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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes                           ( print page 49479)                        and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 6, 2011.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

                    1.                     *Wintrust Financial Corporation,*                     Lake Forest, Illinois; to merge with Elgin State Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Elgin State Bank, both in Elgin, Illinois.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 5, 2011.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2011-20261 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### Graybeal *v.*The State.

[No. 17,703.

Filed September 24, 1896.]

Appellate *Procedure.*— Bill *of Exceptions.*— Criminal *Law.*— Affidavits to sustain causes assigned for a new trial in a criminal case, can only be brought into the record by embodying them in a bill of exceptions.

*Same.*— Affidavits *for New Trial.*— When *Made Part of Record by Order of Court.*— Statute *Construed.*— Section 662 Burns’ R. S-1894 (section 650 R. S. 1881), which provides that affidavits may be made a part of the record by order of court, relates exclusively to civil actions, and has no application to criminal cases.

From the LaPorte Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

*W. H. Breece,*and *Weir & Weir,*for appellant.

*W. A. Ketcham,*Attorney-General, O. *M. Cunningham,*and *M. Moores,*for appellee.

Monks, C. J.

— Appellant was tried upon an indictment charging him with murder in the first degree, and found guilty of manslaughter, and over a motion for a new trial judgment was rendered upon the verdict.

The only error assigned is that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

The only cause assigned for a new trial was alleged misconduct of the jury. The affidavit filed in support of the motion for a new trial is not made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions.

Affidavits to sustain causes assigned for a new trial in a criminal case can only be brought into the record by embodying them in a bill of exceptions. *Naanes*v. *State,*143 Ind. 299; *Townsend*v. *State,*132 Ind. 315; *Meredith*v. *State,*122 Ind. 514; *Leverich*v. *State,*105 Ind. 277; Gillett’s Crim. Law, section 990, and cases cited.

*624Section 662, R. S. 1894 (section 650, R. S. 1881), which provides that affidavits may be made a part of the record by order of court, relates exclusively to civil actions, and has no application to criminal cases. *Naanes*v. *State, supra.*

There is nothing in the record to sustain the assignment of error.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
§ 779.318 Characteristics and examples of retail or service establishments. ( a ) Typically a retail or service establishment is one which sells goods or services to the general public. It serves the everyday needs of the community in which it is located. The retail or service establishment performs a function in the business organization of the Nation which is at the very end of the stream of distribution, disposing in small quantities of the products and skills of such organization and does not take part in the manufacturing process. (See, however, the discussion of section 13(a)(4) in §§ 779.346 to 779.350.) Such an establishment sells to the general public its food and drink. It sells to such public its clothing and its furniture, its automobiles, its radios and refrigerators, its coal and its lumber, and other goods, and performs incidental services on such goods when necessary. It provides the general public its repair services and other services for the comfort and convenience of such public in the course of its daily living. Illustrative of such establishments are: Grocery stores, hardware stores, clothing stores, coal dealers, furniture stores, restaurants, hotels, watch repair establishments, barber shops, and other such local establishments.
( b ) The legislative history of the section 13(a)(2) exemption for certain retail or service establishments shows that Congress also intended that the retail exemption extend in some measure beyond consumer goods and services to embrace certain products almost never purchased for family or noncommercial use. A precise line between such articles and those which can never be sold at retail cannot be drawn. But a few characteristics of items like small trucks and farm implements may offer some guidance; their use is very widespread as is that of consumer goods; they are often distributed in stores or showrooms by means not dissimilar to those used for consumer goods; and they are frequently used in commercial activities of limited scope. The list of strictly commercial items whose sale can be deemed retail is very small and a determination as to the application of the retail exemption in specific cases would depend upon the consideration of all the circumstances relevant to the situation. (*Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc.* v. *Wirtz* and *Wirtz* v. *Steepleton General Tire Company, Inc.,* 383 U.S. 190, 202, rehearing denied 383 U.S. 963.)
[35 FR 5856, Apr. 9, 1970, as amended at 36 FR 14466, Aug. 6, 1971]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13163]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ID-933-1430-ET; IDI-15630 et al.]


Legal Description of Modification and Partial Revocation of 
Executive Orders; Idaho

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice corrects the total acreage figures of Public Land 
Order 7437 published in 65 FR 58, of March 24, 1000, on page 15917. The 
Summary of the Public Land Order should read: ``This order modifies 5 
Executive orders to established a 20-year term as to 8,040.07 acres of 
lands withdrawn for the Bureau of Land Management for use as Powersite 
Reserves. This order also partially revokes 3 of the Executive orders 
insofar as they affect 2,362.82 acres and opens 401.95 acres to surface 
entry. The remaining 1,960.87 acres have been conveyed out of Federal 
ownership. All of the lands in Federal ownership have been and will 
remain open to mining and mineral leasing.'' Paragraph 2 lists 277.30 
acres, that figure is corrected to 401.95 acres. Paragraph 3 lists 
3,165.70 acres , that figure is corrected to 1,960.87 acres.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 25, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jackie Simmons, BLM Idaho State 
Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, 208-373-3867.

Jimmie Buxton,
Branch Chief, Lands and Minerals.
[FR Doc. 00-13163 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
Editorial Note on Part 7
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 7 appear at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996.

§ 7.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part contains the rules of practice of the Administrative Review Board when it is exercising its jurisdiction described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The Board has jurisdiction to hear and decide in its discretion appeals concerning questions of law and fact from final decisions under parts 1, 3, and 5 of this subtitle including decisions as to the following: ( 1 ) Wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon Act and its related minimum wage statutes;
( 2 ) debarment cases arising under part 5 of this subtitle;
( 3 ) controversies concerning the payment of prevailing wage rates or proper classifications which involve significant sums of money, large groups of employees, or novel or unusual situations; and
( 4 ) recommendations of a Federal agency for appropriate adjustment of liquidated damages which are assessed under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
( c ) In exercising its discretion to hear and decide appeals, the Board shall consider, among other things, timeliness, the nature of the relief sought, matters of undue hardship or injustice, or the public interest.
( d ) In considering the matters within the scope of its jurisdiction the Board shall act as the authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor. The Board shall act as fully and finally as might the Secretary of Labor concerning such matters, except as provided in Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order).
( e ) The Board is an essentially appellate agency. It will not hear matters de novo except upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances. It may remand under appropriate instructions any case for the taking of additional evidence and the making of new or modified findings by reason of the additional evidence.
[36 FR 10863, June 4, 1971, as amended at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996; 85 FR 13031, Mar. 6, 2020; 85 FR 30616, May 20, 2020]
§ 500.9 Discrimination prohibited. ( a ) It is a violation of the Act for any person to intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge, or in any manner discriminate against any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker because such worker has, with just cause: ( 1 ) Filed a complaint with reference to the Act with the Secretary of Labor; or
( 2 ) Instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to the Act; or
( 3 ) Testified or is about to testify in any proceeding under or related to the Act; or
( 4 ) Exercised or asserted on behalf of himself or others any right or protection afforded by the Act.
( b ) A migrant or seasonal agricultural worker who believes, with just cause, that he has been discriminated against by any person in violation of this section may, no later than 180 days after such violation occurs, file a complaint with the Secretary alleging such discrimination.
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 

VWR CORPORATION 2014 

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 

1.         Definitions. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings
assigned to them in the VWR Corporation 2014 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended (the “Plan”). 

2.         Amendment of the Plan. The Plan is hereby amended as follows effective as of March 31, 2015:

  

	 	(a)	The definition of “Option Period” or “Period” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 


“Option Period” or “Period” shall mean such duration (not to exceed twenty-seven (27) months) as shall
be determined by the Committee prior to the beginning of such Option Period. Unless the Committee determines otherwise before the beginning of the Option Period, Option Periods shall commence at six (6)-month intervals on each May 15 and
November 15 (or the next business day, if such date is not a business day) over the term of the Plan, and each Option Period shall last for six (6) months, ending on May 14 or November 14, as the case may be (or the preceding
business day, if such date is not a business day). Accordingly, unless the Committee determines otherwise, two separate Option Periods shall commence in each calendar year during which the Plan remains in existence. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the initial Option Period shall not commence until the date first specifically authorized by the Committee, subject to the Company’s prior registration of the Stock on Form S-8.” 

 

	 	(b)	Section 3.3.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end of such section: 


“Subject to the limits imposed under Section 3.3, the maximum number of shares of Stock that may be purchased by each Participant in
any Option Period shall be 60,000 shares.” 

*    *    *    *    * 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, VWR Corporation has caused this Amendment No. 2 to be duly executed this 27th day of March, 2015. 
  

					
	Attest:	 		 	VWR CORPORATION
			
	/s/ Scott K. Baker	 		 	By: /s/ George Van Kula
	 Scott K. Baker
 Vice President and Assistant
General Counsel—Corporate
	 		 	 George Van Kula
 Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, General Counsel and Secretary
#### § 570.38 Effect of a certificate of age under this subpart.

The employment of any minor in any of the occupations to which this subpart is applicable, if confined to the periods specified in § 570.35, shall not be deemed to constitute oppressive child labor within the meaning of the act if the employer shall have on file an unexpired certificate, issued in substantially the same manner as that provided for the issuance of certificates in subpart A of this part relating to certificates of age, certifying that such minor is of an age between 14 and 16 years.

[16 FR 7008, July 20, 1951. Redesignated at 27 FR 4165, May 2, 1962, and 28 FR 1634, Feb. 21, 1963. Redesignated and amended at 36 FR 25156, Dec. 29, 1971. Redesignated at 75 FR 28452, May 20, 2010]
§ 2700.41 Time to file. ( a ) *The Secretary.* A discrimination complaint shall be filed by the Secretary within 30 days after his written determination that a violation has occurred.
( b ) *Miner, representative of miners, or applicant for employment.* A discrimination complaint may be filed by a complaining miner, representative of miners, or applicant for employment within 30 days after receipt of a written determination by the Secretary that no violation has occurred.
§ 38.83 Notice of complaint acceptance. If the Director accepts the complaint for resolution, the Director must notify in writing the complainant, the respondent, and the grantmaking agency. The notice must: ( a ) State that the complaint will be accepted;
( b ) Identify the issues over which CRC has accepted jurisdiction; and
( c ) Explain the reasons why any issues were rejected.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 85 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol to honor Frank W. Buckles, 

the last surviving United States veteran of the First World War. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2008 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. BYRD, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. WARNER, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, and Mr. BURR) submitted the 

following concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol to honor 

Frank W. Buckles, the last surviving United States veteran of the First World War. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. HONORING FRANK W. BUCKLES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Rotunda of the Capitol is au5 thorized to be used at any time on June 18, 2008 for a 

6 ceremony to honor the only living veteran of the First 

7 World War, Mr. Frank Woodruff Buckles, as a tribute 

8 and recognition of all United States military members who 

9 served in the First World War. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•SCON 85 ATS 

1 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—Physical preparations for 

2 the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such 

3 conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
§ 548.304 Excluding value of lunches furnished. ( a ) Section 548.3(d) authorizes as established basic rates: The rate or rates which may be used under the Act to compute overtime compensation of the employee but excluding the cost of meals where the employer customarily furnishes not more than a single meal per day.
( b ) It is the purpose of § 548.3(d) to permit the employer upon agreement with his employees to omit from the computation of overtime the cost of a free daily lunch or other single daily meal furnished to the employees. The policy behind § 548.3(d) is derived from the Administrator's experience that the amount of additional overtime compensation involved in such cases is trivial and does not justify the bookkeeping required in computing it. Section 548.3(d) is applicable only in cases where the employer customarily furnishes no more than a single meal a day. If more than one meal a day is customarily furnished by the employer all such meals must be taken into account in computing the regular rate of pay and the overtime compensation due.[12] In a situation where the employer furnishes three meals a day to his employees he may not, under § 548.3(d), omit one of the three meals in computing overtime compensation. However, if an employer furnishes a free lunch every day and, in addition, occasionally pays “supper money”[13] when the employees work overtime, the cost of the lunches and the supper money may both be excluded from the overtime rates.
[20 FR 5682, Aug. 6, 1955, as amended at 21 FR 338, Jan. 18, 1956] Footnotes -
548.304
[12] See § 531.37 of this chapter.
[13] See § 778.217(b)(4) of this chapter.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 3 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 3

To specify an expiration date for the authorization of use of military 
 force under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
 Resolution of 2002 and to authorize the continuing presence of United 
 States forces in Iraq after that date for certain military operations 
                            and activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2007

  Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
     read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
To specify an expiration date for the authorization of use of military 
 force under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
 Resolution of 2002 and to authorize the continuing presence of United 
 States forces in Iraq after that date for certain military operations 
                            and activities.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE 
              AGAINST IRAQ.

    The authority conveyed by the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) shall expire 
on December 31, 2007, unless otherwise provided in a Joint Resolution 
(other than Public Law 107-243) enacted by Congress.

SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN MILITARY OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES.

    Section 1 shall not be construed as prohibiting or limiting the 
presence of personnel or units of the Armed Forces of the United States 
in Iraq after December 31, 2007, for the following purposes:
            (1) Training, equipping, and advising Iraqi security and 
        police forces.
            (2) Force protection and security for United States Armed 
        Forces and civilian personnel.
            (3) Support of Iraqi security forces for border security 
        and protection, to be carried out with the minimum forces 
        required for that purpose.
            (4) Targeted counter-terrorism operations against al Qaeda 
        and foreign fighters within Iraq.
            (5) Logistical support in connection with activities under 
        paragraphs (1) through (4).
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7444

MICHAEL G. WARWICK , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 7:17

- cv - 00023

- JPJ

- RSB )

Submitted : February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Michael G. Warwick, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preceden t in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael G. Warwick seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner sati sfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 ( 2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Warwick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and le gal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED