alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 101
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 101 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35009, June 19, 2008.

§ 101.405 Maritime Security (MARSEC) Directives. ( a ) ( 1 ) When the Coast Guard determines that additional security measures are necessary to respond to a threat assessment or to a specific threat against the maritime elements of the national transportation system, the Coast Guard may issue a MARSEC Directive setting forth mandatory measures. Only the Commandant or his/her delegee may issue MARSEC Directives under this section. Prior to issuing a MARSEC Directive, the Commandant or his/her delegee will consult with those Federal agencies having an interest in the subject matter of that MARSEC Directive. All MARSEC Directives issued under this section shall be marked as sensitive security information (SSI) in accordance with 49 CFR part 1520.
( 2 ) When a MARSEC Directive is issued, the Coast Guard will immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register, and affected owners and operators will need to go to their local COTP or cognizant District Commander to acquire a copy of the MARSEC Directive. COTPs and District Commanders will require owners or operators to prove that they are a person required by 49 CFR 1520.5(a) to restrict disclosure of and access to sensitive security information, and that under 49 CFR 1520.5(b), they have a need to know sensitive security information.
( b ) Each owner or operator of a vessel or facility to whom a MARSEC Directive applies is required to comply with the relevant instructions contained in a MARSEC Directive issued under this section within the time prescribed by that MARSEC Directive.
( c ) Each owner or operator of a vessel or facility required to have a security plan under parts 104, 105 or 106 of this subchapter that receives a MARSEC Directive must: ( 1 ) Within the time prescribed in the MARSEC Directive, acknowledge receipt of the MARSEC Directive to their local COTP or, if a facility regulated under part 106 of this subchapter, to their cognizant District Commander; and
( 2 ) Within the time prescribed in the MARSEC Directive, specify the method by which the measures in the MARSEC Directive have been implemented (or will be implemented, if the MARSEC Directive is not yet effective).
( d ) In the event that the owner or operator of a vessel or facility required to have a security plan under part 104, 105, or 106 of this subchapter is unable to implement the measures in the MARSEC Directive, the owner or operator must submit proposed equivalent security measures and the basis for submitting the equivalent security measures to the COTP or, if a facility regulated under part 106 of this subchapter, to their cognizant District Commander, for approval.
( e ) The owner or operator must submit the proposed equivalent security measures within the time prescribed in the MARSEC Directive. The owner or operator must implement any equivalent security measures approved by the COTP, or, if a facility regulated under part 106 of this subchapter, by their cognizant District Commander.
[USCG-2003-14792, 68 FR 39278, July 1, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 60472, Oct. 22, 2003]
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

| · | the                Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended                March                31, 2008, (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/                DENNIS L. SHOGREN                 |
|------------------------------------------------------|
| Dennis                L. Shogren                     |
| President                and Chief Executive Officer |

----
Exhibit 32





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 Quarterly Report of LCNB Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Stephen P. Wilson, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve P. Foster, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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.













July 26, 2004

/s/ Stephen P. Wilson



Stephen P. Wilson, Chief Executive Officer







July 26, 2004

/s/ Steve P. Foster



Steve P. Foster, Chief Financial Officer





-35-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

WANDA BROOKS

v.

EWING COLE, INC., D/B/A EWING COLE

AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND

FAMILY COURT OF THE COURT OF

COMMON PLEAS OF THE FIRST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

PETITION OF: FAMILY COURT OF THE

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 267 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth

Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of January, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

. The issue, as stated by P etitioner , is:

(1) Should this Court review the Commonwealth Court’s conclusion that an order denying a summary judgment motion based on sovereign immunity does not satisfy the collateral order doctrine of Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 313, which conflicts with statutory law and case law that this immunity is “immunity from suit” and presents a matter of first im pression for this Court on a substantial legal and policy issue involving absolute immunities?

The Joint Application to File Amicus Curiae Brief is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE to

the applicants’ ability to participate as amici curiae during merits briefing o f the appeal.

Justice Dougherty did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### § 779.238 Engagement in described activities determined on annual basis.

As set forth in the preceding section an enterprise to be a “covered enterprise” must have at least some employees engaged in certain described activities. This requirement will be determined on an annual basis in order to give full effect to the intent of Congress. Thus, it is not necessary that the enterprise have two or more employees engaged in the named activities every week. An enterprise described in section 3(s)(1) or (5) of the prior Act or in section 3(s)(1) of the Act as it was amended in 1966 will be considered to have employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, including the handling, selling or otherwise working on goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person, if during the annual period which it uses in calculating its annual sales for purposes of the other conditions of these sections, it regularly and recurrently has at least two or more employees engaged in such activities. On the other hand, it is plain that an enterprise that has employees engaged in such activities only in isolated or sporadic occasions, will not meet this condition.
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

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                 

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 23, 2000. 

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Phillip Jackson, Applications Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                 

1. Northwest Financial Corp., Spencer, Iowa; to acquire at least 98.49 percent of the voting shares of Marquette Bank Oelwein, N.A., Oelwein, Iowa. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 25, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-13604 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit
32.2








Section 906
Certification





The
following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Form 10-Q of
the MLM Index TM 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 TM Fund.




May 13,
2008






By: /s/JamesA.Mehling


Vice
President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Mount
Lucas Management Corporation,


the
manager of the MLM Index TM Fund
Swanson, Brian (OST) 

~- FFom: 

Sent:· 

To: 

Subject: 

Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Monday, August 13, 2012 11:40 AM 

Swanson, Brian (OST) 

FW: Air Service to Rhinelander, WI 

From: Lieberman, Jeri [mailto:Jeri.Lieberman@Staples.com] 

Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:37 AM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Subject: Air Service to Rhinelander, WI 

Good morning. 

DOT- 9$T- 2.Dlt- OlQ~ 

Upon reading the proposals of air service to Rhinelander, WI, it appears you may not be looking at continuing the 

service from Milwaukee, WI to Rhinelander, WI. 

As a resident of a suburb of Chicago, IL, it is dissappointing there is no service via small jet from Chicago to 

Rhinelander, but at least I have been utilizing, quite frequently along with many, many others, the service Frontier 

has been providing from Milwaukee, WI to Rhinelander. 

I believe you should very seriously consider a Chicago to Rhinelander or at the very least Milwaukee to 

Rhinelander upon review of your proposals. I do not feel routes from Minneapolis to Rhinelander will provide the 

ridership as the prior mentioned service(s). As the owner and owner-s of.many·homes of the Up North Area of 

Wisconsin continue to increase and the gas price increases, the service from Chicago/Milwaukee will continue to 

grow. 

Please reconsider your proposals. 

·Thank you. 

1
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.579 Wicomico River (North Prong).

The draws of the Main Street and U.S. 50 bridges, mile 22.4, Salisbury, Maryland shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given by calling the telephone contact number at (410) 430-7461.

[CGD05-07-025, 72 FR 42307, Aug. 2, 2007]
1

Filed 4/30/13 P. v. Colbourn CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or 

ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 

purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ORIN COLBOURN,

Defendant and Appellant.

C069946

(Super. Ct. No. 10F02636)

Defendant Orin Colbourn pled no contest to an April 2010 offense of reckless 

driving while eluding a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and 

admitted a 2003 juvenile strike adjudication of assaulting a police officer (Pen. Code, 

§§ 245, subd. (c), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). In exchange, seven related counts were 

dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for the midterm of two years, 

doubled for the prior strike, and was awarded 552 days of custody credit and 276 days of 

conduct credit. 
2

On appeal, defendant contends that, as a matter of federal constitutional law, his 

prior juvenile adjudication cannot qualify as a strike. He submitted, but later withdrew, 

his contention that he was entitled to additional custody and conduct credit.1 We affirm 

the judgment.

FACTS

The facts of defendant’s offenses are not at issue and need not be set forth in this 

opinion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court erred, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right 

to jury trial and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, when it concluded his 

2003 juvenile adjudication qualified as a prior serious felony strike conviction for the 

purpose of increasing his maximum punishment.

As defendant acknowledges, the California Supreme Court rejected his contention 

in People v. Nguyen (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1007 at pages 1010-1019. Defendant recognizes 

Nguyen is binding upon this court. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 

57 Cal.2d 450, 455; see People v. Pacheco (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 343, 345-346.) 

Accordingly, his contention has no merit. 

 

1 Defendant also raised the credit issue by motion in the trial court. Defendant 

subsequently advised this court his motion in the trial court was granted and an amended 

abstract of judgment was filed with the correct credits: 554 days of custody credit and 

554 days of conduct credit. We granted his request to withdraw this argument. 
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 HOCH , J.

We concur:

 NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

 MURRAY , J.
#### In the Matter of Alice Claudio, Petitioner, v Michael Dowling, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents. (And Two Other Proceedings.) In the Matter of Elba Vera et al., Appellants, v Michael Dowling, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 4, 1996;

decided June 6, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal with respect to respondents Sabol, Little, the New York City Department of Social Services, and the Child Welfare Administration, *897dismissed as untimely; motion for leave to appeal otherwise granted.
- 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 > Negro Women in Industry in 15 States

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Negro Women in Industry in 15 States : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 70*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1929,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5379,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with Amendment No. 1 of the Quarterly Report of China Broadband Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew Heysel, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: November 19, 2003 | By: | /s/ MATTHEW HEYSELName:	Matthew Heysel
Title:	Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|----------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 784.21 Guiding principles for applying coverage and exemption provisions.

It is clear that Congress intended the Fair Labor Standards Act to be broad in its scope. “Breadth of coverage is vital to its mission” (*Powell* v. *U.S. Cartridge Co.,* 339 U.S. 497). An employer who claims an exemption under the Act has the burden of showing that it applies (*Walling* v. *General Industries Co.,* 330 U.S. 545; *Mitchell* v. *Kentucky Finance Co.,* 359 U.S. 290: *Tobin* v. *Blue Channel Corp.,* 198 F. 2d 245, approved in *Mitchell* v. *Myrtle Grove Packing Co.,* 350 U.S. 891; *Fleming* v. *Hawkeye Pearl Button Co.,* 113 F. 2d 52). Conditions specified in the language of the Act are “explicit prerequisites to exemption” (*Arnold* v. *Kanowsky,* 361 U.S. 388). In their application, the purpose of the exemption as shown in its legislative history as well as its language should be given effect. However, “the details with which the exemptions in this Act have been made preclude their enlargement by implication” and “no matter how broad the exemption, it is meant to apply only to” the specified activities (*Addison* v. *Holly Hill,* 322 U.S. 607; *Maneja* v. *Waialua,* 349 U.S. 254). Exemptions provided in the Act “are to be narrowly construed against the employer seeking to assert them” and their application limited to those who come “plainly and unmistakably within their terms and spirit.” This construction of the exemptions is necessary to carry out the broad objectives for which the Act was passed (*Phillips* v. *Walling,* 324 U.S. 490; *Mitchell* v. *Kentucky Finance Co.,* supra; *Arnold* v. *Kanowsky,* supra; *Calaf* v. *Gonzales,* 127 F. 2d 934; *Bowie* v. *Gonzales,* 117 F. 2d 11; *Mitchell* v. *Stinson,* 217 F. 2d 210; *Fleming* v. *Hawkeye Pearl Button Co.,* 113 F. 2d 52).
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13596]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-1109; MM Docket No. 99-115; RM-9378]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Clio and Tuscola, MI

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; denial.

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

SUMMARY: The Notice in this proceeding proposed the reallotment of 
Channel 268A from Tuscola, Michigan, to Clio, Michigan, and 
modification of the license for Station WWBN accordingly. The Notice 
was issued in response to a petition filed by Faircom Flint Inc. See 64 
FR 18569, 1999. Based on the information submitted, it has been 
determined that the reallotment from Tuscola to Clio does not provide a 
public interest benefit of enough significance to outweigh the loss of 
a transmission service to Tuscola or offset the disruption of an 
existing service. Therefore, the proposed reallotment from Tuscola to 
Clio has been denied. With this action, this docketed proceeding is 
terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, MM Docket No. 99-115, adopted May 10, 2000, and released May 
19, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's 
Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete 
text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-
3805.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-13596 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P