alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 784.107 Relationship of employee's work to operations on the specified aquatic products.

It is also necessary to the application of the exemptions that the operation of which the employee's work is a part be performed on the marine products named in the Act. Thus the operations described in section 13(a)(5) must be performed with respect to “any kind of fish, shellfish, crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, or other aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life.” The operations enumerated in section 13(b)(4) must be performed with respect to “any kind of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic forms of animal or vegetable life, or any byproduct thereof”. Work performed on products which do not fall within these descriptions is not within the exemptions (*Fleming* v. *Hawkeye Pearl Button Co.,* 113 F. 2d 52; *Mitchell* v. *Trade Winds, Inc.,* 289 F. 2d 278; *Walling* v. *Haden,* 153 F. 2d 196).
Exhibit 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert White, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pick Ups Plus, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date:  May 20, 2005
                                                     /s/Robert White
                                                     ---------------
                                                     Robert White
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
§ 780.304 “Employed by an employer.” ( a ) The employer may be an individual, a partnership, or a corporation. It is not necessary that the employer be a farmer as defined in § 780.131. It is sufficient that he “uses” agricultural labor.
( b ) In applying this exemption, one of the main criteria is the number of man-days of agricultural labor used by the employer. Section 13(a)(6)(A) provides that the exemption shall not apply to an employee employed in agriculture “if such employee is employed by an employer who did not * * * use more than 500 man-days of agricultural labor * * *.” From this language of the statute, the man-days of all agricultural workers, unless specifically excluded, of an employer whether he be the owner of a single farm, the owner of an enterprise consisting of several farms, a tenant farmer, an independent contractor, etc., are to be counted for purposes of section 13(a)(6)(A) whether they are employed at one place or several widely scattered places. For example if an employer owns and operates two farms, it is the total number of man-days used on both farms and not that used on each individual farm that determines whether he meets the 500 man-day test. Likewise independent contractor who harvests crops on different farms during the harvesting season must total all the man-days of agricultural labor used on all such farms except those excludable under section 3(e) in determining whether he meets the 500 man-day test.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 21, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01477-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY-TWO DOLLARS IN UNITED 

STATES CURRENCY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-00170-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, FitzGerald, and Myers 

Opinion by Justice Bridges

The Court has before it appellant The State of Texas’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The 

State says it does not wish to proceed with the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

121477F.P05

/David L. Bridges/

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE
121477.op.docx –2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

No. 05-12-01477-CV V.

THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED 

NINETY-TWO DOLLARS IN UNITED 

STATES CURRENCY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-00170-L.

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, 

Justices FitzGerald and Myers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

It is ORDERED that appellee Melvin Williams recover his costs of this appeal, if any, 

from appellant The State of Texas.

Judgment entered March 21, 2013.

/David L. Bridges/

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT
32


STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Capitol Federal Financial (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
we, John B. Dicus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kent G. Townsend,
Chief Financial 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:





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
      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
      included in such Report.














Date:   May
5, 2009  
                                               By:   /s/ John B.
Dicus


John
B. Dicus, Chairman, President and


Chief
Executive Officer











Date:   May
5,
2009                                 
                By:   /s/ Kent G.
Townsend


Kent
G. Townsend, Executive Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > The Immigrant Woman and Her Job

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Manning, Caroline, 1876-1966. 						*The Immigrant Woman and Her Job : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 74*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1930,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5382,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 779.306 Leased departments not separate establishments.

It does not follow from the principles discussed in § 779.305 that leased departments engaged in the retail sale of goods or services in a departmentalized store are separate establishments. To the contrary, it is only in rare instances that such leased departments would be separate establishments for purposes of the exemptions. For example, take a situation where the departmentalized retail store, having leased departments, controls the space location, determines the type of goods that may be sold, determines the pricing policy, bills the customers, passes on customers' credit, receives payments due, handles complaints, determines the personnel policies, and performs other functions as well. In such situations the leased department is an integral part of the retail store and considered to be such by the customers. It is clear that such departments are not separate establishments but rather a part of the retail store establishment and will be considered as such for purposes of the exemptions. The same result may follow in the case of leased departments engaged in the retail sale of goods or services in a departmentalized store where all or most of the departments are leased or otherwise individually owned, but which operate under one common trade name and hold themselves out to the public as one integrated business unit.
An official website of the United States government          

Here’s how you know

**Official websites use .gov**A              **.gov** website belongs to an official government              organization in the United States.            

**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A              **lock** (              LockLocked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.            

Skip to main contentSkip to main navigationGet instructions for navigating this site

* * Announcements

A - Z Browse

- OAM Home
- Materials
- Activity Ideas
- Social Media
- History   - OAM History
  - 2023
  - 2022
  - 2021
  - 2020
  - 2019
  - 2018
  - Earlier Years

Go to ACL.gov * *

# Older Americans Month 2018 Posters

## Posters

The following posters celebrating Older Americans Month may be reproduced freely, electronically and in print.*
                  - For online use:  8.5"x11" poster (PDF, 1.08MB)
                  - For print only:  8.5"x11" poster (PDF, 1.42MB)  or  18"x24" poster (PDF, 3.67MB)

### Spanish Version

                  - For online use:  8.5"x11" poster (PDF, 1.10MB)
                  - For print only:  8.5"x11" poster (PDF, 1.43MB)  or  18"x24" poster (PDF, 3.68MB)

*ACL thanks the CNS Senior Corps for the permission to use two of their images in the OAM poster.

*Last modified on 02/19/2019*

#### OAM 2018

                            - Logos
                            - Badges
                            - Button and Banner
                            - Social Media
                            - Activity Ideas
                            - Resources
                            - Materials
                            - Sample Article:  DOCX (61KB)
                            - Sample Proclamation:  DOCX (130KB)

 

**         Back to Top    

## 

 

## What We Do and Why We Do It

ACL was created around the fundamental principle that all people, regardless of age or disability, should be able to live independently and fully participate fully in their communities. Learn more about community living.

 

* *Facebook* *YouTube  X* *LinkedIn* *Share on Other Platforms

 

## Site Support

-  Home 
-  Accessibility 
-  Disclaimers 
-  Contact Us 
-  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
-  Privacy Policy 
-  Site Map 
-  Viewers & Players 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

## Other ACL Sites

-  Disability Assistance and Information Line  
-  Eldercare Locator 
-  ElderJustice.acl.gov 
-  LongTermCare.gov 
-  OlderIndians.gov 

## Related Sites

-  Grants.gov 
-  HHS.gov 
-  No Fear Act  
-  Plain Writing (on HHS.gov) 
-  USA.gov 
-  WhiteHouse.gov 
-  Vote.gov 

## **Sign up for ACL Updates**

Subscribe ** **

*Advancing independence, integration, and inclusion throughout life*

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCharacterization of Low Frequency Auditory FiltersThe purpose of this study is to characterize auditory filters at low frequencies, defined as below about 100 Hz. Three experiments were designed and executed. They were conducted in the Exterior Effects Room at the NASA Langley Research Center, a psychoacoustic facility designed for presentation of aircraft flyover sounds to groups of test subjects. The first experiment measured 36 subjects’ hearing threshold for pure tones (at 25, 31.5, 40, 50, 63 and 80 Hz) in “quiet” conditions. The subjects, male and female, had a wide age range. This experiment allowed the performance of the test facility to be assessed and also provided screened test subjects for participation in subsequent experiments. The second and third experiments used 20 and 10 test subjects, respectively, and measured psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs) that describe auditory filters with center frequencies of approximately 63 and 50 Hz. The latter is assumed to be the lowest (bottom) auditory filter; thus, sounds at frequencies below about 50 Hz are perceived via the lower skirt of this lowest filter. All experiments used an adaptive, three-alternative forced-choice test procedure using either variable level tones or variable level, narrowband noise maskers. Measured PTCs were found to be very similar to other recently published data, both in terms of mean values and intersubject variation, despite different experimental protocols, different test facilities, and a wide range in subjects’ age.Document ID20190001050Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRafaelof, Menachem*(National Inst. of Aerospace Hampton, VA, United States)*Christian, Andrew W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Shepherd, Kevin P.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Rizzi, Stephen A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Stephenson, James H.*(Army Aviation and Missile Research Development Engineering Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredFebruary 28, 2019Publication DateJanuary 1, 2019Subject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberL-20983NF1676L-31935NASA/TM?2019-220120Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 664817.02.07.03.02.03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20190001050.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Argued and submitted October 18, 1991,

affirmed February 17,

reconsideration denied May 12,

petition for review denied June 22,1993 (317 Or 162)

#### Penny L. LUNSFORD, *Appellant, v.*FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, *Respondent.*

(9007-04008; CA A67556)

846 P2d 1206

Ronald H. Elzinga, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs was William D. Bailey, Portland.

Patrick N. Rothwell, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Hallmark, Keating & Abbott, P.C., Portland.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson,* Judges.

PER CURIAM

*

 Leeson, J., *vice*Buttler, J., retired.

*309PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals a summary judgment dismissing her action against defendant for breach of an automobile insurance contract. We affirm.

Plaintiff was injured when the car she was driving collided with one driven by Peterson. Peterson was at fault. Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Peterson for $25,000. Because there were multiple claimants, plaintiff received only $17,500 of the $50,000 per accident limit on Peterson’s liability insurance. Peterson paid plaintiff $2,500 in partial satisfaction of the judgment. Plaintiff then sued defendant, her own insurance carrier, for $7,500 in damages, or, alternatively, for an order compelling defendant to arbitrate and to pay her attorney fees pursuant to ORS 742.061. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff appeals.

The sole issue is whether *former*ORS 743.789(2) (renumbered ORS 742.502(2)),1 requires defendant to pay “underinsurance coverage” on plaintiffs claim. It does not. Under the statute, defendant is required to provide underinsurance coverage only if plaintiffs coverage exceeded Peterson’s liability coverage at the time of the accident. Plaintiff acknowledges that her coverage limits were identical to Peterson’s.

Affirmed.

1

 ORS 742.502(2) provides, in part:

> “Offers of uninsured motorist coverage larger than the [statutory minimum] required by ORS 806.070 shall include underinsurance coverage for damages or death caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle that is insured for an amount that is less than the insured’s uninsured motorist coverage.”
#### EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATES, INC. v WEISER, INC., et al.

Case No. 86-039 AP (County Court Case No. 85-20377 SP05

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

January 20, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

David L. Kout, Law Offices of Dunn & Corey, for appellant.

Peter Kneski, Law Offices of Stern & Kneski, for appellee.

Before NADLER, SHAPIRO, ROBINSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the Trial Court’s denial of its motion to set aside the Order of Dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiffs attorney failed to appear at a pretrial hearing because he had an automobile accident on the way to Court.

*145The defendant had alleged res judicata as a reason for not setting aside the dismissal. This was the third filing of the case. With full understanding of the frustration of the defendant, this Court finds dismissal with prejudice under the facts stated herein to be an abuse of discretion.

The Order of Dismissal is vacated and the cause is reinstated and remanded to the Trial Court for pre-trial hearing. The defendant may, at that time, raise any defenses he feels are appropriate and this opinion specifically does not reach the issue of res judicata.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Notes: 1. Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36277, June 25, 2010. 2. At 89 FR 22946, Apr. 3, 2024, part 1 was amended by revising the authority citation; however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.

§ 1.05-55 Direct final rule. ( a ) A direct final rule may be issued to allow noncontroversial rules that are unlikely to result in adverse public comment to become effective more quickly.
( b ) A direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register with an effective date that is generally at least 90 days after the date of publication.
( c ) The public will usually be given at least 60 days from the date of publication in which to submit comments or notice of intent to submit comments.
( d ) If no adverse comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is received within the specified period, the Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Federal Register to confirm that the rule will go into effect as scheduled.
( e ) If the Coast Guard receives a written adverse comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, the Coast Guard will publish a notice in the final rule section of the Federal Register to announce withdrawal of the direct final rule. If an adverse comment clearly applies to only part of a rule, and it is possible to remove that part without affecting the remaining portions, the Coast Guard may adopt as final those parts of the rule on which no adverse comment was received. Any part of a rule that is the subject of an adverse comment will be withdrawn. If the Coast Guard decides to proceed with a rulemaking following receipt of an adverse comment, a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will be published unless an exception to the Administrative Procedure Act requirements for notice and comment applies.
( f ) A comment is considered adverse if the comment explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.
[CGD 94-105, 60 FR 49224, Sept. 22, 1995]