alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 525.24 Advisory Committee on Special Minimum Wages.

The Advisory Committee on Special Minimum Wages, the members of which are appointed by the Secretary, shall advise and make recommendations to the Administrator concerning the administration and enforcement of these regulations and the need for amendments thereof and shall serve such other functions as may be desired by the Administrator.
#### WALKER v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1848.

Decided Oct 2, 1930

Robert I. Azar and O. L. Dally, both of Akron, for Walker.

D. D. Isham, Prosecuting Attorney, and Geo. R. Hargreaves, Asst. Pros. Atty, both of Akron, for State,

*658WASHBURN, J.

We find that the admission of this testimony was error. The defendant w,as under arrest and the circumstances and surroundings were not such as naturally or reasonably to call for some action or reply on the part of one in his situation — the better rule being that ordinarily one who is under arrest and so circumstanced that he is not free to act voluntarily, cannot legally be regarded as called upon .to reply to the statements, in his presence, of one person to another touching his alleged guilt, and therefore his silence is not evidence of an admission of the crime charged or even a circumstance of conduct on his part that the jury is entitled to consider in determining his guilt or innocence.

Geiger v. State, 70 Oh St 400.

Under the circumstances shown by the record in this case, said error was clearly not prejudicial, and the defendant was not deprived of any substantial right.

In the first place, the trial judge told the jury that said evidence should be considered with care and caution and with proper consideration of all of the circumstances and conditions then existing and surrounding the defendant, and that if it did not appear that the defendant heard the question and observed the movement of any reply thereto, the evidence should not be considered for any purpose. In the second place, when the shot that killed the policeman was fired, there were three other policemen who were within a few feet of the defendant, and two of them testified to having seen the defendant fire the shot, and they all testified that immediately after the shot was fired the defendant ran a few feet to a position behind' the automobile and fired several shots at the other policemen who were on the other side of the automobile and that the policemen fired three shots at the defendant, two of which took effect.

There was no one else in the vicinity who did any shooting, and it seems to us that there is no possibility of the officers being mistaken. The evidence establishes the guilt of the defendant not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond the possibility of a doubt. Under such circumstances the testimony that was erroneously admitted, to the effect that the defendant said nothing when he was in the presence of the injured policeman, could not have had any influence upon the jury; it was merely cumulative evidence and evidence of very questionable probative value, and we are clearly of the opinion that it did not affect the verdict in this case.

As has been said, the other claims of error have been carefully considered, and what we have said indicates our conclusion upon the question of the weight of the evidence .

In our judgment the defendant had a fair trial, free from any prejudicial error, and we fully concur in the finding by the jury that the defendant was guilty and that he was not 'entitled to a recommendation of mercy. '

Funk, PJ, and Pardee, J, concur.
#### In the Matter of Posr A. Posr, Appellant, v Franklin Weissberg et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 10, 1995;

decided September 21, 1995

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
#### § 406.10 OMB control number.

The collecting of information requirements in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB control number 1245-0003.

[59 FR 15116, Mar. 31, 1994, as amended at 63 FR 46888, Sept. 3, 1998; 78 FR 8025, Feb. 5, 2013]
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00128-CV

United Specialty Insurance Company

v.

Wasp Construction, LLC

On Appeal from the

206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-1928-17-D(1)

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant, United Specialty Insurance Company, and Knightbrook Insurance 

Company, as surety on the supersedeas bond.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 29, 2020
§ 17.6 What procedures apply to the selection of programs and activities under these regulations? ( a ) A state may select any program or activity published in the Federal Register in accordance with § 17.3 of this part for intergovernmental review under these regulations. Each state, before selecting programs and activities shall consult with local elected officials.
( b ) Each state that adopts a process shall notify the Secretary of the Department's programs and activities selected for that process.
( c ) A state may notify the Secretary of changes in its selections at any time. For each change, the state shall submit to the Secretary an assurance that the state has consulted with elected local officials regarding the change. The Department may establish deadlines by which states are required to inform the Secretary of changes in their program selections.
( d ) The Secretary uses a state's process as soon as feasible, depending on individual programs and activities, after the Secretary is notified of its selections.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 5, 2009 

# Order

October 5, 2009

137607(56)

CHARLES ALLEN and LISA ALLEN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, SC: 137607 v COA: 275797 Oakland CC: 2005-070739-NI BLOOMFIELD HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ ____________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the mo tion by the Brain Inju ry Association of Michigan for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in this case is considered and it is

GRANTED.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Chelly Wilson, Deceased. Bondi Walters, Respondent; Daniel Bourla, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 854]

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about August 13, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion by the proponent of the subject will for summary judgment, in part, dismissing objectant-appellant’s objections to probate premised on lack of testamentary capacity, and fraud and undue influence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Surrogate properly found that proponent-respondent made out a prima facie case for dismissal of objectant’s claims of lack of testamentary capacity, and fraud and undue influence, and objectant’s consequent burden to demonstrate the existence of triable issues was not met by his conclusory and speculative assertions of a vast conspiracy by the will beneficiaries *(see, Matter of Bustanoby,*262 AD2d 407; *Matter of Tully,*227 AD2d 288; *Matter of Bartel,*214 AD2d 476, 477). Moreover, objectant has failed to demonstrate that any purpose would be served by additional discovery or that there are “special circumstances” warranting expansion of the so-called three-two rule *(see,*22 NYCRR 207.27). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.
#### § 500.10 Waiver of rights prohibited.

Any agreement by an employee purporting to waive or modify any rights inuring to said person under the Act or these regulations shall be void as contrary to public policy, except that a waiver or modification of rights or obligations hereunder in favor of the Secretary shall be valid for purposes of enforcement of the provisions of the Act or these regulations. This does not prevent agreements to settle private litigation.
06/01/2012 10:11 FAX 2024935142 FAA -+ 

### OMS 141 001/002



## 1UIZ

May9, 2012 

# RECEIVED

Hearing Docket Clerk Federal Aviation Administration 

### 800 Independence Avenue 

### S.W. Room924A Washington, DC 20593

To Whom It May Concern and 

### Mr. Berman, 

# MAY 

# J 6 

# 2012 

# HEARING DOCKET

We are in receipt of a letter dated February 

### 5, 2012, that we did not receive until May 

### 3, 2012. Mr. Berman has confirmed there is no evidence of confirmation of receipt of this letter on or around the February time frame.

This is 

### to notify you that the facts reported in this notice of proposed civil penalty 

### are incorrect. We did not install the Garmin GPS 496. The purpose of this letter is to request a formal hearing in Richmond, Virginia referencing the attached notice of proposed ci\lil penalty.
Many thanks for your attention to this matter.

HeloAir, 

### Inc.

CC: Mr. Berman

RWB/jh



### 5721 Gulfstream Rd., Richmond, VA 23250 • Office ('804) 226-3400 •

# ('S~X) FLY-HELO •

# F<~x (804) 226<i4<J4 www.heloair.com

### 06/01/2012 10:11 FAX 2024835142 FAA + OMS

Re"ional**Couc~cl** for the Eastern Rcgiuu Fl.!dcrHI Aviation Administration 1 A viaHou Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434

Hc::loair, ln.::. ;1.()11EA2100!!1**Suhj~ct~** Final Notice**ofPtOp<)~ed** Civil Penalry Rcspon**~r,_Ana,.;:lunc::nL** In reply to

### Y•~ou· Hnal Notice of

### Pr,,p,·,~~d <..'Jvil PenalLy lleloair, Inc.

### elect~ to proceed as indicated by its cilc:ck. mark bcsid<l the**numh.,r~d** paragt:\ph belllw:
1. (_)

2. 

### (!,/ Hdoair, Inc. hereby $Ubmits the amount of the proposed civil penalty wilh the**undem:~.nd(ng** tb.aL an ()rclc!'**As~essing** C:ivil Penalty will be: issued in rhat amount.
1-leloair, Inc. 1\c,·cby rtlqucm**~** formal**he~** ring iu accordance Wilh Sec lion 13.16 of thd Federal A. viation**Rcg!Jiatiou~.** By sending thiN form 1u the federal Aviation Admi.u.i!itration, Eastc::m Region, Ilcloair, Inc.**al~o he~·ehy**  l'4;J:Cific:i**tha~** li copy of t.llis form bas**b~** filed wiLl• lhc Hearing 'Ouc.:bt · CleJ•'k**(Htt~riug** Docket, Fcdeml 1\viutlon Adlnlnlstralion, liOO Iudcpcndcmce Av<:nuc, S.W., Room ?24A, WashingtOil, DC 20591, AUI'!ntion: Hcaciu;**Uo<~k.et** Clerk).

### ~~_n<~te**th:~l** t\elQ<lir, Inc. will got he cmitl<:'d loa hcari!lg if it

### filL~~ !luo_form with

### rh~federal**Avi~ti9u Admini~rcmion.**  13:L,tcrn .Region. WITHOUT b,.ving filed

### thi~ form QT a wo"itl(:n

### regue.~t fo("

### h~urine**wjr~'** the HEARING DO(:KRT CLERK.



# trJe**~t(/(~**

# ~--l k

# ft'~ A

# ~**~** 

### 002/002
#### Dorothy Silberman, Respondent, v Herbert Silberman, Appellant.

Submitted September 18, 1995;

decided September 26, 1995

*836Appeal, insofar as taken from that portion of the Appellate Division order which affirmed the denial of appellant’s cross motion for sanctions, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved; appeal, insofar as taken from the remainder of the Appellate Division order, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that that part of the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors

Summa Industries:

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the Company’s1991 Stock Option Plan filed on April 15, 1993, and to file numbers 333-20835,333-68921,  333-68981, 333-87692,333-35163, 333-38415, 333-68983, 333-78873, and 333-87690 of Summa Industriesand subsidiaries of our reports dated October 25, 2004 relating to the 2004financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in thisForm 10-K.

 
| /s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |
| Los Angeles, California         |
| November 12, 2004               |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 35 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. J. RES. 35

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    To amend Public Law 108-331 to provide for the construction and 
 related activities in support of the Very Energetic Radiation Imaging 
          Telescope Array System (VERITAS) project in Arizona.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LOCATION OF VERITAS PROJECT.

    Public Law 108-331 (118 Stat. 1281) is amended--
            (1) in the long title, by striking ``on Kitt Peak near 
        Tucson, Arizona'' and inserting ``in Arizona''; and
            (2) in section 1, by striking ``on Kitt Peak near Tucson, 
        Arizona'' and inserting ``at the Fred Lawrence Whipple 
        Observatory Base Camp on Mount Hopkins, Arizona, or other 
        similar location''.

            Passed the Senate July 17, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             S. J. RES. 35

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

    To amend Public Law 108-331 to provide for the construction and 
 related activities in support of the Very Energetic Radiation Imaging 
          Telescope Array System (VERITAS) project in Arizona.
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12934]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act 
of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 11th and April 13, 2000, the 
National Science Foundation published notices in the Federal Register 
of permit applications received. Permits were issued on May 15, 2000 to 
the following applicant:

Anne A. Sturz: Permit No. 2001-006
Rudolf S. Scheltema: Permit No. 2001-007

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12934 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Richard Gollel et al., Appellants, v Alvin J. Nassar, Sr., et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 26, 1995;

decided September 14, 1995

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the April 28, 1995 Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that that order does not finally determine the action within *812the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the July 15, 1994 Appellate Division order [206 AD2d 835], treated as a motion for reargument of appellants’ previous motion for leave to appeal from that order *[see,*85 NY2d 802], dismissed as untimely. Cross motion for the imposition of sanctions denied.
§ 525.21 Lowering of wage rates. ( a ) No employer may reduce the minimum hourly wage rate, guaranteed by a special minimum wage certificate in effect on June 1, 1986, of any worker with disabilities from June 1, 1986 until May 31, 1988, without prior authorization of the Secretary.
( b ) This provision applies to those workers with disabilities who were: ( 1 ) Employed during the pay period which included June 1, 1986, even if no work was performed during that pay period; and
( 2 ) Employed under a group or individual special minimum wage certificate which specified a minimum guaranteed rate, i.e., a special certificate issued under former section 14(c) (1) or (2)(b) of FLSA.
( c ) In order to obtain authority to lower the wage rate of a worker with a disability to whom this provision applies to a rate below the certificate rate, the employer must submit information as prescribed under this section to the appropriate Regional Office. The burden of establishing the necessity of lowering the wage of a worker with a disability rests with the employer.
( d ) In reviewing a request to lower a wage rate of a worker with a disability, documented evidence of the following will be considered: ( 1 ) Any change in the worker's disabling condition which has a substantially negative impact on productive capacity;
( 2 ) Any change in the type of work being performed in the facility which would affect the productivity of the worker with a disability or which would result in the application of a lower prevailing wage rate;
( 3 ) Any change in general economic conditions in the locality in which the work is performed which results in lower prevailing wage rates.
( e ) A wage rate may not be lowered until authorization is obtained.
#### § 31.4 [Reserved]
- 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 > Standards of Placement Agencies for Household Employees

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Correll, Marie, 1902-. 						*Standards of Placement Agencies for Household Employees : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 112*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1934,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5410,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 541.103 Department or subdivision. ( a ) The phrase “a customarily recognized department or subdivision” is intended to distinguish between a mere collection of employees assigned from time to time to a specific job or series of jobs and a unit with permanent status and function. A customarily recognized department or subdivision must have a permanent status and a continuing function. For example, a large employer's human resources department might have subdivisions for labor relations, pensions and other benefits, equal employment opportunity, and personnel management, each of which has a permanent status and function.
( b ) When an enterprise has more than one establishment, the employee in charge of each establishment may be considered in charge of a recognized subdivision of the enterprise.
( c ) A recognized department or subdivision need not be physically within the employer's establishment and may move from place to place. The mere fact that the employee works in more than one location does not invalidate the exemption if other factors show that the employee is actually in charge of a recognized unit with a continuing function in the organization.
( d ) Continuity of the same subordinate personnel is not essential to the existence of a recognized unit with a continuing function. An otherwise exempt employee will not lose the exemption merely because the employee draws and supervises workers from a pool or supervises a team of workers drawn from other recognized units, if other factors are present that indicate that the employee is in charge of a recognized unit with a continuing function.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 68 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Referred to the Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol by the 

Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL BY 

4 THE JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON 

5 INAUGURAL CEREMONIES. 

6 The rotunda of the United States Capitol is author7 ized to be used on January 20, 2009, by the Joint Con8 gressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connec9 tion with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

SCON 68 RFH 

1 the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice Presi2 dent-elect of the United States. 

Passed the Senate February 8 (legislative day, February 6), 2008. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS