alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 458.36 Prohibitions against certain persons holding office or employment.

The prohibitions against holding office or employment in a labor organization contained in section 504(a) of the LMRDA are incorporated into this subpart by reference and made a part hereof. The prohibitions shall also be applicable to any person who has been convicted of, or who has served any part of a prison term resulting from his conviction of, violating 18 U.S.C. 1001 by making a false statement in any report required to be filed pursuant to this subpart, or who has been determined by the Director after an appropriate proceeding pursuant to §§ 458.66 through 458.92 to have willfully violated § 458.27: *Provided, however,* That the Director or such other person as he may designate may exempt a person from the prohibition against holding office or employment or may reduce the period of the prohibition where he determines that it would not be contrary to the purposes of the CSRA or the FSA and this section to permit a person barred from holding office or employment to hold such office or employment.

[45 FR 15158, Mar. 7, 1980. Redesignated and amended at 50 FR 31311, 31312, Aug. 1, 1985, as amended at 78 FR 8026, Feb. 5, 2013]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1187

SIDNEY H. HOGAN,

Petitioner,

versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;

EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(95-2157-BLA)

Submitted: October 31, 1997 Decided: December 29, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert S. Baker, Beckley, West Virginia, for Petitioner. J. Davitt

McAteer, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate

Solicitor, Patricia M. Nece, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Rita

Roppolo, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus,

ARTER & HADDEN, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decisions and orders affirming the administrative law judge's denial of

black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986

& Supp. 1997). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's

decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board.

Hogan v. Eastern Coal Corp., Nos. 90-1108; 95-2157-BLA (B.R.B.

June 17, 1994; Dec. 11, 1996). We have reviewed the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT  23



            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
            --------------------------------------------------------

The  Board  of  Directors and Shareholders of
MacDermid,  Incorporated:

We  consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-89185)  on  Form  S-8  of  MacDermid,  Incorporated  and subsidiaries of our
reports dated March 15, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
MacDermid,  Incorporated  as  of  December  31,  2004  and 2003, and the related
consolidated  statements  of  earnings  and  other  comprehensive  income,
shareholders'  equity,  and  cash  flows, for each of the years in the three
year period ended December 31, 2004, management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December  31,
2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2004, which reports are incorporated by reference in the
December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K  of  MacDermid,  Incorporated.

As  discussed  in  Note  1  to the consolidated financial statements, Summary of
Significant Accounting Policies, effective July 1, 2003, the Corporation adopted
Statement  of  Financial  Accounting  Standards  No. 150, Accounting for Certain
Financial  Instruments  with  Characteristics  of  both  Liabilities and Equity.

/s/ KPMG, LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
March  15,  2005
#### § 783.14 “Goods”.

The definition in section 3(i) of the Act states that “goods”, as used in the Act means “goods (including ships and marine equipment), wares, products, commodities, merchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof, but does not include goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.” Part 776 of this chapter, dealing with the general coverage of the Act, contains a detailed discussion of the application of this definition and what is included in it.
Exhibit 23.1





                    Independent Auditors' Consent



The Board of Directors
Arrow-Magnolia International, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-47709 and 333-01511) on Form S-8 of Arrow-Magnolia International,
Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2001 (as amended April 3, 2002, relating
to the balance sheets of Arrow-Magnolia International, Inc. as of December
31, 2000 and 1999 and the related statements of income, shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which
report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Arrow-Magnolia, International, Inc.




							PHILIP VOGEL & CO., INC.



Dallas, Texas
April 15, 2002
November 24, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

APPROXIMATELY $31,421.00, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00385-CV V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, the State of 

Texas, signed February 18, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We order the judgment of 

the court below REVERSED and RENDER judgment ordering the State to return 

the seized proceeds to claimant Fredi Azuara Enriquez. We further remand the 

cause for proceedings in accordance with the court’s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellee, the State of Texas.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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 of Pick Ups Plus, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Merritt Jesson,
Chief Executive Officer 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
to my knowledge:

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 Company.





Dated:  May 20, 2005
                                     /s/ Merritt Jesson
                                     --------------------------------
                                     Merritt Jesson
                                     Chief Executive Officer
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3448 — EDP/HIDROCANTÁBRICO)

(2004/C 206/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1640

___________

Nancy Barton, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner * [UNPUBLISHED]

of Social Security, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 11, 2003

Filed: October 6, 2003

___________

Before MELLOY, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nancy Barton sought supplemental security income (SSI) benefits asserting

she was disabled beginning January 1, 1989, by arthritis, degenerative disc disease,

anxiety with panic attacks, and severe neck, back, and hip pain. An administrative

law judge (ALJ) decided Barton was not disabled because she had the residual

functional capacity to perform a significant range of light work and there were a

significant number of jobs in the national economy she could perform. While

Barton’s case was pending before the Appeals Council, she filed a new application

for benefits and another ALJ found Barton was disabled beginning March 8, 2000.
*

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

The Appeals Council in the earlier action found the later claim reflected a

deterioration in Barton’s mental condition and concluded substantial evidence

supported the earlier ALJ’s decision to deny benefits beginning January 1, 1989.

Barton sought judicial review, and the district court*

 affirmed the Commissioner’s

decision to deny benefits based on a magistrate judge’s fifty-page report and

recommendation. 

On appeal, Barton contends the ALJ improperly assessed her residual

functional capacity because he failed to provide medical grounds for his decision,

failed to incorporate Barton’s mental limitations, and posed an incomplete

hypothetical question. Barton also contends the ALJ improperly discounted the

opinion of her treating psychiatrist. Having carefully reviewed Barton’s contentions,

the record, and the applicable law, we conclude substantial evidence supports the

ALJ’s decision to deny benefits. Because we have nothing to add to the magistrate

judge’s analysis as amended by the district court, we affirm without additional

discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
EXHIBIT 31
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, Howard L. Schrott, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Liberty Corporation;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b.  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   Date: March 2, 2005  /s/ Howard L. Schrott     Howard L. Schrott
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23



                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference and the inclusion herein in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of The Liberty Corporation of our report dated
February 10, 1997, included in the 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of The
Liberty Corporation and included in Form 10-K in Exhibit 13.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedules of The Liberty
Corporation listed in Item 14(a). These schedules are the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedules referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment
No. 5 to the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 2-53890) pertaining to the
Company's Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-34314) pertaining to the 1983 Performance Incentive Compensation Program, in
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-34816) pertaining to The Liberty
Corporation and Adopting Related Employers' 401(k) Thrift Plan, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-34814) pertaining to The Cosmos
Broadcasting Corporation Profit Sharing Retirement Plan and Trust, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-34815) pertaining to The Liberty
Corporation Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-22591) pertaining to The Cosmos Broadcasting Corporation Retirement
and Savings Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-22285)
pertaining to The Liberty Corporation Retirement and Savings Plan of our report
dated February 10, 1997 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedules of The Liberty Corporation included and incorporated by reference
in the annual report on Form 10-K and our report dated March 5, 1997 with
respect to the financial statements and schedules included in the annual report
on Form 11-K of The Liberty Corporation and Adopting Related Employers' 401(k)
Thrift Plan for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Greenville, South Carolina
March 24, 1997


                                      68
#### In the Matter of Arthur H. Kroll, an Attorney, Appellant. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Respondent.

Submitted October 2, 1995;

decided October 19, 1995

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601).
§ 2700.67 Summary decision of the Judge. ( a ) *Filing of motion for summary decision.* At any time after commencement of a proceeding and no later than 25 days before the date fixed for the hearing on the merits, a party may move the Judge to render summary decision disposing of all or part of the proceeding. Filing of a summary decision motion and an opposition thereto shall be effective upon receipt.
( b ) *Grounds.* A motion for summary decision shall be granted only if the entire record, including the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits, shows: ( 1 ) That there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; and
( 2 ) That the moving party is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law.
( c ) *Form of motion.* A motion shall be accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities specifying the grounds upon which the party seeks summary decision and a statement of material facts specifying each material fact as to which the party contends there is no genuine issue. Each material fact set forth in the statement shall be supported by a reference to accompanying affidavits or other verified documents.
( d ) *Form of opposition.* An opposition to a motion for summary decision shall include a memorandum of points and authorities specifying why the moving party is not entitled to summary decision and may be supported by affidavits or other verified documents. The opposition shall also include a separate concise statement of each genuine issue of material fact necessary to be litigated, supported by a reference to any accompanying affidavits or other verified documents. Material facts identified as not in issue by the moving party shall be deemed admitted for purposes of the motion unless controverted by the statement in opposition. If a party does not respond in opposition, summary decision, if appropriate, shall be entered in favor of the moving party.
( e ) *Affidavits.* Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts of papers referred to in an affidavit shall be attached to the affidavit or be incorporated by reference if not otherwise a matter of record. The judge shall permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or further affidavits.
( f ) *Case not fully adjudicated on motion.* If a motion for summary decision is denied in whole or in part, the Judge shall ascertain what material facts are controverted and shall issue an order directing further proceedings as appropriate.
[58 FR 12164, Mar. 3, 1993, as amended at 71 FR 44208, Aug. 4, 2006]
###### Editorial Note on Part 6

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 6.8 Transmission of record.

If a petition for review of the Administrative Law Judge's decision is filed with the Administrative Review Board, the Chief Administrative Law Judge shall promptly transmit the record of the proceeding.

If a petition for review is not filed within the time prescribed in this part, the Chief Administrative Law Judge shall so advise the Administrator.
#### § 780.503 What determines the application of the exemption.

The application of the section 13(a)(14) exemption depends upon the nature of the work performed by the individual employee for whom exemption is sought and not upon the character of the work of the employer. A determination of whether an employee is exempt therefore requires an examination of that employee's duties. Some employees of the employer may therefore be exempt while others may not.
IIA 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 8 

Providing for the reappointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer as a citizen regent 

of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2007 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. DODD) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the reappointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer 

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents 

5 of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than 

6 Members of Congress, occurring because of the expiration 

7 of the term of Patricia Q. Stonesifer of Washington, is 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with DIGEST
2 

•SJ 8 IS 

1 filled by the reappointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer, for 

2 a term of 6 years, effective December 22, 2007. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with DIGEST
§ 4220.4 PBGC action on requests. ( a ) *General.* Upon receipt of a complete request, the PBGC shall notify the plan sponsor in writing of the date of commencement of the 90-day period specified in section 4220 of ERISA. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the PBGC shall approve or disapprove a plan amendment submitted to it under this part within 90 days after receipt of a complete request for approval. If the PBGC fails to act within the 90-day period, or within that period notifies the plan sponsor that it will not disapprove the amendment, the amendment may be made effective without the approval of the PBGC.
( b ) *Decision on request.* The PBGC's decision on a request for approval shall be in writing. If the PBGC disapproves the plan amendment, the decision shall state the reasons for the disapproval. An approval by the PBGC constitutes its finding only with respect to the issue of risk as set forth in section 4220(c) of ERISA, and not with respect to whether the amendment is otherwise properly adopted in accordance with the terms of ERISA and the plan in question.
( c ) *Suspension of the 90-day period.* The PBGC may suspend the running of the 90-day period referred to in paragraph (a) of this section if it determines that additional information is required under § 4220.3(e). When it does so, PBGC's request for additional information will advise the plan sponsor that the running of 90-day period has been suspended. The 90-day period will resume running on the date on which the additional information is received by the PBGC, and the PBGC will notify the plan sponsor of that date upon receipt of the information.