alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 779.303 “Establishment” defined; distinguished from “enterprise” and “business.”

As previously stated in § 779.23, the term *establishment* as used in the Act means a distinct physical place of business. The “enterprise,” by reason of the definition contained in section 3(r) of the Act and the tests enumerated in section 3(s) of the Act, may be composed of a single establishment. The term “establishment,” however, is not synonymous with the words “business” or “enterprise” when those terms are used to describe multiunit operations. In such a multiunit operation some of the establishments may qualify for exemption, others may not. For example, a manufacturer may operate a plant for production of its goods, a separate warehouse for storage and distribution, and several stores from which its products are sold. Each such physically separate place of business is a separate establishment. In the case of chain store systems, branch stores, groups of independent stores organized to carry on business in a manner similar to chain store systems, and retail outlets operated by manufacturing or distributing concerns, each separate place of business ordinarily is a separate establishment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          12,960
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    699,883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               775,001
<PP&E>                                         262,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                (41,508)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,766,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          233,072
<BONDS>                                        837,498
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,593
<OTHER-SE>                                     691,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,766,026
<SALES>                                        894,663
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,181,161
<CGS>                                          723,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  833,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               172,060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                144,239
<INCOME-TAX>                                    56,253
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             87,986
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    87,986
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.43
        

</TABLE>
#### BROOKLYN ASH REMOVAL CO. v. UNITED STATES

[80 C. Cls. 770; 295 U. S. 752]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court May 20, 1935.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 103 (Friday, May 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13226]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-336-004]


Trailblazer Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Change in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 22, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 15, 2000, Trailblazer Pipeline Company 
(Trailblazer) tendered for filing Original Sheet No. 6A to be a part of 
its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, to be effective May 
15, 2000.
    Trailblazer states that the purpose of this filing is to implement 
a negotiated rate transaction with Enservco Energy, Inc. under 
Trailblazer's Rate Schedule FTS pursuant to Section 38 of the General 
Terms and Conditions of Trailblazer's Tariff.
    Trailblazer requests waiver of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's (Commission) Regulations, including the 30-day notice 
requirement of Section 154.207, to the extent necessary to permit 
Original Sheet No. 6A to become effective May 15, 2000.
    Trailblazer states that copies of the filing are being mailed to 
its customers, interested state commissions and all parties set out on 
the Commission's official service list in Docket No. RP97-336.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13226 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 784.102 General legislative history. ( a ) As orginally enacted in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act provided an exemption from both the minimum wage requirements of section 6 and the overtime pay requirements of section 7 which was made applicable to “any employee employed in the catching, taking, harvesting, cultivating, or farming of any kind of fish, shellfish, crustacea, sponges, seaweeds or other aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life, including the going to and returning from work and including employment in the loading, unloading, or packing of such products for shipment or in propagating, processing, marketing, freezing, canning, curing, storing, or distributing the above products or by products thereof” (52 Stat. 1060, sec. 13(a)(5)).
( b ) In 1949 the minimum wage was extended to employees employed in canning such products by deleting the word “canning” from the above exemption, adding the parenthetical phrase “(other than canning)” after the word “processing” therein, and providing a new exemption in section 13(b)(4), from overtime pay provisions only, applicable to “any employee employed in the canning of any kind of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic forms of animal or vegetable life, or any byproduct thereof”. All other employees included in the original minimum wage and overtime exemption remained within it (63 Stat. 910).
( c ) By the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1961, both these exemptions were further revised to read as set forth in §§ 784.100 and 784.101. The effect of this change was to provide a means of equalizing the application of the Act as between canning employees and employees employed in other processing, marketing, and distributing of aquatic products on shore, to whom minimum wage protection, formerly provided only for canning employees, was extended by this action. The 1961 amendments, however, left employees employed in fishing, in fish farming, and in related occupations concerned with procurement of aquatic products from nature, under the existing exemption from minimum wages as well as overtime pay.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 accompanying Annual Report of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, William A. Shumaker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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) | such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: July 8, 2005



/s/ William A. ShumakerWilliam A. Shumaker President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23

                      INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


KPMG LLP  (Logo)
Certified Public Accountants

CityPlace II
Hartford, CT 06103-4103

                       Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
MacDermid, Incorporated:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (File
No. 333-68535) on Form S-3 of MacDermid, Incorporated of our reports dated May
14, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of MacDermid,
Incorporated and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, comprehensive income, cash flows and
changes in shareholders' equity and related schedule for each of the years in
the three-year period ended March 31, 1999, which reports appear or are
incorporated by reference in the March 31, 1999 annual report on Form
10-K of MacDermid, Incorporated.



/s/ KPMG LLP

June 21, 1999
Exhibit 10.25  Oral Agreement to Extend Independent Contactor Agreement  On February 15, 2008, Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and Sharp Executive Associates, Inc, and the owner of that firm, Ted R. Sharp CPA, orally agreed to extend the Independent Contactor Agreement dated March 1, 2006 for a period of one year, retroactively to January 1, 2008 and ending December 31, 2008.  In addition, Little Squaw Gold Mining Company approved an increase in the contractor fee paid to Sharp Executive Associates, Inc. to $9,075 per month, with opportunity to review and modify the fee on a quarterly basis due to potential wide variability in the ongoing activities of the Company.  The agreement was approved by resolution of the board of directors of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company dated February 15, 2008.
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3579 — WPP/GREY)

(2004/C 266/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. RP96-312-028]

Take notice that on May 15, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing certain Negotiated Rate Arrangement. Tennessee requests that the Commission approve the Negotiated Rate Arrangement effective November 1, 2000.

Tennessee states that the filed Negotiated Rate Arrangement reflects negotiated rates between Tennessee and Nicor Gas (“Nicor”) for transportation under Rate Schedule FT-A beginning November 1, 2000.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-13111  Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.

Date: February 23 , 2006                By:
                                                 ---------------
                                        Name:    David L. Norris
                                        Title:   President and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1926

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1213 Provision of documents to Secretary.

For each document required to be retained in this standard, the retaining employer must make the document available on request to the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary's designee.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20030]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904; Binational 
Panel Reviews: Notice of Termination of Panel Review

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Termination of Panel Review of the Final Results of 
the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Citric 
Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada, Secretariat File No. USA-
CDA-2011-1904-03.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the negotiated settlement between the United 
States and Canadian industries, the panel review of the above-noted 
case is terminated as of August 2, 2011. No panel has been appointed to 
review this panel.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Bohon, United States Secretary, 
NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement (``Agreement'') established a mechanism to replace domestic 
judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with 
review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel 
Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national 
courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine 
whether it conforms to the antidumping or countervailing duty law of 
the country that made the determination.
    Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on 
January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of 
Canada, and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for 
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (``Rules''). These Rules were 
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). 
The panel review in this matter was requested Pursuant to these Rules 
and terminated in accordance with the settlement agreement.

    Dated: August 3, 2011
Ellen Bohon,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2011-20030 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133328 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133328 

 COA: 271583 
 Wayne CC: 92-001768

DERRICK LAVELLE HAMPTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2007 

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). 

d0618 

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. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41072

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO CAMACHO-BARAJAS, also known as Alfonso

Alvarez-Garcia 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-749-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco CamachoBarajas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Camacho-Barajas has filed a

response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this

time of Camacho-Barajas’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United

States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Our independent review
No. 06-41072

2

of the record, counsel’s brief, and Camacho-Barajas’s response discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
§ 35.10 Rules against age discrimination. The rules stated in this section are subject to the exceptions contained in §§ 35.12 and 35.13. ( a ) *General rule.* No person in the United States shall be, on the basis of age, excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of or subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from DOL.
( b ) *Specific rules.* A recipient may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, use age distinctions or take any other actions that have the effect of, on the basis of age: ( 1 ) Excluding individuals from, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under, a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from DOL; or
( 2 ) Denying or limiting individuals in their opportunity to participate in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from DOL.
( c ) *Other forms of age discrimination.* The listing of specific forms of age discrimination in paragraph (b) of this section is not exhaustive and does not imply that any other form of age discrimination is permitted.
#### § 452.66 Statutory provisions.

The opportunity for members to have a free, fair, and informed expression of their choices among candidates seeking union office is a prime objective of title IV of the Act. Voters can best be assured opportunity for an informed choice if certain campaign rights are guaranteed to candidates and their supporters. To this end, the statute provides that adequate safeguards to insure a fair election shall be provided, and states certain specific safeguards. These safeguards apply not only to candidates for officer positions as defined in the Act but also to candidates for delegate posts, if the delegates are to nominate or elect officers.