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

----

----

I Comunicações

Comissão

----

Taxas de câmbio do euro (1)

24 de Novembro de 2004

(2004/C 288/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Fonte: Taxas de câmbio de referência publicadas pelo Banco Central Europeu.

----

----

Notificação prévia de uma concentração

(Processo n.o COMP/M.3576 — ECT/PONL/Euromax)

(2004/C 288/02)

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

----

(1)JO L 24 de 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----

----

Notificação prévia de uma operação de concentração

(Processo n.o COMP/M.M.3633 — Alcadis/Isuzu/Mitsubishi/Isuzu Benelux JV)

Processo susceptível de beneficiar da aplicação do procedimento simplificado

(2004/C 288/03)

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

----

(1)JO L 24 de 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  Disponível na página da web:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

----

Notificação prévia de uma operação de concentração

(Processo n.o COMP/M.3611 — BorgWarner/BERU)

Processo susceptível de beneficiar da aplicação do procedimento simplificado

(2004/C 288/04)

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

----

(1)JO L 24 de 29.1.2004, p. 1

(2)  Disponível na página da web:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

----

Notificação prévia de uma concentração

(Processo n.o COMP/M.3655 — Cerberus/Peguform)

Processo susceptível de beneficiar do procedimento simplificado

(2004/C 288/05)

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

----

(1)JO L 24 de 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  Acessível no sítio Web da DG COMP:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

----

APLICAÇÃO UNIFORME DA NOMENCLATURA COMBINADA (NC)

(Classificação de mercadorias)

Notas explicativas adoptadas segundo o procedimento definido no n.o 1 do artigo 10.o do Regulamento (CEE) n.o 2658/87 do Conselho, de 23 de Julho de 1987, relativo à Nomenclatura Pautal e Estatística e à Pauta Aduaneira Comum (1), alterado pelo Regulamento (CE) n.o 1558/2004 da Comissão (2)

(2004/C 288/06)

As «notas explicativas da Nomenclatura Combinada das Comunidades Europeias» (3) serão modificadas como se segue:

Na página 354 é inserido o seguinte texto:

----

(1)JO L 256 de 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2)JO L 283 de 2.9.2004, p. 7.

(3)JO C 256 de 23.10.2002, p. 1.

----
BLUE RIDGE HELICOPTERS INC. 

850 AIRPORT RD. 

LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA 30046 

770 963 0590 Office 

February 12, 2013 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Petition for Waiver/Exemption 14 CFR part 120 

770 963 0290 FAX 

,!"""' 

r,:,.,--·. 

\.,,t...,J 

"""'!"") "" 

f'T": 

' ..~::0 

.,.,.D 

TJ 

... -~-

l,,.AJ 

()-

To Whom It May Concern: Blue Ridge Helicopters, Inc., is hereby filing for an exemption to 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR 

part 120 (formerly 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J) Blue Ridge Helicopters, Inc. is requesting the 91.147 touring LOA 

BR4JA049 be covered under the same FAA antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention program that is administered for Blue 

Ridge Helicopters, Inc 's 135 operator 2BRA564M, rather than being required to maintain a separate program for the touring 

operation. The reason for this exemption; there are only 4 people that fly under the 91.14 7. Because this is such a small 

department, the company does not believe having this group under a separate program warrants the additional cost and time 

to administer two separate programs. The that covers the 135 operator ensures the same level of safety and meets the same 

requirement of the program required for the 91.14 7. I do not believe that having the 91.147 under the same program as the 

135 operator will compromise safety in anyway. In addition, we have not had any positive drug or alcohol tests in our 

program ever; therefore I do not believe allowing this exemption would put our program at risk. You may reach me for 

questions at 770 963 0590 or rbcar274@att.net., or my cell404 401 9130. 

Blue Ridge Helicopters, Inc. 

850 Airport Rd. 

Lawrenceville, GA 30046 

770 963 0590 Office 

770 963 0290 FAX 

404 401 9130 Cell direct
#### § 779.213 What is a common business purpose.

Generally, the term “common business purpose” will encompass activities whether performed by one person or by more than one person, or corporation, or other business organization, which are directed to the same business objective or to similar objectives in which the group has an interest. The scope of the term “enterprise” encompasses a single business entity as well as a unified business system which performs related activities for a common business purpose. What is a “common business purpose” in any particular case involves a practical judgment based on the facts in the light of the statutory provisions and the legislative intent. The answer ordinarily will be readily apparent from the facts. The facts may show that the activities are related to a single business objective or that they are so operated or controlled as to form a part of a unified business system which is directed to a single business objective. In such cases, it will follow that they are performed for a common business purpose. Where, however, the facts show that the activities are not performed as a part of such enterprise but for an entirely separate and unrelated business, they will be considered performed for a different business purpose and will not be a part of that enterprise. The application of these principles is considered in more detail in part 776 of this chapter.
#### Schulte v. The St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, *Appellant.*

1. Railroads:. action for killing stock. A statement filed in a justice’s court in .an action against a railroad company for killing stock, to be sufficient under the 43rd section of the Railroad Law, must aver that the killing did not occur within the limits of an incorporated town.

2. Practice in Supreme Court: amendments. In an action instituted before a justice of the peace, a judgment for the plaintiff being held to be erroneous because of a defect in the statement; *Held,*further, that as a proper amendment could be made in the circuit court, the case should be remanded to that court and not be dismissed.

*Appeal from Madison Circuit*Court.—Hon. J. H. Nicholson, Judge.

Reversed.

*T. J. Portis*and *Smith & Krauthoff*for appellant

*E. D. Anthony*and *W. N. Nalle*for respondent.

*325Norton, J.

This was a suit instituted before a justice of the peace to recover damages under the 43rd section of Railroad Law, (Wag. Stat., p. 310.) for stock injured and killed by defendant’s locomotive. Upon trial in the circuit court of Madison county, where the case had been taken by appeal, plaintiff had judgment, from which defendant has appealed.

On the'trial defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence on the ground that the statement did not set forth a cause of action. This objection was overruled and this action assigned for error. In the case of *Rowland v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R’y Co., 73*Mo. 619, it was held that a statement, to be sufficient under the said 4$d section, must aver that the stock were not killed within the limits of an incorporated town. Testing the sufficiency of the statement in this case by the above rule, the judgment must be reversed because of the lack of such an averment in the statement.

Inasmuch as it was held in the same case that when it is evident- that the statement filed before the justice in an action against a railroad company, for killing stock, is intended to be brought under the 43rd section of the Railroad Law, any insufficiency in the statement may be amended after the case has reached the circuit court, the cause will also be remanded, when the statement may be amended so as to conform to the rule laid down in the above case, as well as in the case of *Bates v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain Southern R’y Co.,*74 Mo. 60. Judgment reversed and cause remanded,

in which all concur.
##### 



Definitions
 Beneficiary
 Code
 Company
 Executive Council Deferred Compensation Plan
 Fund
 Lubrizol Deferred Compensation Plan
 Participant
 1




---



##### 



Plan
 Plan Year
 Profit-Sharing Plan
 Supplemental Company Contributions
 Trust Agreement
 Trust Assets
 Trustee
 Valuation Date
 Separate Accounts
 Supplemental Matching Contributions
 Additional Definitions
 
 Eligibility
 Supplemental Company Contributions
 2




---



##### 



Supplemental Matching Contributions
 Allocation of Contributions
 Administration of Separate Accounts
 
 Vesting
 Distribution
  3




---



##### 



Distribution in the Event of Death
 Withholding for Taxes
 
 Authority of the Company
 4




---



##### 



Claims Review Procedure
      5




---



##### 



Non-Alienation of Retirement Rights or Benefits
 Plan Non-Contractual
 Trust
 6




---



##### 



Interest of a Participant
 Controlling Status
 Claims of Other Persons
 Severability
 Governing Law
  THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATIONBy:Title:By:Title:
 7
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JAIME ELIM PEREZ, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2130 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. )

) Opinion filed September 4, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Brian Iten, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Simone Lennon, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laurie Benoit-Knox, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. MORRIS, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### § 778.122 Computation of overtime for commission employees on established basic rate.

Overtime pay for employees paid wholly or partly on a commission basis may be computed on an established basic rate, in lieu of the method described above. See § 778.400 and part 548 of this chapter.
Panel Member Roster for the May 19

- 21, 2015

Meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) on Research to

Evaluate the Po tential for J uvenile S ensitivity to P yrethroids

Docket Number: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2015

- 0130

FIFRA SAP Chair

Stephen Klaine, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Biological Sciences

Director, Institute of Environmental Toxicology

Clemson University

Clemson, SC

Designated Federal Official

Fred Jenkins, Jr., Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science Coordination and Policy

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA East Building, MC 7201M

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone : (202) 564

- 3327

jenkins.fred@epa.gov

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members

Kenneth Delclos

, Ph.D.

Research Pharmacologist

Division of Biochemistry Toxicology

National Center for Toxicological Research

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Jefferson, AR

Marion Ehrich, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S.

Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology

Department of Biomedical Science and Pathobiology

Virginia

- Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Blacksburg, VADavid A. Jett, Ph.D.

Director, N ational I nstitute of Health CounterACT Program

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, MD

James McManaman, Ph.D.

Professor and Chief

Section of Basic Reproductive Sciences

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

, Physiology

and Biophysics

University of Colorado Denver

Aurora, CO

FQPA Science Review Board Members

Russell Carr , Ph

. D

. Associate Professor

College of Veterinary Medicine

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State

, MS

Veronica Berrocal, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Biostatistics

Department of Biostatistics

School of Public Health

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MS

Muhammad Hossain, DVM, MS, Ph.D.

Neurotoxicologist Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine

Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

Rutgers University

Piscataway, NJ

Allison Jenkins, MPH

Senior Toxicologist

Toxicology Division of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

Austin, TX

Teresa Leavens, Ph.D.

Independent Pharmacokinetic Consultant

Cary, NCIgor Linkov, Ph.D.

Team Leader

Risk and Decision Science Focus Area Lead

US Army Engineer Research and Development Center

Concord, MA

Thomas Murray, Ph.D.

Associate Vice Provost for Research and Scholarship

Professor and Chair

Department of Pharmacology

Creighton University School of Medicine

Omaha, NE

Isaac Pessah , Ph

. D

. Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Education, Professor

Department of Molecular Biosciences

U niversity of C alifornia Davis School of Veterinary Medicine

Department of Veterinary Medicine: Molecular Biosciences

University of California

Davis, CA

Bingfang Yan , Ph.D.

Professor and Department Chair of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences

Director of the Center for Integrated Drug Development

University of Rhode

Island Kingston, RI
#### § 780.310 Exemption for local hand harvest laborers.

Section 13(a)(6)(C) was added to the Act by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966. The legislative history of the exemption indicates that it was intended to apply to the local worker who goes out on a temporary basis during the harvest season to harvest crops. The exemption was not intended to apply to a full-time farmworker, that is, one who earns a livelihood at farming. For instance, migrant laborers who travel from farm to farm were not intended to be within the scope of this exemption.
§ 779.208 Auxiliary activities which are “related activities.” As stated in Senate Report No. 145, 87th Congress, 1st Session, cited in § 779.206, auxiliary and service activities, such as central office and warehousing activities and bookkeeping, auditing, purchasing, advertising and other similar services, also are “related activities.” When such activities are performed through unified operation or common control, for a common business purpose, they will be included in the enterprise. The following are some additional examples of auxiliary activities which are “related activities” and which may be included in the enterprise: ( a ) Credit rating and collection services;
( b ) Promotional activities including advertising, sign painting, display services, stamp redemptions, and prize contests;
( c ) Maintenance and repair services of plant machinery and equipment including painting, decorating, and similar services;
( d ) Store or plant engineering, site location and related survey activities;
( e ) Detective, guard, watchmen, and other protective services;
( f ) Delivery services;
( g ) The operation of employee or customer parking lots;
( h ) The recruitment, hiring and training activities, and other managerial services;
( i ) Recreational and health facilities for customers or employees including eating and drinking facilities (note that employees primarily engaged in certain food service activities in retail establishments may be exempt from the overtime provisions under section 13(b)(18) of the Act if the specific conditions are met; see § 779.388);
( j ) The operation of employee benefit and insurance plans; and
( k ) Repair and alteration services on goods for sale or sold to customers.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6983

FRANK BENJAMIN KEARNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusSTEPHEN DEWALT, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Petersburg, Virginia, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-98-781-2) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 8, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Benjamin Kearney, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Anson Rhine, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on July 8, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on July 12, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Frank Benjamin Kearney appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kearney v. Dewalt , No. CA-98-781-2 (E.D. Va. July 12, 1999). * We deny Kearney’s motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary and dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Commonwealth v. O’Day

*Albert H. Aston,*District Attorney, and *Arthur Silverblatt,*First Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth.

*Nicholas R. Degillio,*for defendant.

May 5, 1958.

Flannery, J.,

— The transcript charged defendant with the crime of “attempted rape” upon the person of a woman child, age seven years. The *207grand jury returned an indictment for indecent assault.

Defendant now moves to quash and assigns four reasons. These are related and, in effect, maintain the indictment is defective in that it sets forth neither the crime charged in the transcript nor its essential elements.

It is true that the information must contain all the essential elements of the offense charged but the language need not be specific. A defendant should not be held to answer a charge in an indictment different from and unrelated to that which was set forth in the transcript (Commonwealth v. Musto, 348 Pa. 300, and cases there cited), but it is not required that the transcript be skillfully drawn. Magistrates are not learned in the law and are not to be held to a high and exact standard of meticulous conformity: Commonwealth v. Miller, 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 469.

Does the transcript here contain the essential elements of the crime charged? Is the charge as laid in the indictment cognate to that which is described in the transcript? Are they related? Is one inclusive of the other? These questions must be answered in the affirmative and defendant cannot prevail.

An indecent assault is the taking of indecent liberties with the person of a female without her consent and against her will: Commonwealth v. Gregory, 132 Pa. Superior Ct. 507.

The transcript here charged defendant with an attempt to commit statutory rape. Inherent in this is the taking of indecent liberties. Certainly, if done without the victim’s consent, this constitutes indecent assault. But the victim here was a child seven years of age and so was incapable of giving consent: Commonwealth v. Bowes, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 625.

Under the facts before us the one crime is an element of the other and charging the greater includes *208the lesser. Hence, that which was charged in the transcript, i.e., attempted statutory rape, included that which was laid in the indictment, i.e., indecent assault.

Wherefore, now, May 5, 1958, at 2:40 p.m., the motion to quash is denied.
(80 South. 167)

#### STRICKLAND v. TOWN OF SAMSON.

(4 Div. 572.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 26, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.

J. liV. Strickland was convicted of violating an ordinance of the- Town of Samson, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

T. M. Espy, of Dothan, for appellant.

W. O. Mulkey, of Geneva, for appellee.

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was charged in three separate cases with the violation of an ordinance of the town of Samson, prohibiting the sale of liquor. By agreement of the parties, all of said cases were tried together before the same jury, resulting in a judgment of conviction in each case.

The assignments of error in the instant case are identical and present the same questions for review as in the case of J. W. Strickland v. Town of Samson (4 Div. 571) ante, p. 592, 80 South. 166.

Under" the authority of that case, the judg-' ment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2ND SESSION S. J. RES. 25 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2008 

Referred to the Committee on House Administration 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the appointment of John W. McCarter 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 Walter E. Massey of Georgia, is filled by 

8 the appointment of John W. McCarter of Illinois, for a 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

SJ 25 RFH 

1 term of 6 years, effective on the date of the enactment 

2 of this resolution. 

Passed the Senate February 4, 2008. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Exhibit 32

                    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 Wizzard Software Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB-A1 for the period ending June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, Christopher J. Spencer, Chief Executive Officer, President and
Treasurer, and Gordon Berry, Controller 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:

     (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 result of operations of the
Company.


Dated: 8/21/03                            /s/ Christopher J. Spencer
      ---------                           --------------------------
                                          Christopher J. Spencer
                                          Chief Executive Officer, President
                                          and Treasurer

Dated: 8/21/03                            /s/ Gordon Berry
      ---------                           -----------------------
                                          Gordon Berry
                                          Controller
#### § 38.82 Notice that complaint will not be accepted.

If a complaint will not be accepted, the Director must notify the complainant, in writing, about that fact, and provide the complainant the Director's reasons for making that determination.