alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Floods of April-June 1953 in Louisiana and adjacent states

By: J. V. B. Wells

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1320C

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Floods of April-June 1953, Sabine River basin, Texas and Louisiana, and Neches River basin, Texas(1955)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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.
§ 570.59 Occupations involved in the operation of power-driven metal forming, punching, and shearing machines (Order 8). ( a ) *Finding and declaration of fact.* The following occupations are particularly hazardous for the employment of minors between 16 and 18 years of age: ( 1 ) The occupations of operator of or helper on the following power-driven metal forming, punching, and shearing machines: ( i ) All rolling machines, such as beading, straightening, corrugating, flanging, or bending rolls; and hot or cold rolling mills.
( ii ) All pressing or punching machines, such as punch presses except those provided with full automatic feed and ejection and with a fixed barrier guard to prevent the hands or fingers of the operator from entering the area between the dies; power presses; and plate punches.
( iii ) All bending machines, such as apron brakes and press brakes.
( iv ) All hammering machines, such as drop hammers and power hammers.
( v ) All shearing machines, such as guillotine or squaring shears; alligator shears; and rotary shears.
( 2 ) The occupations of setting up, adjusting, repairing, oiling, or cleaning these machines including those with automatic feed and ejection.
( b ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) The term *operator* shall mean a person who operates a machine covered by this section by performing such functions as starting or stopping the machine, placing materials into or removing them from the machine, or any other functions directly involved in operation of the machine.
( 2 ) The term *helper* shall mean a person who assists in the operation of a machine covered by this section by helping place materials into or remove them from the machine.
( 3 ) The term *forming, punching, and shearing machines* shall mean power-driven metal-working machines, other than machine tools, which change the shape of or cut metal by means of tools, such as dies, rolls, or knives which are mounted on rams, plungers, or other moving parts. Types of forming, punching, and shearing machines enumerated in this section are the machines to which the designation is by custom applied.
( c ) *Exemptions.* This section shall not apply to the employment of apprentices or student-learners under the conditions prescribed in § 570.50 (b) and (c).
[16 FR 7008, July 20, 1951, as amended at 25 FR 9848, Oct. 14, 1960. Redesignated at 28 FR 1634, Feb. 21, 1963, and amended at 28 FR 3449, Apr. 9, 1963. Redesignated at 36 FR 25156, Dec. 29, 1971]
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF DIOMED HOLDINGS, INC. (REGISTRANT)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, James A. Wylie, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify
      to the best of my knowledge and belief pursuant to Section 906 of
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that:

      (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
      2006, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      result of operations of the Registrant.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter
63 title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.

Date:  May 12, 2006                             /s/ JAMES A. WYLIE, JR.
                                                --------------------------------
                                                   James A. Wylie, Jr.
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS (AUDITED) AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND MARCH 31, 2000 (UNAUDITED), AND
STATEMENTS OF OPERAIIONS (AUDITED) FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND MARCH
31, 2000 (UNAUDITED), AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          81,524
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     80,876
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               313,507
<PP&E>                                         643,265
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,053,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          324,320
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,123,975
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,053,922
<SALES>                                         81,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,860
<CGS>                                           51,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  227,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (205,445)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (205,445)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (205,445)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
#### GOODYEAR HEIGHTS REALTY CO v FURRY et

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No. 1747.

Decided December 2, 1929

Messrs. Benner, Harter & Watters, Akron, for Realty Co.

Mr. O. H.. Corvington, Akron, for Furry et.

Syllabus by

PARDEE, J.

1. Restrictions in a deed that the lot conveyed thereby “shall be used for private residence purposes only,” do not prevent the erection upon said lot of more than one residence.

2. The sale and conveyance of lots in an allotment by their numbers upon a recorded plat, to which reference is made in the deeds of conveyance, do not establish a common plan or scheme for the allotment, that the lots sold shall not be subdivided by the purchasers.

3. The sale and conveyance of a lot by its number upon a recorded plat, to which- reference is made in the deed, do not imply a covenant that the purchaser may not subdivide the lot so purchased by him.

4. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the purchaser of a lot by reference to its number upon a recorded plat, may subdivide the lot conveyed to him.

5. In construing the claims by which it is sought to impress upon lots of an allotment an implied covenant that the lots may not be subdivided by a purchaser, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the free use of said lots.

Full opinion will be published later. Watch Omnibus Index.
#### In the Matter of Ira Fink, Appellant, against James E. Finegan et al., Constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.

Argued September 30, 1937;

decided October 19, 1937.

*592
      *Arthur G. Syran*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Edmund L. Palmieri, Paxton Blair*and *Robert H. Schaffer*of counsel), for respondents.

Order of Appellate Division and that of the Special Term reversed, and a peremptory order of mandamus compelling re-examination in accordance with *Matter of Fink*v. *Finegan*(270 N. Y. 356) and *Matter of Sloat*v. *Board of Examiners*(274 N. Y. 367), granted, with costs to the appellant in all courts. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Lotjghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 49443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20306]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-972, A-583-848]


Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the People's 
Republic of China, and Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary 
Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Stewart at (202) 482-0768 or 
Hermes Pinilla at (202) 482-3477 (Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Office 5; 
Maisha Cryor at (202) 482-5831 or Shaun Higgins at (202) 482-0679 
(People's Republic of China), AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Postponement of Preliminary Determinations

    On April 20, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
initiated the antidumping duty investigations on certain stilbenic 
optical brightening agents from the People's Republic of China and 
Taiwan. See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the 
People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 76 FR 23554 (April 27, 2011). The notice of initiation 
stated that the Department would issue its preliminary determinations 
for these investigations no later than 140 days after the issuance of 
the initiation in accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1) unless 
postponed.
    On July 29, 2011, Clariant Corporation (the petitioner) made a 
timely request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for 
postponement of the preliminary determinations in these investigations. 
The petitioner requested a 50-day postponement of the preliminary 
determinations in order to allow the Department additional time to 
resolve a number of complex issues in these investigations.
    The petitioner submitted a request for postponement of the 
preliminary determinations more than 25 days before the scheduled date 
of the preliminary determinations. Therefore, because the petitioner 
provided reasons for its request and the Department finds no compelling 
reasons to deny the request, the Department is postponing the deadline 
for the preliminary determinations in accordance with section 
733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) by 50 days to 
October 27, 2011. The deadline for the final determinations will 
continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations 
unless extended.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: August 4, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-20306 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust
(the Trust), does hereby certify, to its knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
June 30, 2012 (the Form 10-K) of the Trust fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.

U.S. TRUST, BANK OF AMERICA PRIVATE WEALTH MANAGEMENT, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE OF MARINE PETROLEUM TRUST



|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|/s/ Ron E. Hooper                                                           
|Ron E. Hooper                                                               
|Senior Vice President, U.S. Trust, Bank of America Private Wealth Management

Dated: September 25, 2012

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not
incorporated by reference into any filings of the Trust, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.169 Wage payments—work subject to different rates.

If an employee during a workweek works in different capacities in the performance of the contract and two or more rates of compensation under section 2 of the Act are applicable to the classes of work which he or she performs, the employee must be paid the highest of such rates for all hours worked in the workweek unless it appears from the employer's records or other affirmative proof which of such hours were included in the periods spent in each class of work. The rule is the same where such an employee is employed for a portion of the workweek in work not subject to the Act, for which compensation at a lower rate would be proper if the employer by his records or other affirmative proof, segregated the worktime thus spent.
F r o m : " S t e i n w u r t z e l

, Robe r t N

. " < r s t e i n w u r t z el @ ba k e r la w

. c o m>

T o : Chu c k

F r en c h / R T P / U SEP A

/ U S @ EP A

C c : Ru ss e ll K e m p < rk e m p @ e n v i r on c o r p

. c o m>

, " DeLaqu i l

, M a r k " < m d e l aqui l @ ba k e r l a w

. c o m>

,

" S t e i n w u r t z el

, Robe r t N

. "

< r s t e i n w u r t z el @ ba k e r l a w

. c o m>

Da t e : 03 / 21 / 2011 11 : 00 A M

S ub j e c t : AB R C o m m en t s : M A C T / RR

Chu ck

, p l ea s e f i nd a tt a c hed ou r c o m m en t s i n r e s pon s e t o t he m e rc u r y and p l a s t i c s i ss u e s t ha t w e

d i s c u s s ed l a s t w e e k

. P l ea s e l e t m e k no w i f y ou h a v e a n y que s t i on s r ega r d i ng t he i n f o r m a t i on p r o v i ded i n

t he a tt a c h m en t

. Rega r d s

, Robe r t.

T h i s e m ail i s i n t ended on l y f o r t he u s e o f t he pa r t y t o w h i c h i t i s add r e ss e d and m a y c on t a i n i n f o r m a t i on

t ha t i s p r i v i l eged

, c o n f i den t i a l

, o r p r o t e c t ed b y l a w

. I f y o u a r e no t t he i n t ended r e c i p i en t y ou a r e he r eb y

no t i f i ed t ha t an y d i ss e m i na t i on

, c op y i ng o r d i s t r i bu t i o n o f t h i s e m a i l o r i t s c on t en t s i s s t r i c t l y p r oh i b i t ed

. I f y o u h a v e r e c ei v e d t h i s m e ss age i n e rr o r

, p l ea s e no t i f y u s i m m e d i a t e l y b y r ep l y i ng t o t he m e ss age and

de l e t i ng i t f r o m y ou r c o m pu t e r

. I n t e r ne t c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a r e no t a s s u r ed t o be s e c u r e o r c l ea r o f

i na cc u r a c i e s a s i n f o r m a t i on c ou l d b e i n t e rc ep t ed

, c o r r up t ed

, l o s t, de s t r o y ed

, a r r i v e l a t e o r i n c o m p l e t e

, o r

c on t a i n v i r u s e s . T he r e f o r e

, w e do no t a cc ep t r e s po n s i bi l i t y f o r an y e rr o r s o r o m i ss i on s t ha t a r e

p r e s en t i n t h i s e m a i l

, o r an y a t t a c h m en t

, t ha t h a v e a r i s en a s a r e s u l t o f e

- m a i l t r an s m i ss i on

.

(S ee a tt a c hed f i l e : S ende r

_ M

. p d f )
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18

- 3398

_____________________________

L EEPHOR S PIVEY

, J R

.

Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Mark Borello, Judge.

July 2, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

W ETHERELL

, O STERHAUS

, and W INOKUR

, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or

9.331

.

_____________________________2 Leephor Spivey, Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### FARLEY, Admr v BROWN

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Oct. 11, 1929

John Schlarb, Youngstown, for Farley.

James Brown, for Brown,

POLLOCK, J.

It is urged that this was improper, that this is not a book account at all, and can not be so considered. We call counsel’s attention to 10 R^ C. L., 376, after some other reference as to what may be prescribed, the authority says:

> “No mode is prescribed by law in which a book must be,kept to make it evidence, and the question of competency must be determined by the appearance and character of the book, regard being had to the degree of education of the party, the nature of his employment, the manner of his charges against other people, and all the circumstances of the case.

Again:

> “Several scraps of paper may be admitted in evidence as a book of original entries where sworn to as such.”

> “It seems that an account book, kept by one unable to write, in which the only entries are straight marks to indicate the number of the articles delivered, is admissible in evidence when supported by oath. A shingle upon which a woodman kept an account of the quantity of timber hewn by him — ”,

In fact, these entries on the calendar were made by Brown at the time and were intended as his account book. Taking into consideration the character of the subject matter and the person making them, it can be used as a book account.

The same rules may be found ih 22 C. J„ 868, Sec. 1042; 4 Jones on Evidence, 2 Ed., 3299.

We think there was no error committed by the trial court in admitting this book account in evidence.

Roberts and Farr, JJ., concur.
#### § 4221.11 Waiver of rules.

Any party that fails to object in writing in a timely manner to any deviation from any provision of this part is deemed to have waived the right to interpose that objection thereafter.
§ 29.12 Complaints. ( a ) This section is not applicable to any complaint concerning discrimination or other equal opportunity matters; all such complaints must be submitted, processed and resolved in accordance with applicable provisions in 29 CFR part 30, or applicable provisions of a State Plan for Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship adopted pursuant to 29 CFR part 30 and approved by the Department.
( b ) Except for matters described in paragraph (a) of this section, any controversy or difference arising under an apprenticeship agreement which cannot be adjusted locally and which is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, may be submitted by an apprentice, or the apprentice's authorized representative, to the appropriate Registration Authority, either Federal or State, which has registered and/or approved the program in which the apprentice is enrolled, for review. Matters covered by a collective bargaining agreement are not subject to such review.
( c ) The complaint must be in writing and signed by the complainant, or authorized representative, and must be submitted within 60 days of the final local decision. It must set forth the specific matter(s) complained of, together with relevant facts and circumstances. Copies of pertinent documents and correspondence must accompany the complaint.
( d ) The Office of Apprenticeship or recognized State Apprenticeship Agency, as appropriate, will render an opinion within 90 days after receipt of the complaint, based upon such investigation of the matters submitted as may be found necessary, and the record before it. During the 90-day period, the Office of Apprenticeship or recognized State Apprenticeship Agency will make reasonable efforts to effect a satisfactory resolution between the parties involved. If so resolved, the parties will be notified that the case is closed. Where an opinion is rendered, copies will be sent to all interested parties.
( e ) Nothing in this section precludes an apprentice from pursuing any other remedy authorized under another Federal, State, or local law.
( f ) A State Apprenticeship Agency may adopt a complaint review procedure differing in detail from that given in this section provided it is submitted for review and approval by the Office of Apprenticeship.