alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(81 South. 199)

#### UPSHAW v. STATE.

(3 Div. 333.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 14, 1919.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery Connty; Leon McCord, Jndge.

Milton Upshaw was convicted .of grand larceny, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

W. R. Brassell and Brassell & Brassell, all of Montgomery, for appellant.

Emmett S. Thigpen, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of grand larceny.

This appeal is upon the record, without a bill of exceptions. An examination of the record discloses that the proceedings were regular in all things and are free from error. It follows that the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0240

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JASON RALPH EBY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 24, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 17 2023

04/17/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0240
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60671

Summary Calendar

ADRIAN HARPER,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A027 517 587

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Adrian Harper, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions this court for 

review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that a 

favorable exercise of discretion on Harper’s request for cancellation of removal 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) was not warranted. Harper argues that, in 

exercising its discretion, the BIA made erroneous findings concerning his 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 5, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60671 Document: 00514542248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2018
No. 17-60671

2

criminal history and failed to consider that he has filed a postconviction

challenge to his Texas conviction for evading arrest with a vehicle. 

Because Harper sought cancellation of removal under § 1229b, the 

jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) is implicated. See Rueda v. 

Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). That section provides that “no 

court shall have jurisdiction to review-- (i) any judgment regarding the 

granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this 

title.” § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). The BIA concluded that, under the facts of this case, 

Harper did “not merit a favorable exercise of discretion.” This court has no 

jurisdiction to review that purely discretionary decision. See § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); 

Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2006); Rueda, 380 

F.3d at 831. 

 Section 1252(a)(2)(B)’s jurisdictional bar is subject to § 1252(a)(2)(D), 

which provides that “nothing in subparagraph (B) . . . shall be construed as 

precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a 

petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance 

with this section.” Harper argues that this court has jurisdiction because his

procedural due process rights were violated when the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) failed to serve him with its appeal brief. The record 

makes clear that Harper received DHS’s appeal brief, he filed a response to it, 

and the BIA considered his response. He fails to state a cognizable due process 

claim. See Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, Harper’s petition for review is DISMISSED. His motion for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

 Case: 17-60671 Document: 00514542248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2018
Order entered April 9, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00161-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF P.Z.F., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-18-00558-X

ORDER

In accordance with our April 8, 2021 order, appellant has filed written 

verification he has requested the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER 

Pamela Sumler, Official Court Reporter for the 305th Judicial District Court, to file 

the record no later than April 19, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(b). Because this 

is an accelerated appeal in a parental termination case, the trial court must arrange 

for a substitute reporter if necessary to ensure the timely filing of the record. See 

id. 28.4(b)(1).
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the 

Honorable Cheryl Lee Shannon, Presiding Judge of the 305th Judicial District 

Court; Ms. Sumler; and, the parties.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
- 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 > Occupational Manpower and Training Needs

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics					,	Smith, Gerard Charles, 1938-					 and 	Crowley, Michael F. 						*Occupational Manpower and Training Needs : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1701*,												Washington, D.C: 								For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1971,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4794,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 1910.425 Surface-supplied air diving. ( a ) *General.* Employers engaged in surface-supplied air diving shall comply with the following requirements, unless otherwise specified.
( b ) *Limits.* ( 1 ) Surface-supplied air diving shall not be conducted at depths deeper than 190 fsw, except that dives with bottom times of 30 minutes or less may be conducted to depths of 220 fsw.
( 2 ) A decompression chamber shall be ready for use at the dive location for any dive outside the no-decompression limits or deeper than 100 fsw.
( 3 ) A bell shall be used for dives with an inwater decompression time greater than 120 minutes, except when heavy gear is worn or diving is conducted in physically confining spaces.
( c ) *Procedures.* ( 1 ) Each diver shall be continuously tended while in the water.
( 2 ) A diver shall be stationed at the underwater point of entry when diving is conducted in enclosed or physically confining spaces.
( 3 ) Each diving operation shall have a primary breathing gas supply sufficient to support divers for the duration of the planned dive including decompression.
( 4 ) For dives deeper than 100 fsw or outside the no-decompression limits: ( i ) A separate dive team member shall tend each diver in the water;
( ii ) A standby diver shall be available while a diver is in the water;
( iii ) A diver-carried reserve breathing gas supply shall be provided for each diver except when heavy gear is worn; and
( iv ) A dive-location reserve breathing gas supply shall be provided.
( 5 ) For heavy-gear diving deeper than 100 fsw or outside the no-decompression limits: ( i ) An extra breathing gas hose capable of supplying breathing gas to the diver in the water shall be available to the standby diver.
( ii ) An inwater stage shall be provided to divers in the water.
( 6 ) Except when heavy gear is worn or where physical space does not permit, a diver-carried reserve breathing gas supply shall be provided whenever the diver is prevented by the configuration of the dive area from ascending directly to the surface.
Exhibit 23 -- Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



K-V Pharmaceutical Company
St. Louis, Missouri



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Numbers 2-56793, 2-76173, 33-46400, 33-44927,
333-00199 and 333-48252) of our reports dated May 18, 2001, relating to the
consolidated financial statement and schedule of K-V Pharmaceutical Company
appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K as of and for the year
ended March 31, 2001.


                                   /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
June 27, 2001
#### § 2570.151 In general.

If there is an attempt to assert state jurisdiction or the application of state law, either by the issuance of a state administrative or court subpoena to, or the initiation of administrative or judicial proceedings against, a plan or other arrangement that alleges it is covered by title I of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1003, the plan or other arrangement may petition the Secretary to make a finding under section 3(40)(A)(i) of ERISA that it is a plan established or maintained under or pursuant to an agreement or agreements that the Secretary finds to be collective bargaining agreements for purposes of section 3(40) of ERISA.
§ 408.1 Definitions. ( a ) *Corresponding principal officers* shall include any person or persons performing or authorized to perform principal executive functions corresponding to those of president and treasurer, of any labor organization which has assumed or imposed a trusteeship over a labor organization within the meaning of section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
( b ) *Trusteeship* means any receivership, trusteeship, or other method of supervision or control whereby a labor organization suspends the autonomy otherwise available to a subordinate body under its constitution or bylaws.
( c ) *Policy determining body* means any body which is convened by the parent labor organization or other labor organization which is composed of delegates from labor organizations and which formulates policy on such matters as wages, hours, or other conditions of employment or recommends or takes any action in the name of the participating labor organizations. Such a body includes, for example, a district council, area conference or joint board.
November 29, 1999


Via Certified Mail

Mr. J. Dean Presson
Vice President National City Bank
Corporate Trust Administration
629 Euclid Avenue, Suite 635

Cleveland, OH  4414

Re:      Lilly Industries, Inc. Rights Agreement

Dear Mr. Presson:

Pursuant to Section 21 of that certain  Rights  Agreement  by and between  Lilly
Industries,  Inc. ("Lilly") and KeyCorp Shareholder Services,  Inc. ("KeyCorp"),
dated as of January 12, 1996 (the  "Agreement"),  Lilly hereby  provides  notice
that, effective December 6, 1999, KeyCorp shall be removed as Rights Agent under
this  Agreement.  Pursuant to Section 21 of the  Agreement,  Lilly has appointed
National City Bank to be the successor  Rights Agent effective as of December 6,
1999. For your records, please find enclosed a copy of the Rights Agreement.

Sincerely,



John C. Elbin

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Secretary

Encls.
JCE/la

119905


<PAGE>



November 29, 1999



Via Certified Mail

Corporate Trust Officer
KeyCorp Shareholder Services, Inc.
127 Public Square, 15th Floor

Cleveland, OH  4414

Re:      Lilly Industries, Inc. Rights Agreement

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Section 21 of that certain  Rights  Agreement  by and between  Lilly
Industries,  Inc. ("Lilly") and KeyCorp Shareholder Services,  Inc. ("KeyCorp"),
dated as of January 12, 1996 (the  "Agreement"),  Lilly hereby  provides  notice
that effective  December 6, 1999, KeyCorp shall be removed as Rights Agent under
this Agreement.

Sincerely,



John C. Elbin

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Secretary
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40391

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Branon Romez Ware, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:18-CR-37-12

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Branon Romez Ware challenges his conviction for possession with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine near a playground in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 860(a). For the first time on appeal, he argues that 

the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea because there was an 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 11, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40391 Document: 00515974971 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
No. 20-40391

2

inadequate factual basis showing that his offense occurred near a playground 

as that term is defined in § 860(e)(1).

Ware did not object to the lack of a factual basis for his plea in the 

district court, so his claim is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Ortiz, 

927 F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Absent a defendant’s objection in the 

district court, this court reviews the factual basis of a guilty plea for plain 

error.”). To meet the four prongs of plain error, Ware must show (1) the 

district court erred in accepting his guilty plea without a factual basis; (2) the 

error was plain; (3) there is a reasonable probability that but for the error, he 

would not have pleaded guilty; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity or public reputation of the proceedings. United States v. SanchezHernandez, 931 F.3d 408, 410 (5th Cir. 2019).

Ware cannot meet any of these requirements. He signed a factual basis 

that provided: “I agree and stipulate that this transaction took place within 

1000 feet of the real property comprising Herschell Beck Municipal Park, a 

public park containing a playground.” That matches the “playground” 

element found in § 860(a), and therefore, the district court did not err. Even 

if the district court did err, any error was not plain because Ware cites no 

legal authority to show that a factual basis must include the definition of a 

“playground” in § 860(e)(1)—nor does Ware contest that Herschell Beck 

Municipal Park’s playground in fact satisfies that definition. And in all 

events, Ware has not shown that there is a “reasonable probability that, but 

for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Jones, 969 

F.3d 192, 199 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 

542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004)). These failures preclude a finding of plain error. See 

id.; Sanchez-Hernandez, 931 F.3d at 410.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-40391 Document: 00515974971 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
§ 501.16 Sanctions and remedies—general. Whenever the WHD Administrator believes that 8 U.S.C. 1188, 20 CFR part 655, subpart B, or this part have been violated, such action shall be taken and such proceedings instituted as deemed appropriate, including, but not limited to, the following: ( a ) ( 1 ) Institute appropriate administrative proceedings, including: the recovery of unpaid wages (including recovery of recruitment fees paid in the absence of required contract clauses (*see* 20 CFR 655.135(k)); the enforcement of provisions of the work contract, 8 U.S.C. 1188, 20 CFR part 655, subpart B, or this part; the assessment of a civil money penalty; make whole relief for any person who has been discriminated against; reinstatement and make whole relief for any U.S. worker who has been improperly rejected for employment, or improperly laid off or displaced; or debarment for up to 3 years.
( 2 ) The remedies referenced in paragraph (a)(1) of this section will be sought either directly from the employer, agent, or attorney, or from its successor in interest, as appropriate. In the case of an H-2ALC, the remedies will be sought from the H-2ALC directly and/or monetary relief (other than civil money penalties) from the insurer who issued the surety bond to the H-2ALC, as required by 20 CFR part 655, subpart B, and § 501.9.
( b ) Petition any appropriate District Court of the United States for temporary or permanent injunctive relief, including to prohibit the withholding of unpaid wages and/or for reinstatement, or to restrain violation of 8 U.S.C. 1188, 20 CFR part 655, subpart B, or this part, by any person.
( c ) Petition any appropriate District Court of the United States for an order directing specific performance of covered contractual obligations.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

PENNY LILLY , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 982

[ April 8 , 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Samantha Schosberg Feuer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2020

- MH

- 000779

- XXXX

- SB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and L.K.S. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Barbara A. Junge,
As sistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

L EVINE , C.J., G ROSS and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Nathan Freedman, Appellant, *v.*New York Society for the Suppression of Vice et al., Respondents.

Argued April 29,1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*Jas. Madison Blackwell*and *Martín A. Nathanson*for appellant.

*Lee Hazen*for New York Civil Liberties Committee, *amicus curice.*

*Martin Conboy, David Asch*and *Francis X. Walsh*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
§ 503.45 Service of pleadings. ( a ) Under this part, a party may serve any pleading or document by regular mail. Service on a party is complete upon mailing to the last known address. No additional time for filing or response is authorized where service is by mail. In the interest of expeditious proceedings, the ALJ may direct the parties to serve pleadings or documents by a method other than regular mail.
( b ) Two copies of all pleadings and other documents in any ALJ proceeding must be served on the attorneys for the Administrator, WHD. One copy must be served on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2716, Washington, DC 20210, and one copy must be served on the attorney representing the Administrator in the proceeding.
( c ) Time will be computed beginning with the day following service and includes the last day of the period unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federally-observed holiday, in which case the time period includes the next business day.
Order entered July 19, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00476
- CV
EX PARTE: RAYMOND TERRELL RADW AY On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV
- 12
- 1244



### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s July 17, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief on or before August 21, 2013.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
#### § 4003.2 Definitions.

The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: Code, contributing sponsor, controlled group, ERISA, multiemployer plan, PBGC, person, plan administrator, and single-employer plan.

In addition, for purposes of this part:

*Aggrieved person* means any participant, beneficiary, plan administrator, contributing sponsor of a single-employer plan or member of such a contributing sponsor's controlled group, plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan, or employer that is adversely affected by an initial determination of PBGC with respect to a pension plan in which such person has an interest. The term “beneficiary” includes an alternate payee (within the meaning of section 206(d)(3)(K) of ERISA) under a qualified domestic relations order (within the meaning of section 206(d)(3)(B) of ERISA).

*Appeals Board* means a board consisting of three PBGC officials. The Director will appoint a senior PBGC official to serve as Chairperson and three or more other PBGC officials to serve as regular Appeals Board members. The Chairperson will designate the three officials who will constitute the Appeals Board with respect to a case, provided that a person may not serve on the Appeals Board with respect to a case in which he or she made a decision regarding the merits of the determination being appealed. The Chairperson need not serve on the Appeals Board with respect to all cases.

*Appellant* means any person filing an appeal under subpart D of this part.

*Director* means the Director of any department of PBGC and includes the Director of PBGC, Deputy Directors, and the General Counsel.

[61 FR 34012, July 1, 1996, as amended at 73 FR 38120, July 3, 2008; 85 FR 10284, Feb. 24, 2020]
§ 500.122 Adjustments in insurance requirements when workers' compensation coverage is provided under State law. ( a ) If a farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural association referred to in § 500.120 is the employer of a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker for purposes of a State workers' compensation law and such employer provides workers' compensation coverage for such worker in the case of bodily injury or death as provided by such State law, the following adjustments in the insurance requirements relating to having an insurance policy or liability bond apply: ( 1 ) Except as provided in § 500.123, no vehicle liability insurance policy or liability bond shall be required of the employer, if such worker is transported only under circumstances for which there is coverage under such State law.
( 2 ) A liability insurance policy or liability bond shall be required of the employer for circumstances under which coverage for the transportation of such worker is not provided under such State law.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) A farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural association who is the employer of a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker may evidence the issuance of workers' compensation insurance and passenger insurance under paragraph (a) of this section by obtaining and making available upon request to the Department of Labor: ( 1 ) A workers' compensation coverage policy of insurance; and
( 2 ) A certificate of liability insurance covering transportation of all passengers who are not employees and of workers whose transportation by the employer is not covered by workers' compensation insurance. See § 500.121.
( d ) In the absence of the insurance certificate referred to under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the Department of Labor will look to the actual policy of insurance or liability bond in determining compliance with the Act and these regulations.
[48 FR 36741, Aug. 12, 1983, as amended at 56 FR 30327, July 2, 1991; 61 FR 24866, May 16, 1996]