alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 30, 1975 

The Honorable Wilson E. Spair 

Director, Texas Department 

of Public Safety 

5805 North Lamar Blvd. 

Austin, Texas 78773 

Opinion No. H- 701 

Re: Effect of a state agency’s 

granting extended sick 

leave to an employee. 

The Honorable Raymond W. Vowel1 

Commissioner. State Department 

of Public Welfare 

John H. Reagan Building 

Dear Colonel Speir and Commissioner Vowell: 

You have requested our opinion concerning the relationship between 

accrued sick leave, exceptional sick leave, and workmen’s compensation 

benefits. Article 8309g, V. T. C. S., which establishes a workmen’s 

compensation program for state employees, provides in section 12 that: 

an employee is not entitled to weekly payments 

of compensation under this Article until he has 

exhausted his accrued sick leave. 

Article V, section 7 of both the 1975 and 1973 Appropriations Acts provides 

that sick leave is accrued at the rate of 8 hours per month. Acts 1973, 

63rd Leg., ch. 659, p. 2200; Senate Bill 52, 64th Leg., Article V, section 

7(b) of both Acts additionally provides: 

. . . 

Exceptions to the amount of sick leave an employee 

may take may be authorized by the administrative 

head or heads of any agency ol the State provided 

such exceptions are authorized on an individual 

basis after a review of the merits of such particular 

case. A statement of any such authorized exceptions or the reasons for them shell be attached to 

the State agency’s duplicate payroll voucher for the 

payroll period affected by such authorized exceptions. 

p. 3035 
The Honorable Wilson E. Speir 

The Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 2 (H-701) 

You have asked of the effect of a grant of exceptional sick leave on an 

employee’s entitlement to workmen’s compensation benefits. We believe 

the words “exceptions to the amount of sick leave an employee may take” 

imply that an employee must take all of his accrued sick leave in order 

to be eligible to receive exceptional sick leave. However, the restriction 

contained in section 12 of article 8309g pertains only to regularly accrued 

sick leave. Once an employee who has sustained a compensible injury 

exhausts his accrued sick leave he becomes eligible to receive workmen’s 

compensation benefits. In our opinion the granting of additional exceptional sick leave would not affect his entitlement to those benefits. See 

- 

Attorney General Opinion H-338 (1974). 

Commissioner Vowel1 also asks if an injured employee who has 

exhausted his accrued sick leave would be eligible to receive worlanen’s 

compensation benefits even though he was receiving pay for compensatory 

time and vacation. There is no statutory requirement that workmen’s 

compensation benefits be offset against payments for compensatory time 

and vacation, and therefore no such offset is permitted. V. T. C. S. , 

arts, 8309g. § 15(a), 6674s. 5 7(a)(l). 8306. $ 3) Attorney General ~Opinion 

H-338 (1974). 

SUMMARY 

Once a state employee exhausts his accrued sick 

leave he becomes eligible for workmen’s compensation 

benefits. 

JOHN L, HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 

Opinion Committee 

p. 3036
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 22.1

                         Subsidiaries of Inforte Corp.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                                                                                   Jurisdiction
------------------                                                                                   ------------
<S>                                                                                                  <C>
Inforte Investments, Inc.                                                                              Delaware
   Inforte Investments I, LP (owned 99.5% by Inforte Investments, Inc. and 0.5% by Inforte
     Corp.)                                                                                            Delaware
       Inforte Investments II, LP (owned 99.5% by Inforte Investments I, LP and 0.5% by Inforte
         Investments, Inc.)                                                                            Delaware
</TABLE>
#### § 784.148 General scope of processing, freezing, and curing activities.

Processing, freezing, and curing embrace a variety of operations that change the form of the “aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life.” They include such operations as filleting, cutting, scaling, salting, smoking, drying, pickling, curing, freezing, extracting oil, manufacturing meal or fertilizer, drying seaweed preparatory to the manufacture of agar, drying and cleaning sponges (*Feming* v. *Hawkeye Pearl Button Co.,* 113 F. 2d 52).
EXHIBIT 32



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 Amended Quarterly Report of Big Sky Energy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB Amendment No 2 for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Selami Ahmet Sehsuvaroglu, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  August 31, 2005

By: /s/ Selami Ahmet Sehsuvaroglu

Name:  Selami Ahmet Sehsuvaroglu

Title:   Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
# FY 2023 Omnibus APT
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 Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         January                                                 1, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Decker 202-245-0330. [Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]

By the Board, William F. Huneke, Director, Office of Economics.

Jeffrey Herzig,

Clearance Clerk.

# Footnotes

1.                                 Ex Parte No. 492,                             *Montana Rail Link, Inc., and Wisconsin Central Ltd., Joint Petition For Rulemaking With Respect To 49 CFR 1201,*                             8 I.C.C. 2d 625 (1992), raised the revenue classification level for Class I railroads from $50 million (1978 dollars) to $250 million (1991 dollars), effective for the reporting year beginning January 1, 1992. The Class II threshold was also raised from $10 million (1978 dollars) to $20 million (1991 dollars).                        
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2011-21276 Filed 8-19-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 00-063] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a NASA Advisory Council, Aero-Space Technology Advisory Committee, Propulsion Systems Subcommittee meeting. 

# DATES:

Tuesday, June 27, 2000, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Wednesday, June 28, 2000, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Building 86, Room 100, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH 44135. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Carol J. Russo, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH 44135, 216/433-2965. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

—Overview 

—Propulsion Systems Base R&T Program Review 

—GPRA Milestones Review 

                    It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the                           ( print page 35964)                        scheduling priorities of the key participants.                 

Dated: May 30, 2000.

Matthew M. Crouch,

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-14038 Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of ArtemisInternational Solutions Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert S. Stefanovich, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Robert S. Stefanovich |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Robert S. Stefanovich     |
|   | Chief Financial Officer   |
|   | March 31, 2006            |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
##### 



SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION
 Director Compensation.
 Annual Retainer
    
    $30,000 (payable in quarterly installments)Additional annual fee for the Audit
Committee Chair, Compensation
Committee Chair, Stock Award
    
    $5,000 (payable in quarterly installments)Committee Chair
 Executive
Officer Compensation.
 Executive Officer
    
    Current SalaryDon E. Marsh, Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
    
    $
    1,000,000William L. Marsh, Interim President
and Chief Operating Officer
    
    $
    305,000Charles Barnard, Jr., President and
Chief Operating Officer, Supermarket Division
    
    $
    250,000Jack J. Bayt, President and Chief Operating
Officer, Crystal Food Services Division
    
    $
    310,000P. Lawrence Butt, Senior Vice President,
Counsel and Secretary
    
    $
    285,000




---



#####
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY 

 

Exhibit 21.1 – Subsidiaries of the Company 

 

Mercury Casualty Company 

Mercury Insurance Company 

Mercury Insurance Company of Illinois 

Mercury Indemnity Company of Illinois 

Mercury Insurance Company of Georgia

Mercury Indemnity Company of Georgia 

Mercury InsuranceCompany of Florida 

Mercury Indemnity Company of America 

California Automobile Insurance Company 

California General Underwriters Insurance Company, Inc. 

Concord Insurance Services, Inc. 

Mercury Insurance Services, LLC 

Mercury County Mutual Insurance Company* 

American Mercury InsuranceCompany 

American Mercury Lloyds Insurance Company* 

AFIManagement Company, Inc. 

American Mercury MGA, Inc. 

MercuryGroup Inc. (Florida MGA) 

 

*Controlled by Mercury General Corporation
§ 151.11 Exceptions for emergencies. ( a ) Sections 151.10 and 151.13 do not apply to— ( 1 ) The discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixture necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea.
( 2 ) The discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixture resulting from damage to a ship or its equipment— ( i ) Provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken after the occurrence of the damage or discovery of the discharge for the purpose of preventing or minimizing the discharge; and
( ii ) Except if the owner or the master acted either with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGD 75-134a, 48 FR 45709, Oct. 6, 1983, as amended by CGD 88-002, 54 FR 18404, Apr. 28, 1989]
#### § 127.401 Maintenance: General.

The operator of the waterfront facility handling LNG must ensure that the equipment required under this part is maintained in a safe condition so that it does not cause a release or ignition of LNG.

[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]
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-4810 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-090-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 3.0 $ 255.00 $ 255.00 55 $14,025.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $14,025

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Replacement 5 $1,700.00 $0 $1,700.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Murphy Exploration & Production Company



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

December 7, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00677

- CV

Helen A. MZYK , Karnes S4 Minerals, L.P., and Karnes S4 Management, L.L.C., Appellant s

v.

MURPHY EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION COMPANY

- USA

, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas Trial Court No. 14

- 04

- 00083

- CVK Honorable Donna S. Rayes , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellants’ unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to our December 2, 2015 show cause order is GRANTED. We order appellants’ response to our show cause order due December 30, 2015

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and a ffixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of December, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### Allen’s Administrator v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company.

(Decided November 9, 1915.)

Appeal from Kenton Circuit Court (Common Law and Equity Division).

Insurance — Insurable Interest. — Where a person makes bimself a contract of insurance and pays the premiums, he may designate as the beneficiary in the policy,-at person- who has no insurable interest in his life.

C. B. SHIMER, GEO. E. PHILLIPS-aMd ‘A, G. HALL for appellant.

BARBOUR & BASSMAN for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Carroll

Affirming.

On January 26, 1912, the appellee insurance company issued to Leon Allen, upon his request and application, a policy of accident insurance in which it agreed to pay “to the insured or his beneficiary, Mrs. Clara Allen, his *606wife, or in the event of her prior death, to the executors, administrators or assigns of the insured,” the principal sum of one thousand dollars in the event the insured came to his death by accidental causes.

This suit was brought by the administrator of Allen to recover the sum of one thousand dollars on the ground that he had come to his death from accidental causes, within the meaning of the policy. The petition further averred that “said Clara Allen designated in said policy of insurance as the wife of said insured and as the beneficiary of said policy, was not and is not the wife of said Leon Allen, and was not related to him by blood or marriage, and was not a creditor of said insured, nor was she the affianced wife of said insured.” It was further averred that all the premiums due on the policy had been paid by Leon Allen in the manner and at the times required by the policy contract, and that the company had not paid to Clara Allen any part of the sum stipulated in the contract.

The lower court sustained a general demurrer to the petition, and the administrator appeals.

The administrator is endeavoring to collect the money due under the contract upon the theory that Clara Allen had no insurable interest in the life of the insured, and as the contract could not be enforced for her benefit the estate of the insured was entitled to the insurance. But if, as averred in the petition, the contract was procured by and all the premiums due on the policy were paid by the insured, he had the right to designate Clara Allen as the beneficiary, and she was entitled, upon his death, to recover the amount due under the policy, although she had no insurable interest in his life. This question has been settled by this court in Hess v. Segenfelter, 127 Ky., 34814 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1172, 128 Am. St. Rep., 343; Rupp v. Western Life Indemnity Co., 138 Ky., 18, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.), 675.

As the beneficiary named in the policy is entitled to' the insurance, it necessarily follows that the administrator cannot recover it for the estate, and therefore the judgment dismissing his suit is affirmed.
**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**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vastera, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, MariaHenry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial position and result of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Maria Henry         |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
| Maria Henry             |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| November 8, 2004        |   |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Vastera, Inc. and will beretained byVastera, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits 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.

#### § 117.749 Salem River.

The draw of the S49 bridge, mile 3.5 at Salem, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
#### § 784.3 Matters discussed in other interpretations.

Interpretations having general application to others subject to the law, as well as to fishermen and seafood canners, processors, or distributors and their employees, have been issued on a number of subjects of general interest. These will be found in other parts of this chapter. Reference should be made to them for guidance on matters which they discuss in detail, which this part does not undertake to do. They include part 776 of this chapter, discussing coverage; part 531 of this chapter, discussing payment of wages; part 778 of this chapter, discussing computation and payment of overtime compensation; part 785 of this chapter, discussing the calculation of hours worked; and part 800 of this chapter, discussing equal pay for equal work. Reference should also be made to subpart G of part 570 of this chapter, which contains the official interpretations of the child labor provisions of the Act.
#### § 118.10 Interference or obstruction prohibited.

No person shall obstruct or interfere with any lights or signals maintained in accordance with the regulations prescribed in this part.