alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DOD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of a prospective license to Nanoptics Inc. to the Government-owned invention described as “GRID-FREE, MODULAR LARGE SCREEN DISPLAY”. 

# DATES:

Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than July 31, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

Written objections are to be filed with the Office of Patent Counsel, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, D0012, 53510 Silvergate Ave., Rm 103, San Diego, CA 92152-5765. Kindly reference N.C. 72,844 in all correspondence directed to this matter. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Harvey Fendelman, Patent Counsel, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Code D0012, 53510 Silvergate Ave., Rm 103, San Diego, CA 92152-5765, telephone (619) 553-3001.

(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404)

Dated: May 18, 2000.

J.L. Roth, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 00-13392 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Motion for Extension of Time

PAGE 0

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0250

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RONALD L. GOLAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Defendant and Appellant’s Motion For Extension Of 

Time, and with good cause shown, Defendant and Appellant Ronald Golas is 

hereby granted an extension of time until September 13, 2024 in which to prepare, 

file and serve Defendant and Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 6 2024

09/06/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0250
§ 452.137 Effective dates. ( a ) Section 404 states when the election provisions of the Act become applicable.[58] In the case of labor organizations whose constitution and bylaws can be lawfully modified or amended by action of the organization's “constitutional officers or governing body,” the election provisions become applicable 90 days after the enactment of the statute (December 14, 1959). Where the modification of the constitution and bylaws of a local labor organization requires action by the membership at a general meeting or by referendum, the general membership would be a “governing body” within the meaning of this provision. In the cases where any necessary modification of the constitution and bylaws can be made only by a constitutional convention of the labor organization, the election provisions become applicable not later than the next constitutional convention after the enactment of the statute, or one year after the enactment of the statute, whichever is sooner.
( b ) The statute does not require the calling of a special constitutional convention to make such modifications. However, if no convention is held within the one-year period, the executive board or similar governing body that has the power to act for the labor organization between conventions is empowered by the statute to make such interim constitutional changes as are necessary to carry out the provisions of title IV of the Act. Any election held thereafter would have to comply with the requirements of the Act.
Footnotes -
452.137
[58] Act, sec. 404.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 262 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 262

        Designating July 2007 as ``National Watermelon Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2007

  Mr. Chambliss (for himself and Mr. Isakson) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
        Designating July 2007 as ``National Watermelon Month''.

Whereas watermelon production constitutes an important sector of the 
        agricultural industry of the United States;
Whereas, according to the January 2006 statistics compiled by the National 
        Agricultural Statistics Service of the United States Department of 
        Agriculture, the United States produces 4,200,000,000 pounds of 
        watermelon annually;
Whereas watermelon is grown in 49 States, is purchased and consumed in all 50 
        States, and is exported to Canada;
Whereas evidence indicates that eating 2\1/2\ to 5 cups of fruits and vegetables 
        daily as part of a healthy diet will improve health and protect against 
        diseases such as cancer, high blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease;
Whereas proper diet and nutrition are important factors in preventing diseases 
        such as childhood obesity and diabetes;
Whereas watermelon has no fat or cholesterol and is an excellent source of the 
        vitamins A, B6, and C, fiber, and potassium, which are vital to good 
        health and disease prevention;
Whereas watermelon is also an excellent source of lycopene;
Whereas lycopene, an antioxidant found only in a few red plant foods, has been 
        shown to reduce the risk of certain cancers;
Whereas watermelon is a heart-healthy food that has qualified for the heart-
        check mark from the American Heart Association;
Whereas watermelon has been a nutritious summer favorite from generation to 
        generation; and
Whereas it is important to educate citizens of the United States regarding the 
        health benefits of watermelon and other fruits and vegetables: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of ``National Watermelon 
        Month'';
            (2) calls on the Federal Government, States, localities, 
        schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, other entities, 
        and the people of the United States to observe the month with 
        appropriate programs and activities; and
            (3) designates July 2007 as ``National Watermelon Month''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robinson *v.*Moses.

*(Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,*

*Sept. 21, 1899.)*

[34 S. E. Rep. 48.]

Boundaries — Jurisdiction of Chancery Court.

The chancery court has no jurisdiction to settle a boundary.

Same — Same—Objection to on Appeal.

Objection that the chancery court has no jurisdiction to settle a boundary may be made for the first time on appeal.

Appeal from circuit court, Augusta county.

Suit by one Robinson against one Moses. From the decree, Robinson appeals.

Reversed.

*J. J. L. da JR. Btbmgardner,*for appellant.

*F. B.*Kennedy, for appellee.

Keith, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this suit the jurisdiction of the chancery court was invoked to settle a boundary of land in dispute between plaintiff and defendant. It is the settled law of this state that a court of chancery has no jurisdiction for this purpose, and that the objection may be made for the first time in this court. See Carrington v. Otis, 4 Grat. 235 ; Collins v. Sutton, 94 Va. 128, 26 S. E. 415, and authorities there cited. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and this court will enter such decree as the circuit court ought to have entered.
#### § 785.7 Judicial construction.

The United States Supreme Court originally stated that employees subject to the act must be paid for all time spent in “physical or mental exertion (whether burdensome or not) controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business.” (*Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co.* v. *Muscoda Local No. 123,* 321 U. S. 590 (1944)) Subsequently, the Court ruled that there need be no exertion at all and that all hours are hours worked which the employee is required to give his employer, that “an employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing, or to do nothing but wait for something to happen. Refraining from other activity often is a factor of instant readiness to serve, and idleness plays a part in all employments in a stand-by capacity. Readiness to serve may be hired, quite as much as service itself, and time spent lying in wait for threats to the safety of the employer's property may be treated by the parties as a benefit to the employer.” (*Armour & Co.* v. *Wantock,* 323 U.S. 126 (1944); *Skidmore* v. *Swift,* 323 U.S. 134 (1944)) The workweek ordinarily includes “all the time during which an employee is necessarily required to be on the employer's premises, on duty or at a prescribed work place”. (*Anderson* v. *Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.,* 328 U.S. 680 (1946)) The Portal-to-Portal Act did not change the rule except to provide an exception for preliminary and postliminary activities. See § 785.34.

[26 FR 190, Jan. 11, 1961, as amended at 76 FR 18859, Apr. 5, 2011]
§ 531.55 Examples of amounts not received as tips. ( a ) A compulsory charge for service, such as 15 percent of the amount of the bill, imposed on a customer by an employer's establishment, is not a tip and, even if distributed by the employer to its employees, cannot be counted as a tip received in applying the provisions of sections 3(m)(2)(A) and 3(t). Similarly, where negotiations between a hotel and a customer for banquet facilities include amounts for distribution to employees of the hotel, the amounts so distributed are not counted as tips received.
( b ) As stated above, service charges and other similar sums which become part of the employer's gross receipts are not tips for the purposes of the Act. Where such sums are distributed by the employer to its employees, however, they may be used in their entirety to satisfy the monetary requirements of the Act.
[76 FR 18856, Apr. 5, 2011, as amended at 85 FR 86750, Dec. 30, 2020]
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 24 , 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22

- 1511 Lower Tribunal No. 22

- 580

________________ 

### Sharon Moore Bode, et al. , Appellant s ,
vs. 

### Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FS B, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from a non - final order from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Maria de Jesus Santovenia , Judge. David J. Winker, P.A., and David J. Winker , for appellant s

. Atlas | Solomon PLLC, and Eric M. Levine and Adam G. Schwartz (Stuart) , for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LINDSEY , JJ.

PER CURIAM.2 Sharon Moore Bode and Roberto Bode appeal the trial court’s order granting an emergency motion to discharge lis pendens

. An order discharging a lis pendens is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion , India Am. Trading, Co. v. White , 896 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) , but statutory construction and pure questions of law are reviewed de novo. LB Judgment Holdings, LLC v. Bosche t ti , 271 So. 3d 115 , 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Upon our re view, we find no error in the trial court’s order discharging the lis pendens in the instant case, and affirm

. 1 See § 48.23(3), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“When the pending pleading does not show that the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument . . . t he court shall control and discharge the recorded notice of lis pendens as the court would grant and dissolve injunctions”); Petkovich v. Sandy Point Condo. Apts. Ass’n, Inc. , 325 So. 3d 201, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding petitioner was not entitled to lis pendens as a matter of right

— i.e., as founded on a duly recorded instrument under section 48.23

— because his claim was not based “upon the terms and provisions of the instruments” but instead was based “upon the

1 To the extent appellants’ claim is based on comments the trial court allegedly made at an October 2019 hearing, the record does not contain a transcript of that hearing. See Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. , 81 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“An appellant has the burden to pres ent a record that will overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial court's findings.”)3 circumstances surrounding execution”) (citing Am. Legion Cmty

. Club v.
Diamond , 561 So. 2d 268 , 269 (Fla. 1990) (holding that a suit to set aside a conveyance of real property is not an action “founded on a duly recorded instrument” within the meaning of s ection 48.23, Florida Statutes, and thus the maintenance of a notice of lis pendens is not authorized as a matter of right ) )

. Affirmed.
----

----

I Meddelelser

Kommissionen

----

FÆLLES SORTSLISTE OVER LANDBRUGSPLANTEARTER

13. tilføjelse til 22. samlede udgave

(2004/C 232 A/01)

FORKLARING

IV

80.ZEA MAYS L.

----

(1)EUT C 91 A af 16.4.2003. Senest ændret ved 12. supplement (EUT C 213 A af 25.8.2004).

----
#### In the Matter of New York Foundling Hospital, Respondent, v Consuela G., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

Submitted June 24, 1996;

decided September 5, 1996

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (CPLR 5513 [b]).
§ 4903.19 How does a debtor request a special review based on a change in circumstances such as catastrophic illness, divorce, death, or disability? ( a ) *Material change in circumstances.* A debtor who owes a debt to PBGC may, at any time, request a special review by PBGC of the amount of any offset, administrative wage garnishment, or voluntary payment, based on materially changed circumstances beyond the control of the debtor such as, but not limited to, catastrophic illness, divorce, death, or disability.
( b ) *Inability to pay.* For purposes of this section, in determining whether an involuntary or voluntary payment would prevent the debtor from meeting essential subsistence expenses (e.g., costs incurred for food, housing, clothing, transportation, and medical care), the debtor must submit a detailed statement and supporting documents for the debtor, his or her spouse, and dependents, indicating: ( 1 ) Income from all sources;
( 2 ) Assets;
( 3 ) Liabilities;
( 4 ) Number of dependents;
( 5 ) Expenses for food, housing, clothing, and transportation;
( 6 ) Medical expenses;
( 7 ) Exceptional expenses, if any; and
( 8 ) Any additional materials and information that PBGC may request relating to ability or inability to pay the amount(s) currently required.
( c ) *Alternative payment arrangement.* If the debtor requests a special review under this section, the debtor must submit an alternative proposed payment schedule and a statement to PBGC, with supporting documents, showing why the current offset, garnishment or repayment schedule imposes an extreme financial hardship on the debtor. PBGC will evaluate the statement and documentation and determine whether the current offset, garnishment, or repayment schedule imposes extreme financial hardship on the debtor. PBGC will notify the debtor in writing of such determination, including, if appropriate, a revised offset, garnishment, or payment schedule. If the special review results in a revised offset, garnishment, or repayment schedule, PBGC will notify the appropriate Federal agency or other persons about the new terms.
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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB- for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Walters, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company.



/s/ Richard R. Walters



DATE:  March 26, 2004

Richard R. Walters, President





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and will be retained by Little Squaw Gold Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Submitted on record and briefs February 18,

reversed and remanded for new trial March 17, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*GARY EDWARD LEUPOLD, *Appellant.*

(10-92-02572; CA A76057)

848 P2d 147

David A. Hill, Eugene, filed the brief for appellant.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Michael C. Livingston, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*731PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for manufacture of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(l)(a). He contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized in a warrantless search. The state concedes that the court erred and we accept that concession.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Hillsborough

No. 6557

#### Armand F. Roy v. Manchester Gas Co.

March 29, 1973

*Armand F. Roy*for the plaintiff, pro se.

*Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls*and *Theodore Wadleigh*for the defendant, filed no brief.

*141Per curiam.

Petition for writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to pay the plaintiff additional compensation for personal injuries sustained on February 4, 1954, in the course of his employment by the defendant. Plaintiff also by various motions seeks an immediate payment and an immediate judgment of $200,000. The trial court denied the petition and the various motions subject to the plaintiff’s exception. The *Court, Johnson,*J., also made the following order: “If the Superior Court ruling being appealed is upheld by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff is ordered to file no further pleadings in any Court of this state relative to this litigation against either the defendant, its officers, agents, employees or its counsel and the Clerks of the Superior Court are ordered to accept no such pleadings.”

This case is a continuation of the plaintiff’s attempt to litigate and relitigate his claim for compensation and other relief that has been considered and denied on many occasions. *Roy v. Manchester Gas Company,*104 N.H. 318, 185 A.2d 486 (1962); 108 N.H. 492, 493, 238 A.2d 599, 600 (1968); 111 N.H. 258, 281 A.2d 49 (1971); *Roy v. Dunn,*106 N.H. 179, 207 A.2d 434, 435 (1965). The present case is without merit and constitutes an unnecessary and vexatious suit against the defendant. The order prohibiting the plaintiff from filing further pleadings in the courts of this State is affirmed. *Moore v. Lebanon,*96 N.H. 20, 22-23, 69 A.2d 516, 519 (1949).

*Petition dismissed; motions denied;*

*judgment for the defendant.*
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1338]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Review of a 
Revised Information Collection: SF 2803 AND SF 3108

AGENCY:  Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget a request for review of a revised information collection. SF 
2803, Application to Make Deposit or Redeposit (CSRS), and SF 3108, 
Application to Make Service Credit Payment for Civilian Service (FERS), 
are applications to make payment used by persons who are eligible to 
pay for Federal service which was not subject to retirement deductions 
and/or for Federal service which was subject to retirement deductions 
which were subsequently refunded to the applicant.
    In addition to the current Federal employees who will use these 
forms, we expect to receive approximately 75 filings of each form from 
former Federal employees per year. Each form takes approximately 30 
minutes to complete. The annual burden is 75 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fe2edfbe0e0e2eaf6cfe0ffe2a1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e434c5a4141434b576e415e4300494158">[email protected]</span></a>.

DATES:  Comments on this proposal should be on or before February 22, 
2000.

ADDRESSES:  Send or deliver comments to--
Ronald W. Melton, Chief, Operations Support Division, Retirement and 
Insurance Service, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, 
NW, Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415,
    and
Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, NW Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT: Phyllis 
R. Pinkney, Management Analyst, Budget & Administrative Services 
Division, (202) 606-0623.

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,
Director.
[FR Doc. 00-1338 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLIING CODE 6325-01-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>