alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 778.108 The “regular rate”.

The “regular rate” of pay under the Act cannot be left to a declaration by the parties as to what is to be treated as the regular rate for an employee; it must be drawn from what happens under the employment contract (*Bay Ridge Operating Co.* v. *Aaron,* 334 U.S. 446). The Supreme Court has described it as the hourly rate actually paid the employee for the normal, nonovertime workweek for which he is employed—an “actual fact” (*Walling* v. *Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co.,* 325 U.S. 419). Section 7(e) of the Act requires inclusion in the “regular rate” of “all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee” except payments specifically excluded by paragraphs (1) through (7) of that subsection. (These seven types of payments, which are set forth in § 778.200 and discussed in §§ 778.201 through 778.224, are hereafter referred to as “statutory exclusions.”) As stated by the Supreme Court in the Youngerman-Reynolds case cited above: “Once the parties have decided upon the amount of wages and the mode of payment the determination of the regular rate becomes a matter of mathematical computation, the result of which is unaffected by any designation of a contrary ‘regular rate’ in the wage contracts.”
#### The State, *Appellant,*v. Persinger.

Constitutional Law: title op act : disturbing the peace. The act of 1868 in relation to disturbances of the peace, made it an offense to disturb the peace of “any neighborhood, or of any family, or of any school assembled for the purpose of instruction.” Acts 1868, p. 3. An amendatory act passed in 1870 entitled “An act to change the penalty for disturbances of the peace,” not only changed the penalty, but made the offense to consist in the disturbing of the peace of “any *person*or neighborhood, or of any family, or of any school assembled for the purpose of instruction.” Acts 1870, p. 46. *Held,*that in so far as the latter act undertook to make it an offense to disturb the peace of any *person*it was unconstitutional, that matter not being expressed in the title.

*Appeal from Daviess Circuit*Court.—Hon. S. A.’ Richardson,. Judge.

Aeeirmed.

*D. H. McIntyre,*Attorney General, for the State.

No'brief for respondent.

Norton, J.

This case is before us on the appeal of the State from the action of the circuit court in quashing the indictment on defendant’s motion. The indictment is founded on section 1, Laws 1870, page 46, and charges in substance that defendant disturbed the peace of Leonard Salmon, Jasper N. Bailey and divers other persons by loud and unusual noise, etc. The defendant filed motion to *347quash the indictment on the ground that the said act of 1870 was unconstitutional in so far as it attempted to make the disturbance of the peace of a person or persons an offense. ¥e are of the opinion that the motion to quash was properly sustained for the reason that the said act was entitled “An act to change the penalty for disturbances of the peace.” This title only authorized the passage of an act changing the penalty for such disturbances of the peace as were then by law declared punishable. The said act of 1870, while it changed the punishment for such offenses, went further and undertook to amend the act of 1868 by so changing it, as to make it an offense for one person to disturb the peace of another person. "While the title of the act embraced hut one subject, namely, a change of the penalty for disturbing the peace, the body of the act not only included that subject, but also another, viz : amending the law so as to make that a disturbance of the peace under the act of 1870, which was not an offense under the act of 1868. It therefore follows, that as the act of 1870 embraced two subjects, one of which was not expressed in its title, it is violative of the 32nd section, article 4 of the Constitution of 1865, and void as to so much thereof as is not expressed in the title. ' We have been cited to the case of the *State v.*Chambers, 70 Mo. 625, as sustaining the act in question, but this case stands upon a different footing, as will be seen by reference to the case cited. Judgment affirmed.

All concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 Section 906 Certification
 ________________
 
 The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Form 10-Q of the MLM Index TM Fund pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350).
 
 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the MLM Index TM Fund.
 
 May 12, 2010
 
 
 By: /s/ Timothy J. Rudderow, Sr.Timothy J. Rudderow, Sr.PresidentMount Lucas Management Corporation,the manager of the MLM Index TM Fund
§ 4233.9 Financial assistance information. ( a ) *Required information.* An application for partition must include the estimated amount of annual financial assistance requested from PBGC for the first year the plan receives financial assistance if partition is approved.
( b ) *Additional information.* PBGC may ask the plan for additional information in accordance with § 4233.4(b)(1).
```

                                                                   Exhibit 32(a)

                CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            In connection  with the annual report of The LGL Group,  Inc.,  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Jeremiah Healy, Principal Executive Officer 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 my 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 operations
            of the Company.

April 2, 2007

                                              /s/ Jeremiah Healy
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name: Jeremiah Healy
                                              Title: Principal Executive Officer
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          16,768
<SECURITIES>                                     1,971
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,431
<INVENTORY>                                     39,188
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,014
<PP&E>                                         172,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 331,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,060
<BONDS>                                        140,039
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,139
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   331,488
<SALES>                                        340,289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               340,289
<CGS>                                          290,416
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  322,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,514
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,666
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,688
<DISCONTINUED>                                     743
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,945
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.52


</TABLE>
#### *John*J. Pryor, Resp’t, *v*Hubbard A. Foster, App’lt.1

*(Superior Court of Buffalo,*

*General Term,*

*Filed July 12, 1889.)*

Judgment—When not disturbed.

Where no error is claimed to have been committed in the admission of evidence, and it cannot be said as a question of law that an error was committed in finding a disputed question of fact against the defendant, the judgment will not be disturbed.

*Fullerton, Becker & Hazel,*for resp’t; *F. J. Plumley,*for app’lt.

1

 See S. C., 17 N. Y. State Rep., 473.

Titus, J.

This case when last before this court on an appeal from a judgment of non-suit from the municipal court, was reversed on the ground that there was evidence from which the judge below or a jury could find that the defendant had been guilty of fraudulent representation, in making the lease of the premises to the plaintiff, as to the capacity of the furnace in the house to supply a sufficient quantity of heat to properly warm the dwelling house on the premises. The evidence taken on behalf of the plaintiff on the former trial was read and considered in evidence by stipulation on the trial from which this appeal is taken. Evidence was given by the defendant for the purpose of overcoming the plaintiff’s proof of fraud, and the court below found in favor of the plaintiff on this disputed question of fact. No error is claimed to have been committed in the admission of evidence. We are of the opinion that our former decision (17 N. Y. State Rep., 472), is decisive of the questions here raised. It cannot be said that there is such a preponderance of evidence on the part of the defendant as to entirely overcome the inference of fraud raised by the plaintiff’s testimony and his witnesses.

The court below had all of the witnesses before it, and we cannot say as a question of law that an error was committed in finding the fact against the defendant.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Beckwith, 0. J., and Hatch, J., concur.
#### § 783.48 Factors determining application of exemptions.

The application of the exemptions provided by section 13(a)(14) and section 13(b)(6) of the Act is determined in accordance with their language and scope as explained in §§ 783.24, 783.25, and 783.27, with regard to the principles set forth in § 783.20 and the legislative history and judicial construction outlined in §§ 783.28 through 783.30. Whether a particular employee is exempt depends on what he does, as explained in §§ 783.31 through 783.37. Whether he is exempt from the overtime pay provisions only or from minimum wages as well depends on whether his employment is or is not on an American vessel, which is determined as indicated in §§ 783.38 through 783.42. In addition, sections 13(a)(14) and 13(b)(6), like other exemptions in the Act, apply on a workweek basis as mentioned in § 783.43 and explained in §§ 783.49 and 783.50.
### Computations of total sediment discharge, Niobrara River near Cody, Nebraska

By: Bruce R. ColbyC. H. Hembree

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1357

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPALEXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL

FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the accompanying QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of iVillage Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned, DouglasW. McCormick, Chief Executive Officer of iVillage Inc., and Steven A. Elkes,Chief Financial Officer of iVillage Inc., each hereby certifies pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          such Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)          the informationcontained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of iVillage Inc.

 

 
| Date: May 11, 2005 | /s/ Douglas W. McCormick             |   |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|               | Douglas W. McCormick                 |
|               | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|               |                                 |
|               |                                 |
| Date: May 11, 2005 | /s/ Steven A. Elkes                  |   |
|               | Steven A. Elkes                      |
|               | Chief Financial Officer,             |
|               | Executive Vice President, Operations |
|               | and Business Affairs, and Secretary  |
|                    |                                      |        |  |

 

*A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to iVillage Inc. and will be retained byiVillage Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.*

 

*Theinformation in this Exhibit 32 is being furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to theliabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by referencein any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the ExchangeAct, except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.*

 

----
Exhibit 15











Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20549



Commissioners:



We are aware that our report dated July 15, 2004 on our review of interim financial statements of LCNB Corp. and Subsidiaries (the "Company"), issued pursuant to the provisions of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 100, as of and for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 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. We are also aware of our responsibilities under the Securities Act of 1933.







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



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





Cincinnati, Ohio

July 26, 2004





-32-
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-84,097-01
EX P ARTE ROSS RICHARDSON, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 11-CR- 040-1 IN THE 349 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HOUSTON COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Te x . C ri m . App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g ravated assault aga inst a publi c servant and sentenc ed to five y ear s’ i mprisonment. The Twelfth Court of A p peals aff irmed his conviction. Richardson v. State , No. 12-13-00131- CR (Tex. App.

—T y ler , Ju ly 31, 2014)(not designated f or publication). On Dec ember 9, 2015, this Court rema nded this application to the trial court for finding s of fac t and conclus i o n s of law. On J anuar y 8, 2016, the trial court signe d finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that wer e based on the aff idavit from trial counsel and the transcript from a pre-2

trial hea ring . The trial c ourt rec ommended that re lief be de nied. Ba sed on the trial c ourt’s finding s of fac t a s well as this Court’s independe nt reviewof the entire r ecor d, we de ny

relief
. Filed: F ebrua

ry 10, 2016 Do not publish
§ 520.507 How long does my certificate remain in effect? ( a ) A special student-learner certificate shall be effective for a period not to exceed the length of one school year unless a longer period is found to be justified by extraordinary circumstances. These circumstances must be explained in detail at the time of application. While each such request will be considered on its own merit, it is anticipated that such authorizations would be limited to occupations requiring an extended period of specialized training;
( b ) No certificate shall authorize employment training beyond the date of graduation.
( c ) No special student-learner certificate may be issued retroactively.
<PAGE>
 
LUKENS INC. 1996 FORM 10-K:  EXHIBIT 21
 


                                  LUKENS INC.
                                 SUBSIDIARIES
                               December 28, 1996


Lukens Inc. has 14 direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries:

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                             State or Other
                                                            Jurisdiction of
                                                              Incorporation
                                                            ---------------
<S>                                                            <C> 
Brandywine Valley Railroad Company                                 Delaware
Encoat-North Arlington, Inc.                                       Delaware
Energy Coatings Company                                            Delaware
LI Acquisition Corporation                                         Delaware
LI Service Company                                             Pennsylvania
Lukens Development Corporation                                     Delaware
Lukens Foreign Sales Corporation                                   Barbados
Lukens Management Corporation                                  Pennsylvania
Lukens Steel Company                                           Pennsylvania
Pennock Corp.                                                      Delaware
Sponsor's Plan Asset Management, Inc.                              Delaware
Washington Specialty Metals Corporation                            Illinois
Washington Specialty Metals Inc.                                     Canada
Washington Steel Corporation/a/                                    Delaware
</TABLE> 

a. Effective December 29, 1996, the Washington Steel Corporation was merged into
   the Lukens Steel Company.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 101 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that no action should be taken to undermine the safety of the Armed Forces of the United States or impact 

their ability to complete their assigned or future missions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2007 

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

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that no action should 

be taken to undermine the safety of the Armed Forces 

of the United States or impact their ability to complete 

their assigned or future missions. 

Whereas under the Constitution, the President and Congress 

have shared responsibilities for decisions on the use of 

the Armed Forces of the United States, including their 

mission, and for supporting the Armed Forces, especially 

during wartime; 

Whereas when the Armed Forces are deployed in harm’s way, 

the President, Congress, and the Nation should give them 

all the support they need in order to maintain their safety and accomplish their assigned or future missions, including the training, equipment, logistics, and funding 


jcorcoran on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 101 IS 

necessary to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and 

such support is the responsibility of both the Executive 

Branch and the Legislative Branch of Government; and 

Whereas thousands of members of the Armed Forces who 

have fought bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan have failed 

to receive the kind of medical care and other support this 

Nation owes them when they return home: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) neither the President nor Congress should 

3 take any action that will endanger the Armed Forces 

4 of the United States, including eliminating or reduc5 ing funds for troops in the field or failing to provide 

6 them adequate training, equipment and other sup7 port, as such actions would undermine their safety 

8 or harm their effectiveness in preparing for and car9 rying out their assigned missions; 

10 (2) the President, Congress, and the Nation 

11 have an obligation to ensure that those who have 

12 bravely served this country in time of war receive 

13 the health care and other support services they de14 serve; and 

15 (3) the President and Congress should— 

16 (A) continue to exercise their constitutional 

17 responsibilities to ensure that the Armed Forces 

18 have everything they need to perform their as19 signed or future missions; and 


jcorcoran on PRODPC74 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 101 IS 

1 (B) review, assess, and adjust United 

2 States policy and funding as needed to ensure 

3 our troops have the best chance for success in 

4 Iraq and elsewhere. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC74 with BILLS