alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20493]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Reissuance

    Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
U.S.C. chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to 
the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          License No.                Name/address         Date reissued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
003704F.......................  American One Freight    June 23, 2011.
                                 Forwarders Inc., 3515
                                 NW. 114th Avenue,
                                 Doral, FL 33178.
017807N.......................  Spartan Shipping,       June 23, 2011.
                                 Inc., 9990 NW. 14th
                                 Street, Unit 104,
                                 Miami, FL 33172.
019835N.......................  AM Worldwide, Inc.,     June 3, 2011.
                                 2928 B Greens Road,
                                 Suite 450, Houston,
                                 TX 77032.
022605N.......................  AK Solutions Inc.,      June 2, 2011.
                                 10034 Halston Drive,
                                 Sugarland, TX 77498.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 2011-20493 Filed 8-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-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.                  

###### General Services Administration

          - 41 CFR Part 102-36 
          - [FPMR Amendment H-205] 
          - RIN 3090-AF39 

# AGENCY:

Office of Governmentwide Policy, GSA. 

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects an error contained in a final rule appearing in Part III of the                         **Federal Register**                         of Tuesday, May 16, 2000 (64 FR 31218). The rule revised the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR) by moving coverage on the disposition of excess personal property into the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) and adding a cross-reference to the FPMR to direct readers to the coverage in the FMR.                     

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 30, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha Caswell, Director, Personal Property Management Policy Division (MTP), 202-501-3828. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In rule document 00-11921 beginning on page 31218 in the issue of Tuesday, May 16, 2000, make the following correction: 

§ 102-36.330 

1. On page 31228, in the second column, in § 102-36.330, paragraph (1) is correctly designated as paragraph (a); paragraph (2) is correctly designated as paragraph (b); paragraph (3) is correctly designated as paragraph (c). 

Dated: May 26, 2000. 

Sharon A. Kiser, 

Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Policy. 

[FR Doc. 00-13669 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820-24-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of A.F. aka A.N.F. v. Department of Family and 

Protective Services

Appellate case number: 01-20-00722-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-05250J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris County

This case is a priority, accelerated appeal of a decree terminating the appellant’s parental 

rights to his child, A.F. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a), reprinted in TEX. GOV’T CODE, tit. 2, 

subtit. F—Appendix (appeal from suit terminating the parent-child relationship filed by 

governmental agency must be disposed by court of appeals within 180 days of the filing of notice 

of appeal). The notice of appeal was prematurely filed in this case on October 15, 2020, before 

the trial court signed the final judgment on December 4, 2020. Under Rule 6.2(a), the deadline 

for this Court’s disposition of this appeal is June 2, 2021.

Appellant is indigent, and he is represented by appointed counsel, Angela Ellis. See TEX.

FAM. CODE § 107.013(a)(1) (statutory right of indigent parent to appointed counsel in suit filed 

by governmental entity seeking termination of the parent-child relationship); id. § 107.016(2) 

(indigent parent’s right to counsel continues through exhaustion of appeals). 

On March 16, 2021, we abated this appeal and ordered the trial court to hold a hearing 

regarding Ms. Ellis’s ability to continue with this representation. On March 25, 2021, Ms. Ellis 

filed a brief on behalf of the appellant. The same day, the trial court held the hearing and 

determined that the issues were moot because the brief had been filed. 

The appellant’s brief includes an unredacted appendix, which fails to protect the minor’s 

identity as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.8. The brief also appears to raise an 

issue about the sufficiency of the evidence to support an implied trial court finding regarding the 

best interest of the child. See App. Br. 24. But that portion of the brief does not comply with 

appellate briefing rules. E.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). 

We lift the abatement, and we order that this appeal be reinstated on our court’s active 

docket. We order the parties to file briefs in accordance with this schedule:

1. The appellant is ordered to file an amended brief by April 12, 2021.

2. The appellee is ordered to file a response brief by May 3, 2021.
3. The appellant may file a response brief no later than May 10, 2021.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6 (Time to File Briefs); id. 38.6(d) (“The court may also, in the interests 

of justice, shorten the time for filing briefs and for submission of the case.”).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Peter Kelly_________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___April 6, 2021______
#### § 778.403 Constant pay for varying workweeks including overtime is not permitted except as specified in section 7(f).

Section 7(f) is the only provision of the Act which allows an employer to pay the same total compensation each week to an employee who works overtime and whose hours of work vary from week to week. (See in this connection the discussion in §§ 778.207, 778.321-778.329, and 778.308-778.315.) Unless the pay arrangements in a particular situation meet the requirements of section 7(f) as set forth, all the compensation received by the employee under a guaranteed pay plan is included in his regular rate and no part of such guaranteed pay may be credited toward overtime compensation due under the Act. Section 7(f) is an exemption from the overtime provisions of the Act. No employer will be exempt from the duty of computing overtime compensation for an employee under section 7(a) unless the employee is paid pursuant to a plan which actually meets all the requirements of the exemption. These requirements will be discussed separately in the ensuing sections.
###### Editorial Note on Part 148

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 148.2 Who is responsible for implementing this subchapter?

Unless otherwise specified, the owner of a deepwater port must ensure that the requirements of this subchapter are carried out at that port.
#### § 794.104 Enterprises engaged in described distribution and in other activities.

An enterprise may be engaged in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products, within the meaning of section 7(b)(3), without being exclusively so engaged. Such engagement may be only one of the several related activities, performed through unified operation or common control for a common business purpose, which constitute the enterprise (see § 794.106) under section 3(r) of the Act. If engaging in such distribution is a regular and significant part of its business, an enterprise which meets the other tests for exception under section 7(b)(3) will be relieved of overtime pay obligations with respect to employment of its employees in such distribution activities, in accordance with the intended scope (see § 794.101) of the exemption. The same will be true with respect to employment of its employees in those related activities which are customarily performed as an incident to or in conjunction with the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products in the enterprises of the industry engaged in such distribution. There is no requirement that engaging in such activities constitute any particular percentage of the enterprises's business. However, in the case of an enterprise engaged in other activities as well as in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products (including related activities customarily performed in the enterprises of the industry as an incident thereto or in conjunction therewith), an employee employed in such other activities of the enterprise is not engaged in employment which the exemption was intended to reach (see § 794.101). Such an employee is not brought within the exemption by virtue of the fact that the enterprise by which he is employed is engaged with other employees in the distribution activities described in section 7(b)(3). This accords with the judicial construction of other exemptions in the Act which are similarly worded. See *Connecticut Co.* v. *Walling,* 154 F. 2d 522, Certiorari denied, 329 U.S. 667; *Northwest Airlines* v. *Jackson,* 185 F. 2d 74; *Davis* v. *Goodman Lumber Co.,* 133 F. 2d 52; *Fleming* v. *Swift & Co.,* 41 F. Supp. 825, aff'd 131 F. 2d 249.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 24

- 11852

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

RICHARD HARRIS,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus ROSADO, Correctional Officer, MOORE, Correctional Officer, Captain, MANNING, Correctional Officer, Sargent, ALSTON, Correctional Officer, Sargent, USCA11 Case: 24-11852 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 24

- 11852

Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:23

- cv

- 00895

- WWB

- PDB

____________________
Before W ILSON , N EWSOM , and L UCK , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte , for lack of jurisdiction. Richard Harris appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his Eighth Amendment claims against the defendants. However, the order is not final because Harris’s First Amendment claim
remain s pending before the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City , 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (providing that we generally only have jurisdiction to review district court orders or judgments that constitute “final decisions”); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant , 689 F.3d 1244, 1245

- 46 (11th Cir. 2012) (provi ding that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties is not a final decision). Further, the order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it is not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair , 744 F.3d 1247, 1252

- 53 (11th Cir. 2014). Harris may challenge the dismissal USCA11 Case: 24-11852 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 2 of 324

- 11852 Opinion of the Court 3
of his Eighth Amendment claims after his First Amendment claim ha s been fully resolved. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40

- 3 and all other applicable rules. USCA11 Case: 24-11852 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 3 of 3
§ 141.15 Restrictions on employment. ( a ) Each employer of personnel on any unit engaged in OCS activities that is subject to this part must employ, as members of the regular complement of the unit, only citizens of the United States or resident aliens except as provided by § 141.20.
( b ) As used in paragraph (a) of this section, “regular complement of a unit” means those personnel necessary for the routine functioning of the unit, including marine officers and crew; industrial personnel on the unit, such as toolpushers, drillers, roustabouts, floor hands, crane operators, derrickmen, mechanics, motormen, and general maintenance personnel; and support personnel on the unit, such as cooks, stewards and radio operators. The term does not include specialists, professionals, or other technically trained personnel called in to handle emergencies or other temporary operations; extra personnel on a unit for training; and other personnel temporarily on a unit for specialized operations, such as construction, alteration, well logging, or unusual repairs or emergencies.
( c ) ( 1 ) The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, may determine whether a particular individual or position is part of the regular complement of a unit. A copy of the determination is provided to the owner or operator of the unit affected.
( 2 ) Determinations in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for all MODUs and fixed and floating OCS facilities, as those terms are defined in 33 CFR 140.10, operating within the Eighth District Outer Continental Shelf Marine Inspection Zone will be made by the Eighth District Outer Continental Shelf Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, as defined and described in § 3.40-5 of this chapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB control number 2130-0182) [CGD 78-160, 47 FR 9379, Mar. 4, 1982, as amended by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35530, June 30, 1998; USCG-2013-0491, 80 FR 20163, Apr. 15, 2015]
R16W

R15 Ww

R12W

R11W

R10W R

QW R8w

yu

Garrison
Lake Port

R1i6W

a North
.
Myrtle
Point
2 T
> m
J (7)
g
Dn
3
Zz
Q
3
-
§
—- 9008 county | :
CURRY COUNTY 38 x
i
8|5
a A
3|
s!8
ERS
*|2
P| 5 \ a
| ROSEBURG
n 1 DISTRICT
MEDFORD
owers DISTRICT
1 T
| 31
i Ss
Pa) 1 Cy,
Bopas | Loy,
BOTRS “ C
Osyox '
s2)s6 |
| a y
t - (| ie] 32
| ’ je Ss
F519
' O2)>
24/5
| Zz10
' 2 a Is —
Zz ' 1
| i

a |

GLENDALE
RESOURCE

Pass¥g
SOURCE’
AREA

Rogue

7 Gold Beach

R14W

R13W

R12W

R11W

R 10”? W

Cc)
Ce) sowie

R10W

Existing Wild and Scenic

River

Wild

Suitable or Eligible Wild

and Scenic River

Recreational

ROW R8w

Legend

nd

OREGON

1 } 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10
= E ]
Miles
1.0 41 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
oe
Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection
North American Datum of 1983.

Source: Bureau of Land Management corporate data
modified for Western Oregon Plan Revisions analysis.
Additional data were compiled from various sources. No
warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management
as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these
data for individual or aggregate use with other data

ENT OF

Ks (TS. DEPARTHIENT OFTHE INTERIOR
ENE

THs [BUREAU OF LANO MANAGEMENT

U.S. dg,
s
you

SF

Cy
rns

Land Use Allocations

National Land Conservation System
Administratively Withdrawn
Late-Successional Management Area
Riparian Management Area

Deferred Timber Management Area

Timber Management Area

MAP 1B
Coos Bay District

Resource Management Plan

2008

Myrtlewood Resource Area

Land Use Allocations
and
Wild and Scenic Rivers

M08-09-04
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6427

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK JEAN AUBIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-49; CA-04-705-1) Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 18, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Jean Aubin, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Patrick Jean Aubin seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Aubin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Aubin’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# r)oT - OST - Qoo o - ^^56 =



# CIT YO FFLORENCE , ALABAM A Office o f th e Mayo r

C O I 

# D fv5 Februar y1 , 201 1 Mr . Denni s Devaney , Chief , EA S Offic e o fAviatio n Analysi s 40 0 Sevent h Street , S.W . - R m 640 1 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 RE : EA

S Contrac t fo rNorthwes t A LRegiona l Airpor t (MSL ) Dea rMr . Devaney : Th e Cit yo fFlorenc e i s please d t o joi n th e othe rentitie s i n th e Shoal s are a wit h it s suppor t fo rth e Northwes t Alabam a Regiona l Airpor t Authority' s reconnmendatio n tha t Gulfstrea m Internationa l Airlin e fulfil l th e EA S contrac t fo rou rairport . Wit h th e offe rtha t Gulfstrea m ha s presente d t o th e Authority , w e fee l confiden t tha t the yar e th e bes t selection . %^:2: ^

Sincerely , Bobby€ . Iron s Mayo r Bobby^ . I i
s m

PpSTOi-Rct Bo x 9 8 ' f FniRCNCL

, .A L35631-009 8 TtLti'HON t (256 ) 760-640 0 4 . u-ww.florenceal.oi- g - f FA X(256 ) 760-638 8
```

[House Report 111-35]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     111-35

======================================================================

 
   WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 
                     RULES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

   March 10, 2009.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. McGovern, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 229]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 229, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any resolution reported on the legislative day of March 11, 
2009, providing for consideration or disposition of any measure 
making appropriations for the fiscal year 2009, and for other 
purposes. The resolution provides that House Resolutions 218 
and 219 are laid on the table.

                                  

```
Pre DASH Modifications:

Bowtie Noodles 

1 gram of Dietary Fiber) 

Post DASH Modifications:

Whole Wheat Noodles 

Increase in Fiber (4.2 grams) 

Sample Nutrition Label ComparisonCovello Lunch Week 2, Monday
#### § 126.1 What does this part apply to?

This part applies to waterfront facilities handling packaged and bulk-solid dangerous cargo and to vessels at those facilities.

[USCG-1998-4302, 68 FR 55440, Sept. 26, 2003]
**McMoRan** **** **EXPLORATION
CO.**
 **DIRECTOR
COMPENSATION**
 
 
 ***Cash
Compensation***
 
 Each
non-employee director and advisory director **** receives
an annual fee of $15,000. Committee chairs receive an additional annual fee as
follows: Audit Committee, $3,000; all other committees, $2,000.
 
 Each
non-employee director and each advisory director receives a fee of $1,000 for
attending each board and committee meeting (for which he is a member) and is
also reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending such
meetings. Each employee director receives a fee of $1,000 for attending each
board meeting.
 
 ***1998
Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors and 2004 Director Compensation
Plan***
 
 The
company provides equity compensation to the non-employee directors and advisory
directors through two incentive plans, the 1998 Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (the 1998 Plan) and the 2004 Director Compensation Plan
(the 2004 Plan), both of which were approved by our stockholders. The 1998 Plan
provides for the annual grant of options to acquire 3,500 shares of our common
stock to each non-employee director, and will be used until the shares available
for issuance are depleted. The 2004 Plan provides for an annual grant of options
to acquire 3,500 shares of our common stock to each advisory director, and will
provide for similar grants to our non-employee directors upon depletion of the
1998 Plan. The referenced option grants under both plans are made on June
1 st of each
year. The options are granted at fair market value on the grant date, vest
ratably over the first four anniversaries of the grant date and expire on the
tenth anniversary of the grant date.
 
 In
addition, the 2004 Plan provides that non-employee directors and advisory
directors may elect to exchange all or a portion of their annual fee for an
equivalent number of shares of our common stock on the payment date, based on
the fair market value of our common stock on such date. The 2004 Plan further
provides that non-employee directors and advisory directors may elect to defer
all or a portion of their annual fee and meeting fees, and that such deferred
amounts will accrue interest at a rate equal to the prime commercial lending
rate announced from time to time by JP Morgan Chase (compounded quarterly), and
shall be paid out at such time or times as directed by the
participant.