alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(77 South. 939)

#### THACKER v. CITY OF SELMA.

(2 Div. 170.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 5, 1918.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1918.)

Exceptions, Bill of <&wkey;32(3) — Settlement-Power of Judge.

Bill of exceptions not settled by the trial judge because of expiration of his term, cannot be settled by another trial judge, 'but only by a justice of the .Supreme Court, as provided by Code 1907, § 3022, as amended by Acts 1915,, p. 816.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; B. M. Miller, Judge.

Action between W. R. Thacker and the City of Selma. From an adverse judgment, Thacker appeals.

Affirmed.

William H. Cook and William A. Jacobs, both of Birmingham, for appellant. Leo Leva, of Selma, for appellee.

BROWN, P. J.

It appears from the record in this case that Hon. Joseph B. Evans, judge of the city court of Selma, presided at the trial of this case, and there is nothing in the record to show that what is incorporated therein as a bill of exceptions was ever presented to the trial judge. On the contrary, it appears that the paper was presented to Hon. B. M. Miller, judge of the circuit court of Dallas county, who made the following notation thereon:

> "Judge Evans, the presiding judge, writes me this bill of exceptions is correct, so I sign it on date stated above.”

Then follows the official signature of Judge B. M. Miller.

It is well settled that a bill of exceptions derives its existence from the statute, and it cannot become such unless it is duly authenticated and made a part of the record as prescribed by the statute. Petty v. Dill, 53 Ala. 641; Edinburgh L. & M. Co. v. Canterbury, 169 Ala. 444, 53 South. 823; King v. Hill, 163 Ala. 423, 51 South. 15; Smith v. State, 166 *346Ala. 26, 52 South. 396; Rainey v. Ridgeway, 151 Ala. 532, 43 South. 843; Leeth v. Kornman, Sawyer & Co., 2 Ala. App. 311, 56 South. 757.

Judge Evans’ term of office expired by operation of law on. the first Monday after the second Tuesday in January, 1917 (Acts 1915, p. 279), and after that date be bad no authority to approve and sign a bill of exceptions, and could not confer such authority on the circuit .judge. Appellant’s remedy was to proceed under the provisions of section 3022 of the Code as amended by the Acts of 1915, p. 816.

The paper incorporated in the transcript as a bill of exceptions will be stricken, and the judgment appealed from affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### § 780.1014 Harvesting.

The homeworker is permitted to harvest evergreens and other forest products to be used in making the wreath. The word *harvesting* means the removal of evergreens and other forest products from their growing positions in the woods or forest, including transportation of the harvested products to the home of the homeworker and the performance of other duties necessary for such harvesting.
Draft O3 NPR –January 5, 2010 Deliberative, Do Not Quote or Cite 227 Deleted: December 29

Deleted: 4

Deleted: 09

1 evidence and the quantitative exposure and risk assessments. Additionally, EPA’s 

2 rationale did not discuss and thus placed no weight on exposures of concern relative to 

3 the 0.060 ppm benchmark. Further, EPA concluded that “[a] standard set at a lower level 

4 than 0.075 ppm would only result in significant further public health protection if, in fact, 

5 there is a continuum of health risks in areas with 8-hour average O3 concentrations that 

6 are well below the concentrations observed in the key controlled human exposure studies 

7 and if the reported associations observed in epidemiological studies are, in fact, causally 

8 related to O3 at those lower levels. Based on the available evidence, [EPA] is not 

9 prepared to make these assumptions” (73 FR 16483). 

10 In reconsidering the entire body of evidence available in the 2008 rulemaking, 

11 including the Agency’s own assessment of the epidemiological evidence in the 2006 

12 Criteria Document, and placing significant weight on the views of CASAC, the 

13 Administrator now concludes that important and significant risks to public health are 

14 likely to occur at a standard level of 0.075 ppm. She judges that a standard level of 0.075 

15 ppm is not sufficient to provide protection with an adequate margin of safety. In support 

16 of this conclusion, the Administrator finds that setting a standard that would protect 

17 public health, including the health of at-risk populations, with an adequate margin of 

18 safety should reasonably depend upon giving some weight to the results of the Adams 

19 studies and EPA's reanalysis of the Adams's data, and to how effectively alternative 

20 standard levels would serve to limit exposures of concern relative to the 0.060 ppm 

21 benchmark level as well as to the 0.070 ppm benchmark level. The Administrator notes 

22 that EPA’s risk assessment estimates comparable risk reductions in going from a 0.074 

23 ppm standard to a 0.064 ppm standard as were estimated in going from the then current 

Deleted: apparently gave

Deleted: at all to

Deleted: which reflected 

the lowest-observed-effects 

level for lung function effects 

observed in healthy adults in 

the Adams studies

Deleted: finds a compelling 

basis for 

Deleted: ing

Deleted: based on the 

controlled human exposure, 

toxicological, and 

epidemiological evidence
#### § 784.14 “Goods.”

The definition in section 3(i) of the Act states that “goods,” as used in the Act, means “goods (including ships and marine equipment), wares, products, commodities, merchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof, but does not include goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.” Part 776 of this chapter, dealing with the general coverage of the Act, contains a detailed discussion of the application of this definition and what is included in it.
Asian Gypsy Moth (AGM) 

Lymantria dispar (Linnaeus)

Be on the lookout for this significant 

pest of trees and shrubs. 

For positive identification, please forward any suspects to:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

1398 West Truck Rd., Otis Laboratory

Buzzards Bay, MA 02542

Phone: (508) 563-0900

Adult moths. Adult female AGMs (left) are white or tan, about 3 cm long, with 

a wingspan of 7 cm or more. Adult males (right) are smaller and darker, with a 

wingspan of 4 to 5 cm.

Egg mass. Females often lay their egg masses (about 4 cm long by 2 cm wide) in 

sheltered locations (e.g., in crevices or cavities, under tarps, behind walls and doors, 

and underneath the hold rims of a ship). Egg masses also might be on exposed 

surfaces, especially near light fixtures, which attract the female moths.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Program Aid No. 1537
First- (top) and fourth-instar larvae. When AGM eggs hatch during warm weather, the insects emerge as caterpillars and grow 

through several life stages called instars. Note how much the caterpillars grow between the first and the penultimate (fourth) instar. These 

larvae climb rapidly, and the smallest instars could be transported from the ship by blowing silk strands. 

Pupa. After AGM larvae reach the fifth instar, they pass into the pupal stage, when they develop into an adult moth inside a hard pupal 

case. This stage typically occurs in the spring or summer. Pupal cases can be attached to exposed surfaces or concealed in sheltered spaces.

Revised December 2007 • Reprinted August 2014

The U. S. Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
#### § 778.300 Scope of subpart.

This subpart applies the principles of computing overtime to some of the problems that arise frequently.
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   |   | By: | /s/ Antoine J. Lafargue |   |
|   |   |   | Antoine J. Lafargue, Vice President - Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |
|   |   |   | (as Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
| Date:  | February 15, 2013 |   |   |   |
§ 541.604 Minimum guarantee plus extras. ( a ) An employer may provide an exempt employee with additional compensation without losing the exemption or violating the salary basis requirement, if the employment arrangement also includes a guarantee of at least the minimum weekly-required amount paid on a salary basis. Thus, for example under the salary requirement described in § 541.600(a)(2), an exempt employee guaranteed at least $1,128 each week paid on a salary basis may also receive additional compensation of a one percent commission on sales. An exempt employee also may receive a percentage of the sales or profits of the employer if the employment arrangement also includes a guarantee of at least $1,128 each week paid on a salary basis. Similarly, the exemption is not lost if an exempt employee who is guaranteed at least $1,128 each week paid on a salary basis also receives additional compensation based on hours worked for work beyond the normal workweek. Such additional compensation may be paid on any basis (e.g., flat sum, bonus payment, straight-time hourly amount, time and one-half or any other basis), and may include paid time off.
( b ) An exempt employee's earnings may be computed on an hourly, a daily or a shift basis, without losing the exemption or violating the salary basis requirement, if the employment arrangement also includes a guarantee of at least the minimum weekly required amount paid on a salary basis regardless of the number of hours, days or shifts worked, and a reasonable relationship exists between the guaranteed amount and the amount actually earned. The reasonable relationship test will be met if the weekly guarantee is roughly equivalent to the employee's usual earnings at the assigned hourly, daily or shift rate for the employee's normal scheduled workweek. Thus, for example under the salary requirement described in § 541.600(a)(2), an exempt employee guaranteed compensation of at least $1,210 for any week in which the employee performs any work, and who normally works four or five shifts each week, may be paid $350 per shift without violating the $1,128 per week salary basis requirement. The reasonable relationship requirement applies only if the employee's pay is computed on an hourly, daily or shift basis. It does not apply, for example, to an exempt store manager paid a guaranteed salary per week that exceeds the current salary level who also receives a commission of one-half percent of all sales in the store or five percent of the store's profits, which in some weeks may total as much as, or even more than, the guaranteed salary.
[84 FR 51307, Sept. 27, 2019, as amended by 89 FR 32972, Apr. 26, 2024]
#### § 784.155 Activities performed in wholesale establishments.

The section 13(b)(4) exemption for employment in “marketing * * * storing, or distributing” the named aquatic products or byproducts, as applied to the wholesaling of fish and seafood, affords exemption to such activities as unloading the aquatic product at the establishment, icing or refrigerating the product and storing it, placing the product into boxes, and loading the boxes on trucks or other transportation facilities for shipment to retailers or other receivers. Transportation to and from the establishment is also included (*Johnson* v. *Johnson & Company, Inc.,* N.D. Ga., 47 F. Supp. 650). Office and clerical employees of a wholesaler who perform general office work such as posting to ledgers, sending bills and statements, preparing tax returns, and making up payrolls, are not exempt unless these activities can be shown to be functionally necessary, in the particular fact situation, to the actual conduct of the operations named in section 13(b)(4). Such activities as selling, taking, and putting up orders, recording sales, and taking cash are, however, included in employment in “marketing” or “distributing” within the exemption. Employees of a wholesaler engaged in the performance of any of the enumerated operations on fresh fish or fish products will be engaged in exempt work. However, any such operations which they perform on aquatic products which have been canned or otherwise rendered nonperishable are nonexempt in accordance with the principles stated in §§ 784.138 and 784.154.
### Chemical quality of surface waters in Devils Lake basin, North Dakota

By: Herbert SwensonBruce R. Colby

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1295

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (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.
Argued and submitted April 17,

affirmed December 16, 1992

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Esther M. Wasson, Claimant. Esther M. WASSON, *Petitioner, v.*EVANITE FIBER CORP., *Respondent.*

(89-22501; CA A71152)

843 P2d 1004

*247Edward J. Harri, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Donald M. Hooton and Malagon, Moore, Johnson & Jensen, Eugene.

Paul A. Dakopolos, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Robert R. Trethewy and Garrett, Hemann, Robertson, Paulus, Jennings & Comstock, P.C., Salem.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

DURHAM, J.

*248DURHAM, J.

Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order that denied her aggravation claim. We review for substantial evidence and errors of law, ORS 656.298(6); ORS 183.482(7), (8), and affirm.

Claimant sustained a compensable knee injury in 1985. In 1986, a determination order awarded her 30 percent scheduled permanent partial disability. In 1987, she filed claims for depression and for hip and back conditions, but employer denied those claims. The parties entered into a disputed claim settlement (DCS) that increased claimant’s PPD to 60 percent and confirmed the denial of the hip and back conditions and the depression.

 Claimant now claims that her depression has worsened. The Board found that her depression has worsened since the DCS; however, it ruled that it was not compensable, because it was the same condition that had been denied in the DCS. Under *Proctor v. SAIF,*68 Or App 333, 335, 681 P2d 161 (1984), a worsening is compensable only if the claimant can show that it is a *different*condition from the one that was denied in the DCS. *See also Gilkey v. SAIF,*113 Or App 314, 832 P2d 1252, *rev den*314 Or 573 (1992). Claimant’s doctor testified that her current psychological condition is the same as was diagnosed in 1987. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the depression was the same.

Claimant also argues that, by not allowing her to relitigate issues settled by the DCS, we are denying her an opportunity to contest an issue that would be a viable subject for an aggravation claim if it had been resolved through litigation. However, the DCS was a final resolution of the compensability dispute concerning her depression. Absent a showing that the present psychological condition is different from the original condition, permitting relitigation would undermine the finality for which employer *and*claimant bargained.

Affirmed.
[666 NE2d 553, 643 NYS2d 960]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Roldan, Appellant.

Argued March 21, 1996;

decided April 25, 1996

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Lisa Griffin,*White Plains, *Andrew*C. *Fine,*New York City, and *Daniel L. Greenberg*for appellant.

*Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney*of Bronx County, Bronx *(Lisa Ellen Mudd, Billie Manning*and *Joseph N. Ferdenzi*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery in the first degree following a jury trial. Eyewitness testimony showed that defendant and an accomplice were engaged in conversation prior to the robbery, and that during the course of the crime, defendant stood by "looking out” over the surrounding area while the accomplice robbed the two victims at knife-*827point. Police officers added proof that defendant and the accomplice fled the scene together and were apprehended a few blocks away.

The Appellate Division affirmed defendant’s conviction, rejecting his argument that the People’s case rested solely on circumstantial evidence and that the trial court erred in denying the defense request for a circumstantial evidence instruction. A dissenting Justice at the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal, and we now affirm that Court’s ruling upholding the conviction.

A defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence instruction must be allowed when proof of guilt rests exclusively on circumstantial evidence *(see, People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 380). This case involves direct evidence and, thus, does not qualify for the circumstantial evidence instruction. Eyewitness testimony, if believed by the jury, established that defendant engaged in acts which directly proved that at the very least he acted as a lookout while the crime was being committed *(see, People v Daddona,*81 NY2d 990, 992). Coupled with conduct before and after the actual commission of the crime, defendant’s accessorial guilt cannot be viewed as premised solely on circumstantial evidence. Thus, the instructional request was properly denied, and the Appellate Division order affirming the conviction should be sustained.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.
(78 South. 411)

#### FRANKLIN v. STATE.

(3 Div. 302.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 2, 1918.)

1. Criminal Daw <&wkey;>Sll(l) — Instruction — Undue Prominence to Defendant’s Testimony.

In a prosecution for larceny of a cow, an instruction that if defendant has stated that the cow was received by him in the manner testified to the jury must acquit him pretermits consideration of all the evidence, and gives undue prominence to defendant’s testimony, and was properly refused.

2. Daroeny &wkey;>68(l) — Jury Question.

In prosecution for larceny of a cow, affirmative charge for defendant *held*properly denied.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Paul Franklin was convicted of the larceny of a cow, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

The first count charges the larceny of a cow. The second count charges that defendant received, concealed, or aided in concealing one cow, the personal property of Stephen Sankey, of the value of $40, knowing that it was stolen, and not having the intent to restore it to the owner. Charge 1 is the general affirmative charge. Charge 2. Affirmative charge as to the first count. Charge 3. Affirmative charge as to the second count. *418Charge 4: “If defendant has reasonably satisfied you that the cow was received by him in the manner testified to by him in this case, then you must acquit him.” Defendant also- complained that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.

Hill, Hill, Whiting & Stern, of Montgomery, for appellant.. F. Loyd Tate, . Atty. Gen., and David W. W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The testimony offered by the state tended to support the indictment. The cow, the subject of the larceny, was found by the owner, Sankey, in Jim Robinson’s pasture. The cow had been so recently marked that the congealed blood was still clinging to the wound on her ear. The defendant admitted that he placed the cow in the pasture, but contends that he bought her from Sam. Stephens, who brought the cow to defendant’s place in the nighttime, and offered to sell her to defendant. Stephens was examined as a witness by the state, and denied that he had any such transaction with the defendant.

[1] Charge 4 pretermits consideration of all the evidence, and gives undue prominence to the defendant’s testimony. Hardeman v. State, 14 Ala. App. 35, 70 South. 979; Lane v. State, 14 Ala. App. 40, 70 South. 982; Finney v. State, 10 Ala. App. 39, 65 South. 93.

[2] Charges 1, 2, and 3, the affirmative charge as to each count and as to the entire case, were properly refused.

We do not feel justified in disturbing the verdict of the jury. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738; Southern Ry. Co. v. Kirsch, 150 Ala. 659, 43 South. 796.

There is no error in the record.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 7555]

                    Pursuant to Section 7086(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, Pub. L. 111-117), as carried forward by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Div. B, Pub. L. 112-10) (“the Act”), and Department of State                           ( print page 50536)                        Delegation of Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of Section 7086(c)(1) of the Act with respect to Lebanon and I hereby waive such restriction.                

                    This determination shall be reported to the Congress, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: June 6, 2011.

Thomas Nides,

Deputy Secretary of State, Management and Resources, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2011-20689 Filed 8-12-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-31-P