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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 185 

Supporting the ideals and values of the Olympic Movement. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mrs. CLINTON) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the ideals and values of the Olympic Movement. 

Whereas, for over 100 years, the Olympic Movement has built 

a more peaceful and better world by educating young 

people through athletics, by bringing together athletes 

from many countries in friendly competition, and by forging new relationships bound by friendship, solidarity, 

sportsmanship, and fair play; 

Whereas the United States Olympic Committee is dedicated 

to coordinating and developing athletic activity in the 

United States to foster productive working relationships 

among sports-related organizations; 

Whereas the United States Olympic Committee promotes and 

supports athletic activities involving the United States 

and foreign countries; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 185 IS 

Whereas the United States Olympic Committee promotes and 

encourages physical fitness and public participation in 

athletic activities; 

Whereas the United States Olympic Committee assists organizations and persons concerned with sports in the development of athletic programs for able-bodied and disabled 

athletes regardless of age, race, or gender; 

Whereas the United States Olympic Committee protects the 

opportunity of each athlete, coach, trainer, manager, administrator, and official to participate in athletic competition; 

Whereas athletes representing the United States at the Olympic Games have achieved great success personally and for 

the Nation; 

Whereas thousands of men and women of the United States 

are focusing their energy and skill on becoming part of 

the United States Olympic Team and aspire to compete 

in the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China; 

Whereas the Nation takes great pride in the qualities of commitment to excellence, grace under pressure, and good 

will toward other competitors exhibited by the athletes of 

the United States Olympic Team; and 

Whereas June 23, 2007, is the anniversary of the founding 

of the Modern Olympic Movement, representing the date 

on which the Congress of Paris approved the proposal of 

Pierre de Coubertin to found the Modern Olympic 

Games: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the ideals and values of the Olym3 pic Movement; and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 185 IS 

1 (2) calls upon the people of the United States 

2 to observe the anniversary of the founding of the 

3 Modern Olympic Movement with appropriate cere4 monies and activities. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00078-CR 

 

EX PARTE RODGER CLAYCOMB, RELATOR 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

November 22, 2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

In light of the Opinion issued November 22, 2022 in Ex parte Claycomb, No. 07-

20-00238-CR, Relator’s writ of prohibition and this Court’s Order on Motion for 

Emergency Stay issued in Ex parte Claycomb, 07-22-00078-CR on April 1, 2022, are 

hereby rendered moot. Therefore, Relator’s writ and motion are both dismissed.

Lawrence M. Doss

 Justice

Do not publish.
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 4.50 Types of wage and fringe benefit determinations. The Administrator specifies the minimum monetary wages and fringe benefits to be paid as required under the Act in two types of determinations: ( a ) *Prevailing in the locality.* ( 1 ) Determinations that set forth minimum monetary wages and fringe benefits determined to be prevailing for various classes of service employees in the locality (sections 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2) of the Act) after giving “due consideration” to the rates applicable to such service employees if directly hired by the Federal Government (section 2(a)(5) of the Act).
( 2 ) The prevailing wage determinations applicable to most contracts covered by the Act are based upon cross-industry survey data. However, in some cases the Department of Labor may issue industry specific wage determinations for application to specific types of service contracts. In addition, the geographic scope of contracts is often different and the geographic scope of the underlying survey data for the wage determinations applicable to those contracts may be different. Therefore, a variety of different prevailing wage determinations may be applicable in a particular locality. The application of these different prevailing wage determinations will depend upon the nature of the contracts to which they are applied.
( b ) *Collective Bargaining Agreement—(Successorship).* Determinations that set forth the wage rates and fringe benefits, including accrued and prospective increases, contained in a collective bargaining agreement applicable to the service employees who performed on a predecessor contract in the same locality. (See sections 2(a)(1) and (2) as well as 4(c) of the Act.)
[70 FR 50898, Aug. 26, 2005]
#### § 780.10 Workweek standard in applying exemptions.

The workweek is the unit of time to be taken as the standard in determining the applicability of an exemption. An employee's workweek is a fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours—seven consecutive 24-hour periods. It need not coincide with the calendar week. If in any workweek an employee does only exempt work, he is exempt from the wage and hour provisions of the Act during that workweek, irrespective of the nature of his work in any other workweek or workweeks. An employee may thus be exempt in 1 workweek and not in the next. But the burden of effecting segregation between exempt and nonexempt work as between particular workweeks is upon the employer.
EXHIBIT 23
                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
KPMG  LLP  (Logo)
Certified  Public  Accountants
One  Financial  Plaza
Hartford,  CT  06103-4103
                          Independent Auditors' Consent
The  Board  of  Directors
MacDermid,  Incorporated:
We  consent  to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Number
033-61401,  333-64007,  333-89185, 950123-01-505083 and 950123-01-505084 on Form
S-8  and  333-68535 and 333-102177 on Form S-3 of MacDermid, Incorporated of our
report  dated  February  4, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
MacDermid,  Incorporated  and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and
the  related  consolidated  statements  of  earnings, comprehensive income, cash
flows  and changes in shareholders' equity for the year ended December 31, 2002,
the nine months ended December 31, 2001 and the year ended March 31, 2001, which
report  is  incorporated  by reference in the December 31, 2002 annual report on
Form  10-K  of  MacDermid,  Incorporated.

/s/  KPMG  LLP
March  25,  2003
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.110 What contracts are covered.

The Act covers service contracts of the Federal agencies described in §§ 4.107-4.108. Except as otherwise specifically provided (see §§ 4.115 *et seq.*), all such contracts, the principal purpose of which is to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees, are subject to its terms. This is true of contracts entered into by such agencies with States or their political subdivisions, as well as such contracts entered into with private employers. Contracts between a Federal or District of Columbia agency and another such agency are not within the purview of the Act; however, “subcontracts” awarded under “prime contracts” between the Small Business Administration and another Federal agency pursuant to various preferential set-aside programs, such as the 8(a) program, are covered by the Act. It makes no difference in the coverage of a contract whether the contract services are procured through negotiation or through advertising for bids. Also, the mere fact that an agreement is not reduced to writing does not mean that the contract is not within the coverage of the Act. The amount of the contract is not determinative of the Act's coverage, although the requirements are different for contracts in excess of $2,500 and for contracts of a lesser amount. The Act is applicable to the contract if the principal purpose of the contract is to furnish services, if such services are to be furnished in the United States, and if service employees will be used in providing such services. These elements of coverage will be discussed separately in the following sections.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust VI (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding VI, L.P.
for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig J. Nargesian,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, 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 the Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST VI


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: November 9, 2005
______________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### §§ 1910.309-1910.330 [Reserved]
#### Railey, &c. *vs*Railey.

*Oct.*1.

Error to the Woodford County Court.

*Division of Land.*

Case stated.

The acts of 1794 and 1797 do not authorize the County Court to appoint commissioners to divide land descended amongst those interested, unless there has been a refusal by some of the parties interested to divide, and then only upon notice to all persons interested.

Judge Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a motion in the Woodford County Court, for the appointment of Commissioners to divide the land descended from Peter I. Railey among his heirs, three of whom appear to be infants, and the fourth is probably also a minor. On motion of the guardian of one of them, six Commissioners were appointed, with power for any two to act. And at the next term, the report of a division made by two of the Commissioners was approved, and ordered to be recorded, after overruling the motion of the guardian of two of the heirs to quash it.

The proceeding was intended to be had under the acts of 1794 and 1797, which are based upon the act of 1792. But even if these acts should be deemed to be in force, so far as they cover the case of land descended, the proceeding cannot be sustained ; because it does not appear that there had been any refusal to make the division by any of the parties interested in it. And it cannot be sustained under the act of 1811, the first and second sec. tions of which apply particularly to the case of land descended. First, because under that act the division must be made by three Commissioners to be appointed for that purpose: And second, because that act expressly requires that the applicant should have given reasonable notice of his intended application to all parties interested, which does not appear to have been done. And under the act of 1797, as well as that of 1811, deeds should have been ordered to be made pursuant to the division, when confirmed.

*111Tlie *statute*of 1811, on the subject of dividing land descended, *(St. Law,*1066) requires that notice to all the parties interested in the division shall be given of an application for the appointment ot Commiss’rs to divide, and that deeds shall be made when the division is confirmed.

*Mor ¿head § Reed*for plaintiff.

We are of opinion, that the act of 1811, *(Stat. Laic,*1066, supercedes, and virtually repeals the previous acts, so far as they apply to the cases provided for in the first and second sections of the subsequent act of 1811. And this proceeding is erroneous throughout, for the want of notice by the applicant, to the other parties interested. This defect is not supplied by the appearance of some of those parties when the report was made. One of them has not yet become a party to the proceeding. And the statute requires all' to be notified before the application is made to the County Court.

Wherefore, the order confirming the report, and the order appointing the Commissioners, are reversed, and the case is remanded, that the applicant may proceed *de novo,*should he think proper to do so.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 49780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20444]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development, Special Emphasis Panel.
    NICHD International and Domestic Pediatric and Maternal HIV, 
Studies Coordinating Center.
    Date: September 1, 2011.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Division Of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 
Executive Blvd., ROOM 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6680, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cbb8a0aaa5afaab8aa8ba6aaa2a7e5a5a2a3e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c1f070d02080d1f0d2c010d050042020504420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 5, 2011.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-20444 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 776.3 Persons engaging in both covered and noncovered activities.

The Act applies to employees “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” without regard to whether such employees, or their employer, are also engaged in other activities which would not bring them within the coverage of the Act. The Act makes no distinction as to the percentage, volume, or amount of activities of either employee or employer which constitute engaging in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. Sections 6 and 7 refer to “each” and “any” employee so engaged, and section 15(a)(1) prohibits the introduction into the channels of interstate or foreign commerce of “any” goods in the production of which “any” employee was employed in violation of section 6 or section 7. Although employees doing work in connection with mere isolated, sporadic, or occasional shipments in commerce of insubstantial amounts of goods will not be considered covered by virtue of that fact alone, the law is settled that every employee whose engagement in activities in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, even though small in amount, is regular and recurring, is covered by the Act.[12] This does not, however, necessarily mean that an employee who at some particular time may engage in work which brings him within the coverage of the Act is, by reason of that fact, thereafter indefinitely entitled to its benefits.

###### Footnotes -
  776.3

[12] *United States* v. *Darby,* 312 U.S. 100; *Mabee* v. *White Plains Pub. Co.,* 327 U.S. 178; *Schmidt* v. *Peoples Telephone Union of Maryville, Missouri,* 138 F. 2d 13 (C.A. 8); *New Mexico Public Service Co.* v. *Engel,* 145 F. 2d 636 (C.A. 10); *Sun Pub. Co.* v. *Walling,* 140 F. 2d 445 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 322 U.S. 728; *Davis* v. *Goodman Lumber Co.,* 133 F. 2d 52 (C.A. 4).
United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Electronic Docket Index for

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0240]

Revisions to Implementation Plans, State of California, 

Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District

New Source Review Program

I. SIP Submittal Documents

I-A SIP submittal letter from CARB, dated December 11, 2014

I-B SIP submittal letter from CARB, dated 10-18-85

I-C Rule 130 – Definitions, clean copy

I-D Rule 200 – Permit Requirements, clean copy

I-E Rule 220 – New Source Review, clean copy

I-F Rule 230 – Action on Applications, clean copy

I-G Rule 240 – Permit to Operate, clean copy

I-H Rule 130 – Definitions, strike out copy

I-I Rule 200 – Permit Requirements, strike out copy

I-J Rule 220 – New Source Review, strike out copy

I-K Rule 230 – Action on Applications, strike out copy

I-L Rule 240 – Permit to Operate, strike out copy

I-M Staff Report: PSD and SIP Amendments 2014

II. Federal Register Notices1

II-A 37 FR 19812, September 22, 1972 (Repealed rules)

II-B 43 FR 59489, December 21, 1978 (R240e)

II-C 45 FR 72148, October 31, 1980 (R240)

II-D 50 FR 30943, July 31, 1985 (SIP approval)

II-E 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992 (Title I General Preamble)

II-F 73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008

II-G 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010 

II-H 76 FR 26192, May 6, 2011 (Rule 130)

II-I 80 FR 50199 August 19, 2015 (Subject to regulation vacatur)

III.Other Relevant Documents

III-A Submittal Completeness Letter, February 20, 2015

III-B Recession Request Letter, February 11, 2016

 

1 All Federal Register notices listed after 1993 are available on-line at: 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR
III-C EPA’s Technical Support Document for NSCAPCD Rules 130, 200, 220, 230 & 

240, April 18, 2016

III-D Rule 10 – Permits Required

III-E Rule 12 – Transfer

III-F Rule 18 – Conditional Approval

III-G Rule 130 – Definitions

III-H Rule 200 – Permit Requirements

III-I Rule 200a – Permit Requirements

III-J Rule 220a – New Source Review

III-K Rule 220b – New Source Review

III-L Rule 220c – New Source Review

III-M Rule 230 – Action on Applications

III-N Rule 240 – Permit to Operate

III-O Rule 240e – Mandatory Monitoring Requirements

IV.EPA Rulemaking Documents

IV-A Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
IPM Files -- MATS Policy Case: 3 of 6 12/09/2011 04:46 PM

From: Erich Eschmann/DC/USEPA/US Sort List...

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mikhail Adamantiades/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Erich Eschmann Clean Air Markets Division U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation

202 343-9128 Phone
202 343-2359 Fax eschmann.erich@epa.gov

MATS Policy Case_3.zip
#### § 580.2 Applicability of procedures and rules.

The procedures and rules contained in this part prescribe the administrative process for assessment of civil money penalties for any violation of the child labor provisions at section 12 of the Act and any regulation thereunder as set forth in part 579 of this chapter, and for assessment of civil money penalties for any violation of the tip retention provisions of section 3(m)(2)(B) or any repeated or willful violation of the minimum wage provisions of section 6 or the overtime provisions of section 7 of the Act or the regulations thereunder set forth in 29 CFR subtitle B, chapter V. The substantive requirements for assessment of civil money penalties are set forth at 29 CFR part 579 (child labor) and part 578 (minimum wage and overtime).

[56 FR 24991, May 31, 1991, as amended at 86 FR 52987, Sept. 24, 2021]
[No. 28557-6-II.

Division Two.

December 20, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Henry Isaac Pullen, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 01-1-03931-0, Karen L. Strombom, J., entered March 8, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., and Seinfeld, J.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATE
      OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**OF
      DIOMED HOLDINGS, INC. (REGISTRANT)**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      James
      A. Wylie, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best
      of
      my knowledge and belief pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that:




(1)
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, which
      this statement accompanies, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
      the
      Registrant.




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter
      63
      title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.




|                                                |  |  |                                                                                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------- |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:
            November 14,
            2007 |  |  | /s/
            JAMES A.
            WYLIE, JR.                                                                                            
|                                                |  |  | James
              A. Wylie, Jr.
            Chief
              Executive Officer
            (Principal
              Executive Officer)
|                                                |  |  |