alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 779.324 Recognition “in.”

The express terms of the statutory provision requires the “recognition” to be “in” the industry and not “by” the industry. Thus, the basis for the determination as to what is recognized as retail “in the particular industry” is wider and greater than the views of an employer in a trade or business, or an association of such employers. It is clear from the legislative history and judicial pronouncements that it was not the intent of this provision to delegate to employers in any particular industry the power to exempt themselves from the requirements of the Act. It was emphasized in the debates in Congress that while the views of an industry are significant and material in determining what is recognized as a retail sale in a particular industry, the determination is not dependent on those views alone. (See 95 Cong. Rec. pp. 12501, 12502, and 12510; *Wirtz* v. *Steepleton General Tire Co.,* 383 U.S. 190; *Mitchell* v. *City Ice Co.,* 273 F. 2d 560 (CA-5); *Durkin* v. *Casa Baldrich, Inc.,* 111 F. Supp. 71 (DCPR) affirmed 214 F. 2d 703 (CA-1); see also *Aetna Finance Co.* v. *Mitchell,* 247 F. 2d 190 (CA-1).) Such a determination must take into consideration the well-settled habits of business, traditional understanding and common knowledge. These involve the understanding and knowledge of the purchaser as well as the seller, the wholesaler as well as the retailer, the employee as well as the employer, and private and governmental research and statistical organizations. The understanding of all these and others who have knowledge of recognized classifications in an industry, would all be relevant in the determination of the question.
Submitted on record and briefs December 2,

conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing December 30, 1992

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MONTE DEAN BEATY, *Appellant.*

(91-3312-C1; CA A73150)

842 P2d 817

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Louis R. Miles, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solictor General, and J. Dean Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*526PER CURIAM

Defendant challenges the sentence imposed after his conviction for manufacture of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(1). The trial court ordered that no credit for time served in jail be applied. The state concedes that the trial court erred. *State v. Jones,*113 Or App 228, 229, 832 P2d 459 (1992).

We accept the concession that the case should be remanded for resentencing. However, the record does not show definitively that defendant’s pre-trial incarceration was for the manufacturing crime. On remand, the sentencing court should make that determination and resentence defendant accordingly. *State v. Barber,*113 Or App 603, 605, 832 P2d 51 (1992).

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
#### § 4907.151 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the agency shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 101-19.600 to 101-19.607, apply to buildings covered by this section.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.711 Cohansey River.

The draw of the Broad Street bridge, mile 18.2 at Bridgeton, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
EXHIBIT
32.2





Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Rahul
Sen Gupta, Chief Financial Officer of Manas Petroleum Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)           the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)           the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  June
17, 2008





/S/Rahul
Sen Gupta


_______________________________


Rahul Sen
Gupta


Chief
Financial Officer
### Last Name First Name Compan y Ahlgrim Kevin Cameron Process Systems A rmstrong Roge r Twin Stars Ltd Bertoglio Gina ConocoPhillips Blackman Jerome U.S. EPA

Castillo Karena JAN Environmental Protection Office

Crabtree Greg Envirotech, Inc. Cusic k Matt Exterran D av i s Ryan M err i on Oil & G as C orporati on DeGrado Daniel Vinson Process Controls Dickerson Jimmy Energy Pilot Project, Carson National Forest and Farmington Field Office, BLM Fernald Don Enterprise Fernande z Roge r U.S. EPA Folk Steve Red Willow Production Frost Gwen ConocoPhillips Gailey Brian Pure Automation Incorporated Gantner Bruce ConocoPhillips Geroy Ivan U.S. Forest Service Gregoire John ConocoPhillips Gurvitz Kelsi ConocoPhillips Hasel y Ed Energen Resource s Haue r Kate Chevron Henning Mike DCP Midstream Henry Sam Henry Production, Inc Higgins Garrett CECO Hinkley Ethan Red Cedar Gathering Hoadley Jeanne Bureau of Land Management Horsey Darlene Bureau of Land Management Johnson Monica ConocoPhillips Johnson Ernie Newfield Jona s A lena ConocoPhillips Jones Mark NMED Air Quality Bureau Jordan Dougla s Southwestern Energ y Jordan Robert Devon Energy Kerr Kyle Envirotech, Inc. Lyon Pat Process Solution s Maesta s Manuel Energen Marley Chris ConocoPhillips Matar Rick Williams E&P McEnen y Matt SureFire

McNally Beth Animas Environmental Services Merilat Carl Merrion Oil & Gas Miller J.J. U.S. Forest Service

Musick Brad New Mexico Air Quality Bureau Neukom Cod y Heath Consultant s Palmer Gregory Ruby Canyon Engineerin g Palmer Kelly US Forest Service Parce Doug Williams Payne Gary Dugan Production Peace Jeff BP Perry Mickey Cameron Reidinge r John U.S. Forest Service Robinson Don ICF International Roe John Dugan Production Cor p

Rymerson Richard Bureau of Land Management San Miguel George Mesa Verde National Par k Schneide r Mike NMED Schultz Brian Devon Energy Sechler Doug ICF International Stovall Jeff Williams Sykes J.R. SureFire Thompson Philana Merrion Oil & Gas Tullos Evan Portnoy Environmental Valdez Miguel U.S. Forest Service Vigil Fred JAECO Wagster Cliff Pure Automation, Inc Wheeldon Sean Process Solution s Willcox David MPI Warehouse Williams Curt Compressco James 

# EPA Natural Gas STAR Technology Transfer Workshop - Farmington, New Mexico May 11, 2010
- 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 > Federal Reserve System

# 	Federal Reserve System : Purposes and Functions Series

Search

AUTHOR:          -  	Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- 

        -  All Titles 

More Information
less

DATE:															1939-2016	
SUBJECTS:- Federal Reserve System
- Federal Reserve banks
- Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935-
THEME:- Federal Reserve System
RELATED ITEM:- 	Current edition, with companion videos
** Metadata (XML)			** Metadata (JSON)			Save & Shareless**
																	Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935-. 						*Federal Reserve System : Purposes and Functions Series*,										1939-2016,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4526,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						
****Close- **FRASER**
- About
- FAQ
- Legal and Privacy
- FRASER API
**                        Subscribe to the FRASER Newsletter:                    Subscribe-                              @FedFRASER 
- ** Contact Us
-  **  What's New  
-  **  Inside FRASER  
assets/dist/jquery/dist/jquery.min.js?1725460885 type="text/javascript">assets/js/dist/bookmarks.min.js?1725460885 type="text/javascript">assets/js/dist/autoComplete.min.js?1725460885 type="text/javascript">assets/js/dist/autoComplete.config.min.js?1725460885 type="text/javascript">assets/dist/bootstrap/dist/js/bootstrap.bundle.min.js?1725460885 type="text/javascript">assets/js/common.min.js?1725460885 type="text/javascript">assets/dist/jquery.scrollto/jquery.scrollTo.min.js?1725460885 type="text/javascript">assets/js/react-components/vendor.js?1725460885 type="text/javascript">assets/js/react-components/series-components.js?1725460885 type="text/javascript">
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.921 Broad River. ( a ) The draw of the S170 bridge, mile 14.0 near Beaufort, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
( b ) The draw of the Seaboard System Railroad bridge, mile 17.0 near Whale Branch, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6397

KENNETH WAYNE INSCORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-96-522-5) Submitted: March 31, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Wayne Inscore, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Kenneth Wayne Inscore appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) complaint. Inscore’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Inscore that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Inscore failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Inscore has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Inscore’s motions to expedite this appeal are denied as moot. We deny Inscore’s motion for the appointment of counsel and 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
§ 105.285 Additional requirements-passenger and ferry facilities. ( a ) At all MARSEC Levels, the owner or operator of a passenger or ferry facility must ensure, in coordination with a vessel moored at the facility, that the following security measures are implemented in addition to the requirements of this part: ( 1 ) Establish separate areas to segregate unchecked persons and personal effects from checked persons and personal effects;
( 2 ) Ensure that a defined percentage of vehicles to be loaded aboard are screened prior to loading, in accordance with a MARSEC Directive or other orders issued by the Coast Guard;
( 3 ) Ensure that all unaccompanied vehicles to be loaded on passenger vessels are screened prior to loading;
( 4 ) Deny passenger access to secure and restricted areas unless escorted by authorized facility security personnel; and
( 5 ) In a facility with a public access area designated under § 105.106, provide sufficient security personnel to monitor all persons within the area.
( b ) At MARSEC Level 2, in addition to the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator of a passenger or ferry facility with a public access area designated under § 105.106 must increase the intensity of monitoring of the public access area.
( c ) At MARSEC Level 3, in addition to the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator of a passenger or ferry facility with a public access area designated under § 105.106 must increase the intensity of monitoring and assign additional security personnel to monitor the public access area.
[USCG-2003-14732, 68 FR 39322, July 1, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 60542, Oct. 22, 2003; USCG-2006-24196, 72 FR 3584, Jan. 25, 2007]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Charles R. Mollo, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mobility Electronics,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


/s/ CHARLES R. MOLLO
-----------------------
Charles R. Mollo
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2003
Argued and submitted November 18, 1992,

reversed February 17,

reconsideration denied April 14,

petition for review denied May 25, 1993 (316 Or 529)

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Harlie B. Gilliam, Claimant. VIKING INDUSTRIES and Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation, *Petitioners, v.*Harlie B. GILLIAM, *Respondent.*

(90-11937; CA A73511)

846 P2d 1207

Joanne Williams Mills, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the brief were David Jay Lefkowitz and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland.

Merrill Schneider, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

*184Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson,* Judges.

ROSSMAN, P. J.

*

 Leeson, J., *vice*Buttler, J., retired.

*185ROSSMAN, P. J.

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board holding that it wrongfully refused to pay claimant benefits for temporary total disability.

Claimant had a compensable left wrist injury. He lost no time from work until he sought medical treatment from Dr. McCaffey on August 14, 1989. McCaffey released claimant to modified work that same day, and claimant returned to modified work for employer on August 15. Claimant had been at work for a short time when he was asked by employer to submit to a drug test. Employer informed claimant that his failure to take the test would be treated as a ‘ ‘voluntary quit. ’ ’ Claimant did not take the test.

The Board found that claimant had returned to modified work and that he quit by refusing to take the drug test.1 Those findings are supported by substantial evidence. The Board held that employer wrongfully failed to begin payment of benefits for temporary total disability, because it had not given him a written offer of employment, as required by ORS 656.268(3)(c). The parties agree that subsection (3) is applicable. That subsection provides:

> “Temporary total disability benefits shall continue until whichever of the following events occurs first:

> “ (a) The worker returns to regular or modified employment;

> “(b) The attending physician gives the worker a written release to return to regular employment; or

> “(c) The attending physician gives the worker a written release to return to modified employment, such employment is offered in writing to the worker and the worker fails to begin such employment.”

The three paragraphs are stated in the disjunctive. Any one of them provides an adequate basis for terminating benefits. Claimant returned to modified work; accordingly, employer was entitled to terminate benefits for temporary disability under ORS 656.268(3)(a), and was not required to make a written offer of employment.

Reversed.

1

 We are not called upon to review the Board’s legal determination that, by refusing to take the drug test, claimant voluntarily quit.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-20-00372-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 342nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 342-317551-20

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

SLF IV-EULESS RIVERWALK JV, L.P. AND CITY OF EULESS, TEXAS,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee

V.

CITY OF EULESS, TEXAS, AND ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE 

CITY OF EULESS, Appellees/Cross Appellant
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered the parties “Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeals.” We grant 

the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Each party must bear its own costs of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: January 14, 2021
#### § 825.604 Special rules for school employees, restoration to an equivalent position.

The determination of how an employee is to be restored to an equivalent position upon return from FMLA leave will be made on the basis of “established school board policies and practices, private school policies and practices, and collective bargaining agreements.” The “established policies” and collective bargaining agreements used as a basis for restoration must be in writing, must be made known to the employee prior to the taking of FMLA leave, and must clearly explain the employee's restoration rights upon return from leave. Any established policy which is used as the basis for restoration of an employee to an equivalent position must provide substantially the same protections as provided in the Act for reinstated employees. *See* § 825.215. In other words, the policy or collective bargaining agreement must provide for restoration to an equivalent position with equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment. For example, an employee may not be restored to a position requiring additional licensure or certification.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pick-Ups Plus, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.


Date:  May 22, 2006                           By:      _______________________
                                              Name:    Merritt Jesson
                                              Title:   Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Pick-Ups Plus, Inc. and
will be retained by Pick-Ups Plus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       19