alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 519.13 Application for a full-time student certificate. ( a ) Whenever the employment of its full-time students working in an institution at wages lower than the minimum wage applicable under section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act is believed to be necessary to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment and employment of them will not create a substantial probability of reducing the full-time employment opportunities of other workers, an application for a certificate may be filed by their employer with the appropriate Regional Office of the Wage and Hour Division (or the Denver, Colorado Area Office for Colorado, North Dakota and South Dakota; the Salt Lake City, Utah Area Office for Montana, Utah and Wyoming; and the Caribbean Office for the area it covers). Such an application shall be signed by an authorized representative of the employer.
( b ) The application provided for under § 519.14 must be filed in duplicate on official forms or exact copies thereof. The forms are available at the offices mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section. The application must contain the information on numbers of full-time students and full-time employees (other than full-time students), minimum full-time student wages, and other information for which request is made on the form.
( c ) Separate application must be made for each campus of an institution of higher education for which authority to employ full-time students at subminimum wage rates is sought.
( d ) Application for renewal of a certificate shall be made on the same type of form as is used for a new application. No certificate in effect shall expire until action on such an application shall have been finally determined, provided that such application has been properly executed, and is received by the office specified in paragraph (a) of this section not less than 15 nor more than 30 days prior to the expiration date. A properly executed application is one which fully and accurately contains the information required on the form, and the required certification by an authorized representative of the employer.
[40 FR 6329, Feb. 11, 1975; 40 FR 22546, May 23, 1975]
- 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 > Women in Maryland Industries: A Study of Hours and Working Conditions

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Women in Maryland Industries: A Study of Hours and Working Conditions : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 24*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1922,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5348,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Exhibit 21.1

                       Subsidiaries of the Registrant

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                       State of
                                                                 Percentage of     Incorporation or
Parent                 Subsidiaries                                Ownership         Organization
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                    <C>                                            <C>            <C>
Port Financial Corp.   Cambridgeport Bank                             100%           Massachusetts
Port Financial Corp.   Brighton Investments Corp.                     100%           Massachusetts
Cambridgeport Bank     Cambridgeport Insurance Services, Inc.         100%           Massachusetts
Cambridgeport Bank     River Investment Corp.                         100%           Massachusetts
Cambridgeport Bank     Temple Investment Corp.                        100%           Massachusetts
</TABLE>
AFS-13-354-P

March 11, 2014

Mr. Andy Linn

VBOX, Inc.

2340 East County Road J.

White Bear Lake, MN 55110

Dear Mr. Linn:

This letter is in response to your letter sent to the public docket dated April 26, 2013 (Docket 

No. FAA-2013-0396) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of VBOX, 

Inc. (VBOX) to amend part 121, Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 106 of Title 

14, Code of Regulation (14 CFR) to include VBOX’s Trooper Oxygen System as one of the 

approved portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) devices for use on passenger aircraft.

On February 3, 2014, the FAA amended 14 CFR part 121, SFAR 106 related to POCs

(79 FR 6078). A copy of this rule change is enclosed for your information. 

Because the relief you seek is now covered under the new rule, we will take no further action 

on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Thuy H. Cooper

Acting Manager, Airman and 

Airspace Rules Division
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13717]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institutes of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 12, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 AM to 3 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications and/or 
proposals.
    Place: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Tommy L. Broadwater, PHD, Chief, Grants Review 
Branch, National Institutes of Health, NIAMS, Natcher Bldg., Room 
5As25U, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4952.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Muscuoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 25, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-13717 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Opinion issued April 2 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 8
- 00 262
- CV

——————————— HORACE BRIDGES , Appella nt

V. LANNETTE LINTHICUM , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 412th Judicial District Court

Brazoria County , Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 79222
- I

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant , Horace Bridges , ha s failed to timely file a brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6( a ) ( governing time to file brief ), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary2

dismissal of case). We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss

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

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.963 Colorado River.

The draw of the highway bridge, mile 10.7 at Wadsworth need open on signal Monday through Friday only, and then only from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. At least 48 hours notice is required.

[CGD8-90-22, 56 FR 488, Jan. 7, 1991]
#### § 105.240 Procedures for interfacing with vessels.

The facility owner or operator must ensure that there are measures for interfacing with vessels at all MARSEC Levels.
#### Brown *vs*Watson.

Error to -the Ohio Circuit.

Chancer?;

*€ase*rSÜ?,

She-cust stated,

*Gaming. ■ Jurisdiction.*

*July 4.*

J%í5ge- B'kecio

delivered- the opinion, of- tlie Court.

This bill in-chancery was-filed by Watson-, seeking to-be relieved against a judgment .which Brown'h'ad-recovered against him--for $75. The Court below perpetually injoined thejudgment, and Brow-n has brought the case •to-this' Court-. ■

In view of the allegations, in the bill .and the admissions-in the'answer, it may be assumed, that the note, upomwhich the judgment was rendered, was given under the circumstances and for the consideration- following.; Brown and Watson made a contract for a horse race, Watson staked up a horse against a certain amount of money staked by Brown-, the horse or the money to b©*589forfeited as Watson or Brown might fail to run the race upon the terms agreed. Whether the horse was bet upon the race does not very clearly appear; the presumption is authorized that be, was. Watson failed to run the race according to the contract, and the horse was given up as the forfeit, to Brown. Some months afterwards he sold him to Watson and ■ took the note in question, for the price or consideration.

B. Sand W. bet upon a hoise race, B. won W’s.. horse as a torfeituponW’s. failure to run, some months afterwards W. bought the horse of B. and gave his note — Held that this transaction is subject to the statute against gaming, and the Chancellor will relieve against the note.

^ *Harlan Craddock*for plaintiff; *Cates fy Lindsey*for defendant. '

The only question tó be' considered is, whether upon .this state of fact the complainant was .entit-led to relief.

It is the opinion of. this Court he was,

■' If the hoise was bet upon the race, he was, in effect, won by Brown by the failure of Watson to run it; If he was not, it may be assumed that other property or money was bet, or to be bet, and that the horse was staked 'up as part of the contract in regard to the race, and was obtained by Brown for no other consideration than the failure of Watson to comply with it. The contract is prohibited by law, and.the failure to comply' wdth it constituted no. valid consideration for the horse.

. The horse, was not lost by Watson in point of fact, upon the race, because it was riot run, but he was lost upon the agreement to run the race. The losing on the one’side and the winning on the other, resulted from ah illegal contract, and virtually from betting upon a horse race. The transaction was against the policy of- the statute of 1833, (1 *Stat. Laws,*758,) and comes, we think, within the spirit of its inhibitions. ’.Under that statute, according to the construction given t.o it by this Court, *McKinney*vs *Pope’s, administrator, (3 B. Monroe,*93,) we are of opinion a Court of Equity had jurisdiction tp grant the relief sought in this case, and thát there is no error in the decree. ; .

Wherefore, the decree is affirmed.
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/20/2012 01:20 AM

Subject: Portland Cement NSPS/NESHAP -- Comments under EO 13563

Hi Keith,

Looking through the latest draft (6 pm timestamp), I had only a couple of questions:

• There’s new language stating “Requiring that sources retest once a year to 

reset the PM CPMS operating limit” – can you explain why this 

change was made? Was it something raised in comments? And for 

clarity, is this a new stack test? 

• Can you use a plain English substitute for “prima facie”? 

Can you address these comments and make changes to the preamble, 

if necessary? 

Finally, do you anticipate making any other changes to the 

preamble? If not, can you send the updated clean version and we 

can get it uploaded into ROCIS.

Please give me a call if you have any questions.

Regards,

Cortney
#### Hopkins, et al. v. Commonwealth.

(Decided June 9, 1915.)

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.

1. Criminal Law — Indeterminate Sentence — Jury Must Fix Sentence. —Under the indeterminate sentence law of 1914 (Ky. Sts., Sec. 1136), the verdict of the jury must fix the minimum and maximum sentence in case the defendant is found guilty, and the judgment must conform to the verdict.

2. Criminal Law — VerdictMust Fix Sentence. — The .failure of the verdict finding a defendant guilty of manslaughter, to fix a minimum and maximum sentence as required by the indeterminate sentence law of 1914 (Ky. Sts., Sec. 1136), constitutes-a reversible error.

CHENAULT, WALLACE *&*WALLACE and A. C. WEBB for ap, pellants.

JAMES GARNETT, Attorney General, and R. T. CALDWELL, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Chief Justice Miller

Reversing.

The appellants, William Hopkins and Henry Hopkins, were convicted of manslaughter, committed in October, 1914, since the present indeterminate sentence law became effective. Ky. Stats. (Ed. 1915), sec. 1136. That statute provides that if the jury find the defendant guilty, they shall fix and render against him an indeterminate sentence or judgment of imprisonment in the penitentiary for an indefinite term, stating in the verdict the minimum and maximum limits thereof, and that the court shall render a judgment in conformity with such verdict.

*296In these cases both appellants were found guilty, but ' the punishment of Will Hopkins was fixed at seven years confinement in the penitentiary, and the punishment of Henry Hopkins was fixed at twenty-one years in the penitentiary.

The judgments followed the verdicts by committing the appellants to confinement in the penitentiary for the periods of seven and twenty-one years, respectively. The defendants appeal.

It needs no explanation or discussion to show that neither the verdicts nor the judgments conform to the statute; and that the ignoring of the statute constituted a reversible error in each case. It was so decided in Biggs v. Commonwealth, 162 Ky., 103; Day v. Commonwealth, 162 Ky., 768; Adams v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky., 148; Gardner v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky., 196; Mearns v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky., 217; Stephens v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky., 265; Borders v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky., 344; and in Carroll v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky., 605.

The judgment in each case is reversed and the cases are remanded for further proceedings.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 24, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-103882-99]
RIN 1545-AX06


Depletion; Treatment of Delay Rental; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public 
hearing on proposed regulations which contain proposed amendments 
conforming regulations relating to delay rental to the requirements of 
section 263A, relating to capitalization and inclusion in inventory of 
costs of certain expenses.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Friday, May 26, 
2000, at 10 a.m., is canceled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaNita Van Dyke of the Regulations 
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), at (202) 622-7180 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on February 8, 
2000, (65 FR 6090), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for 
May 26, 2000, at 10 a.m., in room 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public 
hearing is proposed regulations under section 612 of the Internal 
Revenue Code. The deadline for outlines of oral comments and requests 
to speak expired on May 5, 2000.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, 
instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to 
submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. 
As of May 17, 2000, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the 
public hearing scheduled for May, 26, 2000, is canceled.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 00-12987 Filed 5-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Registration 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 the Advisory
Agreements of our report dated February 3, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Tanox, Inc. included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Houston, Texas
March 25, 2003
**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 Eastgate Acquisitions Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, **Geoff Williams**, Chief Executive Officer Principal Accounting            Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

| /s/  G**EOFFWILLIAMS** |
|-----------------------------|

**Geoff Williams**

Chief Executive Officer

Principal Accounting Officer

May 11, 2010

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-00-023] 

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

International Trade Commission. 

# Time and Date:

June 5, 2000 at 2 p.m. 

# Place:

Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000. 

# Status:

Open to the public. 

# Matters to be Considered:

 

1. Agenda for future meeting: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. No. 731-TA-851 (Final) (Synthetic Indigo from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission will transmit its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on June 12, 2000.). 

5. Outstanding action jackets: None. 

                        In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting,                               ( print page 35123)                            may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.                     

Issued: May 25, 2000.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-13805 Filed 5-30-00; 10:18 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-U
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alexander’s, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for quarter ended June 30, 2007**(the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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.

 

|          |   |   |
|---------------|--------|--------|
| July 30, 2007 |   |   | /s/ Steven Roth |
|          |   | Name:  | Steven Roth |
|          |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|               |        |        |  |  |