alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 779.357 May qualify as exempt 13(a)(2) establishments; classification of coal sales. ( a ) *General.* A coal dealer's establishment may qualify as an exempt retail or service establishment under section 13(a)(2) of the Act if it meets all the requirements of that exemption. In determining for purposes of the 13(a)(2) exemption, whether 75 percent of the establishment's sales are recognized as retail in the particular industry, sales of coal to the consumer from a dealer's yard storage, where bulk is broken, are recognized as retail if they meet the requirements for such classification as previously explained in this subpart. It has been determined that the following sales do not meet such requirements and are not so recognized even if made from a dealer's yard storage: ( 1 ) Sales where the delivery is made by railroad car or cargo vessel.
( 2 ) Sales in a carload quantity or more for continuous delivery by truck from a dock, mine or public railroad facility.
( 3 ) *Sales of coal at a wholesale price.* A wholesale price is a price comparable to or lower than the establishment's price in sales described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section or in sales to dealers (but not peddlers) for resale. If the establishment makes no such sales, the wholesale price is the price comparable to or lower than the price prevailing in the immediate area in sales described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section or in sales to dealers (but not peddlers) for resale.
( 4 ) Sales of coal for use in the production of a specific product to be sold in which coal is an essential ingredient or the principal raw material, such as sales of coal for the production of coke, coal gas, coal tar, or electricity.
( b ) *“Sales for resale.”* In determining for purposes of the 13(a)(2) exemption, whether 75 percent of the establishment's sales are not made for resale, “sales for resale” will include sales of coal to other dealers, to peddlers, and sales of coal for use in the production of a specific product to be sold, in which coal is an essential ingredient or the principal raw material, such as sales of coal for the production of coke, coal gas, coal tar, or electricity. This is distinguished from sales of coal for use in the general manufacturing or industrial process such as the use in laundries, bakeries, nurseries, canneries, etc., or for space heating, which are not sales made for resale.
#### § 780.700 Scope and significance of interpretative bulletin.

Subpart A of this part 780 and this subpart together constitute the official interpretative bulletin of the Department of Labor with respect to the meaning and application of section 13(b)(14) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. This section provides an exemption from the overtime pay provisions of the Act for employees employed by certain country elevators “within the area of production,” as defined by the Secretary of Labor in part 536 of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.253 Anacostia River. ( a ) The draw of the Frederick Douglass Memorial (South Capitol Street) bridge, mile 1.2, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
( b ) The CSX Railroad Bridge, mile 3.4. ( 1 ) The draw of the bridge to be operated by the controller at the Benning Yard office shall open on signal: ( i ) At all times for public vessels of the United States, state and local government vessels, commercial vessels and any vessels in an emergency involving danger to life or property.
( ii ) Between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. and between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. from May 15 through September 30.
( iii ) Between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. from May 15 through September 30 if notice is given to the controller at the Benning Yard office not later than 6 p.m. on the day for which the opening is requested.
( iv ) At all other times, if at least 48 hours of notice is given to the controller at the Benning Yard Office.
( 2 ) The CSX Railroad Bridge shall not be operated by the controller at the Benning Yard office in the event of failure or obstruction of the motion sensors, laser scanners, video cameras or marine-radio communications, In these situations, a bridge tender must be called to operate the bridge on-site.
( 3 ) Except as provided in § 117.31(b), opening of the draw shall not exceed ten minutes after clearance of rail traffic.
( 4 ) A horn will sound one prolonged blast followed by one short blast to indicate that the CSX Railroad Bridge is moving to the full open position for vessel traffic. During open span movement, the channel traffic lights will flash red until the bridge is in the full open position to vessels. In the full open position to vessels, the bridge channel traffic lights will flash green.
( 5 ) A horn will sound five short blasts, the channel traffic lights will flash red, and an audio voice-warning device will announce bridge movement during closing span movement. Five short blasts of the horn will continue until the bridge is seated in and locked down. When the bridge is seated and in locked down position to vessels, the channel traffic lights will continue to flash red.
( 6 ) The owners 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 stages of the tide. The gauges shall be placed on the bridge so that they are plainly visible to the operator of any vessel approaching the bridge from either upstream or downstream.
[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984; 49 FR 37381, Sept. 24, 1984, as amended by CGD5-88-004, 53 FR 9627, Mar. 23, 1988; CGD05-95-081, 61 FR 57586, Nov. 7, 1996; CGD05-04-028, 69 FR 47773, Aug. 6, 2004; USCG-2011-0591, 77 FR 14970, Mar. 14, 2012; USCG 2018-0473, 83 FR 54248, Oct. 29, 2018]
#### MARIA COLON *v.*CHRISTOPHER MANNER

(AC 18616)

Lavery, Mihalakos and Daly, Js.

Argued December 16, 1999

officially released January 4, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.1099 St. Croix River.

See § 117.667, St. Croix River, listed under Minnesota.

[CGD 92-015, 57 FR 37880, Aug. 21, 1992]
#### Jeffries *vs*Evans, &c.

Error to tiie Barren Circuit.

Chancery.

*Case*27.

The case stated.

Off-sets in chancery do not de. pend upon our statute of set-off. but are allowed upon the general principles of equity.

One member of a film will be allowed to off-set in equity his own judgment against an insolvent debtor, who seeks to coerce a judgment against such firm.

*Offset in Equity.*

*Oct.*8.

Judge Breck

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Jeffries exhibited his bill, and obtained an injunction, restraining the collection of a judgment obtained against him, H. S. Myers and J. W. Evans, by Alexander Evans, before a Justice of the Peace, for $21 84, and costs. Pie alledges that this judgment had been assigned by the plaintiff, to one Hanson Musgrove; that prior to its rendition, he had obtained two judgments against Alexander Evans, one for about $15, and the other for about $11, upon both of which executions had been returned *no property found;*that Evans was insolvent, and he prays that his judgments against him may be set off against the judgment recovered by said Evans. Pie makes said Evans, Musgrove, Myers and J. W. Evans, defendants.

Musgrove alone answers, claims the judgment in favor of Alexander Evans, by assignment, and resists the relief sought by the complainant.

The Circuit Judge dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the complainant’s bill, with damages and costs, and he has brought the case to this Court for revision.

We are of opinion the decree is erroneous, and must be reversed.

The relief sought by the complainant, does not depend upon our statute authorizing *set-offs.*That statute is applicable only to suits at law. The right to an offset in Chancery, exists independent of the statute, and is controlled only by the general principles of equity.

In this case the complainant was responsible for the judgment in favor of Evans, and to be relieved against such responsibility, he had a right, as Evans was insolvent, to set up his claims upon him in a Court of Equity. It is true the judgment was against him and others; but that fact did not affect his liability, and from any thing that appears in this record, he was equally entitled to re*120lief as if the judgment had been against him alone, Musgrove, by the assignment of Evans’judgment, obtained merely an equity, which was junior and subordinate to the elder equity of the complainant, which existed at the rendition of Evans’ judgment, and of course prior to the assignment.

Where there are mutual judg’mts between parlies, the assignee of one of them takes only a subordinate equity.

*liarían Craddock hr*plaintiff:' *B. &f A. Monroe*for defendants.

Whether the complainant could or not have relied upon the off-set at law, it is not necessary to decide, as even in that case, according to the principle recognized in *Merrill*vs *Fowler,*(6 *Dana,*305,) the Chancellor would nevertheless have had jurisdiction.

The decree is reversed, arid the cause .remanded, with directions to perpetuate the complainant’s injunction.
#### STREZOFF v GEORGEOFF

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1800.

Decided May 16, 1930

Bernard J. Amer, Akron, for Strezoff.

Kryder, Rogers & Bailey, Akron, for Georgeoff.

PER CURIAM

We are of the opinion that the court erred in not granting said motion,, because the petition did not set forth facts which justified the issuance of an injunction, and the petition was not sworn to positively. We recognize that a judgment debtor may sometimes obtain equitable relief against the enforcement of a judgment against him where he holds a claim or cross-demand against his judgment creditor, even though his claim has not been reduced to a judgment; but in such case some reason must be alleged why his legal remedy on such claim is inadequate — such as that the judgment creditor is insolvent; but merely alleging some irregularity in obtaining the judgment, where there is no claim of fraud on the part of the party obtaining the judgment, is not sufficient— there being an adequate remedy for the correction of such irregularities by proceedings in the case where they occurred; but in this case no facts showing an irregularity are plead.

The judgment for $500 was entered at one term of court and the motion to set aside the same was filed during said term but was disposed of in the succeeding term. The adjudication on that motion precluded any further attack upon the judgment. The remedy of Georgeoff was to attack the ruling on said motion by a motion filed in the case. If successful and the motion to set aside the ruling on the motion to set aside *413the judgment was granted, then the motion to set aside the judgment could be passed upon again. ,and the parties could save their rights. But no fraud being claimed, neither said judgment nor the ruling on the motion to set it aside could be set aside in an action in equity.

If the action be considered merely as one to enjoin the collection of the $500 judgment until the claims of Strezoff against Georgeoff are litigated, then the petition is not sufficient, because no facts are alleged showing that the legal remedy of Strezoff was inadequate.

Funk, PJ., Pardee, J., and Washburn, J., concur.
#### OXFORD KNITTING MILLS *v.*SUTTON, next friend.

Where a judgment has been obtained in a suit by a minor, prosecuted by a prochein ami, and execution issued thereon, it is not a valid ground of illegality to the enforcement of the execution by the levying officer that the prochein ami has not given the bond required under the Civil Code, §5681.

Submitted July 18,

Decided December 15, 1906.

*163Certiorari. Before Judge Reagan. Pike superior court. October 4, 1905.

*W. W. Lamb din,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. M. Smith*and *A. A. Murphey,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

Under the provisions of the Civil Code, § 5681, a prochein ami, who has prosecuted a personal action in the name and behalf of a minor, will not be allowed to receive the proceeds of the suit until he has executed the bond therein provided for. This, however, does not prevent a lawfully authorized levying officer from proceeding with the collection'of the execution issued upon such judgment. Payment to the lawfully authorized officer will he protection for the defendant, and it is the officer who will be interested in seeing that the prochein ami gives the bond. The bond is never required until the time comes for the prochein ami “to receive the proceeds,” and that condition does not exist while the enforcement of the execution continues to remain in the coercive state. It follows that it is not an available ground of illegality to the enforcement of snch execution that the prochein ami has not given the bond before mentioned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Stephen P. Xobsrt 

Ceunty' Attorney, DoWitt Oouaty 

Ouero , Taram 

Dear Sir: 

Oplnian x0. o-s%% 

Itor Is a rhorlff 

Axtaole 951, CM. .of' 

a8 r0u0w8: 

ura 0r eras, reabs 

~brabpt a juatlom 

aots moaoy rer the 

against tha d0r08dmt 

?cre, of five 

aa several are h&d 

dollqs, the same to be 

paU.ovsr in tha auw maaner am in the 

tee, and in thr Jwtloe Oourt We, 

1 be the mu or rour dollar8.* 

Artlole 940, Cob ef Criminal Proaedure of Terae~, road8 a8 

followsr 

"Yoney oolleotwl by an offloer upon rooogaizanoea, 

ball bonds and othex obllgatioar reaoverad upon ia the 

ammo of the State uadbr any prori6ion of this Oode, and 
Eon. Stephen P. Robert, May 30, 1939, Page 2. 

a13 rh6, rorreitures, judgmeata and 

oolleated under any pro~lsion of thir __. _ rorthwlth bs paid war by the offloers .oolleatlry 

the IWO to the oounty treamrar of the propar 

oauaty, after flrnt deduatiag thersfros the legal 

feee and oonmiaalona for oollroting the ~ame.~ 

On February 4, 1918, tb.lm dqmrtment held In a oonfsrenoo opinion written by Hon. C. 1. Taylor, Aaslatant Attornor 

Goaeral, that the sharlff la emtltlbd to 5$ otmmlas5.on OIL 

trial fee8 uhlah he aotuallp Oollo6t~d. 

Oq Aptil 5, 1952, thlrr :deparlWnt held in a lot&r 

opinion writtenrby Hen. WIlli DrWhu, ias~rtant Attommy 

Qenefal, that the sherlfr WEE mtitlod to a remmission oi 

5$ on all trial rem aotually oolleoted by him. 

You are respeotf'ully advised that in riow of Artiole OS?, 

0.6.~. of Texnu, it 18 the opinion of this dwartaont that a 

sheriff oi soastable wuld be eatttled to hi8 amal 5$ oolleotion fee on the trfal r00 In the jurtloe ookrt, Is he aotmlly 

aoUeoteid the trial rea, ear wall aa on the fin, in said o~urt, 

If he aotually oolleotod the ii?@ In said oowt. 

Trusting that,th%s answora y‘our inqlby, we are 

APPROV-EO: 

Wrald C. Mann (signed) 

AT’fWHEY GESHHAL OF T?3XAS 

(stamped:) Approved 

Oplnlon 06mltt;b 

By R.W.?.‘ Chala¶Mln
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 undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Modtech Holdings, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, (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.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 9, 2005



/s/    DAVID M.
BUCKLEYDavid M. Buckley Chief Executive Officer
CAROL J . HOLAHAN

DIRECTOR STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

STATE HOUSE 107 NORTH MAIN STREET, ROOM 109 , CONCORD, NEW

HAMPSHIRE 03301-4951November 24, 2004 Received from

the Commissioner, Department of Environmental Services the following certified rule(s) filed with the Director of Legislative Services, in accordance with RSA 541-A, the Administrative Procedures Act . Document # #8217 Relative to: Env-A 2700 - Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Number of Pages: 3 Adopted Date: 11-22-04 Filing Date: 11-23-04 

### Effective Date: 11-24-04 Expiration Date: 11-24-12 Notes: 

### In all communications with this office concerning the aboverule(s), please cite the appropriate document number, as indicated above.

Carol J. Holahao j Director Office of Legislative Services 

### CJH/lms

ADMINISTRATION (603) 271-3436 DIRECTOR (603) 271-3432 . TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964 LEGAL STAFF (603) 271-3435 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (603) 271-3680 FAX : (603) 271-6607 RESEARCH (603) 271-3326
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.                  

###### Department of Education

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chuenee Boston, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E118, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 260-7008 or by e-mail:                         *Chuenee.Boston@ed.gov.*

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

## VIII. Other Information

*Accessible Format:*                         Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (                        *e.g.,*                         braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                         in section VII of this notice.                    

*Electronic Access to This Document:*                         You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the                         **Federal Register**                        , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:                         *http://www.ed.gov/​news/​fedregister.*                         To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. You can view this document in text of PDF at the following site, also:                         *http://www.ed.gov/​programs/​alaskanative/​applicant.html.*

# Note:

                             The official version of this document is the document published in the                             **Federal Register**                            . Free Internet access to the official edition of the                             **Federal Register**                             and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at:                             *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/​nara/​index.html.*

Dated: January 26, 2011.

Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana,

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.

[FR Doc. 2011-2075 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
#### Kenley, *et al. vs*Commonwealth, for Henderson.

Error to the Boyle Circuit.

Covenant.

*Case*132.

The ease stated.

The liability of the obligor in the bond required by the statute, on sueing out a ■writ of replevin, is in case of failing to restore the property and pay the damages assessed in the action of replevin, costs, &c. not extra costs of attorney’s fees, &c.

*Bonds. Replevin. Damages.*

*July*3.

Chief Justice Ewing

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action brought by the Commonwealth for the use of Henderson, against Hiram Kenley and his sureties, on a bond executed by them in an action of replevin prosecuted by Kenley against Henderson, for two slaves, under the statute of 1842, (3 *Stat. Laws,*503,) in which action Kenley was nonsuited, and judgment rendéred for the return of the slaves and costs only; but no inquiry had or damages assessed for the injury sustained by reason of the action.

The Circuit Court instructed the jury, that the defendants were liable on said bond for reasonable hire of the slaves whilst retained by the plaintiffs in replevin, and also for a reasonable amount paid by the defendant to his attorneys, in the defence of said action; whereupon they found a verdict for the sanie, together with the costs, &c. and the defendants have appealed to this Court.

The condition of the bond sued on is precisely the condition prescribed by the 4th section of the statute referred to, which is “to prosecute the suit with effect, and without delay, and to return the property in case it shall be so awarded, and to pay all *such damages*as may be *assessed*against the plaintiff, and the costs of the suit, and keep harmlessihe officer,” &c.

The 9th section of the act provides the mode by which the damages sustained by a defendant in replevin may be *assessed,*and judgment rendered therefor, bpon the termination of the action unfavorably to the plaintiff. And to secure the damages thus *asséssed,*and no other, the condition of the bond was intended to provide. If no damages were *assessed*in the action, none can be recovered on the bond, as the condition provides for paying *584the damages *assessed,*and not damages that-were not assessed. No right of action accrues upon the bond until damages have been assessed. The default lies in failing to pay the damages *assessed.*If none vvere assessed, there can have been no breach of the condition of the bond in failing to pay, ■ which would authorize a suit on-the bond.

■ *Kincaid*for plaintiffs.: *Harlan fy Craddock for*defendant.

So much of.the instruction of the Circuit Court, *therei*fore, as authorized an inquiry into, and assessment of damages for hire of the slaves, and compensation -to attorneys for the defence,' which were not assessed on the trial 'of the replevin, was erroneous. The judgment of the Circuit Court is. therefore, -reversed, and cause remanded, that a new trial may be granted without the payment of costs