alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 500.80 Payroll records required. ( a ) Each farm labor contractor, agricultural employer and agricultural association which employs any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker shall make and keep the following records with respect to each worker including the name, permanent address, and Social Security number: ( 1 ) The basis on which wages, are paid;
( 2 ) The number of piecework units earned, if paid on a piecework basis;
( 3 ) The number of hours worked;
( 4 ) The total pay period earnings;
( 5 ) The specific sums withheld and the purpose of each sum withheld; and
( 6 ) The net pay.
( b ) Each farm labor contractor, agricultural employer and agricultural association which employs any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker shall preserve all payroll records with respect to each such worker for a period of three years.
( c ) When a farm labor contractor furnishes any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker, and the farm labor contractor is the employer, the farm labor contractor must furnish the agricultural employer, agricultural association or other farm labor contractor to whom the workers are furnished, a copy of all payroll records required under paragraph (a) of this section which the farm labor contractor has made regarding such worker for that place of employment. The person receiving such records shall maintain them for a period of three years.
( d ) In addition to making records of this payroll information, the farm labor contractor, agricultural employer and agricultural association shall provide each migrant or seasonal agricultural worker employed with an itemized written statement of this information at the time of payment for each pay period which must be no less often than every two weeks (or semi-monthly). Such statement shall also include the employer's name, address, and employer identification number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service. This responsibility does not require needless duplication such as would occur if each provided the worker with a written itemized statement for the same work.
[No. 28491-0-II.

Division Two.

December 20, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jerry Lin Warfield, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Mason County, No. 01-1-00367-4, James B. Sawyer II, J., entered March 7, 2002. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12864]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-239-001]


Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 17, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 11, 2000 Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC (Pine 
Needle) tendered for filing information fully supporting the increase 
in its electric power cost rate. Pine Needle asserts that the purpose 
of this filing is to comply with the Commission's letter order dated 
April 26, 2000, in Docket No. RP00-239-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filling should file a protest 
with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. all such protests must be filed as 
provided in section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. 
This filing may be viewed on the web at http://ww.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12864 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 38.29 Recipients' obligations regarding Equal Opportunity Officers. All recipients have the following obligations related to their EO Officers: ( a ) Ensuring that the EO Officer is a senior-level employee reporting directly to the individual in the highest-level position of authority for the entity that is the recipient, such as the Governor, the Administrator of the State Department of Employment Services, the Chair of the Local Workforce Development Board, the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Operating Officer, or an equivalent official;
( b ) Designating an individual who can fulfill the responsibilities of an EO Officer as described in § 38.31;
( c ) Making the EO Officer's name, position title, address, and telephone number (voice and TDD/TTY) public;
( d ) Ensuring that the EO Officer's identity and contact information appear on all internal and external communications about the recipient's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity programs;
( e ) Assigning sufficient authority, staff, and resources to the EO Officer, and support of top management, to ensure compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA and this part; and
( f ) Ensuring that the EO Officer and the EO Officer's staff are afforded the opportunity to receive (at the recipient's expense) the training necessary and appropriate to maintain competency.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Goldrich Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Goldrich Mining Company.







/s/ Ted R. Sharp

DATE:  April 3, 2009

Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Goldrich Mining Company and will be retained by Goldrich Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE
                   LONGVIEW FIBRE COMPANY SALARIED SAVINGS PLAN AND
                             TRUST WITH 401(k) PROVISIONS

     WHEREAS, Longview Fibre Company (the "Company") approved and adopted the 
Longview Fibre Company Salaried Savings Plan (the "Plan") and Trust Agreement 
(the "Trust") which were originally effective June 1, 1977 and most recently 
restated effective November 1, 1990;

     WHEREAS, Section 19.1 of the Plan and Trust provides that the Company 
reserves the right to amend the Plan and Trust;

     NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

I.   Section 11.1 is amended by the addition of the following sentence at the
end thereof:

     Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no distributions are 
available to a Participant from the Mutual Benefit Fund unless and until 
permitted with respect to such Participant under the terms of the Plan 
of Rehabilitation of MBL Life Assurance Corporation ("Rehab Plan").

II.  The first sentence of Section 11.2 is amended in its entirety to read as 
follows:

     A Participant may elect to be paid in any of these forms:

    (a)  a single lump sum, or
    (b)  partial payments, limited to four per year, or
    (c)  periodic quarterly installments over a period not to exceed the life
         expectancy of the Participant and his or her Beneficiary, or
    (d)  in the case of a Participant with amounts held in the Mutual Benefit 
         Fund, such forms (other than an annuity) as are permitted under the 
         Rehab Plan, but administered in accordance with procedures 
         established by the Administrator.

Date:  December 7, 1995                LONGVIEW FIBRE COMPANY
                                       By:\s\ L. J. Holbrook
                                       Title: Sr. V.P.-Finance

The provisions of the above amendment which relate to the Trustee are hereby 
approved and executed.

Date:  December 20, 1995               WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
                                       By:\s\ Dolores Upton
                                       Title: Vice President

Date:  December 20, 1995               WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
                                       By:\s\ Gwyn E. Slack
                                       Title: Vice President
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          23,741
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,107
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,171
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,128
<PP&E>                                          47,946
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,053
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,952
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,219
<SALES>                                        184,920
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               184,920
<CGS>                                          159,218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,024
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,964
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,018
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,562
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.15
        

</TABLE>
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 7 September 2004

in Case C-469/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Career break benefit - Residence condition - Indirect discrimination based on nationality - Article 39 EC - Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

(2004/C 262/15)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-469/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 December 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H. Michard) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, then by E. Dominkovits) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues ande R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 September 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.

----
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10
- 13
- 00117
- CR IN RE MICHAEL JON BA ILEY
Original Proceeding

ORDER
Michael Jon Bailey filed a petition for writ of prohibition in this Court on April 16, 2013. We dismissed his petition on May 2, 2013. See In re Bailey , No. 10

- 13

- 00117

- CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 5539 (Tex. App.

— Waco May 2, 3013, orig. proceeding). Bailey has now filed a document entitled, “Mo tion for Judicial Review and for Material Facts Findings and Conclusions of Law.” In this document, he complains that the Court dismissed his motion to proceed “informa pauperis,” that is, without the advance payment of cost, as “moot.” Whether Bailey co uld proceed without the advance payment of cost is moot because there is no relief we can grant Bailey because there are no appellate filing fees to be paid in this criminal proceeding. We cannotIn re Bailey Page 2

grant an exemption from filing fees that are not owed. Fur ther, we have dismissed this proceeding explaining why we have no jurisdiction. See In re Bailey , No. 10

- 13

- 00117

- CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 5539 (Tex. App.

— Waco May 2, 3013, orig. proceeding). Likewise, we dismiss his Motion for Judicial Review and for Ma terial Facts Findings
and Conclusions of Law.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion dismissed Order issued and filed May 23 , 2013
#### In re STATE QUESTION NO. 241, INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 166.

No. 28305.

May 14, 1940.

*102 P. 2d 861.*

Tench Tilghman, McPherren & Maurer, and Fred Sikes, all of Oklahoma City, and H. C. Ivester, of Sayre, for protestants.

Chas. West, of Oklahoma City, for proponents.

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding brought under the provisions of section 5874, O. S. 1931, 34 Okla. St. Ann. § 8, to review the certification of the declaration of the sufficiency of an initiative petition.

On September 20, 1937, there was filed with the Secretary of State Initiative Petion No. 166, State Question No. 241. On December 4, 1937, the Secretary of State declared the same to be sufficient and certified the sufficiency of said petition. The protestants, C. L. Clearman and W. B. Catto, appealed from said decision under the provisions of section 5874, supra, and after the filing of the case in the Supreme Court the matter was referred by the court to the referee for hearings in a proceeding de novo.

The Secretary of State found that said petition consisted of 3,441 pamphlets consisting of 65,421 legal voters. The order of reference was dated July 2, 1938, following which order the referee heard the matter and concluded his hearings on November 7,1938. On this date it was admitted by the protestants that the evidence introduced in protest of the sufficiency of the petition was insufficient to establish the protest. Thereupon the protestants applied for and were granted a continuance under order of November 9, 1938, said continuance being for 60 days. In this application it was stated that the protestants wished to examine the books of the registrars of the various counties involved to determine whether the protestants wished to go forward with their evidence in the contest of names on said petition deemed to be not registered on the books of the county registrars of various counties involved. The 60 days expired on January 8,1939, and no applica*272tion was made by the protestants to produce any further testimony. Thereupon the court on its own motion ordered the cause set for final hearing on-January 18, 1940, at which time one of the protestants appeared and asked for a continuance. The proponents moved to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that under the provisions of section 5874, supra, the protestants had in effect abandoned the protest.

We are of the opinion that the motion to dismiss must be sustained and the protest dismissed. Under the record, when the hearings were stopped on November 7, 1938, the protest was insufficient. No further showing was ever made and more than a year elapsed and protestants made no move. The above section anticipates an expeditious protest conducted in good faith and with the view to a speedy settlement of the issues as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition. We hold, therefore, that the record discloses that the protest is insufficient and the proponents should not be further delayed.

The protest is dismissed.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and OSBORN, GIBSON, HURST, DAVISON, and DANNER, JJ., concur. RILEY and CORN, JJ., absent.
§ 4905.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* This part sets forth the rules and procedures to be followed when a PBGC employee or former employee is requested or served with compulsory process to appear as a witness or produce documents in a proceeding in which the PBGC is not a party, if such appearance arises out of, or is related to, his or her employment with the PBGC. It provides a centralized decisionmaking mechanism for responding to such requests and compulsory process.
( b ) *Scope.* ( 1 ) This part applies when, in a judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding, a PBGC employee or former employee is requested or served with compulsory process to provide testimony concerning information acquired in the course of performing official duties or because of official status and/or to produce material acquired in the course of performing official duties or contained in PBGC files.
( 2 ) This part does not apply to: ( i ) Proceedings in which the PBGC is a party;
( ii ) Congressional requests or subpoenas for testimony or documents; or
( iii ) Appearances by PBGC employees in proceedings that do not arise out of, or relate to, their employment with PBGC (e.g., outside activities that are engaged in consistent with applicable standards of ethical conduct).
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1325]


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

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting of the Board of Directors

TIME AND DATE: The 1999 Annual Performance Reviews Committee of the 
Legal Services Corporation's Board of Directors will meet on January 
24, 2000 via tele-conference. The meeting will begin at 12:00 p.m. and 
continue until conclusion of the Committee's agenda.

LOCATION: Legal Services Corporation, 750 First Street, NE, Room 11026, 
Washington, DC 20002, in Room 11026.

STATUS OF MEETING: Closed. The closing is authorized by the relevant 
provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act [5 U.S.C. 552b(c) 
(10)] and the corresponding provisions of the Legal Services 
Corporation's implementing regulation [45 CFR 1622.5(h)]. A copy of the 
General Counsel's Certification that the closing is authorized by law 
will be available upon request.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Approval of the agenda.
    2. Consider and act on report to the Board of Directors on the 
annual evaluations of the President and the Inspector General for FY 
1999.
    3. Consider and act on other business.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President for 
Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, at (202) 336-
8810.

SPECIAL NEEDS: Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in 
alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. 
Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend 
the meeting may notify Shannon Nicko Adaway, at (202) 336-8810.

    Dated: January 14, 2000.
Victor M. Fortuno,
Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate 
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-1325 Filed 1-14-00; 1:19 pm]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
*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 circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR.R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50252

(Summary Calendar)

SANDRA A. MICKLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, 

Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-95-CV-1110

March 26, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sandra A. Mickle appeals the district court’s judgment for the Commissioner in her action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review ofthe denial of her application for disability insurance

benefits. Mickle argues that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not give sufficient weight to the testimony of her treating

physician, did not fully develop the record, did not adequately consider her subjective complaints of

pain, and erroneously required her to show total incapacity before finding her disabled.

The ALJ was not bound to credit the opinion of Mickle’s treating physician over that of a

nontreating physician when it was not supported by the objective medical evidence. See Paul v.

Shalala, 29 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 1994). Although the ALJ has a basic duty to develop a full and

fair record, Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir. 1995), there is no evidence that any of

Mickle’s medical records were not included in the administrative record. 

Mickle’s contention that her pain is disabling is not borne out by the medical evidence

contained in the record. See Harper v. Sullivan, 887 F.2d 92, 96 (5th Cir. 1989). The ALJ’s

assessment of Mickle’s subjective complaints of pain is therefore supported by substantial evidence.

See Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992). 

The ALJ did not require Mickle to prove total incapacity, but determined that she was not

severely impaired and concluded that she wastherefore not disabled within the meaning of the Social

Security Act. See Bowling v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 431, 435 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the ALJ’s

conclusion is supported by the substantial evidence, it is

AFFIRMED.
(79 South. 145)

#### SANDERSON v. STATE.

(8 Div. 612.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 4, 1918.)

■Criminal Daw <&wkey;1090(14) — Matters Re,viewable — Bill *of*Exceptions.

In absence of a bill 'of exceptions court cannot intelligently pass upon charges refused, although made a part of record.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; B. C. Brickell, Judge.

Peek Sanderson was convicted of crime, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFOBD, J.

In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the court cannot intelligently pass upon the charges refused to defendant, although made a part of the record. The record seems in all things regular.

Affirmed.
(77 South. 1005)

#### SIDES v. STATE.

(3 Div. 282.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 15, 1918.)

Appeal . from Circuit Court, Autauga County; Leon McCord, Judge.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

Appeal dismissed on motion, of Attorney General.
#### § 4041.6 Effect of failure to provide required information.

If a plan administrator fails to provide any information required under this part within the specified time limit, the PBGC may assess a penalty under section 4071 of ERISA. The PBGC may also pursue any other equitable or legal remedies available to it under the law, including, if appropriate, the issuance of a notice of noncompliance under § 4041.31.

[62 FR 60428, Nov. 7, 1997, as amended at 81 FR 29766, May 13, 2016]