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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 340 

Recognizing the efforts and contributions of outstanding Hispanic scientists 

in the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 1, 2007 

Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. MENENDEZ, and 

Mr. SALAZAR) submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the efforts and contributions of outstanding 

Hispanic scientists in the United States. 

Whereas the purpose of the National Hispanic Scientist of 

the Year Award is to recognize outstanding Hispanic scientists in the United States who promote a greater public 

understanding of science and motivate Hispanic youth to 

develop an interest in science; 

Whereas the 7th annual National Hispanic Scientist of the 

Year Gala will be held at the Museum of Science & Industry in Tampa, Florida, on Saturday, October 6, 2007; 

Whereas proceeds from the National Hispanic Scientist of the 

Year Gala support scholarships for Hispanic boys and 

girls to participate in the Museum of Science & IndusVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:20 Oct 02, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR340.ATS SR340

bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 340 ATS 

try’s Youth Enriched by Science Program, known as the 

‘‘YES! Team’’; and 

Whereas a need to acknowledge the work and effort of outstanding Hispanic scientists in the United States has led 

to the selection of Dr. Louis A. Martin-Vega as the honoree of the 7th annual National Hispanic Scientist of the 

Year Award, in recognition of his accomplishments developing foundation-wide programs aimed at integrating research and education in science and engineering and in 

increasing the participation of women and underrepresented minorities in these fields; and 

Whereas Dr. Martin-Vega is also to be commended for his 

years of leadership in engineering education at such fine 

institutions as the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, the University of Florida, Florida Institute of 

Technology, Lehigh University, the University of South 

Florida, and North Carolina State University, and for his 

service at the National Science Foundation: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes efforts to educate, support, and 

3 provide hope for the Hispanic community, including 

4 efforts to honor outstanding Hispanic scientists in 

5 the United States at the annual National Hispanic 

6 Scientist of the Year Gala and to organize a ‘‘Meet 

7 the Hispanic Scientist Day’’; and 

8 (2) congratulates the 2007 National Hispanic 

9 Scientist of the Year designated by the Museum of 

10 Science & Industry, for ongoing dedication to imVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:20 Oct 02, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR340.ATS SR340

bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 340 ATS 

1 proving the quality of, and access to, science and en2 gineering research and education. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
§ 780.810 Employees not “engaged in” ginning. Since an employee must actually be “engaged in” ginning of cotton to come within the exemption, an employee engaged in other tasks, not an integral part of “ginning” operations, will not be exempt. (See, for rule that only the employees performing the work described in the exemption are exempt, *Wirtz* v. *Burton Mercantile and Gin Co., Inc.,* 234 F. Supp. 825, aff'd per curiam 338 F. 2d 414, cert. denied 380 U.S. 965; *Wirtz* v. *Kelso Gin Co., Inc.* (E.D. Ark.) 50 Labor Cases 31, 631, 16 WH Cases 663; *Mitchell* v. *Stinson,* 217 F. 2d 210; *Phillips* v. *Meeker Cooperative Light and Power Ass'n* 63 F. Supp. 743, affirmed 158 F. 2d 698; *Jenkins* v. *Durkin,* 208 F. 2d 941; *Heaburg* v. *Independent Oil Mill, Inc.,* 46 F. Supp. 751; *Abram* v. *San Joaquin Cotton Oil Co.,* 46 F. Supp. 969.) The following activities are among those not within the meaning of the term “engaged in ginning of cotton”: ( a ) Transporting seed cotton from farms or other points to the gin.
( b ) General maintenance work (as opposed to operating repairs).
( c ) General office and custodial duties.
( d ) “Watching” duties.
( e ) Working in the seed house.
( f ) Transporting seed, hulls, and ginned bales away from the gin.
( g ) Any activity performed during the “off-season.”
----

|   | (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      operationsof  the  Company. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       |   |                                                 |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   |                                                 |   |
| Date:      August 14, 2009 | By:    |  /s/      Bradley E. Sparks                     |   |
|                       |   | Bradley      E. Sparks                               |   |
|                       |   | Chief      Financial Officer and Secretary-Treasurer |   |
|                       |   |                                                 |   |
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on (Form S-8 No. 333-38880) pertaining to the 1987 Stock Option Plan, the 1992 Non-employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, the 1997 Stock Option Plan, the 2000 Non-employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan and theAdvisory Agreements and on (Form S-3 Nos. 333-125336 and 333-125334) of our reports dated March 12, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Tanox, Inc., Tanox, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Tanox, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Houston,Texas 

March 12, 2007
§ 25.1 Purpose and scope. These procedures govern the nomination of arbitrators by the Secretary to perform the advisory functions specified under section 11 of Executive Order 10988. Any arbitrators so nominated will be available for either or both of the following purposes: ( a ) To investigate the facts and issue an advisory decision with respect to the appropriateness of a unit of Federal employees for the purpose of exclusive recognition and as to related issues submitted for consideration; or
( b ) To determine and advise whether an employee organization represents a majority of employees in an appropriate unit by conducting or supervising an election (wherein a majority of those voting, provided there is a representative vote, cast their ballots for or against representation), or by other appropriate means. A request for a nomination will be considered as contemplating the performance of functions within the above categories if it specifies as a purpose obtaining an advisory decision on one or more questions involved in a unit determination or determination of majority status, such as an advisory decision on the eligibility of voters or the right to appear on the ballot, arising in connection with an election to be held, or on a question relating to matters affecting the results of an election which took place after the agreement to conduct the election had been entered into, provided such conduct materially affected the results of the election. Subject to compliance with these procedures, the Secretary will nominate an arbitrator whenever he is so requested by an agency or by an employee organization which is seeking recognition as the exclusive representative of Federal employees in a prima facie appropriate unit and which meets all the prerequisites for seeking such recognition.
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/A of McMoRan Exploration Co. (the Company) for the year ending December 31, 2003 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.



Dated:  March
21, 2005





/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.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.135 Red River.

The draws of the bridges above mile 276.0 at the Arkansas Louisiana border, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20974]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12629-003]


 F&B Wood Corporation; Milltown Hydroelectric LLC.; Notice of 
Transfer of Exemption

    1. Pursuant to section 4.106(i) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ 
F&B Wood Corporation, exemptee for the Corriveau Hydroelectric Project 
No. 12629 \2\, has informed the Commission that it has transferred 
ownership of the exempted project property and facilities for Project 
No. 12629 to Milltown Hydroelectric LLC.\3\ The project is located on 
the Swift River in Oxford County, Maine. The transfer of an exemption 
does not require Commission approval.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 4.106(i) (2011).
    \2\ The Commission issued an exemption from licensing for 
Project No. 12629 on October 24, 2006. F&B Wood Corp.,117 FERC ] 
62,059 (2006)
    \3\ See filings of May 9 and July 5, 2011, from Fernand 
Corriveau, President of F&B Wood Corporation.
    \4\ E.g., John C. Jones, 99 FERC ] 61,372, at 62,580 n.2 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Milltown Hydroelectric LLC, located at 8 Brown Street, Mexico, 
Maine, is now the exemptee of the Corriveau Project No. 12629.

    Dated: August 11, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20974 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit
        32
 
 **CONTINENTAL
        BEVERAGE AND NUTRITION, INC.**
 
 **Certification
        Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Continental Beverage and Nutrition,
        Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB of the period ended November 30, 2005 as
        filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David
        Sackler, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
        to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1)
        the
        quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the
        quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: December 29, 2005/s/ David SacklerChief Executive Officer and Financial
                  Officer
 13
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 49753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20398]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program 
Scientific Advisory Board Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of 
the meeting on October 12-13, 2011 is to review new start research and 
development projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and 
Development Program (SERDP) funds in excess of $1M. This meeting is 
open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or 
file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in 
the manner permitted by the Board.

DATES: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. & Thursday, 
October 13, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: SERDP Office Conference Center, 901 North Stuart Street, 
Suite 804, Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jonathan Bunger, SERDP Office, 901 
North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by telephone at (703) 
696-2126.

    Dated: August 8, 2011.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-20398 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
[673 NE2d 1237, 651 NYS2d 10]

#### In the Matter of 317 West 145th Street Corp., Respondent, v City of New York Department of Finance et al., Appellants.

Argued September 11, 1996;

decided October 10, 1996

*1031APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel*of New York City *(Francis F. Caputo, Joseph I. Lauer*and *Elizabeth Dvorkin*of counsel), for appellants.

*Kenneth J. Glassman,*New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order reversed, with costs, and petition dismissed *(see, Matter of ISCA Enters. v City of New York Dept. of Fin.,*77 NY2d 688, *rearg denied*78 NY2d 952 [1991], *cert denied*503 US 906 [1992]; *City of New York v Nelson,*309 NY 94, *rearg denied and remittitur amended*309 NY 801 [1955], *affd*352 US 103 [1956]).

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick.
Submitted on record and briefs December 2,

reversed and remanded December 30, 1992

#### CARL WAYNE BERG, *Appellant, v.*Carl ZENON, Superintendent, Oregon State Correctional Institution, *Respondent.*

(91C-12291; CA A75837)

842 P2d 816

Garrett A. Richardson, Portland, filed the brief for appellant.

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*522PER CURIAM

The state concedes that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief. *Boone v. Wright,*314 Or 135, 836 P2d 727 (1992). We accept the concession.

Reversed and remanded.
#### § 780.502 Legislative history of exemption.

The exemption for shade-grown tobacco workers was added to the Act by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1961. The intent of the committee which inserted the provision in the amendments which were reported to the House (see H. Rept. No. 75, 87th Cong., first sess., p. 29) was to exclude from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Act “employees engaged prior to the stemming process in processing shade-grown tobacco for use as cigar wrapper tobacco, but only if the employees were employed in the growing and harvesting of such tobacco”. The Report also pointed out that “such operations were assumed to be exempt prior to the case of *Mitchell* v. *Budd,* 350 U.S. 473 (1956), as a continuation of the agricultural process occurring in the vicinity where the tobacco was grown”. The original provision in the House-passed bill was in the form of an amendment to the Act's definition of agriculture. In that form, it would have altered the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of *Mitchell* v. *Budd,* cited above, by bringing the described employees under the exemption provided for agriculture in section 13(a)(6) of the Act. (H. Rept. No. 75, p. 26, and H. Rept. No. 327, p. 17, 87th Cong., first sess.) The Conference Committee, in changing the provision to provide a separate exemption, made it clear that it was “not intended by the committee of conference to change * * * by the exemption for employees engaged in the named operations on shade-grown tobacco the application of the Act to any other employees. Nor is it intended that there be any implication of disagreement by the conference committee with the principles and tests governing the application of the present agricultural exemption as enunciated by the courts.” (H. Rept. No. 327, supra, p. 18.)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133552 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133552 

 COA: 266085 

Wayne CC: 05-002226-01

DUQUAN ABRAM HICKS,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2007 

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. 

l0723 

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. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2831

___________

Larry Stringer, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

United Parcel Service, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 15, 2002

Filed: January 24, 2002

___________

Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Larry Stringer’s employment as a United Parcel Service (UPS) driver was

terminated after Stringer submitted two daily time cards reflecting more hours than

he had worked and cashed the paycheck which included payment for those additional

hours. Stringer contended he did not intend to defraud UPS, but he mistakenly turned

in time cards for two half-day shifts which, because he had filled them out in advance,

were marked as full-day shifts. After receiving no relief through UPS’s grievance
*

The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

-2-

process, Stringer brought suit in federal district court*

, claiming, among other things,

that UPS’s action terminating his employment constituted the Arkansas state law tort

of outrage. The district court found for UPS on summary judgment, holding the facts

alleged by Stringer did not support a claim of outrage as a matter of law. Stringer

appeals, and we review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Equal Employment

Opportunity Comm’n v. Woodbridge Corp., 263 F.3d 812, 814 (8th Cir. 2001).

The Arkansas tort of outrage has four elements. Brown v. Tucker, 954 S.W.2d

262, 266 (Ark. 1997). The only element Stringer can establish is that UPS’s actions

were the cause of his distress. See id. For Stringer to survive summary judgment on

his outrage claim, though, he must show there are material facts in dispute which

would establish the three additional elements of the tort and, therefore, that UPS is

not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Woodbridge, 263 F.3d at 814.

Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and relevant Arkansas law, we conclude

Stringer’s claim cannot survive summary judgment.

First, UPS terminating Stringer’s employment for the legitimate business

reasons stated above is not “beyond all possible bounds of decency,” or “utterly

intolerable in a civilized community.” Brown, 954 S.W.2d at 266. Second, although

UPS concedes it knew of Stringer’s fraudulent misrepresentation before the paycheck

was issued, Stringer does not claim UPS intended to inflict emotional distress on him

or that UPS knew or should have known its conduct would likely cause Stringer

emotional distress. See id. Third, any emotional distress suffered by Stringer as a

result of the termination of his employment was not so severe that no reasonable

person could be expected to endure it. See id.
-3-

We thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to UPS on

Stringer’s outrage claim. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 104.310 Submission requirements. ( a ) A completed Vessel Security Assessment (VSA) report must be submitted with the Vessel Security Plan (VSP) required in § 104.410 of this part.
( b ) A vessel owner or operator may generate and submit a report that contains the VSA for more than one vessel subject to this part, to the extent that they share similarities in physical characteristics and operations.
( c ) The VSA must be reviewed and revalidated, and the VSA report must be updated, each time the VSP is submitted for reapproval or revisions.
[USCG-2003-14749, 68 FR 39302, July 1, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 60515, Oct. 22, 2003]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7064

HORACE MONTAGUE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden, Maryland House of Correction-Annex; BURLIE FRINK, Head of Security, Maryland House of Correction-Annex; JOHN DOE, Head of Records, Maryland House of Correction-Annex, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3191-AW) Submitted: August 23, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bert Walter Kapinus, Hyattsville, Maryland, for Appellant. Glen William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Horace Montague appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Montague v. Conroy , No. CA-03-3191-AW (D. Md. June 17, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED