alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 452.25 Vacancies in office.

Title IV governs the regular periodic elections of officers in labor organizations subject to the Act. No requirements are imposed with respect to the filling by election or other method of any particular office which may become vacant between such regular elections. If, for example, a vacancy in office occurs in a local labor organization, it may be filled by appointment, by automatic succession, or by a special election which need not conform to the provisions of title IV. The provisions of section 504 of the Act, which prohibit certain persons from holding office, are applicable to such situations. While the enforcement procedures of section 402 are not available to a member in connection with the filling of an interim vacancy, remedies may be available to an aggrieved member under section 102 of the Act or under any pertinent State or local law.
#### § 780.513 What employment in growing and harvesting is sufficient.

To qualify for exemption the employee must be one of those who “were employed in the growing and harvesting of such tobacco” (H. Rept. No. 75, 87th Cong., First Sess., p. 29) and one whose processing work could be viewed as a “continuation of the agricultural process, occurring in the vicinity where the tobacco was grown.” (Ibid. p. 26.) This appears to require that such employment be in connection with the crop of shade-grown tobacco which is being processed; it appears to preclude an employee who has had no such employment in the current crop season from qualifying for this exemption even if in some past season he was employed in growing and harvesting such tobacco. Bona fide employment in growing and harvesting shade-grown tobacco would also appear to be necessary. An attempt to qualify an employee for the processing exemption by sending him to the fields for growing or harvesting work for a few hours or days would not establish the bona fide employment in growing and harvesting contemplated by the Act. It would not seem sufficient that an employee has been engaged in growing or harvesting operations only occasionally or casually or incidentally for a small fraction of his work time. (See *Walling* v. *Haden,* 153 F. 2d 196.) Employment for a significant period in the current crop season or on some regular recurring basis during this season would appear to be necessary before an agricultural employee could reasonably be described as one “employed in the growing and harvesting of shade-grown tobacco.” The determination in a doubtful case will, therefore, require a careful examination and consideration of the particular facts.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129997 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129997 

 COA: 256613 

Wayne CC: 03-013861-01 

CHARLES TERRELL JONES,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
§ 4041A.23 Withdrawal liability. ( a ) *Collection of withdrawal liability.* Until plan assets are distributed in accordance with subpart D of this part, or until the end of the plan year as of which PBGC determines that plan assets (exclusive of claims for withdrawal liability) are sufficient to satisfy all nonforfeitable benefits under the plan, the plan sponsor must determine, give notice of, and collect withdrawal liability (including the liability arising as a result of the mass withdrawal), in accordance with subpart C of part 4219 of this chapter and sections 4201 through 4225 of ERISA.
( b ) *Filing of withdrawal liability information.* For each employer that has withdrawn from the plan, the plan sponsor must file with PBGC, not later than 180 days after the end of the plan year in which the plan terminates and each plan year thereafter, the information specified in the withdrawal liability instructions on PBGC's website (*www.pbgc.gov*).
[61 FR 34052, July 1, 1996, as amended at 84 FR 18722, May 2, 2019]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 5390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2024]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Place: National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NHGRI Sample Repository for Human Genetic Research.
    Date: March 3, 2011.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: NHGRI Twinbrook Library, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Rudy O. Pozzatti, PHD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, 
5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, MSC 9306, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 
402-0838, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c4b4abbebea5b0b0b684a9a5ada8eaaaadaceaa3abb2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f3f2035352e3b3b3d0f222e26236121262761282039">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: January 25, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-2024 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 786.250 Enforcement policy.

The exemption provided by paragraph 13(a)(8) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 applies to “any employee employed in connection with the publication of any weekly, semiweekly, or daily newspaper with a circulation of less than four thousand the major part of which circulation is within the county where published or counties contiguous thereto.” For the purpose of enforcement, it is the Divisions' position that such an employee is within the exemption even though he is also engaged in job printing activities. if less than 50 percent of the employee's worktime during the workweek is spent in job printing work, some of which is subject to the Act. If none of the job printing activities are within the general coverage of the Act, the exemption applies even if the job printing activities equal or exceed 50 percent of the employee's worktime. However, this exemption is not applicable if the employee spends 50 percent or more of his worktime in a workweek on job printing, any portion of which is within the general coverage of the Act on an individual or enterprise basis.

[32 FR 15426, Nov. 4, 1967]
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 377 

Recognizing and celebrating the centennial of Oklahoma statehood. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2007 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. COBURN) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and celebrating the centennial of Oklahoma 

statehood. 

Whereas, on November 16, 1907, Oklahoma officially became 

the 46th State of the Union; 

Whereas the State of Oklahoma is known as the Sooner 

State; 

Whereas the State of Oklahoma has become a national leader 

in agriculture, natural resource industries, technology, 

and manufacturing; 

Whereas the people of Oklahoma have harvested the natural 

abundance of the State to produce a wealth which has 

enabled the building of cities, educational institutions, an 

unhurried pace of life, and a rich culture, while maintaining the pristine ecology; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

2 

•SRES 377 ATS 

Whereas the beautiful mountains, rivers, lakes, trees, plains, 

and fields of the State of Oklahoma are appreciated and 

preserved, and the quality of life is unsurpassed; and 

Whereas, on November 16, 2007, the State of Oklahoma will 

begin a new century of statehood: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate recognizes and celebrates 

2 the centennial of Oklahoma statehood. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### § 4041A.27 PBGC approval to pay benefits not otherwise permitted.

Upon written application by the plan sponsor, the PBGC may authorize the plan to pay benefits other than nonforfeitable benefits or to pay benefits valued at more than $1,750 in a form other than an annuity. The PBGC will approve such payments if it determines that the plan sponsor has demonstrated that the payments are not adverse to the interests of the plan's participants and beneficiaries generally and do not unreasonably increase the PBGC's risk of loss with respect to the plan.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 23 September 2004

in Case C-414/02: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul v Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich (1)

(Community Customs Code - Article 202 - Accrual of the customs debt - Unlawful introduction into the Community customs territory - Meaning of ‘debtor’ of such a debt - Extension to the employer of liability for the debt of an employee who has committed irregularities in the performance of customs obligations)

(2004/C 284/04)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-414/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 6 November 2002, received at the Court on 19 November 2002, in the proceedings between Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul and Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 September 2004, in which it has ruled:

Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation such as Paragraph 79(2) of the Zollrechts-Durchführungsgesetz (Act to implement customs law) which, in the event of unlawful introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods subject to import duties, makes the employer co-debtor of the customs debt of the employee who introduced those goods in the conduct of the employer's affairs, so long as such legislation requires that the employer took part in the introduction of the goods and knew or ought reasonably to have known that such introduction was unlawful.

----

(1)OJ C 19, 25.1.2003.

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3209-3210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1306]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Army ROTC Referral 
Information; ROTC CDT CMD Form 155-R; OMB Number 0702-[To Be 
Determined].
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Number of Respondents: 16,300.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 16,300.
    Average Burden per response: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 4,075.
    Needs and Uses: The Army ROTC Program produces approximately 75 
percent of the newly commissioned officers for the U.S. Army. Army ROTC 
must have the ability to attract quality men and women who will pursue 
college degrees. Currently, there are 13 Recruiting Teams (Goldminers) 
located in various places across the United States aiding in this 
effort. Their mission is to refer quality high school students to 
college and universities offering Army ROTC. Goldminers, two officer 
personnel, will collect ROTC referral information at a high school 
campus and document it on ROTC Cadet Command Form 155-R. The purpose of 
the information is to provide prospect referral data to a Professor of 
Military Science to contact individuals who have expressed an interest 
in Army ROTC.
    Affected Public: Individual or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.


[[Page 3210]]


    Dated: January 12, 2000.
Patrica L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Laison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-1306 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
<PAGE>89



                                                                 EXHIBIT 23











                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                      ----------------------------------


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Mark IV Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-4 (File No. 333-36013) and
Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-55367 and 33-56515) of our report dated March 18, 1998,
on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Mark IV Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of February 28, 1998
and February 28, 1997, and for each of the three fiscal years in the period
ended February 28, 1998, which reports are included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.





                                       COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.








Rochester, New York
May 27, 1998
§ 4281.11 Valuation dates. ( a ) *Annual actuarial valuation of mass-withdrawal-terminated plans.* The valuation dates for the annual actuarial valuation required under section 4281(b) of ERISA are the last day of the plan year in which the plan terminates and the last day of each plan year thereafter for which an actuarial valuation is required to be performed under § 4041A.24 of this chapter.
( b ) *Valuations related to mass withdrawal reallocation liability.* The valuation date for determining the value of unfunded vested benefits (for purposes of allocation) under section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA is— ( 1 ) If the plan terminates by mass withdrawal, the last day of the plan year in which the plan terminates; or
( 2 ) If substantially all the employers withdraw from the plan pursuant to an agreement or arrangement to withdraw from the plan, the last day of the plan year as of which substantially all employers have withdrawn from the plan pursuant to the agreement or arrangement.
[61 FR 34118, July 1, 1996, as amended at 84 FR 18725, May 2, 2019]
#### § 783.44 Board and lodging as wages.

The wages for the period covered by the wage payment include all remuneration for employment paid to or on behalf of the employee for all hours actually on duty intended to be compensated by such wage payment. The reasonable cost or fair value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 3(m) of the Act, of board and lodging furnished the employee during such period, if customarily furnished by the employer to his employees, is also included as part of the wages for the actual hours worked in the period (see § 783.16). However, the cost of board and lodging would not be included as part of the wages paid to the employee to the extent it is excluded from the employee's wages under terms of a bona fide collective bargaining agreement applicable to such employee, whether or not customarily furnished to the employee. Where such an exclusion is not provided for in any bona fide collective bargaining agreement applicable to the employee, the reasonable cost or fair value thereof, whichever is appropriate, as determined in accordance with the standards set forth in the regulations in part 531 of this chapter, is included as part of the wage paid to such employee. Part 531 of this chapter also contains the official regulations and interpretations of the Department of Labor concerning the application of section 3(m) to other facilities as well as board and lodging furnished to an employee.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas EmissionsMeeting Documentation: 2009 ISMI GuidelinesDateStaff Contact InformationName of OrganizationSummary of DiscussionWrittenCommentsProvided?Did they alsosubmit toDocket?Date sent toEPA- CCDJanuary 27, 2010Kirsten Cappel(202) 343-9556cappel.kirsten@epa.gov• Outside participantsidentified below.• EPA Climate ChangeDivision and EPAcontractors: KirstenCappel, EPA; ScottBartos, EPA; DebHarris, ICFInternational.Participants discussed overallchanges/differences between the 2006ISMI Guidelines and the 2009 ISMIGuidelines. The revisions made to thePOU abatement appendix were alsodiscussed.No. (ISMI didsupport SIA indevelopingpubliccommentsthroughindustrysurveys)Outside Participants:Mike Sherer, Sherer Consulting Services, Inc., Msherereng@aol.comLaurie Beu, Consultant to ISMI, laurie.beu@ismi.sematech.orgSteve Trammell, ISMI,steve.trammell@ismi.sematech.org1
Strafford

No. 7277

#### Frederick J. Barry, Adm’r w.w.a. of the Estate of Elsie M. Courser v. Bank of New Hampshire, National Association

November 28, 1975

*Frederick J. Barry,*by brief and orally, pro se for the plaintiff.

*Devine, Millimet, Stahl & Branch, Luke S. O’Neill, Jr.,*and *Silas Little III (Mr. Little*orally) for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

After the decisions in this case reported at 112 N.H. 226, 293 A.2d 755 (1972) and 113 N.H. 158, 304 A.2d 879 (1973), a jury returned a verdict for the defendant in December 1974 following a trial at which the plaintiff was represented by counsel. Thereafter counsel withdrew, and the plaintiff, acting pro se, on December 18, 1974, filed a motion to set the verdict aside. The motion was denied by *Mullavey,*J., who presided at the trial.

The plaintiff submitted a proposed reserved case on February 18, 1975, which was after expiration of the time limited by superior court rule 69. RSA 491:App. R. 69 (Supp. 1973). The defendant’s motion for judgment was granted on February 28, 1975, after a hearing at which the plaintiff sought relief from his failure to comply with rule 69, on the grounds of accident, mistake, or misfortune as provided by the introduction to the superior court rules. RSA 491:App. (Supp. 1973, at 100). On March 3, 1975 his proposed reserved case was denied by the pre*679siding justice “as not being timely filed”. His exception to this order was reserved and transferred to this court by *Mullavey,*J.

There is no question that rule 69 was not complied with. In consequence all exceptions were deemed waived on judgment day. Since there are no transcripts of the post-trial hearings in superior court, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff relief from his failure to comply with rule 69. *Timberlane Regional Educational Association v. Crompton,*115 N.H. 616, 347 A.2d 612 (1975); *Gallo v. Century Broadcasting,*114 N.H. 810, 330 A.2d 780 (1974). The order implies a finding that justice did not require the relief sought, and the plaintiff’s subsequent motion to remand is denied.

*Plaintiff’s exception overruled; judgment for the defendant.*
#### § 500.162 Reports.

The Secretary shall require such reports as he deems necessary of activities conducted pursuant to State plans, but on not less than an annual basis.
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.

§ 1.07-80 Reopening of hearings. ( a ) At any time prior to final agency action in a civil penalty case, a party may petition to reopen the hearing on the basis of newly discovered evidence.
( b ) Petitions to reopen must be in writing describing the newly found evidence and must state why the evidence would probably produce a different result favorable to the petitioner, whether the evidence was known to the petitioner at the time of the hearing and, if not, why the newly found evidence could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence. The party must submit the petition to the Hearing Officer.
( c ) The District Commander may file comments in opposition to the petition. If comments are filed, a copy is provided the party.
( d ) A petition to reopen is considered by the Hearing Officer unless an appeal has been filed, in which case the petition is considered by the Commandant.
( e ) The decision on the petition is decided on the basis of the record, the petition, and the comments in opposition, if any. The petition is granted only when newly found evidence is described which has a direct and material bearing on the issues and when a valid explanation is provided as to why the evidence was not and could not have been, in the exercise of due diligence, produced at the hearing. The decision is rendered in writing.
( f ) Following a denial of a petition to reopen, the party is given 30 days to file an appeal if one has not already been filed, or to amend an appeal which has already been filed.
[CGD 78-82, 43 FR 54186, Nov. 20, 1978, as amended by CGD 87-008a, 52 FR 17555, May 11, 1987]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00514-CR

Steven Gonzales, Appellant

v. 

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY

NO. CR28727, THE HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Steven Gonzales has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The motion 

is signed by both appellant and his attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). We grant the motion 

and dismiss the appeal. See id.

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice 

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion 

Filed: August 16, 2024

Do Not Publish