasonable cost. The cost of operation and maintenance, the rate of depreciation, and the depreciated amount of capital invested by the employer shall be those arrived at under good accounting practices. As used in this paragraph, the term “good accounting practices” does not include accounting practices which have been rejected by the Internal Revenue Service for tax purposes, and the term “depreciation” includes obsolescence.
( d ) ( 1 ) The cost of furnishing “facilities” found by the Administrator to be primarily for the benefit or convenience of the employer will not be recognized as reasonable and may not therefore be included in computing wages.
( 2 ) The following is a list of facilities found by the Administrator to be primarily for the benefit of convenience of the employer. The list is intended to be illustrative rather than exclusive: ( i ) Tools of the trade and other materials and services incidental to carrying on the employer's business;
( ii ) the cost of any construction by and for the employer;
( iii ) the cost of uniforms and of their laundering, where the nature of the business requires the employee to wear a uniform.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0685 

SMYRNA AIR CENTER. FAA CASE NO. 2011CE190020 

Respondent Judge J .E.· Sullivan 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENTIWITHDRA WAL OF COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to a settlement reached by the parties and to the provisions of 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.215, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby withdraws its 

Complaint dated September 19,2014. 

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of October, 2015. 

R 1\!M. LANDERS 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

1701 Columbia Ave. 

College Park, GA 30337 

RECEIV 

NOV -2 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice of Settlement/Withdrawal of Complaint was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

one copy via facsimile and Federal Express to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El2-320 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

East Building Ground Floor 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

one copy via certified mail to: 

Mink & Duke, PLLC 

c/o Thomas F. Mink, II, Esq. 

c/o William M. Leech, III, Esq. 

P.O. Box 198742 

Nashville, TN 37219-8742 

~A~ Program Analyst 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Dated
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 103 (Friday, May 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13268]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. 701-TA-318 (Review) and 731-TA-538 and 561 
(Review)]


Sulfanilic Acid From China and India

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission determines, 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1675(c)), that revocation of the countervailing duty and 
antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from China and India would 
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to 
an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Sec. 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on October 1, 1999 (64 FR 
53412, October 1, 1999) and determined on January 7, 2000 that it would 
conduct expedited reviews (65 FR 2645, January 18, 2000). The 
Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to the 
Secretary of Commerce on May 18, 2000. The views of the Commission are 
contained in USITC Publication 3301 (May 2000), entitled Sulfanilic 
Acid From China and India: Investigations Nos. 701-TA-318 (Review) and 
731-TA-538 and 561 (Review).

    Issued: May 22, 2000.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13268 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<PAGE>

                                   ITEM 12
               SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                        Name & Address of          Amount & Nature of
Title of Class          Beneficial Owner           Beneficial Ownership    % of Class
--------------          -----------------          --------------------    ----------
                                         ITEM 403(a)
                                         -----------
<S>                     <C>                        <C>                     <C>
Class B                 Hussey Investments LP             880,881             50.9%
Common Stock            PO Box 35
                        Goshen IN 46527 (1) (2)

                                         ITEM 403(b)
                                         -----------

Class A                 Hussey Endeavors LP               868,000             38.5%
Common Stock            PO Box 35
                        Goshen IN 46527 (1) (2)

Class A                 Edward J. Hussey                  385,219             17.1%
Common Stock            PO Box 35
                        Goshen IN 46527 (1)

Class A                 Edward Joseph Hussey              891,400             39.5%
Common Stock            PO Box 35
Class B                 Goshen IN 46527 (2)
Common Stock                                              945,653             54.6%

Class A                 Michael F. Hussey                 890,835             39.5%
Common Stock            PO Box 35
Class B                 Goshen IN 46527 (2)
Common Stock                                              945,088             54.6%

Class A                 All Directors and               1,300,454             57.6%
Common Stock            Officers as a Group
Class B                                                 1,009,860             58.3%
Common Stock
</TABLE>

(1) Edward J. Hussey is a limited partner in both Hussey Investments LP and
Hussey Endeavors LP and accordingly has a pecuniary interest in the shares of
Class B Common Stock owned by Hussey Investments LP and Class A Common Stock
owned by Hussey Endeavors LP.  Edward J. Hussey has no voting or investment
power over such shares and accordingly disclaims beneficial ownership of such
shares.

(2) Edward Joseph Hussey, Michael F. Hussey, John P. Hussey and Nancy A.
Parrish are the general partners of Hussey Investments LP and general
partners of Hussey Endeavors LP.  Accordingly, they share voting and
investment control over the 880,881 shares of Class B Common Stock owned by
Hussey Investments LP and the 868,000 shares of Class A Common Stock owned by
Hussey Endeavors LP. Total shares listed for individuals includes the
beneficial ownership.


                                      36
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12868]



[[Page 33427]]

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

Part III





Department of Defense

General Services Administration

National Aeronautics and Space Administration





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



48 CFR Part 17



Federal Acquisition Regulation; Executive Agent; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 33428]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Part 17

[FAR Case 99-004]
RIN 9000-AI42


Federal Acquisition Regulation; Executive Agent

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense 
Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) agreed to withdraw FAR case 
99-004, Executive Agent, because it is no longer necessary. The 
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register at 64 FR 44100, 
August 12, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS 
Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755 for information 
pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of 
content, contact Mr. Ralph De Stefano, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 
501-1758. Please cite FAR case 99-004, withdrawal.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    The rule which was published in the Federal Register at 64 FR 
44100, August 12, 1999, proposed amending FAR part 17 to add another 
example of an interagency acquisition that is not subject to the 
Economy Act. This rule is being withdrawn because it is no longer 
necessary.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 17

    Government procurement.

    Dated: May 17, 2000.
Edward C. Loeb,
Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 00-12868 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-U
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7021** 

DEVON SYKES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. DEP. MOORE, Mail lady , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District o f Virginia , at Norfolk
. Jerome B. Friedman , District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 00305

- JBF

- TEM )

Submitted : October 5, 2010 Decided: November 9, 2010

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per cu riam opinion
.
Devon Sykes, Appellant Pro se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Devon Sykes appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A( b ) (2006 ) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sykes v. Moore , No. 2:10

- cv - 00305

- JBF

- TEM (E.D. Va. July 13, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and l egal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 222 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2007 

Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. SMITH, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. 

SANDERS, and Mr. BROWN) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer 

Awareness Month. 

Whereas over 37,170 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic 

cancer this year in the United States; 

Whereas pancreatic cancer is the 4th most common cause of 

cancer death in the United States; 

Whereas 75 percent of pancreatic cancer patients die within 

the first year of their diagnosis and only 5 percent survive more than 5 years, making pancreatic cancer the 

deadliest of any cancer; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

SRES 222 ATS 

Whereas there has been no significant improvement in survival rates in the last 25 years and pancreatic cancer research is still in the earliest scientific stages; 

Whereas there are no early detection methods and minimal 

treatment options for pancreatic cancer; 

Whereas when symptoms of pancreatic cancer generally 

present themselves, it is too late for an optimistic prognosis, and the average survival rate of those diagnosed 

with metastasis of the disease is only 3 to 6 months; 

Whereas the incidence rate of pancreatic cancer is 40 to 50 

percent higher in African Americans than in other ethnic 

groups; and 

Whereas it would be appropriate to observe November as 

Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month to educate communities across the Nation about pancreatic cancer and the 

need for research funding, early detection methods, effective treatments, and treatment programs: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the goals and 

2 ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DYLAN MACE,

Appellant,

v.

EVERGLADES COLLEGE, INC. d/b/a KEISER UNIVERSITY, PATRICK 

JOHNSTON, and CHANNING ALONZO THOMAS, et al.,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-3270

[July 28, 2022]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Joseph George Marx, Judge; L.T. 

Case No. 50-2020-CA-013371-XXXX-MB.

Andrew A. Harris and Grace Mackey Streicher of Harris Appeals, P.A.,

Palm Beach Gardens, and Tom DeLattre of Wieland & DeLattre, P.A., 

Orlando, for appellant.

Benjamin L. Bedard and Shelli A. Healy of Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard 

& Tuzzio, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee Channing Alonzo Thomas.

Lissette Gonzalez of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for appellees 

Everglades College, Inc. d/b/a Keiser University and Patrick Johnston.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Crim. No. 811.

Department Two.

December 14, 1901.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. EMMET RHEW, Defendant.

Criminal Law—Disinterment of Dead Body—Construction of Code —Case Affirmed.—The present case is decided upon the authority of *People*v. *Baumgartner,*ante, p. 72, to the effect that section 290 of the Penal Code requires the removal of a dead body from the grave in order to constitute the offense of disinterment thereof.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. E. N. Rector, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, and in the opinion in the case of *People*v. *Baumgartner, ante,*p. 72.

V. G. Frost, and Ben Berry, for Appellant.

Tirey L. Ford, Attorney-General, and A. A. Moore, Jr., Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

Defendant was tried on an information jointly charging him and one William Baumgartner and one Julian Rhew with violating sepulture. The facts in this case are the same as were presented in *People*v. *Baumgartner, ante,*
      *76p. 72. Defendant was convicted, and appeals from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. The question as to the proper construction to be given the word “disinter,” as found in section 290 of the Penal Code, arises in this case as it did in *People*v. *Baumgartner;*the same instruction was given by the court which was held to be error in *People*v. *Baumgartner.*The two eases can be distinguished neither in their facts nor in the questions of law presented. Upon the authority of *People*v. *Baumgartner,*the judgment of conviction is reversed.