alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 784.131 “As an incident to, or in conjunction with”, fishing operations.

The statutory language makes clear that the “first processing, canning, or packing,” unlike the other named operations of “catching, taking, propagating, harvesting, cultivating, or farming” are not exempt operations in and of themselves. They are exempt only when performed “as an incident to, or in conjunction with such fishing operations” (see *Farmers Reservoir Co.* v. *McComb,* 337 U.S. 755). It is apparent from the context that the language “such fishing operations” refers to the principal named operations of “catching, taking, propagating, harvesting, cultivating, or farming” as performed by the fishermen or fishing vessel (compare *Bowie* v. *Gonzales,* 117 F. 2d 11). Therefore to be “an incident to, or in conjunction with such fishing operations”, the first processing, canning, or packing must take place upon the vessel that is engaged in the physical catching, taking, etc., of the fish. This is made abundantly clear by the legislative history. In Senate Report No. 145, 87th Congress, first session, at page 33, it pointed out:

For the same reasons, there was included in section 13(a)(5) as amended by the bill an exemption for the “first processing, canning, or packing” of marine products “at sea as an incident to, or in conjunction with such fishing operations.” The purpose of this additional provision is to make certain that the Act will be uniformly applicable to all employees on the fishing vessel including those employees on the vessel who may be engaged in these activities at sea as an incident to the fishing operations conducted by the vessel.

In accordance with this purpose of the section, the exemption is available to an employee on a fishing vessel who is engaged in first processing fish caught by fishing employees of that same fishing vessel; it would not be available to such an employee if some or all of the fish being first processed were obtained from other fishing vessels, regardless of the relationship, financial or otherwise, between such vessels (cf. *Mitchell* v. *Hunt,* 263 F. 2d 913; *Farmers Reservoir Co.* v. *McComb,* 337 U.S. 755).
Exhibit 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Advanced Technical Products, Inc.

     We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements
(No.  333-19759,  333-52885,  333-66817  and  333-71232) on Form S-8 of Advanced
Technical  Products,  Inc. of our report dated  February 22, 2002,  except as to
Note 7, which is as of  February  28,  2002,  with  respect to the  consolidated
balance  sheets of Advanced  Technical  Products,  Inc. and  subsidiaries  as of
December  31,  2001  and  2000,  and  the  related  consolidated  statements  of
operations, comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in
the  three-year  period ended  December 31,  2001,  which report  appears in the
December  31, 2001 annual  report on Form 10-K of Advanced  Technical  Products,
Inc.

                                                /s/ KPMG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2002


                                       75
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION  I, Ted R. Sharp, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included 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 periods presented in this report. 4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.   Date:  March 20, 2007  By:   /s/  Ted R. Sharp Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
- 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 > Women at Work: A Century of Industrial Change

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					,	Nelson, Eleanor, 1906-					 and 	Farnham, Rebecca Tufts, 1903-. 						*Women at Work: A Century of Industrial Change : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 161*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1939,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5434,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 784.110 Performing operations both on nonaquatic products and named aquatic products.

By their terms, sections 13(a)(5) and 13(b)(4) provide no exemption with respect to operations performed on any products other than the aquatic products named in these subsections (see § 784.107). Accordingly, neither of the exemptions is applicable to the making of any commodities from ingredients only part of which consist of such aquatic products, if a substantial amount of other products is contained in the commodity so produced (compare *Walling* v. *Bridgeman-Russell Co.,* 6 Labor Cases 61, 422, 2 WH Cases 785 (D. Minn.) and *Miller* v. *Litchfield Creamery Co.,* 11 Labor Cases 63, 274, 5 WH Cases 1039 (N.D. Ind.), with *Mitchell* v. *Trade Winds, Inc.,* 289 F. 2d 278). Thus, the first processing, canning, or processing of codfish cakes, clam chowder, dog food, crab cakes, or livestock food containing aquatic products is often not exempt within the meaning of the relevant exemptions.
No. 76-6313.

#### Santana *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136954 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136954 

 COA: 281983 

Wayne CC: 98-006279-FH;

ZAKEE AHMAD ALI, 00-002676-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
#### § 785.3 Period of effectiveness of interpretations.

These interpretations will remain in effect until they are rescinded, modified or withdrawn. This will be done when and if the Administrator concludes upon reexamination, or in the light of judicial decision, that a particular interpretation, ruling or enforcement policy is incorrect or unwarranted. All other rulings, interpretations or enforcement policies inconsistent with any portion of this part are superseded by it. The Portal-to-Portal Bulletin (part 790 of this chapter) is still in effect except insofar as it may not be consistent with any portion hereof. The applicable statutory provisions are set forth in § 785.50.
§ 4219.11 Withdrawal liability upon mass withdrawal. ( a ) *Initial withdrawal liability.* The plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan that experiences a mass withdrawal shall determine initial withdrawal liability pursuant to section 4201 of ERISA of every employer that has completely or partially withdrawn from the plan and for whom the liability has not previously been determined and, in accordance with section 4202 of ERISA, notify each employer of the amount of the initial withdrawal liability and collect the amount of the initial withdrawal liability from each employer.
( b ) *Mass withdrawal liability.* The plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan that experiences a mass withdrawal shall also— ( 1 ) Notify withdrawing employers, in accordance with § 4219.16(a), that a mass withdrawal has occurred;
( 2 ) Within 150 days after the mass withdrawal valuation date, determine the liability of withdrawn employers for *de minimis* amounts and for 20-year-limitation amounts in accordance with §§ 4219.13 and 4219.14;
( 3 ) Within one year after the reallocation record date, determine the reallocation liability of withdrawn employers in accordance with § 4219.15;
( 4 ) Notify each withdrawing employer of the amount of mass withdrawal liability determined pursuant to this subpart and the schedule for payment of such liability, and demand payment of and collect that liability, in accordance with § 4219.16; and
( 5 ) Notify the PBGC of the occurrence of a mass withdrawal and certify, in accordance with § 4219.17, that determinations of mass withdrawal liability have been completed.
( c ) *Extensions of time.* The plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan that experiences a mass withdrawal may apply to the PBGC for an extension of the deadlines contained in paragraph (b) of this section. The PBGC shall approve such a request only if it finds that failure to grant the extension will create an unreasonable risk of loss to plan participants or the PBGC.
#### Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Messer.

(Decided June 18, 1915.)

Appeal from Whitley Circuit Court.

Jury — Empaneling—Section 2261 Kentucky Statutes — Error.—Since trial courts are authorized to discharge only the first regular panel of a jury after they shall have served one week and empanel another jury, and are without authority to discharge the new jury thus empaneled after a week’s service and empanel another jury for the succeeding week, and continue this practice for each week of the term, it is prejudicial error authorizing a reversal of the judgment to refuse to discharge the fifth panel 'thus selected where the question is properly raised by motion. (For original opinion, see 164 Ky., 218.)

HIRAM H. TYE and BENJAMIN D. WARFIELD for appellant.

J. M. ROBSION for, appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

William Eogers Clay, Commissioner

Granting petition for rehearing and reversing.

Defendant’s supplemental brief, calling our attention to the fact that the jury which tried this case was not properly .empaneled, was not in the record when the case was decided, and the question was not considered by the court. The question is presented by defendant’s petition for'.rehearing.

; It appears that when the case- was .called- for trial, .defendant moved to dischargé the jury for the;,following *507reasons: 1 The court not only discharged the first regular panel'after one week’s service, but .discharged each subsequent panel after one week’s service, and the jiiry which tried, this case was the fifth jury which had been drawn, summoned and empaneled during the term of court at which this case was tried. . Defendant’s motion to discharge the panel was • overruled. In the recent eases of L. & N. R. Co. & Curt Jones v. Owens and L. *& N.*R. Co., and Curt Jones v. Parsons, 161 Ky., 557, we held that trial courts were authorized to discharge only.,the regular first panel of the jury after they had served one .week and. empanel another jury, and were without authority to discharge the new jury thus empaneled after a week’s service and empanel another jury for the succeeding week and continue this practice for each week of the term. We further held that parties litigant are entiled to a trial by. a jury 'empaneled in conformity to the statute, and that, where the question was properly, raised, it was prejudicial error to refuse to discharge the jury where the method provided by the statute for empaneling a jury was substantially disregarded.

For the reasons given, the petition for rehearing is granted, the order of affirmance set aside, and the judgment reversed for a new trial consistent, with this, opinion.
§ 32.47 Hearing practice and procedure. ( a ) All hearings conducted under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the regulations in this part shall be governed by the Department of Labor's rules of practice for administrative proceedings to enforce title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained in 29 CFR part 31.
( b ) For the purposes of hearings pursuant to this part 32, references in 29 CFR part 31 to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall mean section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
( c ) The Assistant Secretary from time-to-time may assign to officials of other departments or agencies of the Government or of the Department of Labor (with the consent of such department or agency) responsibilities in connection with the effectuation of the purposes of section 504 of the Act and this part (other than responsibility for final decisions as provided in § 32.46), including the achievement of effective coordination and maximum uniformity within the Department and within the executive branch of the Government in the application of section 504 and this part to similar programs or activities and in similar situations.
( d ) Any action taken, determination made, or requirement imposed by an official of another Department or agency acting pursuant to an assignment of responsibility under this subsection shall have the same effect as though such action had been taken by the Secretary.
[45 FR 66709, Oct. 7, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51369, Aug. 26, 2003]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                          74,553
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,339
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,487
<PP&E>                                           1,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                      85
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 196,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          152,919
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,550
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   196,481
<SALES>                                        176,237
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,237
<CGS>                                          156,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  156,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,299)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,299)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.001)


</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE: ICON LM, LLC, Appellant

______________________

2020

- 1364

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.

87093088.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

T HEODORE R AY R EMAKLUS , Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, Cincinnati, OH, for appellant.

C HRISTINA J. H IE BER , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee Andrew Hirshfeld . Also represented by T HOMAS
L. C ASAGRANDE

, T IFFANY C HIANG

, T HOMAS W. K RAUSE

, F ARHEENA Y ASMEEN R ASHEED

, P ETER J OHN S AWERT

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED : Case: 20-1364 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 02/09/2021P ER C URIAM (R EYNA

, T ARANTO

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

February 9, 2021

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court Case: 20-1364 Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 02/09/2021
(79 South. 877)

#### ALLEN v. STATE.

(8 Div. 566.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 28, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; R. C. Brickell, Judge.

R. B. Smith, of Huntsville, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Johnson, Appellant.

Submitted June 19, 1995;

decided July 6, 1995

Petition for a writ of error coram nobis dismissed. There is no authority for initiating a writ of error coram nobis in the Court of Appeals *(see, People v Gibbs,*85 NY2d 1030).
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Rowan Services, LLC and Rowan Companies, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00 43 3

- CV

Trial court case number: 2020

- 00964

Trial court: 1 27th District Court of Harris County

On June 8 , 2022, relators, Rowan Services, LLC and Rowan Companies, Inc.

, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court ’s May 18, 2022 order granting real party in interest, Stephen Fortune’s, motion to compel discovery responses

. Relators argue that the trial court abused its discretion by compelling relators “to produce data from

a non

- party/third party entity,” and request that this Court direct the trial court to vacate its May 18, 2022 order.

Also on June 8 , 2022, relators filed a “ Motion for Emergency Temporary Relief,” requesting that this Court grant the emergency motion and “stay[] the trial court’s 18 May
2022 O rder order ing [r] elators to pr oduce data on behalf of a non

- third/party entities.” Pursuant to the trial court’s May 18, 2022 order, relators were required to “provide the

non

- party/third party entities’ data within twenty (20) days of the Order, which [wa]s 7
June 2022.”

R elators’ mo tion for temporary relief is deni ed

. We further request a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in interest. The response(s), if any, is due to be filed with this Court no later than twenty days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ April Farris
X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 10, 2022
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 255 

Recognizing and supporting the long distance runs that will take place in 

the People’s Republic of China in 2007 and the United States in 2008 

to promote friendship between the peoples of China and the United 

States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 26, 2007 

Mr. ISAKSON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

JULY 31, 2007 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and supporting the long distance runs that will 

take place in the People’s Republic of China in 2007 

and the United States in 2008 to promote friendship 

between the peoples of China and the United States. 

Whereas, in 1984, American long distance runner Stan 

Cottrell of Tucker, Georgia, was welcomed into the People’s Republic of China where he completed the 2,125- 

mile Great Friendship Run along the Great Wall of 

China in 53 days, an event which was chronicled in the 

international press and serves as a sign of international 

friendship; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

SRES 255 ATS 

Whereas those involved in the Great Friendship Run over 2 

decades ago are committed to running again to revisit the 

experience and to promote friendship between the peoples 

of China and the United States; 

Whereas in China, a 2,200-mile run from the Great Wall of 

China to Hong Kong will take place October 15 to December 15, 2007; 

Whereas in the United States, a 4,000-mile relay style run 

from San Francisco, California, to the United States 

Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., will take place 

May 7 to June 20, 2008, and cross the continent; and 

Whereas 3 Chinese long distance runners will participate with 

Stan Cottrell and others in the run to take place in the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate recognizes and supports 

2 the long distance runs that will take place in the People’s 

3 Republic of China in 2007 and the United States in 2008 

4 to promote friendship between the peoples of China and 

5 the United States. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS