alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 6
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 6 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 6.19 Decision of the Administrative Law Judge. ( a ) *Proposed findings of fact, conclusions, and order.* Within 20 days of filing of the transcript of the testimony or such additional time as the Administrative Law Judge may allow each party may file with the Administrative Law Judge proposed findings of fact, conclusion of law, and order, together with a supporting brief expressing the reasons for such proposals. Such proposals and brief shall be served on all parties, and shall refer to all portions of the record and to all authorities relied upon in support of each proposal.
( b ) *Decision of the Administrative Law Judge.* ( 1 ) Within a reasonable time after the time allowed for the filing of proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, or within 30 days after receipt of an agreement containing consent findings and order disposing of the disputed matter in whole, the Administrative Law Judge shall make his/her decision. If any aggrieved party desires review of the decision, a petition for review thereof shall be filed as provided in § 6.20 of this title, and such decision and order shall be inoperative unless and until the Administrative Review Board issues an order affirming the decision. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, with reasons and bases therefor, upon each material issue of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge shall be based upon a consideration of the whole record, including any admissions made under §§ 6.16, 6.17 and 6.18 of this title. It shall be supported by reliable and probative evidence. Such decision shall be in accordance with the regulations and rulings contained in parts 4 and 5 and other pertinent parts of this title.
( 2 ) If the respondent is found to have violated the Service Contract Act, the Administrative Law Judge shall include in his/her decision an order as to whether the respondent is to be relieved from the ineligible list as provided in section 5(a) of the Act, and, if relief is ordered, findings of the unusual circumstance, within the meaning of section 5(a) of the Act, which are the basis therefor. If respondent is found to have violated the provisions of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an order as to whether the respondent is to be subject to the ineligible list as provided in § 5.12(a)(1) of part 4 of this title, including findings regarding the existence of aggravated or willful violations. If wages and/or fringe benefits are found due under the Service Contract Act and/or the Contract Work Safety Standards Act and are unpaid, no relief from the ineligible list shall be ordered except on condition that such wages and/or fringe benefits are paid.
( 3 ) The Administrative Law Judge shall make no findings regarding liquidated damages under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
- 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 > Women in the Economy of the United States of America: A Summary Report

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Pidgeon, Mary Elizabeth. 						*Women in the Economy of the United States of America: A Summary Report : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 155*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1937,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5429,			accessed on September 6, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 38.27 Covenants. ( a ) Where WIOA Title I financial assistance is provided in the form of a transfer of real property, structures, or improvements on real property or structures, or interests in real property or structures, the instrument effecting or recording the transfer must contain a covenant assuring nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for the period described in § 38.25(a)(1).
( b ) Where no Federal transfer of real property or interest therein from the Federal Government is involved, but real property or an interest therein is acquired or improved under a program of WIOA Title I financial assistance, the recipient must include the covenant described in paragraph (a) of this section in the instrument effecting or recording any subsequent transfer of such property.
( c ) When the property is obtained from the Federal Government, the covenant described in paragraph (a) of this section also may include a condition coupled with a right of reverter to the Department in the event of a breach of the covenant.
### Ground water of the Lower Lake-Middletown area, Lake County, California

By: Joseph Edwin UpsonFred Kunkel

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1297

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
IIA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 39 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish 

the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of 

the President and Vice President of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2008 

Mr. NELSON of Florida introduced the following joint resolution; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to abolish the electoral college and to provide 

for the direct popular election of the President and Vice 

President of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•SJ 39 IS 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 by the Congress: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The President and Vice President shall 

5 be jointly elected by the direct vote of the qualified electors 

6 of the several States and territories and the District con7 stituting the seat of Government of the United States. The 

8 electors in each State, territory, and the District consti9 tuting the seat of Government of the United States shall 

10 have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most 

11 numerous branch of the legislative body where they reside. 

12 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress may determine the time, 

13 place, and manner of holding the election, the entitlement 

14 to inclusion on the ballot, and the manner in which the 

15 results of the election shall be ascertained and declared.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 7 , 2015 

# Order

Clerk April 7 , 2015

150206 (6 8 )

JENNY N. GLAUBIUS,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 150206

v COA: 318750

Macomb CC Family Division:

2012

- 004307

- DM

JOHN A. GLAUBIUS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the second motion of plaintiff

- appellee to extend the

time for filing her brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief will be accep ted as timely

filed if submitted on or before May 7 , 2015.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12933]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Environmental Management; Environmental Management 
Site-Specific Advisory Board; Notice of Renewal

    Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and in accordance with title 41 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, Section 101-6.1015(a), and following consultation 
with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services 
Administration, notice is hereby given that the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board has been renewed for a two-year 
period beginning May 16, 2000.
    The purpose of the Board is to provide the Assistant Secretary for 
Environmental Management with advice and recommendations on 
environmental management projects and issues such as future use, risk 
management, transportation, long-term stewardship, and budget 
prioritization activities, from the perspective of affected groups and 
State and local government. Board membership will reflect the full 
diversity of views in the affected community and region and be composed 
primarily of people who are directly affected by Department of Energy 
(DOE) site cleanup activities. Members will include potentially 
affected and interested stakeholders from local government, Indian 
Tribes, environmental and civic groups, labor organizations, 
universities, waste management and environmental restoration firms, and 
other interested parties. Representatives from the DOE, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and State governments will be ex-
officio members of the Board. Selection and appointment of Board 
members will be accomplished using procedures designed to ensure 
diverse membership and a balance of viewpoints. Consensus 
recommendations to the DOE from the Board on the resolution of numerous 
and difficult issues will help achieve DOE's objective of an integrated 
environmental management program.
    The Secretary of Energy has determined that renewal of the 
Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board is necessary in 
order to conduct DOE's business and is in the public interest. The 
Board will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, and the rules and regulations issued in the 
implementation of those acts.
    Further information regarding this advisory board may be obtained 
from Rachel M. Samuel at (202) 586-3279.

    Issued in Washington DC on May 16, 2000.
James N. Solit,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12933 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### Page & Stivers *vs*Prentice & Weisinger,

*Sept.*4.

Error to the Jefferson Circuit.

*Bills of Exchange. Notice.*

Case stated.

The place where a bill of exchange is dated, is *prima facie*evidence that such place is the residence of the drawer or payee, and in the *8absence of proof to the contrary, notice directed to him at that place is sufficient to change him.

*7Judge Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The defect in the preparation of this suit for which the judgment was formerly reversed, (3 *B. Mon.*461,) having. been supplied, a verdict and judgment were again rendered in favor of the plaintiffs; and the only question now presented by the record which was not decided when the case was formerly here, grows out of the fact, that there is no express evidence that Page, the payee of the bill, resided at Louisville, to' which place the notice of protest and non-payment, was directed to him by the Notary at Nashville, where the bill was presented to the acceptor for payment. The facts that [the bill was dated at Louisville, and that process in this áuit was served upon Page in Jefferson county, in which Louisville is situated, are relied on as being sufficient in the absence of all other evidence, to authorize the conclusion that the notice was properly directed; and thus to make out due diligence'in that respect, and to justify the opinion of the Court in overruling the motion for a non-suit, and deciding that the evidence was sufficient to authorize a recovery.

The ease of *Dickens*vs *Beal,*(10 *Peters,*574,) is understood as establishing the position that if upon due enquiry the Notary is unable to ascertain the residence of the drawer or endorser, he may direct the notice to the place at which the bill is dated; and that this will be sufficient, though the party to be notified resides at *8another place. From which it is to be implied that the date of the bill furnishes some evidence of the residence of the payee; and as the service of process in Jefferson county undoubtedly furnishes some evidence of the party’s residence in that county, and as moreover it must always be easy for the party to rebut the inference from these facts if it be not true. We think these facts should be deemed sufficient in the absence of all opposing evidence to authorize the conclusion that the notice was properly directed to Page at Louisville.

*Guthrie*for plaintiffs. *Duncan*for defendants.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 11 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 11

 Electing Terrance W. Gainer as the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of 
                              the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Electing Terrance W. Gainer as the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of 
                              the Senate.

    Resolved, That Terrance W. Gainer of Illinois be, and he is hereby, 
elected Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
§ 779.227 Conditions which must be met for exception. This exception, in accordance with its specific terms, will apply to exclude an establishment from enterprise coverage only if the following conditions are met: ( a ) The establishment must be a “retail or service establishment” as this term is defined in section 13(a)(2) of the Act (see discussion of this term in §§ 779.312 and 779.313); and
( b ) The retail or service establishment must not be an “enterprise” which is large enough to come within the scope of section 3(s) of the Act; and
( c ) The retail or service establishment must be under independent ownership.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20352]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

DATE: August 5, 2011.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Thursday, August 11, 2011.

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following in open session: Secretary of Labor v. Bill Simola, employed 
by United Taconite, LLC, Docket No. LAKE 2010-128-M. (Issues include 
whether an agent of a limited liability company can be liable for a 
civil penalty under section 110(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and 
Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 820(c).)
    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 
for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Emogene Johnson,
Administrative Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2011-20352 Filed 8-5-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
#### § 779.103 Employees “engaged in commerce.”

Employees are “engaged in commerce” within the meaning of the Act when they are performing work involving or related to the movement of persons or things (whether tangibles or intangibles, and including information and intelligence) among the several States or between any State and any place outside thereof. (The statutory definition of commerce is contained in section 3(b) of the Act and is set forth in § 779.12.) The courts have made it clear that this includes every employee employed in the channels of such commerce or in activities so closely related to this commerce, as to be considered a part of it as a practical matter. (Court cases are cited in the discussion of this term in §§ 776.9-776.13 of this chapter). Typically, but not exclusively, employees engaged in interstate or foreign commerce include employees in distributing industries, such as wholesaling or retailing, who sell, handle or otherwise work on goods moving in interstate commerce as well as workers who order, receive, pack, ship, or keep records of such goods; clerical and other workers who regularly use the mails, telephone or telegraph for interstate communication; and employees who regularly travel across State lines while working.
2/4/2016 

To: US Dept. of Transportation 

Docket Management Systems 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 3 

Washington, DC 200590 ; t; 

We are resubmitting our application for section 333 exemption status for BuzzBy Drones, LLC and Drone Buzzings, LLC 

which was originally postmarked by USPS on August 24tfttfrb~gh second day mail tracking number 

23150610000007394274. The purpose for resubmitting our application is two fold. First, the time period stated on the 

FAA.gov website in the questions frequently asked section quoted below: 

I just submitted a Petition for Exemption for my UAS. How long does the process take? 

A. The FAA requires a reasonable amount of time to conduct the study. Whenever possible, all efforts are 

made to handle proposals expeditiously. Under current regulations, a petitioner requesting a Section 333 

exemption is advised to make the request 120 days prior to the date they anticipate needed it for 

operations. To inquire about the status of a petition for exemption, please email 333exemptions@faa.gov" 

lists a 120 day waiting period after submission. Realizing this is not a hard and fast time period. We felt that the time 

elapsed (160 +days) from when we submitted our application was a reasonable amount of time. We then looked at 

recently granted applications and found several that were submitted a couple of months after ours were postmarked. 

This caused us to investigate and inquire as to the status of our submission. We sent several inquiries through the link 

from the website listed above and received no response. We then decided to double check our digital copy of the 

application to see if there were any issues which we might have overlooked or omitted which may have caused the 

application granting process to be delayed. 

In reviewing the digital copy we did not find any issues that we felt should have caused any questionable delays. This led 

us to review the printed hard copy and we found that page 5 of the application that we submitted may have possibly 

been inserted into the wrong application according to the company issuing the application. In other words BuzzBy 

Drones, LLC information on page 5 could have been inserted into Drone Buzzings, LLC application page 5 and viceversa. 

Therefore the second reason for resubmitting the application is to reduce confusion and help speed up the granting 

process by making sure the application was not mistakenly collated. 

We thank you for your quick attention to this request and resubmission. 

" ;· ~1 3

_.,. l./. / . -··· . 

. L ~~ ' 1 ~-- iJCl-f-·jZo'" 

La ce t ins, President BuzzBy Drones, LLC Chris Pierson, President Drone Buzzings, LLC 

BuzzByDrones@gmail.com DroneBuzzings@gmail.com
#### § 530.9 Records and reports.

The issuance of a certificate shall not relieve the employer of the duty of maintaining the records required in the regulations in part 516 of this chapter and failure to keep such records shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of certificates issued to such an employer.