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 > Glossary of Current Industrial Relations and Wage Terms

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Glossary of Current Industrial Relations and Wage Terms : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1438*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										May 1965,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4735,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### Spencer *vs.*Woodbury.

The assignee of an instrument in writing not negotiable, cannot maintain an action thereon in his own name.

This was an action commenced before a Justice of the Peace of Ramsey County, on the 20th day of June,' 1851, upon the following instrument, in the name of the assignee thereof:

“I do agree to cut and split two thousand rails on the northwest quarter of Section 20, Township 29 north, and Range 22 west, on or before the first day of May next, to be delivered to Elliott Adams or bearer.

(Signed) “WARREN WOODBURY.”

Dated Eeb. 18, 1850.

The plaintiff declared, in writing, upon the above instrument, and filed the same as his bill of particulars. The defendant pleaded *non assumpsit.*

The Justice gave judgment for the defendant, and the case was taken to the District Court on certiorari, when the judgment of the Justice was reversed. To review the last judgment, the defendant sued out a writ of Error.

L. Emmett, for Plaintiff in Error.

Pierse & Murray, for Defendant in Error.

Meeker, J.

The following instrument was executed by Warren Woodbury on the 18th of February, 1850, to wit:

> “St. Paul, Min. Ter., Ramsey County.

> “I do agree to cut and split four thousand rails on the northwest quarter of Section 20, Township 29 north, and Range twenty-two [22] west, on or before the first day of May next, to be delivered to Elliott Adams, or bearer.

> “WARREN WOODBURY.”

*106"Upon tliis instrument, as the holder thereof, J. B. Woodbury brought suit before Orlando Simons,, a Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Ramsey, who gave judgement for the defendant. Spencer then took it to the District Court of Ramsey County, by certiorari, when the Justice’s judgment was reversed, and that decision of the District Court is brought before us by writ of Error.

The only question that is legitimately raised in the record before us, is whether the writing upon which this suit is based is negotiable or assignable, so as to vest in any holder other than the original obligee a right of action at law. It is at most but a chose in action, and as that class of rights were not assignable at common law, and as the Statutes in force at the time, rendering notes assignable promising the payment ot money, does not affect other obligations, promising payment of anything else, or the performance of labor, the action in this case upon the obligation in question cannot be maintained at law.

The judgment of the District Court is therefore reversed with costs.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, John Busshaus, of Wizzard Software Corporation (the "small business issuer"), certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of the small business issuer;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.   Date:8/14/07By:/s/ John BusshausJohn Busshaus    Chief Financial Officer
§ 94.605 Award. *Award* means an award of financial assistance by the Department of Labor or other Federal agency directly to a recipient. ( a ) The term award includes: ( 1 ) A Federal grant or cooperative agreement, in the form of money or property in lieu of money.
( 2 ) A block grant or a grant in an entitlement program, whether or not the grant is exempted from coverage under the Governmentwide rule 29 CFR part 97 that implements OMB Circular A-102 (for availability, see 5 CFR 1310.3) and specifies uniform administrative requirements.
( b ) The term award does not include: ( 1 ) Technical assistance that provides services instead of money.
( 2 ) Loans.
( 3 ) Loan guarantees.
( 4 ) Interest subsidies.
( 5 ) Insurance.
( 6 ) Direct appropriations.
( 7 ) Veterans' benefits to individuals (*i.e.,* any benefit to veterans, their families, or survivors by virtue of the service of a veteran in the Armed Forces of the United States).
#### § 404.3 Form of annual report.

On and after the effective date of this section, every labor organization officer and employee required to file an annual report under § 404.2 shall file such report on United States Department of Labor Form LM-30 entitled “Labor Organization Officer and Employee Report,” together with a true copy thereof, in the detail required by the instructions accompanying such form and constituting a part thereof.
**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**





The
      undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of
      Modtech Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
      based
      on his knowledge:





•  the
      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
      30,
      2007, (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





•  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
              November 13, 2007
            /s/
                DENNIS L. SHOGRENDennis
                L. ShogrenPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer




















































31
§ 4043.32 Transfer of benefit liabilities. ( a ) *Reportable event.* A reportable event occurs for a plan when— ( 1 ) The plan makes a transfer of benefit liabilities to a person, or to a plan or plans maintained by a person or persons, that are not members of the transferor plan's controlled group; and
( 2 ) The amount of benefit liabilities transferred, in conjunction with other benefit liabilities transferred during the 12-month period ending on the date of the transfer, is 3 percent or more of the plan's total benefit liabilities. Both the benefit liabilities transferred and the plan's total benefit liabilities are to be valued as of any one date in the plan year in which the transfer occurs, using actuarial assumptions that comply with section 414(*l*) of the Code.
( b ) *Determination rules* — ( 1 ) *Date of transfer.* The date of transfer is to be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the particular situation. For transfers subject to the requirements of section 414(*l*) of the Code, the date determined in accordance with 26 CFR 1.414( l )-1(b)(11) will be considered the date of transfer.
( 2 ) *Distributions of lump sums and annuities.* For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the payment of a lump sum, or purchase of an irrevocable commitment to provide an annuity, in satisfaction of benefit liabilities is not a transfer of benefit liabilities.
( c ) *Waivers* — ( 1 ) *Small plan.* Notice under this section is waived if the plan had 100 or fewer participants for whom flat-rate premiums were payable for the plan year preceding the event year.
( 2 ) *Low-default-risk.* Notice under this section is waived if each contributing sponsor of the plan and the highest level U.S. parent of each contributing sponsor are low-default-risk on the date of the event.
( 3 ) *Well-funded plan.* Notice under this section is waived if the plan is in the well-funded plan safe harbor for the event year.
( 4 ) *Public company.* Notice under this section is waived if any contributing sponsor of the plan before the transaction, or the parent company within a parent-subsidiary controlled group of any such contributing sponsor, is a public company and timely files a SEC Form 8-K disclosing the event under an item of the Form 8-K other than under Item 2.02 (Results of Operations and Financial Condition) or in financial statements under Item 9.01 (Financial Statements and Exhibits).
[80 FR 55002, Sept. 11, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 6064, Feb. 4, 2020]
#### § 779.342 Methods of computing annual volume of sales.

The tests as to whether an establishment qualifies for exemption under section 13(a)(2) of the Act are specified in terms of the “annual dollar volume of sales” of goods or of services (or both) and percentages thereof. The “annual dollar volume of sales” of an establishment consists of the gross receipts from all sales of the establishment during a 12-month period. The methods of computing it for purposes of determining whether the establishment qualifies under the tests of the exemption are the same as the methods of calculating whether the annual gross volume of sales or business of an enterprise or an establishment meets the statutory dollar tests for coverage. These are discussed in §§ 779.265 to 779.269. However, for purposes of the exemption tests the specified percentages are based on annual dollar volume before deduction of those taxes which are excluded in determining whether the $250,000 test is met. The exemption tests are in terms of the annual dollar volume of the establishment. This will include dollar volume from transactions with other establishments in the same enterprise, even though such transactions within an enterprise may not be part of the annual gross volume of the enterprise's sales made or business done (see § 779.259).
#### MARLON SYMS *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 18394)

Landau, Mihalakos and Dupont, Js.

Argued October 18

officially released December 28, 1999

*James A. Shanley,*special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).

*Nancy Chupak,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were *James Thomas,*state’s attorney, and *Edward R. Narus,*senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

*263
      *Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

After a review of the record and briefs, and after hearing the parties at oral argument, we conclude that the petitioner, Marlon Syms, has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a state or federal constitutional right and, further, has failed to sustain his burden of persuasion that the denial of certification to appeal from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was a clear abuse of discretion or that an injustice has been done. See *Simms*v. *Warden,*230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d 126 (1994); *Simms*v. *Warden,*229 Conn. 178, 189, 640 A.2d 601 (1994); *Walker*v. *Commissioner of Correction,*38 Conn. App. 99, 100, 659 A.2d 195, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 920, 661 A.2d 100 (1995); see also *Lozada*v. *Deeds,*498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991).

The habeas court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s writ was predicated on a factual review of the petitioner’s claim and a determination that the petitioner had failed to rebut the “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct f[ell] within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance . . . .” *Safford*v. *Warden,*223 Conn. 180, 193, 612 A.2d 1161 (1992).1

We conclude that the habeas court had before it sufficient evidence to find as it did and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

The habeas court also found as a fact that counsel had effectively attacked the only eyewitnesses who had identified the petitioner and that counsel’s decision not to present any witnesses was reasonable trial court strategy in light of all the circumstances.
Exhibit
32.2








Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of McMoRan Exploration Co. (the
“Company”) for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Nancy D. Parmelee, as
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of her knowledge:





(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.





Date:
March 17, 2008














/s/
Nancy D. Parmelee


Nancy D. Parmelee


Senior Vice President,


Chief Financial Officer and Secretary








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This
certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND BALANCE SHEETS OF LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS, INC., FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          25,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                    51,300
<INVENTORY>                                     14,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,700
<PP&E>                                         489,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 197,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 421,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,100
<BONDS>                                        255,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   421,800
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13


</TABLE>
#### § 793.8 “News editor.”

A news editor is an employee who gathers, edits and rewrites the news. He may also select and prepare news items for broadcast and present the news on the air. An employee who is primarily engaged in the above duties and in activities which are an integral part thereof will be considered to be employed as a news editor within the meaning of the exemption in section 13(b)(9).
§ 37.105 Whom must the Director notify if enforcement action under a Notification of Breach of Conciliation Agreement is commenced? In such circumstances, the Director must notify: ( a ) The grantmaking agency; and
( b ) The Governor, recipient or grant applicant, as applicable.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




Section
      906 Certification





The
      following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Form 10-Q
      of
      the MLM Index Fund pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (18
      U.S.C. 1350).





The
      undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q fully complies
      with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the MLM Index Fund.







May
      8,
      2006





/s/
                James A. MehlingVice
                President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial
                OfficerMount
                Lucas Management Corporation, the manager of the MLM Index
                Fund




1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20633

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALVIN THEOTIS SNOWDEN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-638-2

Before SMITH, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alvin Theotis Snowden appeals the sentence imposed following his 

convictions of aggravated bank robbery and brandishing a firearm in 

furtherance of a crime of violence. He argues that the district court improperly 

sentenced him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) and failed to 

consider adequately, as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), the disparity 

between his sentence and those likely to be imposed against his co-defendants.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-20633 Document: 00512813871 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2014
No. 13-20633

As Snowden raised his arguments in the district court, we will review 

his sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse of 

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51 (2007). We will 

review the district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing 

Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. 

Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013).

The district court did not procedurally err by sentencing Snowden as a 

career offender. Snowden argues that his 1989 felony conviction for delivery 

of cocaine should not have counted under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e) as a predicate 

offense for the career-offender enhancement because the Government failed to 

prove that his sentence for the offense was imposed within the 15 years 

preceding his commencement in 2012 of the instant offense or resulted in his 

incarceration during that 15-year period. However, the Government 

submitted documents indicating that Snowden’s parole for his 1989 offense 

was revoked in 1993 and that Snowden’s revocation sentence was not 

discharged until 1999. Thus, the Government made that showing. See United 

States v. Ybarra, 70 F.3d 362, 366-67 (5th Cir. 1995).

Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing 

Snowden’s sentence. The district court heard Snowden’s sentencing-disparity 

arguments, but concluded that a within-guidelines sentence was appropriate.

There is no unwarranted disparity between Snowden’s sentence and those of 

his three co-defendants because they, among other things, were not sentenced 

as career offenders. Snowden has not rebutted the presumption of 

reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence. See United 

States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-20633 Document: 00512813871 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2014