alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 922 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 922

    To extend the existing provisions regarding the eligibility for 
       essential air service subsidies through fiscal year 2012.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2007

   Mr. Thune (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Casey) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
           Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the existing provisions regarding the eligibility for 
       essential air service subsidies through fiscal year 2012.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE.

    Section 409(d) of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation 
Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 41731 note) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2007'' and inserting ``September 30, 2012''.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 8

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 8 appear at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996.

#### § 8.14 Consolidations.

Upon its own initative or upon motion of any interested party, the Board may consolidate any proceeding or concurrently consider two or more appeals which involve substantially the same parties, or issues which are the same or closely related, if it finds that such consolidation or concurrent review will contribute to a proper dispatch of its business and to the ends of justice, and it will not unduly delay consideration of any such appeals.
#### § 779.305 Separate establishments on the same premises.

Although, as stated in the preceding section, two or more departments of a business may constitute a single establishment, two or more physically separated portions of a business though located on the same premises, and even under the same roof in some circumstances may constitute more than one establishment for purposes of exemptions. In order to effect such a result physical separation is a prerequisite. In addition, the physically separated portions of the business also must be engaged in operations which are functionally separated from each other. Since there is no such functional separation between activities of selling goods or services at retail, the Act recognizes that food service activities of such retail or service establishments as drugstores, department stores, and bowling alleys are not performed by a separate establishment which “is” a “restaurant” so as to qualify for the overtime exemption provided in section 13(b)(8) and accordingly provides a separate overtime exemption in section 13(b)(18) for employees employed by any “retail or service establishments” in such activities in order to equalize the application of the Act between restaurant establishments and retail or service establishments of other kinds which frequently compete with them for customers and labor. (See Sen. Rept. 1487, 89th Cong. first session, p. 32.) For retailing and other functionally unrelated activities performed on the same premises to be considered as performed in separate establishments, a distinct physical place of business engaged in each category of activities must be identifiable. The retail portion of the business must be distinct and separate from and unrelated to that portion of the business devoted to other activities. For example, a firm may engage in selling groceries at retail and at the same place of business be engaged in an unrelated activity, such as the incubation of chicks for sale to growers. The retail grocery portion of the business could be considered as a separate establishment for purposes of the exemption, if it is physically segregated from the hatchery and has separate employees and separate records. In other words, the retail portion of an establishment would be considered a separate establishment from the unrelated portion for the purpose of the exemption if (a) It is physically separated from the other activities; and (b) it is functionally operated as a separate unit having separate records, and separate bookkeeping; and (c) there is no interchange of employees between the units. The requirement that there be no interchange of employees between the units does not mean that an employee of one unit may not occasionally, when circumstances require it, render some help in the other units or that one employee of one unit may not be transferred to work in the other unit. The requirement has reference to the indiscriminate use of the employee in both units without regard to the segregated functions of such units.
#### § 783.11 “Enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce”.

Portions of the definition of “enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” (Act section 3(s)) which may in some situations determine the application of provisions of the Act to employees employed by employers on vessels are as follows:

(s) “Enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” means any of the following in the activities of which employees are so engaged, including employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person:

---

(3) any establishment of any such enterprise * * * which has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce if the annual gross volume of sales of such enterprise is not less than $1,000,000.

---

The application of this definition is considered in part 776 of this chapter.
Exhibit 23.1




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  33-46953)  pertaining to the Lynch  Corporation 401 (k) Savings Plan of
our report  dated  March 28,  2000 with  respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements  and  schedules of Lynch  Corporation  included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended  December 31, 1999 filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission.

                                                     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Stamford, Connecticut
March 28, 2000
§ 530.402 Notice of determination. Whenever the Administrator determines to deny or revoke a certificate or determines to assess a civil money penalty, the person affected by such determination shall be notified of the determination in writing, by certified mail to the last known address. The notice required shall: ( a ) Set forth the determination of the Administrator, including the specific statutory or regulatory provision or assurance violated, the reasons for denying or revoking a certificate, or the amount of any civil money penalty assessment and the reason or reasons therefor.
( b ) Set forth the right to request a hearing on such determination.
( c ) Set forth the time and method for requesting a hearing, and the procedures relating thereto, as set forth in § 530.403 of this subpart.
( d ) Inform any affected person or persons that in lieu of formal proceedings there is available an alternative summary proceeding under § 530.412 of this subpart.
( e ) Inform any affected persons that in the absence of a timely request for a hearing the determination of the Administrator shall become final and unappealable.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23

                              AMENDMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment Agreement dated as of February 1, 1999 is entered into by
and between Marshall Industries, a California corporation (the "Company") and
Henry W. Chin, an individual (the "Executive").

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have entered into that certain
Change in Control Agreement dated as of August 26, 1997 (the "Change in Control
Agreement").

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that it is
in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to amend the Change
in Control Agreement to provide the Executive with an additional year of
benefits in the event of a change in control of the Company.

                                   AGREEMENT

     NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1.   Amendments. The Change in Control Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

     a.   Section 4(a) is amended by replacing the number "24" with the number
"36".

     b.   Section 4(b) is amended by replacing the words "two times" with
"three times" and the words "last two full fiscal years" with "last three full
fiscal years".

     c.   Section 5(a) is amended by replacing the words "two years" with
"three years".

2.   No Other Changes. Except for the changes specified in Section 1 above, all
other provisions of the Change in Control Agreement will remain the same.

3.   Miscellaneous Provisions. The provisions of Section 14 of the Change in
Control Agreement are incorporated herein by reference.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement as of the
date first written above.

                                        MARSHALL INDUSTRIES

                                        By: /s/ ROBERT RODIN
                                            -----------------------------
                                        Name:
                                        Title:


                                        By:
                                            -----------------------------
                                        Name:
                                        Title:


                                        HENRY W. CHIN

                                        By: /s/ HENRY W. CHIN
                                            -----------------------------
                                        Name:
                                        Title:
#### § 103.105 Definitions.

Except as specifically stated in this subpart, the definitions in part 101 of this subchapter apply to this part.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2011-20130) published on pages 48862 and 48863 of the issue for Tuesday, August 9, 2011.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of New York heading, the entry for ES Bancshares, Newburgh, New York, is revised to read as follows:

A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:

                    1.                     *ES Bancshares Inc.,*                     Newburgh, New York; to engage                     *de novo*                     through its newly formed subsidiary, Empire Lockbox Settlements, Inc., Newburgh, New York, in servicing extensions of credit, including factoring, for the company's account or the account of others, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.                

Comments on this application must be received by August 24, 2011.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 9, 2011.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2011-20591 Filed 8-12-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
§ 452.97 Secret ballot. ( a ) A prime requisite of elections regulated by title IV is that they be held by secret ballot among the members or in appropriate cases by representatives who themselves have been elected by secret ballot among the members. A secret ballot under the Act is “the expression by ballot, voting machine, or otherwise, but in no event by proxy, of a choice * * * cast in such a manner that the person expressing such choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed.”[47] Secrecy may be assured by the use of voting machines, or, if paper ballots are used, by providing voting booths, partitions, or other physical arrangements permitting privacy for the voter while he is marking his ballot. The ballot must not contain any markings which upon examination would enable one to identify it with the voter. Balloting by mail presents special problems in assuring secrecy. Although no particular method of assuring such secrecy is prescribed, secrecy may be assured by the use of a double envelope system for return of the voted ballots with the necessary voter identification appearing only on the outer envelope.
( b ) Should any voters be challenged as they are casting their ballots, there should be some means of setting aside the challenged ballots until a decision regarding their validity is reached without compromising the secrecy requirement. For example, each such ballot might be placed in an envelope with the voter's name on the outside. Of course, it would be a violation of the secrecy requirement to open these envelopes and count the ballots one at a time in such a way that each vote could be identified with a voter.
( c ) In a mail ballot election, a union may require members to sign the return envelope if the signatures may be used in determining eligibility. However, it would be unreasonable for a union to void an otherwise valid ballot merely because a member printed rather than signed his name if the union does not use the signatures to determine voter eligibility.
Footnotes -
452.97
[47] Act, sec. 3(k).
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00072

- CV

A MERICAN H OMEOWNER P RESERVATION
, LLC AND J ORGE N EWBERY , Appellants

V

.

B RIAN J. P IRKLE , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 236th District Court

of Tarrant County (236

- 29 3606

- 17)

October 18, 2018

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s order denying special appearances . It is ordered that

the order of the trial court is a ffirmed, and we remand this case to the trial court for

further proceedings.

It is further ordered that A ppellant s American Homeowner Preservation, LLC

and Jorge Newbery shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let executio n

issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
Notification of the Interim Final FIP – Signed by Lisa Jackson , Notification of the Interim Final FIP – Signed by Lisa Jackson ,EPA 

Administrator

40CFR Part CFR Part CFR Part49 – Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas 

Production Facilities , Production Facilities ,Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Mandan,Hidatsa and Hidatsa and Hidatsa and 

Arikara Nations , Arikara Nations,or MHA Nation or MHA Nation or MHA Nation ),North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota . (as defined in § as defined in § as defined in § 49.152

Carl Daly Carl Daly to: mhouston 08/02/2012 11:15 AM

Cc: ksuthiwan, rgorka, mbdurrant, Deirdre Rothery, Kate Fay, Sara 

Laumann

This message is digitally signed.

Mr. Houston,

This email is to inform you that Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, has signed an interim final rule “Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas 

Production Facilities , Production Facilities ,Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Mandan,Hidatsa and Arikara Nations Hidatsa and Arikara Nations Hidatsa and Arikara Nations ,or MHA 

Nation) Nation),North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota ,”(Fort Berthold Oil and Gas FIP)a federal rule that applies to oil and gas 

operations producing from the Bakken Pool on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota . 

The FIP requires owners and operators of oil and natural gas production facilities to reduce emissions of 

volatile organic compounds emanating from well completions , recompletions, and production and storage 

operations. The agency proposed a Reservation-specific FIP concurrently with this interim final rule .

Please find, attached, a copy of the notification sent by certified mail to the primary contact for Slawson 

Exploration:

Slawson_Actual Notice of FIP Letter 8-1-12.pdf

And a copy of the interim final rule:

Fort Berthold FIP NFR_8-1-12 (interim final rule) for ACTUAL NOTICE LETTERS.pdf

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me or Deirdre Rothery, Chief 

Air Permitting, Monitoring and Modeling Unit at rothery.deirdre@epa.gov or 303-312-6431.

Thank you,

Carl Daly, Director, Air Program

303-312-6416
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1196

___________ James S. Carriere, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeals from the United States * District Court for the John E. Potter, Postmaster General of * District of North Dakota. the United States; National Association * of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees, * *

___________ No. 03-1198

___________ Randy J. Devitt, * * Appellant, * * v. * * John E. Potter, Postmaster General of * the United States; National Association * of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, * * Appellees. *1 The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. -2- ___________ Submitted: December 5, 2003 Filed: December 10, 2003

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, postal workers James S. Carriere and Randy J. Devitt appeal the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their employment-related actions against the postmaster general and their union. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Jensen v. Henderson , 315 F.3d 854, 857 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review), we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, see 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Submitted on record and briefs May 4, 1992,

affirmed January 20, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*JAMES LEROY KIRKPATRICK, *Appellant.*

(10-90-10484B; CA A70503)

844 P2d 283

David E. Groom, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

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

DURHAM, J.

*616DURHAM, J.

In a trial to the court on stipulated facts, defendant was convicted of delivering heroin. ORS 475.992(l)(a). He appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his car. We affirm.

Officer Thoming gave money to Duckworth, an informant, to purchase heroin from O’Brian and defendant at a shopping center. At the appointed time, defendant arrived, driving his car, with O’Brian as his passenger. He dropped O’Brian off near Duckworth and parked the car 80 to 100 yards away. Duckworth gave something to O’Brian, who returned to and entered defendant’s car. O’Brian rejoined Duckworth and handed something to him. Duckworth signaled to Thoming that he had purchased heroin and, by radio, Thoming ordered other officers to arrest O’Brian and defendant. At the same time, defendant left his car and walked to a phone booth. He was arrested 60 feet away from the car. Officers searched him and seized marked money that they had given to Duckworth. They searched the car incident to the arrest and seized heroin and a syringe. They also recovered heroin from Duckworth.

The state argues that the search was valid and that, even if the court erred in denying the motion to suppress, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because, independent of the evidence defendant seeks to suppress, there is “(1) substantial and convincing evidence of guilt * * * and (2) little, if any, likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” *State v. Miller,*300 Or 203, 220, 709 P2d 225 (1985), *cert den*475 US 1141 (1986). According to the stipulated facts, O’Brian obtained heroin from defendant and sold it to Duck-worth. Police found the money from the sale in defendant’s pocket. We conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the evidence that defendant delivered heroin is substantial and convincing and that there is little likelihood that the court’s alleged error in denying the motion to suppress affected the verdict.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 363 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 363

 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the treatment of Social 
                       Security ``notch babies''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 1, 2007

    Mr. Coleman (for himself and Mr. Burr) submitted the following 
       resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the treatment of Social 
                       Security ``notch babies''.

Whereas the Social Security Amendments of 1977, legislation designed to correct 
        the Social Security benefit formula, resulted in a discrepancy in 
        benefits--a ``notch''--between individuals born in the years immediately 
        following 1916 and other beneficiaries;
Whereas Senate legislation introduced in the 105th through 108th Congresses 
        sought to correct the ``notch baby'' problem;
Whereas those born during the ``notch'' years are the same Americans who fought 
        and sacrificed during World War II;
Whereas the ``notch babies'' who receive lower Social Security benefits than 
        those individuals born between 1911 and 1916 are at the same time among 
        the seniors hit hardest by rising health care costs; and
Whereas those affected by the ``notch'' are leaving us at a rapid rate, with the 
        youngest ``notch babies'' now over 80 years old: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) honors the sacrifice of those born in the ``notch'' 
        years of 1917 through 1926;
            (2) recognizes the difference in Social Security benefits 
        calculated for those born in 1917 and the years following, as 
        compared with those born between 1911 and 1916;
            (3) expresses regret that there has been no resolution to 
        the satisfaction of the millions of seniors born from 1917 
        through 1926; and
            (4) should consider corrective legislation similar to bills 
        introduced in the Senate in the 105th through 108th Congresses, 
        to address the ``notch'' benefit disparity.
                                 <all>
```