alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 778.332 Awards for activities not normally part of employee's job. ( a ) Where the prize is awarded for activities outside the customary working hours of the employee, beyond the scope of his customary duties or away from the employer's premises, the question of whether the compensation is remuneration for employment will depend on such factors as the amount of time, if any, spent by the employee in competing, the relationship between the contest activities and the usual work of the employee, whether the competition involves work usually performed by other employees for employers, whether an employee is specifically urged to participate or led to believe that he will not merit promotion or advancement unless he participates.
( b ) By way of example, a prize paid for work performed in obtaining new business for an employer would be regarded as remuneration for employment. Although the duties of the employees who participate in the contest may not normally encompass this type of work, it is work of a kind normally performed by salesmen for their employers, and the time spent by the employee in competing for such a prize (whether successfully or not) is working time and must be counted as such in determining overtime compensation due under the Act. On the other hand a prize or bonus paid to an employee when a sale is made by the company's sales representative to a person whom he recommended as a good sales prospect would not be regarded as compensation for services if in fact the prize-winner performed no work in securing the name of the sales prospect and spent no time on the matter for the company in any way.
(75 South. 1006)

#### NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. v. GILLIS.

(6 Div. 296.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 15, 1917.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court; Henry B. Foster, Judge.

Howard L. Smith, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant. S. A. Moore, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

BROWN, P. J.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellee.
(76 South. *478)*

#### SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. SLATON.

(1 Div. 221.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 12, 1917.)

1. Appeal and Error &wkey;>721(2) — Joint Assignment.

To sustain a joint assignment of error that the court erred in sustaining demurrers to six pleas filed by defendant, it must appear that all the pleas were good, and not subject to demurrer.

2. Pleading <&wkey;194(4) — Plea Available under General Issue.

The trial court properly sustained demurrer-raising the point that a plea was a mere traverse of the complaint, available to defendant under the general issue, which was pleaded; the plea being of such a character.

3. Trial <&wkey;260(l) — Instructions—Repetition.

Charges, either fully or substantially covered by given charges, and also by the court’s oral charge, were properly refused.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clarke County; Ben D. Turner, Judge.

Action by Joe Slaton against the Southern Railway Company. Prom judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Q. W. Tucker, of Grove Hill, for appellant. T. J. Bedsole, of Grove Hill, for appellee.

BRICKEN, J.

Action for the, death of a cow. The first count of the complaint charges a failure to deliver; the other three counts charging negligence in the handling of the appellant’s train transporting the carload of cattle, in which the cow was, with resultant loss of the cow1 by death while in transit.

[1] The first assignment of error is that the court.erred in sustaining demurrers to pleas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 filed by defendant. This is a joint assignment, covering several rulings of the court; and, in order to sustain this assignment, it must appear that all the pleas were good, and not subject to demurrer. In other words, if any of the pleas were bad, and subject to the demurrers interposed, the assignment of error is not sustained. Brown v. Shorter, 71 South. 103.1 Some of these pleas, notably pleas 1 and 2, were subject to the demurrers interposed. N., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Hinds, 5 Ala. App. 596, 59 South. 670; Supreme Court, 178 Ala. 657, 59 South. 669.

[2] The next assignment challenges the rulings of the court in sustaining the demurrers to pleas 1 as amended and plea B. The latter plea (B) is a mere traverse of the complaint, available, to the defendant under the general issue, which was pleaded, and the court properly sustained the demurrer raising that point. Higdon v. Garrett, 5 Ala. App. 467, 59 South. 309. Hence this assignment of error is not sustained. The evidence in the record authorized and required that the issues litigated should have been submitted to the jury, and the court properly refused charge 2, which was the affirmative charge for the appellant.

[3] Charge 3 was fully covered by charge 1, and also by the court’s oral charge. Charge 4 was fairly and substantially covered by given charge A, and also by the oral charge of the court.

No error appearing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

 Reported in full in the Southern Reporter; reported as a memorandum decision without opinion in 195 Ala. 692.
| Exhibit      32.1 |
|-------------------|

| /s/  Steven L.      Watson                 |   | /s/  Bobby D.      O’Brien               |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Steven      L. WatsonPresident      and Chief Executive OfficerMarch      10, 2010                                              |   | Bobby      D. O’BrienVice      President andChief      Financial OfficerMarch      10, 2010                              |
|                                                                                                                                 |   |                                                                                                                           |
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1178

Geophysical Data from offshore of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, Cat Island to Western Horn Island, Mississippi

----

## Contents

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey
Exhibit  99.2
                            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 Starberrys Corporation on Form 10-QSB
for  the  period  ending  December  31,  2003,  as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald Erickson, Chief
Executive  Officer,  President and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief:

         (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.





                                           Ronald Erickson
                            Chief  Executive  Officer,  President  and  Director

Date:  May 21,  2004
#### § 37.36 What responsibilities does a recipient have to communicate information during orientations?

During each presentation to orient new participants, new employees, and/or the general public to its WIA Title I-financially assisted program or activity, a recipient must include a discussion of rights under the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA and this part, including the right to file a complaint of discrimination with the recipient or the Director.
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 Bear Lake Recreation, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly
Report”), we, Wayne Bassham, Principal Executive Officer, and Todd Albiston,
Principal Financial Officer, of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:








(1) The
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.








Date:
            05/10/10
            
            By:
            /s/Wayne
      BasshamWayne
      BasshamPresident
      and DirectorBear
      Lake Recreation, Inc.Date:
            05/10/10
            
            By:
            /s/Todd
      AlbistonTodd
      AlbistonSecretary
      and DirectorBear
      Lake Recreation, Inc.
(79 South. 879)

#### VINSON v. CITY OF GADSDEN.

(7 Div. 535.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 30, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; J. E. Blackwood, Judge.

W. T. Murphree, of Gadsden, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
In the matter of 

COMAIR, INC. 

Respondent 

RECEIVED 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

OCT 0 1 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0319 

FAA Case No. 2011S0271013 

Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR HEARING AND ANSWER 

Counsel for Respondent Comair, Inc. and the Federal Aviation Administration have 

reached a settlement in the above-referenced matter. Accordingly, pursuant to section 13.215 of 

the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. § 13.215), Respondent hereby 

withdraws its request for a hearing and answer filed in this matter on May 21, 2014 and August 

11, 2014, respectively. Therefore, pursuant to section 13.215, Respondent requests that this 

proceeding be dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: September 30,2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

COMAIR, INC. 

By: ?f-.f 1/L.~ Robert P. Silverberg, Esq.7 

1101 301

h Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 301

h day of September 2014, I caused the foregoing 

Withdrawal of Request for Hearing and Answer to be served upon the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Tel: (202) 385-8227 

(original and one copy by FedEx overnight delivery) 

The Hon. J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Tel: (202) 366-2132 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

(one copy by facsimile and First Class Mail) 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

Tel: (404) 305-5200 

Fax: (404) 305-5223 

(one copy by facsimile and First Class Mail) 

2-'-i!L~ Robert P. Silverberg
Exhibit 15











Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20549



Commissioners:



We are aware that our report dated May 3, 2006 on our review of interim financial statements of LCNB Corp. and Subsidiaries (the "Company"), as of and for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended, is incorporated by reference in the Registration Statement of the Company on Form S-8, filed on March 13, 2003.  Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.







/s/ J.D. Cloud & Co. L.L.P.



J.D. Cloud & Co. L.L.P.





Cincinnati, Ohio

May 3, 2006
§ 780.105 “Primary” and “secondary” agriculture under section 3(f). ( a ) Section 3(f) of the Act contains a very comprehensive definition of the term “agriculture.” The definition has two distinct branches (see *Farmers Reservoir Co.* v. *McComb,* 337 U.S. 755). One has relation to the primary meaning of agriculture; the other gives to the term a somewhat broader secondary meaning for purposes of the Act (*NLRB* v. *Olaa Sugar Co.,* 242 F. 2d 714).
( b ) First, there is the primary meaning. This includes farming in all its branches. Listed as being included “among other things” in the primary meaning are certain specific farming operations such as cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities and the raising of livestock, bees, fur-bearing animals or poultry. If an employee is employed in any of these activities, he is engaged in agriculture regardless of whether he is employed by a farmer or on a farm. (*Farmers Reservoir Co.* v. *McComb,* supra; *Holtville Alfalfa Mills* v. *Wyatt,* 230 F. 2d 398.)
( c ) Then there is the secondary meaning of the term. The second branch includes operations other than those which fall within the primary meaning of the term. It includes any practices, whether or not they are themselves farming practices, which are performed either by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with “such” farming operations (*Farmers Reservoir Co.* v. *McComb,* supra; *NLRB* v. *Olaa Sugar Co.,* 242 F. 2d 714; *Maneja* v. *Waialua,* 349 U.S. 254).
( d ) Employment not within the scope of either the primary or the secondary meaning of “agriculture” as defined in section 3(f) is not employment in agriculture. In other words, employees not employed in farming or by a farmer or on a farm are not employed in agriculture.
110TH CONGRESS 

2ND SESSION S. J. RES. 25

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 

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

10 of this resolution. 

Passed the Senate February 4, 2008. 

Attest:

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2ND SESSION S. J. RES. 25

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the appointment of John W. 

gents of the Smithsonian Institution.McCarter as a citizen regent of the Board of Re-
EXHIBIT 24
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
Each  of  the non employee Directors of MacDermid, Incorporated signed identical
powers  of  attorney  in  the  following  form:
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------
KNOW  ALL  MEN  BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned, a director of MacDermid,
Incorporated,  hereby  constitutes  and  appoints  Daniel H. Leever the true and
lawful  agent  and  attorney-in-fact  of  the  undersigned,  with full power and
authority  in  said  agent  and  attorney-in-fact  to  delegate the power herein
conferred to any person or persons said agent and attorney-in-fact shall select,
to  sign  in  the  place of the undersigned in his capacity as a director of the
Corporation,  the  Form  10-K  for  the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, of the
Corporation to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington,
D.C.,  under  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934, as amended, and sign any
amendment  or  amendments to such Form 10-K; hereby ratifying and confirming all
acts  taken  by  such  agent  and  attorney-in-fact  as  herein  authorized.
                                  (Signature)*
May  21,  2001
*  The  Directors  who  signed  the  powers  of  attorney  were:
     Donald  G.  Ogilvie
     James  C.  Smith
     Joseph  M.  Silvestri
     T.  Quinn  Spitzer,  Jr.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 312 

Honoring the sacrifice and courage of the 6 miners who were trapped, the 

3 rescue workers who were killed, and the many others who were injured 

in the Crandall Canyon mine disaster in Utah, and recognizing the 

community and the rescue crews for their outstanding efforts in the 

aftermath of the tragedies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. BENNETT) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the sacrifice and courage of the 6 miners who 

were trapped, the 3 rescue workers who were killed, 

and the many others who were injured in the Crandall 

Canyon mine disaster in Utah, and recognizing the community and the rescue crews for their outstanding efforts 

in the aftermath of the tragedies. 

Whereas, on August 6, 2007, 6 miners, Kerry Allred, Don 

Erickson, Luis Hernandez, Carlos Payan, Brandon Phillips, and Manuel Sanchez, were trapped 1,800 feet below 

ground in the Crandall Canyon coal mine in Emory 

County, Utah; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 312 ATS 

Whereas Federal, State, and local rescue crews have worked 

relentlessly in an effort to find and rescue the trapped 

miners; 

Whereas, on August 16, 2007, Dale ‘‘Bird’’ Black, Gary Jensen, and Brandon Kimber bravely gave their lives and 6 

other workers were injured during the rescue efforts; 

Whereas Utah is one of the largest coal-producing States in 

the United States, having produced more than 

26,000,000 tons of coal in 2006; 

Whereas coal generates more than half of our Nation’s electricity, providing millions of Americans with energy for 

their homes and businesses; 

Whereas coal mining continues to provide economic stability 

for many communities in Utah and throughout the 

United States; 

Whereas during the last century over 100,000 coal miners 

have been killed in mining accidents in the Nation’s coal 

mines; and 

Whereas the American people are greatly indebted to coal 

miners for the difficult and dangerous work they perform: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) honors Kerry Allred, Don Erickson, Luis 

3 Hernandez, Carlos Payan, Brandon Phillips, and 

4 Manuel Sanchez, as well as Dale ‘‘Bird’’ Black, 

5 Gary Jensen, and Brandon Kimber for their sac6 rifice in the Crandall Canyon coal mine; 

7 (2) extends the deepest condolences of the Na8 tion to the families of these men; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 312 ATS 

1 (3) recognizes the brave work of the many vol2 unteers who participated in the rescue efforts and 

3 provided support for the miners’ families during res4 cue operations; and 

5 (4) honors the contribution of coal mines and 

6 coal-mining families to America’s proud heritage. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
§ 825.107 Successor in interest coverage. ( a ) For purposes of FMLA, in determining whether an employer is covered because it is a “successor in interest” to a covered employer, the factors used under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Adjustment Act will be considered. However, unlike Title VII, whether the successor has notice of the employee's claim is not a consideration. Notice may be relevant, however, in determining successor liability for violations of the predecessor. The factors to be considered include: ( 1 ) Substantial continuity of the same business operations;
( 2 ) Use of the same plant;
( 3 ) Continuity of the work force;
( 4 ) Similarity of jobs and working conditions;
( 5 ) Similarity of supervisory personnel;
( 6 ) Similarity in machinery, equipment, and production methods;
( 7 ) Similarity of products or services; and
( 8 ) The ability of the predecessor to provide relief.
( b ) A determination of whether or not a successor in interest exists is not determined by the application of any single criterion, but rather the entire circumstances are to be viewed in their totality.
( c ) When an employer is a successor in interest, employees' entitlements are the same as if the employment by the predecessor and successor were continuous employment by a single employer. For example, the successor, whether or not it meets FMLA coverage criteria, must grant leave for eligible employees who had provided appropriate notice to the predecessor, or continue leave begun while employed by the predecessor, including maintenance of group health benefits during the leave and job restoration at the conclusion of the leave. A successor which meets FMLA's coverage criteria must count periods of employment and hours of service with the predecessor for purposes of determining employee eligibility for FMLA leave.
12BConsentN-4SEC325Ex2-GWNYAdvisorChoice-SA




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-194100 of the Variable Annuity-1 Series Account of Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company of New York on Form N-4 of our report dated April 6, 2015 on the financial statements and financial highlights of each of the investment divisions of the Variable Annuity-1 Series Account of Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company of New York appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is part of the Registration Statement.
We also consent to the references to us as experts under the heading “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm and Independent Auditors” in the Statement of Additional Information.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Denver, Colorado 
April 10, 2015