alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 520.404 What must I demonstrate in my application for a messenger, learner, or apprentice certificate to receive a favorable review? ( a ) The application must demonstrate that a certificate is necessary in order to prevent the curtailment of opportunities for employment.
( b ) The issuance of a messenger and/or learner certificate must not tend to create unfair competitive labor cost advantages nor have the effect of impairing or depressing wage rates or working standards of experienced workers performing work of a like or comparable character in the industry.
( c ) Abnormal labor conditions such as a strike, lock-out, or other similar condition, must not exist at the plant or establishment for which a messenger and/or learner certificate is requested.
( d ) It must be shown that an adequate supply of qualified experienced workers is not available for employment in those occupations for which authorization to pay subminimum wages to learners has been requested; that the experienced workers presently employed in the plant or establishment in occupations in which learners are requested are afforded an opportunity, to the fullest extent possible, for full-time employment upon completion of the learning period; and that learners are available for employment.
( e ) Reasonable efforts must have been made to recruit workers paid at least the minimum wage in those occupations in which certificates to employ learners at subminimum wages have been requested. This includes the placement of an order with the local State or Territorial Public Employment Service Office (except in possessions where there is no such office) not more than fifteen days prior to the date of application. Written evidence from such office that the order has been placed shall be submitted by the employer with the application.
( f ) The occupation or occupations in which learners are to receive training must involve a sufficient degree of skill to necessitate an appreciable learning period.
( g ) An apprenticeship program must conform with or substantially conform with the standards of apprenticeship as defined in subpart C of this part.
( h ) There must be no serious outstanding violations involving the employee(s) for whom a certificate is being requested nor any serious outstanding violations of a certificate previously issued, nor any serious violations of the FLSA which provide reasonable grounds to conclude that the terms of a certificate may not be complied with, if issued.
§ 2200.103 Expedited proceeding. ( a ) *When ordered.* Upon application of any party or intervenor or upon its own motion, the Commission may order an expedited proceeding. When an expedited proceeding is ordered by the Commission, the Executive Secretary shall notify all parties and intervenors.
( b ) *Automatic expedition.* Cases initiated by employee contests and petitions for modification of abatement period shall be expedited. See §§ 2200.37(d)(2) and 2200.38(c).
( c ) *Effect of ordering expedited proceeding.* When an expedited proceeding is required by these rules or ordered by the Commission, it shall take precedence on the docket of the Judge to whom it is assigned, or on the Commission's review docket, as applicable, over all other classes of cases, and shall be set for hearing or for the submission of briefs at the earliest practicable date.
( d ) *Time sequence set by Judge.* The assigned Judge shall make rulings with respect to time for filing of pleadings and with respect to all other matters, without reference to times set forth in these rules, and shall do all other things appropriate to complete the proceeding in the minimum time consistent with fairness.
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 6:05 PM
To: Wayland, Robertj Subject: FW: Meeting re: GHG Proposed Rules

From: Bond, Alex [mailto:ABond@nma.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 3:54 PM
To: Higgins, Cortney
Cc: 'lorenzen.thomas@dorsey.com' Subject: RE: Meeting re: GHG Proposed Rules

Cortney,

Thanks again for coordinating our request. I’ll be coming in on Thursday with Tom Lorenzen for our discussion. We were talking today and thought it might make sense for a few folks from EPA to be present for this, if that makes sense to you? We were thinking Bob Wayland, Elliot Zennick and Howard Hoffman would be the right folks given the bent of our discussion, and if they are available and if you thought it appropriate. Thanks so much for the consideration!

Alex

From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 3:16 PM
To: Bond, Alex
Cc: Echols, Mabel E. Subject: RE: Meeting re: GHG Proposed Rules

Hi Alex,

Thank you for your request. I’ve copied Mabel Echols on this email, who can work with you to find a time for the meeting.

Regards, CortneyFrom: Bond, Alex [mailto:ABond@nma.org]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:38 AM
To: Higgins, Cortney Subject: Meeting re: GHG Proposed Rules

Cortney –

Good morning! I just left you a voicemail with a little bit of color on what’s going on, but we here at NMA are interested in setting up a meeting regarding the proposed rules under review with you re: Section 111 (b) and (d). Is there any time in the next week or two that works?

Thanks, Alex

-- Alex Bond Director, Air Quality National Mining Association 202.463.2608 (office) 202.697.2161 (mobile) abond@nma.org
#### HOEFNER v KORACH et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10644.

Decided May 26, 1930

Geiger & Williams, Cleveland, for Hoefner.

Henry Newhauser, Cleveland, for Korach, et.

VICKERY, PJ

We have gone over this record, heard the arguments of counsel and their statements of fact, and we can come to no other conclusion but that the court below reached a just conclusion. We think that he decided the case rightly and we can do no better than to enter the same judgment and decree in this court.

The section above referred to seems to give the court discretionary power to settle the costs in accordance with the equities and to do justice and right to both parties. Applying that doctrine to the instant case, we find that when this partition suit was brought Korach had a quitclaim deed to the one-half interest that belonged to the *444husband, but the wife had not joined in that deed. Therefore, she had a dower interest in the husband’s one-half interest in that property and Hoefner had a dower interest in the wife’s one-half interest. Now when the partition was made and this property was equally divided, Korach got a one-half of the property set off to him by metes and bounds, in which the interest of the wife was divested, and he having *only*paid $150 for the property subject to the dower interest of Mrs. Hoefner, in equity and justice the court should have assessed the.costs against him, if the property was worth what they say it is. Furthermore the husband -was about to bring suit against his wife and for some purpose wished to divest himself of the title and Korach took it at a price less than its real value, but subject to the dower interest of the wife, and inasmuch as upon partition he got one-half of the property free and clear from her dower, it was only right that the costs should be assessed against him.

The court having this matter before him and knowing all the facts in the case, properly, we think, ordered the costs to be paid by the defendant Korach and the journal entry that was drawn provided that the attorney’s fee which the court had the power to assess should be assessed as a part of the costs, and that could be rightly ordered paid by the defendant.

We éannot help but come to the same conclusion in this case that Judge Kennedy came to and, therefore, there will be a decree the same as in the court below. O. S. J.

Sullivan and Levine^. JJ, concur.
EXHIBIT 32(b)



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Lufkin Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. D. Leslie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ R. D. Leslie

---



R. D. Leslie

Chief Financial Officer

March 11, 2004



This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. §1350, and not for any other purpose.
#### § 779.329 Effect of type of customer and type of goods or services.

In some industries the type of goods or services sold or the type of purchaser of goods or services are determining factors in whether a sale or service is recognized as retail in the particular industry. In other industries a sale or service may be recognized as retail regardless of the type of goods or services sold or the type of customer. Where a sale is recognized as retail regardless of the type of customer, its character as such will not be affected by the character of the customer, with reference to whether he is a private individual or a business concern, or by the use the purchaser makes of the purchased commodity. For example, if the sale of a single automobile to anyone for any purpose is recognized as a retail sale in the industry, it will be considered as a retail sale for purposes of the exemption whether the customer be a private individual or an industrial concern or whether the automobile is used by the purchaser for pleasure purposes or for business purposes. If a sale of a particular quantity of coal is recognized in the industry as a retail sale, its character as such will not be affected by the fact that it is sold for the purpose of heating an office building as distinguished from a private dwelling. If the repair of a wash basin is recognized in the industry as a retail service, its character as such will not be affected by the fact that it is a wash basin in a factory building as distinguished from a wash basin in a private dwelling house. It must be remembered that these principles apply only to those sales of goods or services which have a retail concept, that is, where the subject matter is “retailable.” See § 779.321. The “industry-recognition” question as to whether such sales are recognized as retail in the industry has no relevancy if in fact the goods and services sold are not of a “retailable” character, as previously explained. If the subject of the sale does not come within the concept of retailable items contemplated by the statute, there can be no recognition in any industry of the sale of the goods or services as retail, for purposes of the Act, even though the nomenclature used by the industry members may put a retail label on the transaction. (See *Wirtz* v. *Steepleton General Tire Co.,* 383 U.S. 190; *Mitchell* v. *Kentucky Finance Co.,* 359 U.S. 290.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

B.C.,

Respondent

v.

C.P. AND D.B.,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 61 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of June, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Whether the lower courts erred in placing paramount importance on periods of separation in determining that the presumption of paternity was inapplicable, despite the marital couple’s reconciliation which predated the third

- party’s paternity action?
§ 2700.46 Procedure. ( a ) *When to file.* As provided in section 105(b)(2) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(b)(2), an application for temporary relief from any modification or termination of any order or from any order issued under section 104 of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 814, may be filed at any time before such order becomes final. No temporary relief shall be granted with respect to a citation issued under section 104(a) or (f) of the Act. 30 U.S.C. 814(a) and (f).
( b ) *Statements in opposition.* Any party opposing the application shall file a statement in opposition within 4 days after receipt of the application.
( c ) *Prior hearing required.* Temporary relief shall not be granted prior to a hearing on such application.
( d ) *Service of pleadings.* A copy of each document filed with the Commission under subpart F of this part must be served on all parties by a means of delivery no less expeditious than that used for filing, except that if service by electronic transmission (email) is impossible, the filing party must serve in person, by third party commercial carrier, or by facsimile transmission, resulting in same-day delivery.
[58 FR 12164, Mar. 3, 1993, as amended at 78 FR 77359, Dec. 23, 2013]
#### Fitzpatrick, *Appellant,*v. Thomas.

Mechanic's Lien: *Fitzgerald v. Thomas*and *Fitzpatrick v. Thomas,*61 Mo. 499, 512, 515, affirmed.

*Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals, '*

Affirmed.

*Broadhead & Haeussler*for appellant.

*Rudolph Schulenberg*and *H. E. Mills*for respondent.

Henry, J.

-Plaintiff furnished to defendant, Thomas, 328,356 brick at $12.50 per thousand, to be used in the erection of four houses situated upon a parcel of land in St. Louis county, but which, it appears from the evidence, prior to the sale and delivery of the material in question, had been subdivided into lots 29, 30, 31 and 32 of block No. 2, and so described in Peter Lindell’s first addition to the city of St. Louis. The four houses were erected on said lots, each occupying one lot, and plaintiff had filed *514his statement of lien for the aggregate value of the brick, claiming a mechanic’s lien on the whole of said property, and not against each lot and house for the proportion of the brick used in the erection of the house thereon. On these facts the circuit court held that he acquired no lien, and, from its judgment, he appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals, which affirmed the judgment, and the cause is now here on appeal from the court of appeals. The precise question involved here was passed upon by this court in *Fitzgerald v.*Thomas, 61 Mo. 499; *Fitzpatrick v. Thomas,*61 Mo. 512, 515, and decided adversely to plaintiff, and we see no reason for a departure from the doctrine announced in these cases. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

All concur.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Declaration of Disaster #3254] 

As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 12, 2000, I find that the following Counties in the State of Missouri constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe thunderstorms and flash flooding that occurred on May 6 and 7, 2000: Crawford, Franklin, Gasconade, Jefferson, St. Charles, Ste. Genevieve, St. Francois, St. Louis County, Warren, and Washington. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on July 11, 2000, and for loans for economic injury until the close of business on February 12, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 3 Office, 4400 Amon Carter Blvd., Suite 102, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Callaway, Dent, Iron, Lincoln, Madison, Maries, Montgomery, Osage, Perry, and Phelps Counties, and the City of St. Louis in the State of Missouri, and Calhoun, Jersey, Madison, Monroe, Randolph, and St. Clair Counties in the State of Illinois. 

The interest rates are: 

### For Physical Damage

Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere: 7.375% 

Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 3.687% 

Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere: 8.000% 

Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 4.000% 

Others (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere: 6.750% 

### For Economic Injury 

Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 4.000%

The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 325406. For economic injury the numbers are 9H3600 for Missouri and 9H3700 for Illinois. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008)

Dated: May 18, 2000. 

James E. Rivera, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 00-13231 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-U
§ 525.15 Industrial homework. ( a ) Where the employer is an organization or institution carrying out a recognized program of rehabilitation for workers with disabilities and holds a special certificate issued pursuant to this part, certification under regulations governing the employment of industrial homeworkers (29 CFR part 530) is not required.
( b ) For all other types of employers, special rules apply to the employment of homeworkers in the following industries: Jewelry manufacturing, knitted outerwear, gloves and mittens, buttons and buckles, handkerchief manufacturing, embroideries, and women's apparel. (See 29 CFR part 530.)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12683]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Air Carrier 
Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION:  Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee to discuss air carrier operations issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 25, 2000, at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Room 318, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Williams, Office of Rulemaking, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-
9685.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App II), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Committee to be held on May 
25, 2000. The agenda for this meeting will include reports from the 
Airplane Performance Working Group and the All-Weather Operations 
Working Group, and discussion of a new task, Extended Range Operations 
of Airplanes (ETOPS). Attendance is open to the interested public but 
may be limited by the space available. The Members of the public must 
make arrangements in advance to present oral statements at the meeting 
or may present written statements of the committee at any time. 
Arrangements may be made by contacting the person listed under the 
heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Sign and oral interpretation can be made available at the meeting, 
as well as an assistive listening device, if requested 10 calendar days 
before the meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable 
accommodation for this event, please contact the person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2000.
Gregory L. Michael,
Assistant Executive Director for Air Carrier Operations, Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 00-12683 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
§ 525.5 Wage payments. ( a ) An individual whose earning or productive capacity is not impaired for the work being performed cannot be employed under a certificate issued pursuant to this part and must be paid at least the applicable minimum wage. An individual whose earning or productive capacity is impaired to the extent that the individual is unable to earn at least the applicable minimum wage may be paid a commensurate wage, but only after the employer has obtained a certificate authorizing payment of special minimum wages from the appropriate office of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor.
( b ) With respect to patient workers employed in institutions, no deductions can be made from such individuals' commensurate wages to cover the cost of room, board, or other services provided by the facility. Such an individual must receive his or her wages free and clear, except for amounts deducted for taxes assessed against the employee and any voluntary wage assignments directed by the employee. (See part 531 of this title.) However, it is not the intention of these regulations to preclude the institution thereafter from assessing or collecting charges for room, board, and other services actually provided to an individual to the extent permitted by applicable Federal or State law and on the same basis as it assesses and collects from nonworking patients.
#### § 780.213 Produce business.

In some instances, hatcheries also engage in the produce business as such and commingle with the culled eggs and chickens other eggs and chickens which they buy for resale. In such a case that work which relates to both the hatchery and produce types of activities would not be within the scope of agriculture.
Submitted on record and briefs December 16, 1992,

conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing February 3, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*DAVID ALLAN SMITH, *Appellant.*

(91-1916-C-2; CA A71574)

845 P2d 1304

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Diane S. Lefkow, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Deits and Riggs, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*98PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for attempted assault in the second degree. ORS 163.175. He contends that the departure sentence under the guidelines was improper, because the court failed to make findings that there were substantial and compelling reasons *to*depart from the presumptive sentence.

Defendant made no objection to the sentence and, in fact, stipulated to the dispositional departure as part of a negotiated plea of no contest. We decline to address the claim of error.

However, the state concedes that the court erred by imposing a three-year term of post-prison supervision instead of 18 months. We accept that concession.

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.