alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 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 > Shipyard Injuries, 1944

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Shipyard Injuries, 1944 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 834*,												Washington, D.C.: 								Government Printing Office, 										1943,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4507,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 95.30 Purpose of property standards.

Sections 95.31 through 95.37 set forth uniform standards governing management and disposition of property furnished by the Federal Government whose cost was charged to a project supported by a Federal award. Recipients are required to observe these standards under awards and no additional requirements shall be imposed, unless specifically required by Federal statute. The recipient may use its own property management standards and procedures provided it observes the provisions of §§ 95.31 through 95.37.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

January 6, 2015

Order 

January 6, 2015

150309(118)

JOSEPH WHITE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

DETROIT EAST COMMUNITY MENTAL 

HEALTH, M. SNOWDEN, SHIRLEY CALHOUN, 

D. STERRETT, and GATEWAY COMMUNITY 

HEALTH PROVIDER,

Defendants-Appellees.

SC: 150309

COA: 314990

Wayne CC: 11-011126-CZ

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time 

for filing his reply in support of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED in part. 

The reply submitted on January 2, 2015, is accepted for filing. On further order of the 

Chief Justice, the plaintiff-appellant’s request for a 60-day delay to allow him to hire a 

new attorney and conduct additional discovery is DENIED.
#### § 825.208 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: S.P.M., A MINOR

PETITION OF: G.M., III :

:

:

:

: No. 521 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of November, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
# Figure 1 Number of Persons 65+

# Figure 1 Number of Persons 65+

# Figure 2 Marital Status

# Figure 2 Marital Status

# Figure 3 Living Arrangements

# Figure 3 Living Arrangements

# Figure 4 State Map Percent 65+

# Figure 5 State Map changes

# Figure 6 Population by State

# Figure 7F Family Income

# Figure 7F Family Income

# Figure 7P Personal Income

# Figure 7P Personal Income

# Figure 8 Health Insurance

# Figure 8 Health Insurance

# Figure 9 Activity Limitation

# Figure 9 Activity Limitation
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 1, 2012 

d0125 

Order 

 

February 1, 2012 

143120(53) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 143120 

 COA: 297192 

Wayne CC: 09-027497-FH 

JAMES THOMAS WRIGHT, JR., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

21, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously. 

 MARILYN KELLY, J., would grant reconsideration.
#### § 104.125 Noncompliance.

When a vessel must temporarily deviate from the requirements of this part, the vessel owner or operator must notify the cognizant COTP, and either suspend operations or request and receive permission from the COTP to continue operating.

[USCG-2003-14749, 68 FR 60513, Oct. 22, 2003]
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 Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 that a Meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans will be held June 15 and 16, 2000. This will be a regularly scheduled meeting for the purpose of reviewing VA services of veterans, and to formulate Committee recommendations and objectives. The meeting on both days will be held at The American Legion, Washington Office, 1608 K Street, NW, Washington, DC. The agenda on both days will commence at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 p.m.

The agenda for Thursday, June 15, will include reviews of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) special emphasis programs for prosthetics, environmental agents and post-traumatic stress disorder. The agenda for both days will also include strategic planning sessions to formulate goals and objectives for a Committee field visit to VA facilities to be conducted later in the year.

On Friday, June 16, the Committee will review Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) programs related to PTSD compensation, vocational rehabilitation and counseling, and transition assistance.

The meeting will be open to the public. Those who plan to attend or who have questions concerning the meeting may contact Alfonso R. Batres, Chief Readjustment Counseling Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs Headquarters Office at (202) 273-8967.

Dated: May 16, 2000.

By Direction of the Secretary.

Marvin R. Eason,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-13168  Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
#### § 503.15 Enforcement.

The investigation, inspection, and law enforcement functions that carry out the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1184(c), INA section 214(c), 20 CFR part 655, subpart A, or the regulations in this part pertain to the employment of any H-2B worker, any worker in corresponding employment, or any U.S. worker improperly rejected for employment or improperly laid off or displaced.
#### § 94.620 Cooperative agreement.

*Cooperative agreement* means an award of financial assistance that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6305, is used to enter into the same kind of relationship as a grant (see definition of grant in § 94.650), except that substantial involvement is expected between the Federal agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the award. The term does not include cooperative research and development agreements as defined in 15 U.S.C. 3710a.
#### § 784.104 The 1949 amendments.

In deleting employees employed in canning aquatic products from the section 13(a)(5) exemption and providing them with an exemption in like language from the overtime provisions only in section 13(b)(4), the conferees on the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1949 did not indicate any intention to change in any way the category of employees who would be exempt as “employed in the canning of” the aquatic products. As the Supreme Court has pointed out in a number of decisions, “When Congress amended the Act in 1949 it provided that pre-1949 rulings and interpretations by the Administrator should remain in effect unless inconsistent with the statute as amended 63 Stat. 920” (*Mitchell* v. *Kentucky Finance Co.,* 359 U.S. 290). In connection with this exemption the conference report specifically indicates what operations are included in the canning process (see § 784.142). In a case decided before the 1961 amendments to the Act, this was held to “indicate that Congress intended that only those employees engaged in operations physically essential in the canning of fish, such as cutting the fish, placing it in cans, labelling and packing the cans for shipment are in the exempt category” (*Mitchell* v. *Stinson,* 217 F. 2d 210).
#### Joseph P. Manning v. James P. Viers.

Filed October 17, 1893.

No. 5052.

1. Pleading: Correction of Name of Party: Discretion of Trial Court. It is within the discretion of the trial court, in furtherance of justice, upon such terms as shall be proper, to allow the amendment of any pleading and process by correcting the name of a party thereto.

2. -: -: Prejudice. Where an amendment has been permitted by which the given name of the plaintiff is changed, no prejudice will be presumed from the mere fact of the change. Resulting prejudice, if any there was,must be made affirmatively to appear.

Error from tbe district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Doane, J.

*Andrew Bevins,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. A. Rutherford, contra.*

Ryan, C.

This case was originally commenced in the court of a justice of the peace, wherein it was docketed, and entitled “Joseph C. Viers v. Joseph P. Manning.” In the summons the plaintiff was described as Joseph C. Yiers. The title of the case in the verdict was given as J. P. Yiers, to whom the appeal bond ran as obligee. On appeal the case was docketed in the name of Joseph C. Yiers as plaintiff. The petition, however, was filed in the name of James P. Yiers, and the answer was entitled “James P. Yiers v. Joseph P. Manning.” On motion the title of the case was amended so that James P. Yiers was the plaintiff named.

The only question of importance in this case is whether or not the district court erred in permitting this amendment of the name of the plaintiff. Sectiou 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “ The court may, either be*33fore or after judgment, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, amend any pleading, process, or proceeding, by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party,” etc. This language expressly authorized the court to amend the title of the case in the respect in which it was amended, and, therefore, no error can be predicated on the order of the court in that respect. If any prejudice resulted from the discretion exercised by the court in the allowance of the amendment complained of, such prejudice should have been made to appear in some manner. Without averment or proof we cannot presume its existence. The. judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           7
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                98,068
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                    0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                      0
<EQUITIES>                                               0
<MORTGAGE>                                               0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                            0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                      98,068
<CASH>                                               4,056
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                       0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     141,418
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                     80,669
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                 11,778
<POLICY-OTHER>                                           0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                    0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                37
<OTHER-SE>                                          37,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       141,418
<PREMIUMS>                                           7,173
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                  3,182
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                       0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                         209
<BENEFITS>                                           5,755
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                              0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 2,021
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      2,504
<INCOME-TAX>                                           775
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1,729
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,729
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.49
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                           0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                      0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                        0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                       0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                         0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                          0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                                  0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.5

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 Annual Report of Morton Industrial Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rodney B. Harrison, 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 to the best of my knowledge:



|/s/RODNEY B. HARRISON                                      |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Rodney B. Harrison Vice President of FinanceMarch 31, 2003 |  | 

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be
deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Morton Industrial Group, Inc. and will be retained by Morton Industrial Group, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff on request.

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                  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 Annual Report of Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March 27, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Don E.
Marsh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(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.

/s/  Don E. Marsh
------------------------------
Don E. Marsh
Chief Executive Officer
June 24, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 103 (Friday, May 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13324]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1329-DR]


New Mexico; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-1329-DR), dated May 13, 
2000, and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3772.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of New Mexico is hereby amended to include Public Assistance for the 
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President 
in his declaration of May 13, 2000. Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), as 
follows:

Los Alamos County for Public Assistance (previously designated for 
Individual Assistance)

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 00-13324 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
November 24, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

APPROXIMATELY $31,42 1.00 , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00385

- CV V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Ap pellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, t he State of Texas, signed February 18, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment . We order the judgment of
the court below REVERSED and RENDER judgment ordering the State to return the seized proceeds to claimant Fredi Azuara Enriquez. We further remand the cause for proceedings in accordance with the court’s opinion

.

We further order th at all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee, t he State of Texas.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**Exhibit 32**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the filing by Senior Housing Properties Trust (the “Company”)of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 (the “Report”),each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ Barry M. Portnoy |   |   | /s/ David J. Hegarty                  |   |
|--------|----------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Barry M. Portnoy     |   |   | David J. Hegarty                      |
|   | Managing Trustee     |   |   | President and Chief Operating Officer |
|   |                 |   |   |                                  |
|   |                 |   |   |                                  |
|   | /s/ Adam D. Portnoy  |   |   | /s/ Richard A. Doyle                  |   |
|   | Adam D. Portnoy      |   |   | Richard A. Doyle                      |
|   | Managing Trustee     |   |   | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

Date:      July 30, 2007

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 26, 2020 b0518

Order 

Clerk

May 26, 2020

160245-6 

RAYMOND GUZALL, III, and 

RAYMOND GUZALL, III, PC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 160245-6

COA: 344507, 345190

Wayne CC: 18-000343-CB

BARRY A. SEIFMAN and BARRY A.

SEIFMAN, PC,

Defendants-Appellees.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2019 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
§ 801.70 Implementation by the Secretary. ( a ) Review of the Decision and Order by the Secretary shall not be a matter of right but of the sound discretion of the Secretary. At any time within 30 days after the issuance of the Decision and Order of the Administrative Law Judge the Secretary may, upon the Secretary's own motion or upon the acceptance of a party's petition, issue a Notice of Intent to modify or vacate the Decision and Order in question.
( b ) The Notice of Intent to Modify or Vacate a Decision and Order shall specify the issue or issues to be considered, the form in which submission shall be made (*i.e.*, briefs, oral argument, etc.), and the time within which such presentation shall be submitted. The Secretary shall closely limit the time within which the briefs must be filed or oral presentations made, so as to avoid unreasonable delay.
( c ) The Notice of Intent shall be issued within thirty (30) days after the date of the Decision and Order in question.
( d ) Service of the Notice of Intent shall be made upon each party to the proceeding, and upon the Chief Administrative Law Judge, in person or by certified mail.