alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 783.49 Workweek unit in applying the exemptions.

The unit of time to be used in determining the application of the exemption provided by section 13(b)(6) or 13(a)(14) to an employee is the workweek. (See *Overnight Transportation Co.* v. *Missel,* 316 U.S. 572; *Sternberg Dredging Co.* v. *Walling,* 158 F. 2d 678.) This is the period used in determining whether a substantial amount of non-seaman's work has been performed so as to make the exemption inapplicable. See § 783.37. A workweek is a fixed and regularly recurring interval of 7 consecutive 24-hour periods. It may begin at any hour of any day set by the employer and need not coincide with the calendar week. Once the workweek has been set it commences each succeeding week on the same day and at the same hour. Changing of the workweek for the purpose of escaping the requirements of the Act is not permitted.
## 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 * United Parcel Service, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee.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 (8 thCir. 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 8 thCir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 110.245 Vieques Passage and Vieques Sound, near Vieques Island, P.R. ( a ) *The anchorage grounds* — ( 1 ) *Vieques Passage explosives anchorage and ammunition handling berth (Area 1).* A circular area having a radius of 1,700 yards with its center at latitude 18°09′00′′ N., longitude 65°32′40′′ W.
( 2 ) *Vieques Sound explosives anchorage and ammunition handling berth* (*Area 2*). A circular area having a radius of 2,000 yards with its center at latitude 18°11′48′′, longitude 65°26′06′′.
( 3 ) *Southern Vieques Passage explosives anchorage and ammunition handling berth* (*Area 3*). A circular area having a radius of 2,000 yards with its center at latitude 18°05′51′′, longitude 65°36′14′′.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) No vessel or craft shall enter or remain in these anchorages while occupied by vessels having on board explosives or other dangerous cargo. Explosives in quantities no greater than 1,625 short tons will be handled in any area at one time.
( 2 ) The regulations of this section shall be enforced by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and such agencies as he may designate.
[CGFR 67-46, 32 FR 17728, Dec. 12, 1967, as amended by CGD 77-067, 44 FR 50040, Aug. 27, 1979; USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35012, June 19, 2008]
**OMB Control Number: XXXX-XXXX**

**Expiration Date: XX/XX/XXXX**

**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES**

**ADMINISTRATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING (ACL)**

**ADMINISTRATION ON AGING (AOA)**

**STATE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORT**

**For**

**STATE UNITS ON AGING**

**(Older Americans Act Title III and VII, Chapter 3 and 4)**

**Attachment A: Definitions**

*The SPR Definitions serve as a reference to the Data Element Specifications. It provides definitions of data elements, code values, services, and related terms.*

**Table 1. Demographics and Consumer Characteristics:**

**Table 2. Services and Service Units:**

**Table 3.  Additional Definitions:**
#### § 780.147 Practices performed on farm products—special factors considered.

In determining whether a practice performed on agricultural or horticultural commodities is incident to or in conjunction with the farming operations of a farmer or a farm, it is also necessary to consider the type of product resulting from the practice—as whether the raw or natural state of the commodity has been changed. Such a change may be a strong indication that the practice is not within the scope of agriculture (*Mitchell* v. *Budd,* 350 U.S. 473); the view was expressed in the legislative debates on the Act that it marks the dividing line between processing as an agricultural function and processing as a manufacturing operation (*Maneja* v. *Waialua,* 349 U.S. 254, citing 81 Cong. Rec. 7659-7660, 7877-7879). Consideration should also be given to the value added to the product as a result of the practice and whether a sales organization is maintained for the disposal of the product. Seasonality of the operations involved in the practice would not be very helpful as a test to distinguish between operations incident to agriculture and operations of commercial or industrial processors who handle a similar volume of the same seasonal crop. But the length of the period during which the practice is performed might cast some light on whether the operations are conducted as a part of agriculture or as a separate undertaking when considered together with the amount of investment, payroll, and other factors. In some cases, the fact that products resulting from the practice are sold under the producer's own label rather than under that of the purchaser may furnish an indication that the practice is conducted as a separate business activity rather than as a part of agriculture.
O

O

1-Propenyl Glycidyl Ether

Chemical Formula: C6H10O2

Exact Mass: 114.07

Molecular Weight: 114.14
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial  information extracted from financial reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             55,962
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                         4,152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   60,714
<PP&E>                                              3,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     64,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             271,957
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                              868
<OTHER-SE>                                       (208,694)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       64,131
<SALES>                                             3,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    3,573
<CGS>                                               3,271
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       3,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   80,414
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  4,708
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (84,820)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (84,820)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (84,820)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.10)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20749]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Release of Federally 
Obligated Property at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, 
College Park, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c), 
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the 
City of Atlanta, Department of Aviation to waive the requirement that a 
4.5-acre parcel of federally obligated property, located at the 
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport; be used for 
aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports 
District Office, Attn: Aimee A. McCormick, Program Manager, 1701 
Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Louis Miller, Aviation General Manager at 
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to the following 
address: City of Atlanta, Department of Aviation, P.O. Box 20509, 
College Park, GA 30320-2509.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee McCormick, Program Manager, 
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, 
Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747, (404) 305-7143. The application 
may be reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the City 
of Atlanta, Department of Aviation to release 4.50 acres of federally 
obligated property at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. 
The property will be released from federal . obligation so that it may 
be purchased and developed for compatible land uses. The net proceeds 
from the sale of this property will be used for airport purposes. The 
proposed use of this property is compatible with airport operations.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any 
person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other 
documents germane to the request in person at the City of Atlanta, 
Department of Aviation:

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on August 10, 2011.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports, District Office Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2011-20749 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
§ 105.253 Risk Group classifications for facilities. ( a ) For purposes of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) requirements of this subchapter, the following facilities subject to this part are in Risk Group A: ( 1 ) Beginning June 8, 2020: Facilities that receive vessels certificated to carry more than 1,000 passengers.
( 2 ) Beginning May 8, 2026: Facilities that handle Certain Dangerous Cargoes (CDC) in bulk and transfer such cargoes from or to a vessel.
( 3 ) Beginning May 8, 2026: Facilities that handle CDC in bulk, but do not transfer it from or to a vessel.
( 4 ) Beginning May 8, 2026: Facilities that receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk but, during the vessel-to-facility interface, do not transfer it from or to the vessel.
( b ) Facilities may move from one Risk Group classification to another, based on the material they handle or the types of vessels they receive at any given time. An owner or operator of a facility expected to move between Risk Groups must explain, in the Facility Security Plan, the timing of such movements, as well as how the facility will move between the requirements of the higher and lower Risk Groups, with particular attention to the security measures to be taken when moving from a lower Risk Group to a higher Risk Group.
[USCG-2007-28915, 81 FR 57712, Aug. 23, 2016, as amended by USCG-2017-0711, 85 FR 13516, Mar. 9, 2020; USCG-2023-0265, 88 FR 23350, Apr. 17, 2023]
Exhibit 32.1



                         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.


November 14, 2003


/s/ Timothy J. Rudderow
-------------------------------------------
President
Mount Lucas Management Corporation,
the manager of the MLM Index Fund
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36277, June 25, 2010.

2. At 89 FR 22946, Apr. 3, 2024, part 1 was amended by revising the authority citation; however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.

#### § 1.10-1 Official records and documents.

Identifiable records and documents of the Coast Guard are made available to the public in accordance with the Department of Transportation regulations contained in part 7 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 238 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 238

 Amending Senate Resolution 458 (98th Congress) to allow the Secretary 
of the Senate to adjust the salaries of employees who are placed on the 
   payroll of the Senate, under the direction of the Secretary, as a 
            result of the death or resignation of a Senator.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2007

   Mr. McConnell (for himself and Mr. Reid) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Amending Senate Resolution 458 (98th Congress) to allow the Secretary 
of the Senate to adjust the salaries of employees who are placed on the 
   payroll of the Senate, under the direction of the Secretary, as a 
            result of the death or resignation of a Senator.

    Resolved, That (a) subsection (a)(1) of the first section of Senate 
Resolution 458 (98th Congress) is amended by inserting after 
``respective salaries'' the following: ``, unless adjusted by the 
Secretary of the Senate with the approval of the Senate Committee on 
Rules and Administration,''.
     (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect January 
1, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
Jasmin Emission Calculations

268,730 MW-hrs

292,203 MW-hrs

280,467 MW-hrs

11,300 Btu/kw-hr

13,700 Btu/kw-hr

Emission Calculations

Emission Factors

Bituminous coal 93.4

Wood (Ag) 118.17

Wood (construction) 93.8

Average of wood 106.0

 Assume a 50/50 split between agricultural source of biomass and other sources of biomass

 that are burned in the boiler

0.011

0.0016

0.0011

0.00011

Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential

CH4 - 21 tonnes CO2 per tonne CH4, from 40 CFR 98 Table A-1

N2O - 310

Assumption: Heat input remains the same

Historical emissions (based on 100% coal/coke as fuel)

Estimated heat input - 3,169,271 MMBtu/yr

CO2 - 296,010 metric tons CO2

CH4 - 35 metric tons CH4

732 metric tons CO2e

N2O - 5 metric tons N2O

1,572 metric tons CO2e

TOTAL CO2e emissions 298,314 metric tons CO2e/year

tonnes CO2 per tonne N2O, from 40 CFR 98 Table A-1

kg CO2/MMBtu, 40 CFR 98, Subpart C, Table C-1

kg CO2/MMBtu, 40 CFR 98, Subpart C, Table C-1

kg CO2/MMBtu, 40 CFR 98, Subpart C, Table C-1

Biomass

Bituminous coal kg CH4/MMBtu, 40 CFR 98, Subpart C, Table C-2

kg N2O/MMBtu, 40 CFR 98, Subpart C, Table C-2

kg CH4/MMBtu, 40 CFR 98, Subpart C, Table C-2

kg N2O/MMBtu, 40 CFR 98, Subpart C, Table C-2

Jasmin generation (2010)

Jasmin generation (2009)

Average generation 

Annual Heat Rate for Jasmin (coal)

Annual Heat Rate for Jasmin (biomass)

kg CO2/MMBtu, 40 CFR 98, Subpart C, Table C-1
Future Actual emissions (based on 100% biomass - 50/50 mix ag/other)

Estimated heat input - 3,169,271 MMBtu/yr

CO2 - 335,895 metric tons CO2

CH4 - 3 metric tons CH4

73 metric tons CO2e

N2O - 0.3 metric tons N2O

108 metric tons CO2e

TOTAL CO2e emissions 336,077 metric tons CO2e/year

Difference 37,763 metric ton CO2e/year 

41,626 short tons CO2e/year 

Difference is metric tons of CO2e from coal subtracted from CO2e from biomass

Future Actual emissions (based on 50/50 coal/biomass with a 50/50 mix ag/other)

Estimated heat input - 3,169,271 MMBtu/yr

CO2 - 315,953 metric tons CO2

CH4 - 19 metric tons CH4

403 metric tons CO2e

N2O - 3 metric tons N2O

840 metric tons CO2e

TOTAL CO2e emissions 317,195 metric tons CO2e/year

Difference 18,881 metric tons CO2e/year 

20,813 short tons CO2e/year 

Difference is metric tons of CO2e from coal subtracted from CO2e from 50/50 mix
AIDD Developmental Disabilities Councils (DDC) Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2017 Annual Allocation

State/Territory

AIDD 

Developmental 

Disabilities 

Councils (DDC)

Alabama $1,291,034

Alaska $486,307

Arizona $1,411,676

Arkansas $770,894

California $6,527,210

Colorado $880,804

Connecticut $687,124

Delaware $486,307

District of Columbia $486,307

Florida $3,655,639

Georgia $2,065,602

Hawaii $486,307

Idaho $486,307

Illinois $2,618,348

Indiana $1,484,870

Iowa $772,264

Kansas $613,072

Kentucky $1,198,210

Louisiana $1,372,326

Maine $486,307

Maryland $1,005,670

Massachusetts $1,362,510

Michigan $2,537,470

Minnesota $1,022,764

Mississippi $911,980

Missouri $1,364,596

Montana $486,307

Nebraska $486,307

Nevada $540,162

New Hampshire $486,307

New Jersey $1,549,484

New Mexico $489,030

New York $4,090,946

North Carolina $2,015,964

North Dakota $486,307

Ohio $2,839,690

Oklahoma $895,034

Oregon $779,362

Pennsylvania $3,019,046

Rhode Island $486,307

South Carolina $1,094,290

South Dakota $486,307

Tennessee $1,457,786

Texas $4,802,026

Utah $633,704

Vermont $486,307

Virginia $1,498,220

Washington $1,167,690

West Virginia $737,516

Wisconsin $1,308,704

Wyoming $486,307

American Samoa $253,256

Guam $253,256

Northern Mariana Islands $253,256

Puerto Rico $2,500,740

Virgin Islands $253,256

TOTAL $72,794,779

6/7/2017
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40559 Summary Calendar

RICKY JAMES DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RAYMOND BYRD, Major, Michael Unit, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:95-CV-483

- - - - - - - - - - December 24, 1997 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ricky James Davis, Texas inmate # 519327, appeals judgment for the defendant following a bench trial in his civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that the evidence showed that he was the victim of excessive force during a prison lock-down. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and AFFIRM for the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge. Davis v. Byrd , No. 6:95-CV-483 (E.D. Tex. June 3, 1996).No. 96-40559 -2- Davis also argues that the trial court improperly limited the number of witnesses which he would be permitted to call at trial. Inasmuch as the purported testimony of the uncalled witnesses was cumulative, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in limiting Davis's witnesses. See Gibbs v. King , 779 F.2d 1040, 1047 (5th Cir. 1986). Davis also challenges the trial court's refusal to appoint an expert to examine the use-of-force video tape. Davis was not entitled to the appointment of an expert. See Pedraza v. Jones , 71 F.3d 1996-97 n.5 (5th Cir. 1995). Last, Davis's contention that he was barred from calling his only witness is not supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
. . f 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable S. Ii. Milwee 

County Attorney 

Floyd County 

Flo@ada, Texas 

Opinion No. O-7487 

Rer 

Officer, vho has 

rs Court aa such 

nted secretary 

on8 of aourse have a ccmStates and under 

lsions of Section 

hlah we quote 

"Bo member of Goagrees, nor person holding or 

exercising any offloe of proflt or trust, uyler the 

United States, or either of than, or uixker any f'oreign pover, shall be eligllQe as a member of the 
me. 8. R. Milwe - Pago a 
Hoe. 8. H. MilVee - Pegs 3 

“Po8ltioan lmd4r olty or 8hU Olvil uPvlao ml@ 

are a& 'OfrlM8 ie 8tw.e aueB4, like offieo or j 

and ar6 tmt ~publie oWiee8~. Sm.%th-IRed atats. 0. 3 2 

, 

aa 13, 501 mith-lhrd strtr. Colmt. ut. 5 B24. 

, 

HeKialey v. City ot Chiuego, 10 1. E. 2d 649, 698, 291 

Ill. App. 571." 

The Solsatin, Treiaiagrad Semi00 Aoto? 1940, aa 

aaeeded, does not aretate am lmprase aataia dd'lnik dutieo 

~i~~8~0ttoth0poOitio~0r8~~~farOioarlborn2. 

Rether 8u8ha peritlon is aonditiotmd upo~rnddetormia84b-~ 

the selaative 8e~ioedi~to~~adloerrlb#rdHlbmn~~r 

the EdI8lnt8twtion of the bat. Purther, it 18 our opiaioe thet 

thlm po8lticnr rrilrr to efuv7 vim it a del~tlon of uq pmtuti of tam 84Wr4&n pawa.