alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 794.6 Reliance on interpretations.

As previously stated, the interpretations of the law contained in this part are official interpretations. So long as they remain effective and are not modified, amended, rescinded or determined by judicial authority to be incorrect, they may be relied upon as provided in section 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (63 Stat. 910, 29 U.S.C. 251 *et seq.,* discussed in part 790 of this chapter). In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that such interpretations of this Act “provide a practical guide to employers and employees as to how the office representing the public interest in its enforcement will seek to apply it” and “constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.” Further, as stated by the Court: “Good administration of the Act and good judicial administration alike require that the standards of public enforcement and those for determining private rights shall be at variance only where justified by very good reasons.” (*Skidmore* v. *Swift,* 323 U.S. 134).
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 107 (Friday, June 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35318-35319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13800]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area (SRA) Advisory Council

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA Forest Service .

ACTION: Action of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The first Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council 
meeting will convene in Salem, Oregon on Saturday, June 24, 2000. The 
meeting is scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m., and will conclude at 
approximately 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Anderson Room A 
at the Salem Public Library; 585 Liberty St. SE; Salem, Oregon; (503) 
588-6071.
    The Opal Creek Wilderness and Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Act 
of 1996 (Opal Creek Act) (P.L. 104-208) directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish the Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory 
Council. The

[[Page 35319]]

Advisory Council is comprised of thirteen members representing state, 
county and city governments, and representatives of various 
organizations, which include mining industry, environmental 
organizations, inholders in Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area, economic 
development, Indian tribes, adjacent landowners and recreation 
interests. The council provides advice to the Secretary of Agriculture 
on preparation of a comprehensive Opal Creek Management Plan for the 
SRA, and consults on a periodic and regular basis on the management of 
the area. The tentative agenda includes:

    (1) Forest Supervisor's opening comments, and introduction of 
Council Members and Forest Service Staff, (2) determine future 
meeting location and times, (3) overview of Advisory Council Charter 
and determine terms of appointment; (4) overview of the Opal Creek 
Act, (5) overview of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA); (6) 
overview of the roles of the Advisory Council, Designated Forest 
Official, and chairperson, (7) overview of the planning and decision 
making process, and critical benchmarks, and (8) identify 
preliminary issues within the Scenic Recreation Area

    The Public Forum is tentatively scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. 
Time allotted for individual presentations will be limited to 3-4 
minutes. Written comments are encouraged, particularly if the material 
cannot be presented within the time limits for the Public Forum. 
Written comments may be submitted prior to the June meeting by sending 
them to Designated Federal Official Stephanie Phillips at the address 
given below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information regarding this 
meeting, contact Designated Federal Official Stephanie Phillips; 
Willamette National Forest, Detroit Ranger District, HC 73 Box 320, 
Mill City, OR 97360; (503) 854-3366.

    Dated: May 26, 2000.
Darrel Kenops,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 00-13800 Filed 6-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### § 785.21 Less than 24-hour duty.

An employee who is required to be on duty for less than 24 hours is working even though he is permitted to sleep or engage in other personal activities when not busy. A telephone operator, for example, who is required to be on duty for specified hours is working even though she is permitted to sleep when not busy answering calls. It makes no difference that she is furnished facilities for sleeping. Her time is given to her employer. She is required to be on duty and the time is worktime. (*Central Mo. Telephone Co.* v. *Conwell,* 170 F. 2d 641 (C.A. 8, 1948); *Strand* v. *Garden Valley Telephone Co.,* 51 F. Supp. 898 (D. Minn. 1943); *Whitsitt* v. *Enid Ice & Fuel Co.,* 2 W. H. Cases 584; 6 Labor Cases para. 61,226 (W.D. Okla. 1942).)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       7,956,125
<SECURITIES>                                78,897,917
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,285,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                   750,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           102,932,214
<PP&E>                                      10,222,443
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,369,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             112,364,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,206,616
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    82,327,687
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,830,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               112,364,472
<SALES>                                     40,916,335
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,916,335
<CGS>                                        4,557,820
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,557,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            31,164,120
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,273,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,429,708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,814,935
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,814,935
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21


</TABLE>
[658 NE2d 210, 634 NYS2d 433]

#### In the Matter of Kinley W. Bowers, Jr.

Decided September 21, 1995

OPINION OF THE COURT

On the Court’s own motion, it is determined that Honorable Kinley W. Bowers, Jr. is removed, effective September 15, 1995, from his office of Justice of the Philadelphia Town Court and Justice of the Philadelphia Village Court, Jefferson County, pursuant to New York Constitution, article VI, § 22 (f) and Judiciary Law § 44 (8) (b).

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith and Levine. Taking no part: Judge CiparICK.
§ 137.30 Objectives and performance factors. ( a ) *Objectives.* This part is intended to result in the identification of conditions indicative of the presence or likely presence of oil at the facility and the real property on which the facility is located. In order to meet the objectives of this regulation, persons specified in § 137.1(a) and the environmental professional must seek to identify, through the conduct of the standards and practices in this subpart, the following types of information about the facility and the real property on which the facility is located: ( 1 ) Current and past uses and occupancies of the facility and the real property on which the facility is located.
( 2 ) Current and past uses of oil.
( 3 ) Waste management and disposal activities that indicate presence or likely presence of oil.
( 4 ) Current and past corrective actions and response activities that indicate presence or likely presence of oil.
( 5 ) Engineering controls.
( 6 ) Institutional controls, such as zoning restrictions, building permits, and easements.
( 7 ) Properties adjoining or located nearby the facility and the real property on which the facility is located that have environmental conditions that could have resulted in conditions indicative of the presence or likely presence of oil at the facility and the real property on which the facility is located.
( b ) *Performance factors.* In order to meet this part and to meet the objectives stated in paragraph (a) of this section, the persons specified in § 137.1(a) or the environmental professional (as appropriate to the particular standard and practice) must— ( 1 ) Gather the information that is required for each standard and practice listed in this subpart that is publicly available, is obtainable from its source within a reasonable time and cost, and can be reviewed practicably; and
( 2 ) Review and evaluate the thoroughness and reliability of the information gathered in complying with each standard and practice listed in this subpart taking into account information gathered in the course of complying with the other standards and practices of this part.
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Mr. Dino C. Scaletti, Decommissioning Section, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Mr. Scaletti can be contacted at the aforementioned telephone number. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of May 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Dino C. Scaletti,

Senior Project Manager, Decommissioning Section, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 00-13516 Filed 5-30-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 26, 2010

y0222 

# Order

February 26, 2010

139867

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139867 COA: 285639 Macomb CC: 2 007-004542-FC TODD ALLEN HARDIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 29, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**EXHIBIT
      32**




**CERTIFICATION** **OF
        CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Sona Development Corp.
      (“Registrant”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Nora
      Coccaro, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, do hereby certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
              This
                  Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                  of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
              The
                  information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition of Registrant at the end of the
                  period
                  covered by this Report and results of operations of Registrant
                  for the
                  period covered by this Report.







/s/
      Nora Coccaro




Nora
      Coccaro




Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




April
      2,
      2007




This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated
      by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
      or
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after
      the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language
      contained in such filing.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the
      Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.1107 Wolf River.

The draw of the Canadian National Railroad Bridge, mile 27.8 at Gill's Landing, shall open on signal if at least 6-hours advance notice is provided from April 20 through October 15, and if at least 12-hours advance notice is provided from October 16 through April 19.

[USCG-2013-0252, 78 FR 53668, Aug. 30, 2013, as amended by USCG-2019-0823, 84 FR 65300, Nov. 27, 2019]
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #12734 and #12735]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Iowa Dated. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flash Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         07/27/2011 through 07/28/2011.
                        ( print page 52043) *Effective date:* *Physical loan application deadline date:* *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Dubuque. *Contiguous counties:* Iowa: Clayton, Delaware, Jackson, Jones. Illinois: Jo Daviess. Wisconsin: Grant. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere:
5.000Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
2.500Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere:
6.000Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
4.000Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere:
3.250Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
3.000*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
4.000Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12734B and for economic injury is 127350. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) August 12, 2011. Karen G. Mills, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2011-21170 Filed 8-18-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
§ 127.405 Repairs. The operator must ensure that— ( a ) Equipment repairs are made so that— ( 1 ) The equipment continues to meet the applicable requirements in this subpart and in NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003); and
( 2 ) Safety is not compromised; and
( b ) Welding is done in accordance with NFPA 51B and Section 10.4.3 of NFPA 59A (both incorporated by reference, see § 127.003).
[CGD 78-038, 53 FR 3376, Feb. 7, 1988, as amended by CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39796, Aug. 3, 1995; USCG-2019-0444, 87 FR 5691, Feb. 2, 2022]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7814

MITCHELL LEE SUMPTER, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus STUCKEY, Major; A. MCCORMICK, Captain; L. T. JACKSON; S. NOLAN, Lieutenant; MCCLAIN, Sergeant; W. B. PRATT, Captain; MCLEOD, C/O, Officer; DAVID, C/O, Officer; COVINGTON, C/O, Officer; SUGGS, C/O, Officer; OCEAN, C/O, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and ROBERT E. WARD, Warden; PHILLIP E. MCLEOD, Associate Warden, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1838-2-17) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 21, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Mitchell Lee Sumpter, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Thomas King, WILLCOX, MCLEOD, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Mitchell Sumpter, a South Carolina inmate, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), alleging that various South Carolina prison officials violated his rights under the Eight Amendment. Following a non-jury trial the district court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. This appeal followed.We reject Sumpter’s claim that he was denied a fair trial because safety precautions mandated that he wear restraints throughout his trial. Although Sumpter may have suffered some discomfort from wearing the restraints, the absence of a jury minimized any potential prejudice. See Lemons v. Skidmore , 985 F.2d 354, 357 (7th Cir. 1993). We find that the district court properly dismissed Sumpter’s claims for which he failed to present evidence that he suffered more than de minimis injuries. See Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259, 1263 (4th Cir. 1994). Sumpter next challenges the district court’s finding that he failed to demonstrate that the Defendants used excessive force against him. We review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Having reviewed the record, wefind no error in the district court’s determination that the Defendants did not use excessive force against Sumpter in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The record also supports the district court’s finding that the Defendants did not act improperly in erasing a videotape of the incidents giving rise to this case.4 Finding no merit to Sumpter’s claims, we affirm the district court’s final order entered in favor of the Defendants. We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 7, 2010 

s0331 

Order 

 

April 7, 2010 

139817 

ARTINA TINSLEY HARDMAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139817 

 COA: 284252 

Wayne CC: 07-711915-NI 

CITY OF DETROIT, DETROIT POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, POLICE OFFICER 

ADRIEN CANNON, and POLICE 

OFFICER URSULA MILLER, 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

POLICE OFFICER CHARO TURNER 

and GEORGE WRIGHT, 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 3, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 KELLY, C.J., and HATHAWAY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
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 Annual Report of Westgate Acquisitions Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Geoff Williams, Chief Executive Officer Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








/s/   Geoff Williams





Geoff Williams


Chief Executive Officer


Principal Accounting Officer


March 14, 2011











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.