alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 779.233 Independent contractors performing work “for” an enterprise. ( a ) The definition in section 3(r) specifically provides that the “enterprise” shall not include “the related activities performed for such enterprise by an independent contractor.” This exclusion will apply where the related activities are performed “for” the enterprise and if such activities are performed by “an independent contractor.” This provision is discussed generally in part 776 of this chapter.
( b ) The Senate Report in referring to this exception states as follows: It does not include the related activities performed for such an enterprise by an independent contractor, such as an independent accounting firm or sign service or advertising company, * * * (S. Rept. No. 145, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 40).
The term “independent contractor” as used in section 3(r) has reference to an independent business which performs services for other businesses as an established part of its own business activities. The term “independent contractor” as used in 3(r) thus has reference to an independent business which is a separate “enterprise,” and which deals in the ordinary course of its own business operations, at arms length, with the enterprises for which it performs services.
( c ) There are many instances in industry where one business performs activities for separate businesses without becoming a part of a larger enterprise. In addition to the examples cited in the Report they may include such services as repairs, window cleaning, transportation, warehousing, collection services, and many others. The essential test in each case will be whether such services are performed “for” the enterprise by an independent, separate enterprise, or whether the related activities are performed for a common purpose through unified operation or common control. In the latter case the activities will be considered performed “by” the enterprise, rather than “for” the enterprise, and will be a part of the enterprise. The distinction in the ordinary case will be readily apparent from the facts. In those cases where questions arise a determination must be made on the basis of all the facts in the light of the statute and the legislative history.
Editorial Note on Part 8
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 8 appear at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996.

§ 8.9 Disposition by the Administrative Review Board. ( a ) The Board may decline review of any case whenever in its judgment review would be inappropriate because of lack of timeliness, the nature of the relief sought, the case involves only settled issues of law, the appeal is frivolous on its face, or other reasons. A case will be reviewed upon the affirmative vote of one member.
( b ) In issuing its decision the Board will take into consideration procurement deadlines where appropriate. The Board shall pass upon the points raised in the petition upon the basis of the entire record before it. The Board may affirm, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, the decision under review and shall issue a decision including a statement of reasons or bases for the actions taken. The Board shall modify or set aside findings of fact only when it determines that those findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In any remand of a case as provided in § 8.1(e) of this title, the Board shall include any appropriate instructions.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.8 Permanent changes to drawbridge operation. ( a ) Anyone may submit a written request to the District Commander for a permanent change to a drawbridge operating requirement. The request must include documentation supporting or justifying the requested change.
( b ) If after evaluating the request, the District Commander determines that the requested change is not needed, he or she will respond to the request in writing and provide the reasons for denial of the requested change.
( c ) If the District Commander decides that a change may be needed, he or she will begin a rulemaking to implement the change.
[USCG-2001-10881, 71 FR 70308, Dec. 4, 2006]
#### § 125.27 Sponsorship of applicant.

Applications for a Coast Guard Port Security Card shall not be accepted unless sponsored. The applicant shall be sponsored by an authorized official of applicant's employer or by an authorized official of applicant's labor union. Each company and each labor union concerned shall file with the appropriate Captain of the Port a list of officials of the company or union who are authorized to sponsor applicants. Other sponsorship may be accepted where the circumstances warrant.
§ 38.19 Intimidation and retaliation prohibited. ( a ) A recipient must not discharge, intimidate, retaliate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any individual because the individual has: ( 1 ) Filed a complaint alleging a violation of Section 188 of WIOA or this part;
( 2 ) Opposed a practice prohibited by the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA or this part;
( 3 ) Furnished information to, or assisted or participated in any manner in, an investigation, review, hearing, or any other activity related to any of the following: ( i ) Administration of the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA or this part;
( ii ) Exercise of authority under those provisions; or
( iii ) Exercise of privilege secured by those provisions; or
( 4 ) Otherwise exercised any rights and privileges under the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA or this part.
( b ) The sanctions and penalties contained in Section 188(b) of WIOA or this part may be imposed against any recipient that engages in any such retaliation or intimidation, or fails to take appropriate steps to prevent such activity.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.641 Pine River (Charlevoix). ( a ) The draw of the U.S. 31 bridge, mile 0.3 at Charlevoix, shall be operated as follows: ( 1 ) From April 1 through December 31, the draw shall open on signal; except from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., April 1 to October 31, the draw need open only from three minutes before to three minutes after the hour and half-hour for recreational vessels. Public vessels of the United States, state or local vessels used for public safety, commercial vessels, vessels in distress, and vessels seeking shelter from severe weather shall be passed through the draw as soon as possible.
( 2 ) From January 1, through March 31, the draw shall open on signal if at least 12 hours advance notice is provided prior to a vessel's intended time of passage.
( b ) The owner of the bridge shall provide and keep in good legible condition two board gauges painted white with black figures not less than six inches high to indicate the vertical clearance under the closed draw at all water levels. The gages shall be placed on the bridge so that they are plainly visible to operators of vessels approaching the bridge either up or downstream.
[CGD09-00-001, 65 FR 15240, Mar. 22, 2000]
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.267 Big Carlos Pass.

The draw of the SR865 bridge, mile 0.0 between Estero Island and Black Island, shall open on signal; except that, the draw need not be opened from 7 p.m. to 8 a.m.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7103
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD ALAN HUNT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:01-cr-00982-MJP) Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Alan Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Richard Alan Hunt appeals the district court’s order denying a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate, for lack of jurisdiction, Hunt’s 2002 criminal conviction and sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hunt , No. 3:01-cr-00982-MJP (D.S.C. July 25, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13729]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 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 Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: June 22, 2000.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Henry J. Haigler, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Rm. 6150, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301/443-7216.
    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 24, 2000.
    Time: 2 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Henry J. Haigler, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Rm. 6150, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301/443-7216.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 23, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-13729 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20690

GERALD GILBERT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

Warden JAMES W. MOSSBARGER; RODNEY E. DeWALT; MARY E.

CARROLL, Grievance Investigator II,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CV-4048

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald Gilbert, Texas prisoner # 1236206, moves for the appointment of

counsel and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the

denial of the motion for reconsideration that he filed after the district court

dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. By moving to proceed IFP,

Gilbert challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken

in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 14, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-20690 Document: 00512341102 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2013
No. 12-20690

To proceed IFP, a litigant must be economically eligible, and the appeal

must be taken in good faith. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). 

An appeal is taken in good faith if it raises legal points that are arguable on the

merits and thus nonfrivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.

1983).

Gilbert’s appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration does not

bring up his underlying judgment for review. See Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763,

767 (5th Cir. 2010). Because he has not shown that the district court abused its

discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration, see id., Gilbert has not

established that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Howard, 707

F.2d at 220. Accordingly, we deny his motion to proceed IFP on appeal and

dismiss his appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

The dismissal of Gilbert’s § 1983 action as frivolous and the dismissal of

his appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Gilbert is

cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be

allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal, filed while he is incarcerated

or detained in any facility, unless he “is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury.” See § 1915(g).

Finally, Gilbert hasnot shown “exceptional circumstances” warranting the

appointment of counsel. Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Texas, 929 F.2d 1078,

1084 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we deny his motion for the appointment of

counsel.

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.

2

 Case: 12-20690 Document: 00512341102 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2013
## Draft Proposal E-11

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code
change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC).

Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft code
change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/deve lopment/iebc_concepts



## Insulation and Air Leakage Inspection (E-11)

Objective: Provide for inspection of insulation fill and air barriers while components are still accessible for inspection.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Add new Section [A] 109.3.5 as follows:

[A] 109.3.5 Insulation and air leakage inspection. Insulation and air leakage inspections shall be made before any asse mblies associated with the building thermal envelope are enclosed. Such inspections shall ensure that all holes, penetrations, cracks or other avenues for air leakage through the asse mbly are sealed and that all insulation is

installed in accordance with the manufacturers installation instructions and completely fills the cavity in the assembly in which it is installed.

Reason: Forty percent of U.S. energy and seventy percent of U.S. electricity are consumed in existing buildings. This is clearly an opportunity for reduction by reinforcing that when thermal envelope assemblies are repaired, altered, or added to a building, the assembly is inspected no differently from new construction, to ensure that any paths for air leakage are sealed and the insulation installation (new or re-application of existing insulation) is done in an appropriate manner. This is a critical area in which an inspection can have lasting effects on energy efficiency, because once the assembly is closed up, the opportunity to address this is lost (unless the assembly is opened up later to address issues that are likely to arise due to not having the assembly sealed and the insulation properly installed).

Cost Impact: There is no cost impact to the builder, contractor, or building owner. Building inspection staff may need to take additional time in inspection.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.121 Arkansas River.

The draw of the Missouri Pacific Railroad bridge, mile 23.1 near Yancopin, shall open on signal if at least 96 hours notice is given.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 55

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the launching of the Great White Fleet marked the 

emergence of the United States as a true global 

seapower, able to dispatch 16 new battleships on a worldwide deployment for 14 months; 

Whereas these battleships were painted entirely white, with 

gilded scrollwork on their bows, and subsequently came 

to be known as the ‘‘Great White Fleet’’; 

Whereas the 4 squadrons of 4 battleships each, manned by 

14,000 sailors, sailed 43,000 miles and made 20 port 

calls on 6 continents; 

Whereas the Fleet, in conducting visits to important nations 

such as Australia, served to reinforce a friendship and 

partnership that continues to this day; 

Whereas the Fleet, in providing a tangible demonstration of 

the forward naval presence of the United States in the 

Pacific, also reinforced the message of how important 

maritime stability and security are to the United States; 

Whereas the Fleet, in response to one of the worst natural 

disasters in European history, was able to immediately 

divert to Messina, Sicily, to offer humanitarian aid to the 

Italian people; and 

Whereas the Fleet, in executing a range of missions and returning to the United States after 14 months at sea, dis-
2

•SCON 55 ES 

played to the world a number of core American values, 

including compassion, showed its flexibility by responding 

to unforeseen events, and demonstrated the ability of the 

United States to project maritime power as a stabilizing 

force: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) commemorates the wisdom of President 

4 Theodore Roosevelt in developing and launching the 

5 Great White Fleet; 

6 (2) supports a one-time designation of a day to 

7 celebrate the 100th centennial of the Great White 

8 Fleet and the special role the Fleet played in build9 ing enduring friendships with important allies and 

10 partner nations; 

11 (3) commends efforts by the Department of the 

12 Navy to maintain and strengthen our cooperative 

13 partnerships with foreign nations and to safeguard 

14 our Nation’s interests in the maritime domain; 

15 (4) commends efforts by the Department of the 

16 Navy in leading the development of a Cooperative 

17 Strategy for 21st Century Seapower; and 

18 (5) honors the sacrifices made and services ren19 dered by the servicemembers of the Navy, Marine 
3

•SCON 55 ES 

1 Corps, and the Coast Guard and the civilians who 

2 constitute our maritime services. 

Passed the Senate November 16, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 55

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commemorating the centennial anniversary of the 

ginia, and returning there on February 22, 1909.December 16, 1907, from Hampton Roads, Virlaunched by President Theodore Roosevelt on sailing of the Navy’s ‘‘Great White Fleet,’’
§ 104.106 Passenger access area. ( a ) A ferry, passenger vessel, or cruise ship may designate areas within the vessel as passenger access areas.
( b ) A passenger access area is a defined space, within the area over which the owner or operator has implemented security measures for access control, of a ferry, passenger vessel, or cruise ship that is open to passengers. It is not a secure area and does not require a TWIC for unescorted access.
( c ) Passenger access areas may not include any areas defined as restricted areas in the VSP.
[USCG-2006-24196, 72 FR 3579, Jan. 25, 2007, as amended by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35009, June 19, 2008]
§ 147.877 Safety Zone, Heidelberg Spar, Outer Continental Shelf Facility, Green Canyon 860. ( a ) *Description.* The Heidelberg Spar in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico at Green Canyon. The facility is located at: 27°6′41.0394′′ N, 90°45′50.3994′′ W (NAD 83) and the area within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on the facility structure's outer edge is a safety zone.
( b ) *Regulation.* No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone except for the following: ( 1 ) An attending vessel, as defined in § 147.20;
( 2 ) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or
( 3 ) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
( c ) *Requests for permission.* Persons or vessels requiring authorization to enter the safety zone must request permission from the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Commander or designated representative.
[USCG-2021-0476, 88 FR 21472, Apr. 11, 2023]
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Neil O . Yelderman , Appellant

No. 06

- 21

- 00039

- CV v.

The State of Texas , Appellees Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 & Probate Court of Brazoria County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. CI60943 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating

. As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We further order that the appellant, Neil O . Yelderman , pay all costs incurred by reason
of this ap peal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 22, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk