alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50720-50721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20802]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Notification of an Open Meeting of the National Defense 
University Board of Visitors (BOV)

AGENCY: National Defense University, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Defense University (NDU), Designated Federal 
Officer, has scheduled a meeting of the Board of Visitors. The National 
Defense University Board of Visitors is a Federal Advisory Board. The 
Board meets twice each year in proceedings that are open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 27, 2011 from 11:30 a.m. to 
5 p.m. and continues on October 28, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Board of Visitors meeting will be held at Marshall Hall, 
Building 62, Room 155, the National

[[Page 50721]]

Defense University, 300 5th Avenue, SW., Fort McNair, Washington, DC 
20319-5066.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The point of contact for this notice 
is Ms. Dolores Hodge, phone: (202) 685-0082, Fax (202) 685-3920 or e-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c1433383b39181c32382972393829"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ac2e5eeedefcecae4eeffa4efeeff">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The future agenda will include discussion on 
Defense transformation, faculty development, facilities, information 
technology, curriculum development, as well as other operational issues 
and areas of interest affecting the day-to-day operations of the 
National Defense University and its components. The meeting is open to 
the public; limited space made available for observers will be 
allocated on a first come, first served basis. Written statements to 
the committee may be submitted to the committee at any time or in 
response to a stated planned meeting agenda by FAX or e-mail to the 
point of contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 
(Subject Line: Comment/Statement to the NDU BOV).

    Dated: August 11, 2011.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-20802 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 70**  **3 8** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
DONTE GWYNN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Robert G. Doumar , Senior District Judge. ( 4:07

- cr - 001 12

- RGD

- FBS

- 5 )

Submitted : September 20, 2012 Decided: November 1, 2012

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Donte Gwynn, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Donte Gwynn appeals the district court’s order denying his motion requesting that he be transferred from state to federal custody. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court’s judgment does not suffer from reversible error, as the issue of Gwynn’s place of confinement is squarely within the prerogative of the Attorney General. See Jake v. Herschberger , 173 F.3d 1059, 1065 (7th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Warren , 610 F.2d 680, 684

- 85 (9th Cir. 1980). We therefore affirm the judgment of th e district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
§ 780.508 Application of the exemption. ( a ) As indicated in § 780.504, an employee qualifies for exemption under section 13(a)(14) only if he is an agricultural employee employed in the growing and harvesting of shade-grown tobacco and is engaged in the processing of such tobacco. However, both operations do not have to be performed during the same workweek. Section 13(a)(14) of the Act is intended to exempt any agricultural employee from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Act in any workweek when he is employed in the growing and harvesting of shade-grown tobacco, irrespective of the provisions of section 13(a)(6) and whether or not in such workweek he is also engaged in the processing of the tobacco as described in section 13(a)(14). The exemption would also apply in any workweek in which the employee, who grew and harvested shade-grown tobacco, is exclusively engaged in such processing.
( b ) An employee so employed in any workweek is considered to be excluded from the “employee employed in agriculture” whose exemption from the pay provisions of the Act is governed by section 13(a)(6). Therefore, his man-days of exempt labor under section 13(a)(14) in any such workweek are not to be counted as man-days of agricultural labor within the meaning of section 3(u) of the Act and to which section 13(a)(6) refers.
( c ) However, since section 3(u) defines man-day to mean “any day during which an employee performs any agricultural labor for not less than 1 hour” in the case of an employee who qualifies for the exemption in some workweeks but not in others under section 13(a)(14), all such man-days of his agricultural labor in the workweeks when he is not exempt under section 13(a)(14) will be counted. In this connection, the performance of some agricultural work which does not relate to shade-grown tobacco by an agricultural employee of a grower of such tobacco will not be considered as the performance of nonexempt work outside the section 13(a)(14) exemption in any workweek in which such an employee is employed by such an employer in the growing and harvesting of such tobacco or in its processing prior to stemming, or both, and engages in other agricultural work only incidentally or to an insubstantial extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                            <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-30-1999           DEC-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1999           SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          47,766,900          1,241,300
<SECURITIES>                                             0                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,984,100            765,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                       335,600             96,000
<INVENTORY>                                              0                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,611,600          1,985,800
<PP&E>                                          10,402,500          1,618,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,719,900            568,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,557,900          3,140,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,308,300          3,689,500
<BONDS>                                            588,500          2,631,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0                  0
<PREFERRED>                                              0                  0
<COMMON>                                            12,300              1,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,620,500        (20,529,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,557,900          3,140,500
<SALES>                                                  0                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,958,200          1,577,700
<CGS>                                                    0                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,244,200         10,516,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   659,600            655,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   335,600             96,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (45,787,300)        (9,579,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (45,787,300)        (9,579,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0                  0
<CHANGES>                                                0                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (46,446,900)       (10,234,800)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (5.08)             (5.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (5.08)             (5.95)



</TABLE>
#### § 452.34 Application of section 504, LMRDA.

The eligibility of members of labor organizations to be candidates and to hold office in such organizations is subject only to the provisions of section 504(a), which bars individuals convicted of certain crimes from holding office in labor organizations[23] and to reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed. A person who is barred from serving in union office by section 504(a) is not eligible to be a candidate. However, a labor organization may permit a person who is barred from holding union office by section 504(a) to be a candidate for office if the section 504 disability will terminate by the customary date for the installation of officers. A labor organization may within reasonable limits adopt stricter standards than those contained in section 504(a) by extending the period of disability or by barring from union office persons who have been convicted of crimes other than those specified.

[38 FR 18324, July 9, 1973, as amended at 50 FR 31311, Aug. 1, 1985]

###### Footnotes -
  452.34

[23] The disabling crimes set forth in the Act, sec. 504(a), as amended by sec. 803 of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Public Law 98-473, (29 U.S.C. 504) are robbery, bribery, extortion, embezzlement, grand larceny, burglary, arson, violation of narcotics laws, murder, rape, assault with intent to kill, assault which inflicts grievous bodily injury, or a violation of title II or III of this Act, any felony involving abuse or misuse of a position or employment in a labor organization or employee benefit plan to seek or obtain an illegal gain at the expense of the members of the labor organization or the beneficiaries of the employee benefit plan, or conspiracy to commit any such crimes or attempt to commit any such crimes or a crime in which any of the foregoing crimes is an element.”

Note: The U.S. Supreme Court, on June 7, 1965, held unconstitutional as a bill of attainder the section 504 provision which imposes criminal sanctions on Communist Party members for holding union office; *U.S.* v. *Brown,* 381 U.S. 437.
§ 519.15 Conditions governing issuance of full-time student certificates. Certificates authorizing the employment of full-time students at subminimum wage rates shall not be issued unless the following conditions are met: ( a ) Full-time students are available for employment at subminimum rates; the granting of a certificate is necessary in order to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment.
( b ) The employment of full-time students will not create a substantial probability of reducing the full-time employment opportunities for persons other than those employed under such certificates.
( c ) Abnormal labor conditions such as a strike or lockout do not exist in the units of the campus for which a full-time student certificate is requested.
( d ) The data given on the application are accurate and based on available records.
( e ) There are no serious outstanding violations of the provisions of a full-time student certificate previously issued to the employer, nor have there been any serious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (including Child-Labor Regulation No. 3 and the Hazardous Occupations Orders published in part 570 of this chapter) which provide reasonable grounds to conclude that the terms of a certificate may not be complied with, if issued.
( f ) The subminimum wage rate(s) proposed to be paid full-time students under temporary authorization or under certificate is not less than 85 percent of the minimum wage applicable under section 6 of the Act.
( g ) Full-time students are not to be employed by an institution of higher education at subminimum wages under this subpart in unrelated trades or businesses as defined and applied under sections 511 through 515 of the Internal Revenue Code, such as apartment houses, stores, or other businesses not primarily catering to the students of the institution.
( h ) Certificates will not be issued where such issuance will result in a reduction of the wage rate paid to a current employee, including current student employees.
EXHIBIT 23

                      INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP  (Logo)
Certified Public Accountants

CityPlace II
Hartford, CT 06103-4103

                       Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
MacDermid, Incorporated:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
(Nos. 2-66987 and 2-68181) on Form S-8 of MacDermid, Incorporated of our 
reports dated May 14, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of 
MacDermid, Incorporated and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1998 and 1997, 
and the related consolidated statements of earnings and cash flows and 
related schedules for each of the years in the three-year period ended 
March 31, 1998, which reports appear or are incorporated by reference in 
the March 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of MacDermid, Incorporated.

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

June 22, 1998
§ 510.20 Wage surveys in Puerto Rico. ( a ) The legislative history to the 1989 Amendments (Conference Report 101-47 on H.R. 2, May 8, 1989) stated that for any industry to qualify for an extended minimum wage phase-in, the government of Puerto Rico would be required to furnish official survey data substantiating that an industry's average hourly wage is below either the $4.65 or $4.00 threshold level. Such data were to be compiled and submitted for review to the Department.
( b ) *Manufacturing industries.* For purposes of implementing section 6(c) of the Act, as amended, Puerto Rico has submitted its Census of Manufacturing Industries. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of Puerto Rico regularly gathers data from manufacturing establishments regarding employment, hours and earnings. The data include hourly earnings for production and related workers and are generally specific to the four-digit SIC code level.
( c ) *Non-manufacturing industries.* The Bureau of Labor Statistics of Puerto Rico designed and executed a survey to supplement data regularly gathered for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (*i.e.*, that included in the payroll establishment survey published in *Employment and Earnings*). The supplemental survey was carried out to determine average hourly earnings for production workers or non-supervisory employees in the private non-agricultural, non-manufacturing sector. Employment and payroll information was collected for the payroll period which included April 12, 1989. The data provided to the Department were generally specific to the four-digit SIC code level.
( d ) *Agriculture.* At the request of the Department, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of Puerto Rico conducted a survey of wages paid to agricultural workers which included employment and earnings from at least a specified number of sugarcane farms, coffee farms, ornamental farms, vegetable farms, and other farms, following standard statistical random sampling techniques. The survey included information on earnings, employment, and hourly wage rates paid to workers for the workweek including March 11 through March 17, 1990. In addition, applicable collective bargaining agreements were reviewed for sugarcane farms.
( e ) *Commonwealth government.* In the case of the Commonwealth Government of Puerto Rico, a census of hourly earnings was undertaken of all government departments, commissions and other agencies. A separate survey was conducted of government corporations. Managers, officials and employees in positions which require a college degree were excluded from the surveys.
( f ) *Municipalities.* In the case of the municipalities of Puerto Rico, a census of hourly earnings was conducted. Managers, officials and employees in positions which require a college degree were excluded from the survey.
[55 FR 12120, Mar. 30, 1990, as amended at 55 FR 53247, Dec. 27, 1990]
Exhibit
      32.1





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 Visualant, Incorporated on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley E. Sparks, 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.







Bradley
      E. Sparks





Bradley
      E. Sparks


Chief
      Executive Officer, President and Director








Date:
      May
      15, 2007
#### In the Matter of Joshua Ramon C., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Aleida C., Appellant; Lutheran Social Services of Metropolitan New York, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 28]

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1997, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights over the subject child, and committed guardianship .and custody of the child to petitioners for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing established with the requisite force that it was in the best interests of the subject child to be freed for adoption *(see, Matter of Amanda R.,*215 AD2d 220, *220-221, lv denied*86 NY2d 705). While respondent mother’s recent efforts at drug rehabilitation are commendable, those efforts, viewed in the unfortunate context of a long history of drug abuse and attendant child neglect, afforded little more than a hope that respondent might one day be able to care for the child. Accordingly, we agree then with Family Court that it would not be in the child’s best interests to hold stable familial arrangements for the child in abeyance pending the highly contingent resolution of respondent’s situation and, accordingly, respondent’s request for a suspended judgment was properly denied.

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.
§ 99.200 Audit requirements. ( a ) *Audit required.* Non-Federal entities that expend $300,000 or more in a year in Federal awards (or $500,000 for fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003) shall have a single or program-specific audit conducted for that year in accordance with the provisions of this part. Guidance on determining Federal awards expended is provided in § 99.205.
( b ) *Single audit.* Non-Federal entities that expend $300,000 or more in a year in Federal awards (or $500,000 for fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003) shall have a single audit conducted in accordance with § 99.500 except when they elect to have a program-specific audit conducted in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Program-specific audit election.* When an auditee expends Federal awards under only one Federal program (excluding R&D) and the Federal program's laws, regulations, or grant agreements do not require a financial statement audit of the auditee, the auditee may elect to have a program-specific audit conducted in accordance with § 99.235. A program-specific audit may not be elected for R&D unless all of the Federal awards expended were received from the same Federal agency, or the same Federal agency and the same pass-through entity, and that Federal agency, or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient, approves in advance a program-specific audit.
( d ) *Exemption when Federal awards expended are less than $300,000 (or $500,000 for fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003).* Non-Federal entities that expend less than $300,000 a year in Federal awards (or $500,000 for fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003) are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in § 99.215(a), but records must be available for review or audit by appropriate officials of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and Government Accountability Office (GAO).
( e ) *Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC).* Management of an auditee that owns or operates a FFRDC may elect to treat the FFRDC as a separate entity for purposes of this part.
[64 FR 14541, Mar. 25, 1999, as amended at 72 FR 37105, July 9, 2007]
GEORGE A. HILL, SR.

,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 07 14

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 28, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. John C. Cooper , Judge

.

George A. Hill, Sr., pro se

, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. This dismissa l is without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek

appellate review once a final order has been rendered.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### § 780.1000 Scope and significance of interpretative bulletin.

Subpart A of this part 780 and this subpart K together constitute the official interpretative bulletin of the Department of Labor with respect to the meaning and application of section 13(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. This section provides an exemption from the minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor provisions of the Act for certain homeworkers employed in making wreaths from evergreens and in harvesting evergreens and other forest products for use in making wreaths. Attention is directed to the fact that a limited overtime exemption for employees employed in the decoration greens industry is provided under section 7(c) of the Act (see part 526 of this chapter). The section 7(c) exemption is not limited to homeworkers.