alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 570.126 Parental exemption.

By the parenthetical phrase included in section 3(l)(1) of the Act, a parent or a person standing in place of a parent may employ his own child or a child in his custody under the age of 16 years in any occupation other than the following: (a) Manufacturing; (b) mining; (c) an occupation found by the Secretary to be particularly hazardous or detrimental to health or well-being for children between the ages of 16 and 18 years. This exemption may apply only in those cases where the child is exclusively employed by his parent or a person standing in his parents' place. Thus, where a child assists his father in performing work for the latter's employer and the child is considered to be employed both by his father and his father's employer, the parental exemption would not be applicable. The words “parent” or a “person standing in place of a parent” include natural parents, or any other person, where the relationship between that person and a child is such that the person may be said to stand in place of a parent. For example, one who takes a child into his home and treats it as a member of his own family, educating and supporting the child as if it were his own, is generally said to stand to the child in place of a parent. It should further be noted that occupations found by the Secretary to be hazardous or detrimental to health or well-being for children between 16 and 18 years of age, as well as manufacturing and mining occupations, are specifically excluded from the scope of the exemption.
#### § 779.205 Enterprise must consist of “related activities.”

The enterprise must consist of certain “related activities” performed for a common business purpose; activities which are not “related” are not a part of the enterprise even if performed by the same employer. Moreover, even if activities are “related” they may be excluded from the enterprise if they are performed only “for” the enterprise and not as a part of it by an independent contractor. This is discussed separately in § 779.206.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13393]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1310-01; WYW147467)


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated; Oil and Gas Lease

    Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas 
lease WYW147467 for lands in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, was timely 
filed and was accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the 
date of termination.
    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and 
royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year 
and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively.
    The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $125 
of reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register 
notice. The lessee has met all the requirements of reinstatement of the 
lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing 
Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is 
proposing to reinstate lease WYW147467 effective February 1, 2000, 
subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the 
increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

Theresa M. Stevens,
Acting Chief, Leasable Minerals Section.
[FR Doc. 00-13393 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

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.

July 28, 2015

s0720 

# Order

Clerk July 28, 2015

150402

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150402

COA: 322907

Wayne CC: 10

- 001478

- FC

MICHAEL SHAWN HOLCOMB

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15

, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### § 780.129 Required relationship of practices to farming operations.

To come within this secondary meaning, a practice must be performed either by a farmer or on a farm. It must also be performed either in connection with the farmer's own farming operations or in connection with farming operations conducted on the farm where the practice is performed. In addition, the practice must be performed “as an incident to or in conjunction with” the farming operations. No matter how closely related it may be to farming operations, a practice performed neither by a farmer nor on a farm is not within the scope of the “secondary” meaning of “agriculture.” Thus, employees employed by commission brokers in the typical activities conducted at their establishments, warehouse employees at the typical tobacco warehouses, shop employees of an employer engaged in the business of servicing machinery and equipment for farmers, plant employees of a company dealing in eggs or poultry produced by others, employees of an irrigation company engaged in the general distribution of water to farmers, and other employees similarly situated do not generally come within the secondary meaning of “agriculture.” The inclusion of industrial operations is not within the intent of the definition in section 3(f), nor are processes that are more akin to manufacturing than to agriculture (see *Bowie* v. *Gonzales,* 117 F. 2d 11; *Fleming* v. *Hawkeye Pearl Button Co.,* 113 F. 2d 52; *Holtville Alfalfa Mills* v. *Wyatt,* 230 F. 2d 398; *Maneja* v. *Waialua,* 349 U.S. 254; *Mitchell* v. *Budd,* 350 U.S. 473).
#### § 780.409 Employment “in connection with the operation or maintenance” is exempt.

The irrigation exemption provided by section 13(b)(12) applies to “any employee employed * * * in connection with the operation or maintenance of ditches, canals, reservoirs, or waterways” of an irrigation system which qualifies for the exemption. The employee, to be exempt, must be employed “in connection with the operation or maintenance” of the named facilities; other employees of the irrigation system, not employed in connection with the named activities, are not exempt. The exemption may apply to employees engaged in insect, rodent, and weed control along the canals and waterways of the irrigation system.
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








In
connection with the Annual Report of LSB Industries, Inc. (“LSB”) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, Jack E. Golsen,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of LSB, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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
      LSB.








/s/ Jack E. Golsen


Jack E.
Golsen


Chairman
of the Board and


Chief
Executive Officer








March 8,
2010








This
certification is furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for
purpose of 18 U.S.C. §1350 subject to the knowledge standard contained therein,
and not for any other purpose.
#### BRISTOL BAPTIST CHURCH *v.*JASON LAFRANCOIS ET AL.

(AC 19373)

O’Connell, C. J., and Spear and Mihalakos, Js.

Submitted on briefs January 26

officially released February 15, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
- 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 > Making and Using of Index Numbers

              																	Mitchell, Wesley C. (Wesley Clair), 1874-1948. 						*Making and Using of Index Numbers : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 656*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										March 1938,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4167,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Submitted on record and briefs October 30,

convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing December 16, 1992

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*DOROTHY S. WALDRIP, *Appellant.*

(91NB-1519, 91NB-1696, 91CR-2515; CA A73229 (Control), A73230, A73231)

842 P2d 467

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Alan H. Biedermann, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and J. Dean Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*250PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants in 3 separate cases. In each, the court imposed a jail term, suspended execution of a portion of that sentence and placed defendant on probation. The state concedes *that the court did not have the*authority *at the same*time to impose and order executed a sentence of incarceration and to place defendant on probation. *State v. McMellon,*110 Or App 441, 823 P2d 996 (1992); *State v. Vasby,*101 Or App 1, 788 P2d 1024 (1990). We accept the concession.

Defendant’s other assignments of error are moot.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
#### § 18.701 Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.
RO 11599 9451.1991(03)

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

APR 16 1991

Mr. Michael H. Oberg Chief Operating Officer United Marketing International, Inc.

P.O. Box 989

Everett, WA 98206-0989

Dear Mr. Oberg:

Thank you for your letter dated February 19, 1991 concerning the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule and its relationship to used oil filter disposal as outlined in a October 30, 1990 memorandum to Mr. Robert Duprey in EPA's Region 8 office.

The TC rule was effective in all states on September 25, 1990, regardless of the state's RCRA authorization status. The TC will be implemented and enforced by EPA's Regional Offices until such time as states are authorized to implement and enforce the TC. Please note that the compliance date for generators of small quantities (from 100 to 1000 kg of total hazardous waste in a calendar month) of TC-hazardous wastes was March 29, 1991. Small quantity generators (SQGs) were required to begin managing their TC-hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations on that date. Of particular concern to the Agency is the proper management (e.g., storage, treatment, transportation and disposal) of these wastes.

As a point of clarification, I would also note that under the TC rule, generators are not specifically required to test their waste. The regulations allow generators to use their knowledge of the waste and/or the process that generated it to determine if it is hazardous. They are, however, required to be

correct in their determination.

The Agency intends to fully enfo rce this rule. The Agency's enforcement policy clearly is designed to identify and prosecute violators and to deny any economic benefit resulting from violations. Civil and criminal penalties are also available as

enforcement tools.RO 11599 Finally, the Office of Solid waste appreciates the information you provided pertaining to recently completed studies of used oil filters conducted by the University of Northern Iowa. This study addresses the Agency's recommended best operating practice contained in the October 30, 1990 memorandum which suggested both draining and crushing of the oil filter to ensure
maximum removal of the oil. Of course, as discussed earlier, each hazardous waste generator is ultimately responsible for making their own determination as to whether their waste is hazardous under the TC rule for any waste stream generated.

I hope this letter clarifies the nature of the Agency's implementation of the TC rule. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Cochran of my staff at (202) 382-4770 for general TC questions and Mr. Hugh Davis in the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement at (202) 475- 9867, if you have TC enforcement questions.

Sincerely,

Original Document signed

Sylvia K. Lowrance

Director

Office of Solid Waste
###### Editorial Note on Part 6

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 6 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 6.4 Subpoenas (Service Contract Act).

All applications under the Service Contract Act for subpoenas ad testificandum and subpoenas duces tecum shall be made in writing to the Administrative Law Judge. Application for subpoenas duces tecum shall specify as exactly as possible the documents to be produced.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001074545
<NAME> MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING VI LP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         85
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                       (100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### § 780.1015 Other forest products.

The homeworker may also harvest “other forest products” for use in making wreaths. The term *other forest products* means any plant of the forest and includes, of course, deciduous plants as well.
----

----

I Informace

Komise

----

Směnné kurzy vůči euro (1)

22. září 2004

(2004/C 236/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Zdroj: referenční směnné kurzy jsou publikovány ECB.

----

----

Bez námitek k navrhovanému spojení

(Případ č. COMP/M.3491 – BAE SYSTEMS/ALVIS)

(2004/C 236/02)

(Text s významem pro EHP)

Dne 10. srpna 2004 se Komise rozhodla nevznést námitky proti výše uvedenému spojení a prohlásit ho za slučitelné se společným trhem. Toto rozhodnutí je založeno na čl. 6 odst. 1 písm. b) nařízení Rady (ES) č. 139/2004. Celý text rozhodnutí je přístupný pouze v angličtině a bude uveřejněn poté, co bude zbaven obchodního tajemství, které může případně obsahovat. Text bude dosažitelný:

----

----

Bez námitek k navrhovanému spojení

(Případ č. COMP/M.3480 – 3i/KEOLIS)

(2004/C 236/03)

(Text s významem pro EHP)

Dne 2. července 2004 se Komise rozhodla nevznést námitky proti výše uvedenému spojení a prohlásit ho za slučitelné se společným trhem. Toto rozhodnutí je založeno na čl. 6 odst. 1 písm. b) nařízení Rady (ES) č. 139/2004. Celý text rozhodnutí je přístupný pouze ve francouzštině a bude uveřejněn poté, co bude zbaven obchodního tajemství, které může případně obsahovat. Text bude dosažitelný:

CELEX: informace pro předplatitele

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

----

----

Bez námitek k navrhovanému spojení

(Případ č. COMP/M.3541 – TPG POST/ESSENT RETAIL/CENDRIS-BSC JV)

(2004/C 236/04)

(Text s významem pro EHP)

Dne 15. září 2004 se Komise rozhodla nevznést námitky proti výše uvedenému spojení a prohlásit ho za slučitelné se společným trhem. Toto rozhodnutí je založeno na čl. 6 odst. 1 písm. b) nařízení Rady (ES) č. 139/2004. Celý text rozhodnutí je přístupný pouze v angličtině a bude uveřejněn poté, co bude zbaven obchodního tajemství, které může případně obsahovat. Text bude dosažitelný:

----

----

Bez námitek k navrhovanému spojení

(Případ č. COMP/M.3346 – NYK REEFERS/LAURITZEN COOL/LCL JV)

(2004/C 236/05)

(Text s významem pro EHP)

Dne 7. června 2004 se Komise rozhodla nevznést námitky proti výše uvedenému spojení a prohlásit ho za slučitelné se společným trhem. Toto rozhodnutí je založeno na čl. 6 odst. 1 písm. b) nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 4064/89. Celý text rozhodnutí je přístupný pouze v angličtině a bude uveřejněn poté, co bude zbaven obchodního tajemství, které může případně obsahovat. Text bude dosažitelný:

----
792 A.2d 590

#### In the Matter of William Edward EBERSOLE. Petition for reinstatement from inactive status.

No. 139 DB 2001.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 23, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2002, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated December 14, 2001, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that WILLIAM EDWARD EBERSOLE, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
#### § 779.501 Statutory provisions.

Section 6(d) of the Act provides:

(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: *Provided,* That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.

(2) No labor organization, or its agents, representing employees of an employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall cause or attempt to cause such an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3) For purposes of administration and enforcement, any amounts owing to any employee which have been withheld in violation of this subsection shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this Act.

(4) As used in this subsection, the term “labor organization” means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.

Official interpretations of the Department of Labor with respect to the provisions of section 6(d) are found in part 800 of this chapter.
#### § 70.27 Preservation of records.

Each component will preserve all correspondence relating to the requests it receives under this part, and all records processed pursuant to such requests, until disposition or destruction of such correspondence and records is authorized by Title 44 of the United States Code or the National Archives and Records Administration's General Records Schedule 4.2. Records are not to be destroyed while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the Act.