alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 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 > The Effect of Minimum-Wage Determinations in Service Industries: Adjustments in the Dry-Cleaning and Power-Laundry Industries

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*The Effect of Minimum-Wage Determinations in Service Industries: Adjustments in the Dry-Cleaning and Power-Laundry Industries : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 166*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1938,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5439,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No 333-06435, No. 333-105219, No. 333-132767,No. 333-132768 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to 333-132768 on Form S-8 of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated and Subsidiaries of our report dated November 6, 2009, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements ofMadison Newspapers, Inc. and Subsidiary, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2009. 

 

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen LLP 

 

Madison, Wisconsin 

December 11, 2009
§ 4000.23 When is my submission or issuance treated as filed or issued? ( a ) *Filed or issued when sent.* Generally, we treat your submission as filed, or your issuance as provided, on the date you send it, if you meet certain requirements. The requirements depend upon the method you use to send your submission or issuance (see §§ 4000.24 through 4000.29). (Certain filings are always treated as filed when received, as explained in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.) A submission made through our Web site is considered to have been sent when you perform the last act necessary to indicate that your submission is filed and cannot be further edited or withdrawn.
( b ) *Filed or issued when received* — ( 1 ) *In general.* If you do not meet the requirements for your submission or issuance to be treated as filed or issued when sent (see §§ 4000.24 through 4000.32), we treat it as filed or issued on the date received in a permitted format at the proper address.
( 2 ) *Certain filings always treated as filed when received.* We treat the following submissions as filed on the date we receive your submission, no matter what method you use: ( i ) *Applications for benefits.* An application for benefits or related submission (unless the instructions for the applicable forms provide for an earlier date);
( ii ) *Advance notice of reportable events.* Information required under subpart C of part 4043 of this chapter, dealing with advance notice of reportable events;
( iii ) *Form 200 filings.* Information required under subpart D of part 4043 of this chapter, dealing with notice of certain missed minimum funding contributions; and
( iv ) *Requests for approval of multiemployer plan amendments.* A request for approval of an amendment filed with the PBGC pursuant to part 4220 of this chapter.
( 3 ) *Determining our receipt date for your filing.* If we receive your submission at the correct address by 5 p.m. (our time) on a business day, we treat it as received on that date. If we receive your submission at the correct address after 5 p.m. on a business day, or anytime on a weekend or Federal holiday, we treat it as received on the next business day. For example, if you send your fax or e-mail of a Form 200 filing to us in Washington, DC, on Friday, March 15, from California at 3 p.m. (Pacific standard time), and we receive it immediately at 6 p.m. (our time), we treat it as received on Monday, March 18. A submission made through our Web site is considered to have been received when we receive an electronic signal that you have performed the last act necessary to indicate that your submission is filed and cannot be further edited or withdrawn.
[68 FR 61347, Oct. 28, 2003, as amended at 70 FR 11543, Mar. 9, 2005]
Rel: April 19, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT

OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

SC-2023-0052

J.W. Henderson, Jr. v. City of Enterprise (Appeal from Coffee Circuit 

Court: CV-22-900012).

STEWART, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.

Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Mitchell, 

and Cook, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


LOSS PER SHARE

Computation of loss per share
(in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Six months ended June 30,
                                                                        2002                  2001
                                                                      --------           --------
<S>                                                                   <C>                <C>
Net loss ...................................................          $(21,500)          $(30,660)
                                                                      ========           ========
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding ........            53,762             30,727
Weighted average shares of common stock held for former
    Women.com stockholders .................................               369                760
Weighted average shares of common stock held for former
    Promotions.com stockholders ............................                 4                 --
                                                                      --------           --------
Adjusted weighted average shares of common stock outstanding
   used in computing basic and diluted net loss per share ..            54,135             31,487
                                                                      ========           ========
Basic and diluted net loss per share .......................          $ (0.40))          $  (0.97)
                                                                      ========           ========
</TABLE>
§ 4231.18 Jurisdiction over financial assistance merger. ( a ) *General.* PBGC will retain jurisdiction over the merged plan resulting from a financial assistance merger to carry out the purposes, terms, and conditions of the financial assistance merger, the financial assistance agreement, sections 4231 and 4261 of ERISA, and the regulations thereunder.
( b ) *Financial assistance agreement.* PBGC may, upon providing notice to the plan sponsor, make changes to the financial assistance agreement in response to changed circumstances consistent with sections 4231 and 4261 of ERISA and the regulations thereunder.
### Compilation of records of surface waters of the United States through September 1950: Part 8. Western Gulf of Mexico basins

By: J. V. B. Wells

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1312

#### Links

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

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
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 Lufkin Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John F. Glick,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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), as
applicable, 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 the Company.





/s/ John F.
Glick





John F.
Glick


Chief
Executive Officer


March 1,
2010





This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. §1350, and not for any
other purpose.
1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3642

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Edward G. Boyer, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 6, 2007

Filed: September 14, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1

 revoked Edward G. Boyer’s (Boyer) supervised release and

sentenced him below the advisory revocation range to 18 months in prison and 18

months of supervised release with the first 90 days of supervised release to be served

in an inpatient drug abuse treatment program. Boyer appeals the sentence as

unreasonable. After reviewing the record and Boyer’s arguments, we conclude the

sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.

2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). In particular, the court was mindful of the
-2-

need to provide Boyer with drug treatment, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D), and

fashioned the sentence accordingly: the court imposed a prison term below the

advisory range and required Boyer to spend time in inpatient drug treatment. We

therefore affirm.

______________________________
§ 779.346 Requirements for exemption summarized. An establishment to qualify for exemption under section 13(a)(4) must be an exempt retail establishment under section 13(a)(2); that is, 75 percent of its annual dollar volume of sales of goods must not be for resale, 75 percent of its annual dollar volume of sales of goods must be recognized as retail in its industry, over 50 percent of its annual dollar volume of sales of goods must be made within the State in which the establishment is located, and its annual dollar volume of sales must be under $250,000. In addition, the establishment must meet the following three tests: ( a ) The establishment must be recognized as a retail establishment in the particular industry.
( b ) The goods which the exempt establishment makes or processes must be made or processed at the establishment which sells the goods.
( c ) More than 85 percent of the establishment's annual dollar volume of sales of the goods which it makes or processes must be made within the State in which the establishment is located. (See Act, section 13(a)(2); H. Rept. No. 1453, 81st Cong. first session, p. 27; *Arnold* v. *Ben Kanowsky, Inc.,* 361 U.S. 388.)
#### § 570.142 Relation to other laws.

Section 18 provides, in part, that “no provision of this act relating to the employment of child labor shall justify noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a higher standard than the standard established under this act.” The child labor requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, must be complied with as to the employment of minors within their general coverage and not excepted from their operation by special provision of the act itself regardless of any State, local, or other Federal law that may be applicable to the same employment. Furthermore, any administrative action pursuant to other laws, such as the issuance of a work permit to a minor or the referral by an employment agency of a minor to an employer does not necessarily relieve a person of liability under this act. Where such other legislation is applicable and does not contravene the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, however, nothing in the act, the regulations or the interpretations announced by the Secretary should be taken to override or nullify the provisions of these laws. Although compliance with other applicable legislation does not constitute compliance with the act unless the requirements of the act are thereby met, compliance with the act, on the other hand, does not relieve any person of liability under other laws that establish higher child labor standards than those prescribed by or pursuant to the act. Moreover, such laws, if at all applicable, continue to apply to the employment of all minors who either are not within the general coverage of the child labor provisions of the act or who are specifically excepted from their requirements.

[16 FR 7008, July 20, 1951. Redesignated at 28 FR 1634, Feb. 21, 1963, and further redesignated and amended at 36 FR 25156, Dec. 29, 1971. Redesignated at 75 FR 28459, May 20, 2010]
<PAGE>   1
                                                               Exhibit (10)-(47)


            AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE LTV CORPORATION CHANGE IN CONTROL
                              SEVERANCE PAY PLAN I

         The LTV Corporation Change in Control Severance Pay Plan I is amended
to include the provisions attached hereto. The amendment shall include, where
applicable, the renumbering of sections to reflect the addition to, the revision
of or the deletion from the prior text required by this provision.

         The effective date of the amendment, as herein adopted, is set forth
below:


Section Amended
Added or Deleted                    Section                    Effective Date
----------------                    -------                    --------------

    Amended                        3(f)(iii)                  January 28, 2000




<PAGE>   2


         Section 3(f)(iii) is amended by deleting the first four lines and the
portion of the fifth line prior to the word "unless," and inserting in place
thereof the following:

                  (iii) consummation of (A) a reorganization, merger or
consolidation of the Corporation, (B) a sale or other disposition of all or
substantially all of the assets of the Corporation, (C) a reorganization, merger
or consolidation of LTV Steel, (D) a sale or other disposition of all or
substantially all of the assets of LTV Steel or (E) the acquisition by any
Person (as defined in Paragraph (i) of this Subsection) of beneficial ownership
(within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 promulgated under the Exchange Act) of more
than 50% of the combined voting power of the then outstanding Voting Stock of
LTV Steel; provided, however, that for purposes of this subparagraph (E), any
acquisition by the Corporation or any Subsidiary shall not constitute a Change
in Control, (each, a "Business Combination").



<PAGE>   3




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as conclusive evidence of the adoption of the
foregoing, THE LTV CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, has caused its corporate
seal to be affixed hereto and has caused this Amendment No. 1 to the LTV
Corporation Change in Control Severance Pay Plan I to be duly executed in its
name and on its behalf this 31st day of January, 2000.


ATTEST:                                         THE LTV CORPORATION



/s/ N. David Bleisch                            /s/ Frank E. Filipovitz
---------------------------                     --------------------------------
Assistant Secretary                             Frank E. Filipovitz
                                                General Manager-Human Resources
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 21a0258p.06


## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

R ESURRECTION S CHOOL ; C HRISTOPHER M IANECKI
, individually and as next friend on behalf of his minor
chil d ren C.M., Z.M., and N.M.; S TEPHANIE S MITH
, individually and as next friend on behalf of her minor child F.S., Plaintiffs

- Appellants

,

v

.

E LIZABETH H ERTEL , in her official capacity as the Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services; D ANA N ESSEL , in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Michigan;
L INDA V AIL , in her official capacity as the Health Officer of Ingham Cou nty; C AROL A. S IEMON , in her official capacity as the Ingham County Prosecuting Attorney

, Defendants

- Appellees

. ┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
┘ 

### No. 20

- 2256

On Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids ;

No. 1:20

- cv

- 01016

— Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: November 10, 2021

Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, COLE, CLAY, GIBBONS, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, STRANCH, DONALD, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC: Erin Elizabeth Mersino, GREAT LAKES JUSTICE CENTER, Lansing, Michigan, Robert J. Muise, AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellants. ON RESPONSE: Daniel J. Ping, Joseph T. Froehlich, Ann M. Sherman, Jennifer Rosa, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for State of Michigan Appellees. Bonnie G. To skey, Sarah K. 

### >

### No. 20

- 2256 Resurrection Sch. e t al. v. H ertel et al. Page 2

Osburn, COHL, STOKER & TOSKEY, P.C., Lansing, Michigan, for Appellees Linda Vail and
Carol Siemon. ON BRIEF: Brett R. Nolan, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Frankfort, Kentucky, Daniel H. Blomberg, THE BECKET FUND FOR
RELIGIOUS LI BERTY, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

_________________

ORDER

_________________

A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service has voted for rehearing en

banc of this case. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b) provides as follows:

The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket sheet as a pending appeal.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the previous decision and judgment of this court are

vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.

The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for

oral argument as soon as possible.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

__________________________________ Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk
Submitted on record and briefs March 19,

rules held valid May 12, 1993

#### CARL V. DUMLER, *Petitioner, v.*DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, *Respondent.*

(CA A69235)

852 P2d 201

Carl V. Dumler, Salem, filed the brief *pro se.*

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Rules held valid. *Whaley v. Dept. of Corrections,*120 Or App 224, 852 P2d 200 (1993).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LASHUNDRIA NASHAE BROWN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2023

- 1701

[ December 7, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Indian River County ; Robert B. Meadows , Judge; L.T. Case No.

312022CF000983A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine Austin, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, F ORST and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.