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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 463 

Congratulating Vivian Stringer on winning 800 games in women’s college 

basketball. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2008 

Mr. MENENDEZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating Vivian Stringer on winning 800 games in 

women’s college basketball. 

Whereas Vivian Stringer has coached women’s college basketball for 36 seasons; 

Whereas Vivian Stringer has coached the Rutgers University 

women’s college basketball team for the past 13 seasons; 

Whereas Vivian Stringer is the first coach in men’s or women’s college basketball to lead 3 different schools to the 

Final Four; 

Whereas Vivian Stringer was inducted into the Women’s Basketball Hall of Fame in 2001; 

Whereas Vivian Stringer was named by Sports Illustrated as 

one of the 101 Most Influential Minorities in Sports in 

2003; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 463 IS 

Whereas Vivian Stringer was a recipient of the Black Coaches Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 2004; 

Whereas Vivian Stringer helped lead Team USA to a gold 

medal as an assistant coach for the United States Olympic women’s basketball team in the 2004 Olympic Games 

in Athens, Greece; 

Whereas Vivian Stringer was inducted into the New Jersey 

Sports Hall of Fame and the Sport in Society Hall of 

Fame in 2005; 

Whereas Vivian Stringer has made significant contributions 

in advancing the popularity of and esteem for women’s 

college basketball; 

Whereas Vivian Stringer has been a role model for countless 

young women not only in the United States, but all over 

the world; 

Whereas Vivian Stringer is only the third women’s college 

basketball coach to win 800 games, joining only 5 men’s 

coaches who reached the same milestone; and 

Whereas Vivian Stringer broke the record for African-American coaches in either men’s or women’s college basketball by becoming the first to win 800 games: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate honors Vivian Stringer for 

2 the significant accomplishment of winning 800 games in 

3 women’s college basketball and sends its sincere congratu4 lations for this historic accomplishment. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
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.

§ 1.07-70 Right to appeal. ( a ) Any appeal from the decision of the Hearing Officer must be submitted by a party within 30 days from the date of receipt of the decision. The appeal and any supporting brief must be submitted to the Hearing Officer. The only issues which will be considered on appeal are those issues specified in the appeal which were properly raised before the Hearing Officer and jurisdictional questions.
( b ) The failure to file an appeal within the prescribed time limit results in the action of the Hearing Officer becoming the final agency action in the case.
IN THE MATTER OF THE * IN THE

REINSTATEMENT OF ANTHONY

JOSEPH DELAURENTIS * COURT OF APPEALS

TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND

* OF MARYLAND

* Misc. Docket AG No. 5 8

* September Term, 2015

****************************************************************

O R D E R

The Court having considered the petition for reinstatement of Anthony Joseph

DeLaurentis and the response filed thereto by the Attorney Grievance Commission in the

above captione d case, it is this 2 5 th day of Ma rch , 201 6

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition be, and it is

hereby, GRANTED, and the petitioner Anthony Joseph DeLaurentis , upon taking in open

court and subscribing to the oath of attorneys required by MD Code (2004), Business

Occupations and Professions Article Sec 10

- 212 is reinstated as a member of the Bar of

Maryland to the practice of law in this State, and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the name of Anth ony Joseph

DeLaurentis upon the register of attorneys entitled to practice in this Court and certify

that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the Clerks of all judicial

tribunals in this State

.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera

Chief Judge
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 30 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
JIU DONG, Petitioner,
v. JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General; IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondents. No. 01-9548 (BIA No. A77 293 813) (Petition for Review)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the petition for review and relatedmaterials, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument.-2-

Petitioner seeks review of the decision of the Boar d of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the immigration ju dge’s order of deportation. In addition, petitioner seeks a stay of removal dur ing the pendency of proceedings before this court. Our initial review of the mater ials filed by petitioner caused us to question our jurisdiction because the petition f or review did not appear to be either timely filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) or filed in the correct circuit under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). See Kennedy v. Lubar , 273 F.3d 1293, 1301 (10th Cir. 2001) (“We have routinely recognized our ability to raise the question of appellate jurisdiction sua sponte . . . .”). Accordingly, on December 26, 2001, we issued an order directing petitioner to show cau se why the petition for review should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The time for response has since passed, and petitioner has not responded to the sho w cause order. We, therefore, DISMISS the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction and DENY the motion for stay of removal as moot. Entered for the Court,

PER CURIAM
#### § 452.22 Delegates to a convention.

Under certain circumstances, delegates to a convention of a national or international labor organization, or to an intermediate body, must be elected by secret ballot among the members in good standing of the labor organization they represent even though such delegates are not “officers” of the organization. Such election is required by the Act[19] when the delegates are to nominate or elect officers of a national or international labor organization, or of an intermediate body. There is, of course, no requirement that delegates be elected in accordance with the provisions of title IV if they do not nominate or elect officers, unless delegates are designated as “officers” in the union's constitution and bylaws or unless, by virtue of their position, they serve as members of the executive board or similar governing body of the union.

###### Footnotes -
  452.22

[19] Act, sec. 401(a) and 401(d) (29 U.S.C. 481).
#### § 779.241 Selling.

The statutory definition of the term “sale” or “sell” is quoted in § 779.15. As long as the employee in any way participates in the sale of the goods he will be considered to be “selling” the goods, whether he physically handles them or not. Thus, if the employee performs any work that, in a practical sense is an essential part of consummating the “sale” of the particular goods, he will be considered to be “selling” the goods. “Selling” goods, under section 3(s) has reference only to goods which “have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person,” as discussed in §§ 779.242 and 779.243.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

89–012 2019

116th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 116–11 

DESIGNATION OF FUNDING AS AN EMERGENCY 

REQUIREMENT 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

A DESIGNATION AS AN EMERGENCY REQUIREMENT ALL FUNDING 

SO DESIGNATED BY THE CONGRESS IN THE ACT PURSUANT TO 

SEC. 251(b)(2)(A) OF THE BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY 

DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF 1985, PURSUANT TO SEC. 7058(d)(5) 

OF CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019 

FEBRUARY 15, 2019.—Referred to the Committee on Appropriations and 

ordered to be printed 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, February 15, 2019. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: In accordance with section 7058(d) of division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.J. Res. 31; 

the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby designate as an emergency requirement all 

funding so designated by the Congress in the Act pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985, for the accounts referenced in section 7058(d). 

The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed memorandum from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD J. TRUMP. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 3 here HD-11.001
- 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 Delaware Industries: A Study of Hours, Wages, and Working Conditions

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Women in Delaware Industries: A Study of Hours, Wages, and Working Conditions : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 58*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1927,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5370,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

DESHONE Q ’ MAR COPELAND , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1651

[ August 10, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; William L. Roby , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 562015CF000189A and 562012CF003648A

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We affirm the revocation of the defendant ’ s probation and resulting
sentence s in all respects, except for the trial court ’ s imposition of $50 in investigative costs and $200 in prosecution costs

. We accept the s tate ’ s concession of error as to the imposition of these costs because the s tate did not request that the investigative costs be imposed on behalf of the investigating agency pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes ( 2019 ), and the prosecution costs exceed the maximum amount that can be imposed without “a showing of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred” as required by section 9 38.27(8), Florida Statutes ( 2019 ).

As to the investigative costs, “ [t] rial courts cannot impose investigative costs ‘where the record does not demonstrate that the s tate requested reimbursement for these costs. ’ If these costs are not requested by the

s tate, they must be stricken and cannot be imposed on remand.” Bartolone v. State

, 327 So. 3d 331, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (quoting Desrosiers v. State , 286 So. 3d 297, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) ; see also § 9 3 8.27(1), Fla. Stat. ( 2019 ) (“investigative costs incurred by law2 enforcement agencies” may be imposed only “ if requested by such agencies ” (emphasis added) )

. Thus, we strike the imposition of $50 in investigative costs.

As to the prosecution costs, the “[c]osts for the state attorney must be set in all cases at no less than

. . . $100 per case when a felony offense is charged,” and “[t]he court may set a higher amount upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred.” § 938.27(8), Fl a. Stat

. ( 2019 ). As we did in Bartolone , “[w]e therefore reverse the prosecution costs and remand for the trial court to impose $100 in accordance with statute, or to impose additional costs if sufficient findings are made

. ” 327 So. 3d at 336 (quoting Guadagno v. State , 291 So. 3d 962, 963 (Fl a. 4th DCA 2020) )

.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions

.

W ARNER , F ORST and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04136]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

42 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. CDC-2012-0017]
RIN 0920-AA12

Control of Communicable Diseases: Foreign; Scope and Definitions

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (HHS/CDC), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Confirmation of effective date of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within 
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is publishing this 
document to confirm the effective date of the Direct Final Rule (DFR), 
published on December 26, 2012 (77 FR 75939).

DATES: The Direct Final Rule published at 77 FR 75939, December, 26, 
2012, becomes effective on February 25, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this notice: 
Ashley A. Marrone, JD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 
Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E-03, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; telephone 
404-498-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 26, 2012, HHS/CDC published a 
Direct Final Rule (DFR) amending 42 CFR part 71 to update the Scope and 
Definitions for that part (77 FR 75885). On the same date, HHS/CDC 
simultaneously published a companion Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) that proposed identical updates to the Scope and Definitions (77 
FR 75939). In both documents, HHS/CDC indicated that if we did not 
receive any significant adverse comments on the direct final rule by 
January 25, 2013, we would publish a document in the Federal Register 
withdrawing the NPRM and confirming the effective date of the direct 
final rule within 30 days after the end of the comment period. HHS/CDC 
received two comments to the companion NPRM. One comment pertained to 
food safety that raised issues unrelated to the companion NPRM and 
appears to have been submitted in error. The second comment was a 
general comment on immigration and was outside the scope of this 
rulemaking. HHS/CDC did not consider this comment to be a significant, 
adverse comment because it did not raise any issues that were relevant 
to the subject matter under consideration. Because HHS/CDC did not 
receive any relevant significant adverse comments within the specified 
comment period, we have published a notice to withdrawal the NPRM in 
this issue of the Federal Register. Therefore, consistent with the 
Direct Final Rule the amendments to 42 CFR part 71 become effective on 
February 25, 2013 (77 FR 75885).

    Dated: February 13, 2013.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2013-04136 Filed 2-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
```
(77 South. 238)

#### AUSTELL v. McCAMPBELL.

(8 Div. 513.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 27, 1917.)

Appeal and Error <&wkey;1015(2) — Granting New Trial — Credibility oe Witnesses.

An order granting a now trial where the evidence is in- sharp conflict will not be disturbed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. I-Iaralson, Judge.

Action between Joe Austell and C. C. McCampbell. Verdict for the former, and from an order granting a new trial, he appeals.

Affirmed.

Bouldin & Wimberly, of Scottsboro, for' appellant. Milo Moody, of Scottsboro, for appellee.

BROWN, P. J.

This is an action to recover an alleged balance due the plaintiff from the defendant, on the purchase price of a barber shop. It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, a short time before the transaction out of which this suit arises, had opened up a barber shop iu Scottsboro, and to the end of procuring.the necessary fixtures and materials for this purpose had borrowed the sum of $200 from one Gregory, for which he had given his note, with surety. This $200 he had expended in the purchase of materials and fixtures, and having the same shipped from Nashville to Scottsboro, leaving a small balance due one Weis, from whom he purchased the materials and fixtures, secured by a retention of the title by Weis. After the barber shop was in operation, the defendant approached the plaintiff, and after some negotiations purchased' the shop fronn him, agreeing to pay the balance due Weis, as to the amount of which there is some conflict in the evidence, and to pay, plaintiff $200 or assume the payment of the note to Greg ory, and to employ the plaintiff at $50 per mouth for one year, commencing on December 11, 1914. It appears that without any controversy or disagreement between the parties, plaintiff performed this contract up until November 18, 1915, or within 21 days of the end of the term. At this time the plaintiff and defendant had some disagreement, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the employ of the defendant. Defendant’s contention is that the plaintiff agreed that if defendant would release the plaintiff from his obligation to perform the balance of Ms contract by working the 21 days, the plaintiff would release him from his obligation to pay the balance on the contract price of the barber shop, to wit, $200. On the other hand, plaintiff’s contention is that the defendant merely released him from fulfilling his contract, by consenting for him to leave his employ, and that he did not release defendant from the obligation to pay the balance due him.

These were the litigated facts in the case, and as to them the evidence is in sharp conflict. The trial judge had the witnesses before hiai, and was in a better position to judge their credibility than we are, aud after careful consideration of the evidence in the case, we are not convinced that the order granting a new trial was erroneous.

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.

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

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.925 Cooper River.

The draw of the Seaboard System Railroad bridge, mile 42.8 near Cordesville, shall open on signal if at least six hours advance notice is given.

[CGD 7-85-24, 50 FR 37175, Sept. 12, 1985]
§ 110.166 York River, Va., naval anchorage. ( a ) *The anchorage grounds.* Between Yorktown and the Naval Mine Depot, beginning at latitude 37°15′34′′, longitude 76°31′25′′; thence to latitude 37°15′25′′, longitude 76°31′39.5′′; thence to latitude 37°16′21.5′′, longitude 76°32′46′′; thence to latitude 37°17′07.5′′, longitude 76°34′17′′; thence to latitude 37°17′55′′, longitude 76°35′14.5′′; thence to latitude 37°18′05′′, longitude 76°35′01′′; thence to latitude 37°17′20′′, longitude 76°34′07′′; thence to latitude 37°16′33.5′′, longitude 76°32′34′′, and thence to the point of beginning.
( b ) *The regulations.* This anchorage is reserved for the exclusive use of naval vessels and except in cases of emergency, no other vessel shall anchor therein without permission from the local naval authorities, obtained through the Captain of the Port, Norfolk, Virginia. Movement of vessels through the anchorage will not be restricted.
#### § 810.115 Paid meal time and paid break time.

Paid meal time and paid break time are counted as direct production work for purposes of determining whether at least 85 percent of a worker's total work hours are hours worked in direct production. However, if less than 85 percent of a worker's total work hours are worked in direct production, paid meal time and paid break time are not included in the average hourly base wage rate calculation.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FISHER SCIENTIFIC LLC 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1321 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Judge Douglas M. Rawald 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

RECEIVED 

MAY 1 6 2016 

HEARING DOCKET 

COMES NOW Complainant, by and through his undersigned attorney, and submits this 

Notice of Appearance in accordance with Section 13 .204(b) of the Rules of Practice in FAA 

Civil Pemlty Actions [14 C.P.R. § 13.204(b)]. Complainant will now be represented in the 

above-referenced matter by: 

Andrea Michelle Harper, Esq. 

Senior Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Telephone: (404) 305-5200 

Facsimile: (404) 305-5223 

E-mail Address: michelle.harperCciJ.faa.gov 

Respectfully submitted this 101

h day in May, 2016. 

~4'J:7-~~·- ~ ANDREA MICHELLE HARPER 

Senior Attorney 

Office of the ChiefCounsel 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance In the 

Matter of Fisher Scientific LLC, Docket No. FAA-2015-1321, via regular mail and facsimile to: 

Jerry W. Cox, Esq. 

Potomac Strategy Associates 

2050 Jamieson Ave., Suite 1212 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

(email) jcox@potomacstrategyassociates.com 

(tel) (703) 757-5866 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL (202) 366-5121 

FAX (202) 366-7536 

and the original and one copy to: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Program Analyst 

.ji\( 1 0 

Dated