alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 149
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 149.510 How do I get permission to establish an aid to navigation? ( a ) To establish a navigation aid on a deepwater port, the licensee must submit an application under § 66.01-5 of this chapter, except that the application must be sent to the Commandant (CG-5P).
( b ) At least 180 days before the installation of any structure at the site of a deepwater port, the licensee must submit an application for obstruction lights and other private navigation aids for the particular construction site.
( c ) At least 180 days before beginning cargo transfer operations or changing the mooring facilities at the deepwater port, the licensee must submit an application for private aids to navigation.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39179, July 1, 2013]
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.687 Missouri River.

The draws of the bridges, except for the Atchison Railroad Bridge, Mile 422.5, see § 117.411(b) for further details, across the Missouri River shall open on signal; except during the winter season between the date of closure and date of opening of the commercial navigation season as published by the Army Corps of Engineers, the draws need not open unless at least 24-hours advance notice is given.

[USCG-2014-0358, 80 FR 81181, Dec. 29, 2015]
###### Editorial Note on Part 150

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 150.610 Where must eyewash equipment be located?

Portable or fixed eyewash equipment providing emergency relief must be immediately available near any area where there is a reasonable probability that eye injury may occur.
§ 110.190 Tortugas Harbor, in vicinity of Garden Key, Dry Tortugas, Fla. ( a ) *The anchorage grounds.* All of Bird Key Harbor, southwest of Garden Key, bounded by the surrounding reefs and shoals and, on the northeast, by a line extending from Fort Jefferson West Channel Daybeacon 2 to Fort Jefferson West Channel Daybeacon 4, thence to Fort Jefferson West Channel Daybeacon 6, and thence to Fort Jefferson West Channel Daybeacon 8.
( b ) *The regulations.* Except in cases of emergency involving danger to life or property, no vessel engaged in commercial fishing or shrimping shall anchor in any of the channels harbors, or lagoons in the vicinity of Garden Keys, Bush Key, or the surrounding shoals, outside of Bird Key Harbor.
#### STOKES v. STOKES.

Submitted July 18,

Decided December 15, 1906.

Temporary alimony. Before Judge -Wright. Floyd superior court. May 11, 1906.-

*Henry Wallcer,*for plaintiff in error.

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where counsel for the defendant in an application for temporary alimony entered upon the hearing of the case without objection, and after the plaintiff had closed her ease and the defendant had submitted his answer and demurrer, the defendant being also present to-testify in his own behalf, there was no error in refusing to grant a postponement in order to obtain and present an additional affidavit, on the-ground that counsel had only been retained in the case the previous day, and had been prevented from making preparation on account of other-work.

2. Upon the hearing of an application for temporary alimony, brought by a wife against her husband, the court may grant an order “allowing-such temporary alimony, including expenses of litigation, as the condition of the husband and the facts of the case may justify.” Civil Code, §2457. Attorney’s fees -thus granted being treated as part of the temporary alimony, where the petition for such temporary alimony alleged' that the wife had been compelled to employ counsel to bring her petition for alimony and divorce, and prayed that the court award her such temporary and permanent alimony out of the earnings and estate of her husband, the court could allow counsel fees, although there was no separate prayer for them eo nomine.

3. The bill of exceptions contains some of the evidence introduced on the-hearing, and states that certain affidavits were also used. It does not set them out. In the record appear two affidavits made respectively by the persons named as affiants. There is no reference to them in the - petition so as to indicate that they were attached as part of the pleadings, nor is there any brief of evidence or other proper certification to authorize them to be considered. -In so far as the grounds of exception rest upon the sufficiency of the evidence, therefore, they can not be considered. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 151.1514 Vessel safety.

Nothing in this subpart relieves the master of the responsibility for ensuring the safety and stability of the vessel or the safety of the crew and passengers, or any other responsibility.

[CGD 91-066, 58 FR 18334, Apr. 8, 1993. Redesignated by USCG-2001-10486, 77 FR 17305, Mar. 23, 2012]
R12W

R11W

R10W

ROW

R8w

58

LOMLSId AVA SOOO
LOMLsid 9ungasou

Judge Hamilton Park

OREGON

C a
po
; | Wa
R16W | ; 57, | a Ky 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
——* — Miles
-— £008 COUNTY | Fork l, 3 1,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CURRY COUNTY ais S ECE i 1 ]
815 Kilometers
ar
2
Ble
31S Albers Equal Area Projection
=|5 North American Datum of 1983
| ROSEBURG
1 DISTRICT
MEDFORD
T DISTRICT
31
s T
| 31
i Ss
59 1 LZ hoz 1 Sy,
| a zsl2e (| \e,
Ea EG i
4 Ses 7 | | Seger nd gee cit
| - cree AAitonal daa wore compled fom varous sources, No
5 Sees A 962 J | TON waranty 's made ye urea of Land Managemen
nie m1 Rivey. | West ' eta for individual or aggregate use wih eter Seta
a ° |
T
1 . <eNT OF ‘ss. bepanen OF THE TERIOR
: j a
- NLA 6 6
; _ ~ Ae % sl 3
515 y,
Garrison | / SEi5 ancns,
Lake Port | 3219
| Smo TL
aL Orford | f "eo
| = . 4
| }
T 1 . a
33 | 4,
S 1 Sve +
| 33
101) 1 _ Ss
Jd
L [ GLENDALE
iy” oe RESOURCE
kK AREA A
R16W R15W 63 ‘ af a
4 GR Pe
RW
/ RESOURL
T rT AREA|
34 i +
S 34
2 Ss
s R11W R 10’? W R10W : ROW R8W
we
T T
35 35
Ss Ss
Rogue
A
Legend
62 . . _ . .
) Recreation Site and Identifier 21 Special Recreation Management
36 as See Table 15 Area and Identifier
S s ; ; 7 See Table 14
_..33__. Recreation Trail and Identifier ; oo
See Table 16 Environmental Education Site
wi Gold Beach 2 7 _ See Table 18
Area of Critical Environmental SS“ Recreation Site Leased under
61 oa concern ane Identifier R&PP Authority or
See Table 10 Congressional Withdrawal
See Table 19
a .
L BLM Administered Land
Ss 57 Ss
u
a
+
371?
Ss
;
38
Ss
:
38
Ss
ott
MAP 2B
39 Coos Bay District
Ss
Resource Management Plan
+
% 2008
Myrtlewood Resource Area
Recreation Sites and Trails, Special Recreation
+ oe Management Areas, Back Country Byways,
s 5 ; Environmental Education Sites and
3 “0 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
C

R14W

R13W

R12W

M08-09-04
Incentive Compensation Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 Incentive Compensation Plan 
 On June 14, 2012, the Company adopted a compensation
plan for the fiscal year ending August 25, 2012 that provides for an aggregate amount of incentive cash compensation to be available for distribution to employees of the Company, including its executive officers. The aggregate amount
distributable under such plan will be based on the Company’s operating income, prior to any incentive plan accrual, for fiscal year ending August 25, 2012. Amounts ultimately paid under the plan to employees, including executive officers,
would be at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”). The Committee’s determination and payment of any amounts under the plan likely would be made in November 2012, in connection with
the completion of the audited financial statements of the Company. The maximum amounts that could be paid to any executive officer under the plan has been set as a percentage of such officer’s base salary for the 2012 fiscal year. For the Chief
Executive Officer that percentage is 100% of base salary and for each of the other executive officers that percentage is 80% of base salary.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1096

STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STRAYER UNIVERSITY; ROBERT SILBERMAN; KARL MCDONNELL,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00159-PWG)

Submitted: May 15, 2018 Decided: May 17, 2018

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. John Byron Flood, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH 

SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s order striking her motion for 

reconsideration of her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and directing that the motion for 

reconsideration be stricken from the district court’s docket. On appeal, we confine our 

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because 

Sewell’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, 

Sewell has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 

F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under 

Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 96.51 Purpose and scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes standards for resolution of audit findings, including, but not limited to, questioned costs and administrative deficiencies, identified as a result of the audit of grant agreements, contracts, and other agreements awarded by or on behalf of DOL. In cases where these standards conflict with statutes or other DOL regulations, the latter shall be controlling. The DOL Office of Inspector General (OIG) is available to assist agencies in the audit resolution process.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 51995)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                     National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, An Integrated Approach to Understanding Host-Pathogen Interactions.                

*Date:*                     September 21-23, 2011.                

*Time:*                     8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                

*Agenda:*                     To review and evaluate contract proposals.                

*Place:*                     Hilton Silver Spring, 8727 Colesville Road, Silver Spring, MD 20910.                

*Contact Person:*                     Eleazar Cohen, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Room 3129, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-3564,                     *ec17w@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 15, 2011.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-21234 Filed 8-18-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### § 503.22 Representation of the Secretary.

The Solicitor of Labor, through authorized representatives, will represent the Administrator, WHD and the Secretary in all administrative hearings under 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14) and the regulations in this part.
###### Editorial Note on Part 150

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 150.812 What is the purpose of reporting casualties on deepwater ports?

The Coast Guard, upon receipt of a reported marine casualty on a deepwater port, as outlined in § 150.815 of this part, will conduct an investigation to determine the cause of the incident and to take appropriate measures to promote safety of life and property. The Coast Guard investigator will follow the procedures outlined in 46 CFR subpart 4.07 in conducting the investigation.

[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39183, July 1, 2013]
#### § 146.201 Applicability.

This subpart applies to mobile offshore drilling units engaged in OCS activities.
Hillsborough

No. 6984

#### State of New Hampshire v. Ralph Crossen

March 31, 1975

*Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, and *Edward N. Damon,*attorney, by brief for the State.

*138
      *Ralph Crossen,*pro se, by brief.

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was convicted in a jury trial in which he was represented by counsel of two counts of selling a controlled drug. Defendant’s exceptions were reserved and transferred by *Cann,*J-

A review of the transcript does not support the claim of the defendant that he did not receive a fair trial. The claim that newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial should be addressed to the superior court. RSA 491:7 (Supp. 1973); *State v. Long,*90 N.H. 103, 107, 4 A.2d 865, 868 (1939).

*Exceptions overruled.*
§ 127.010 Reconsideration of the Letter of Recommendation. ( a ) A person requesting reconsideration pursuant to § 127.009(c) must submit a written request to the Captain of the Port (COTP) who issued the Letter of Recommendation (LOR), and send a copy of the request to the agency to which the LOR was issued. The request must explain why the COTP should reconsider his or her recommendation.
( b ) In response to a request described in paragraph (a) of this section, the COTP will do one of the following— ( 1 ) Send a written confirmation of the LOR to the agency to which the LOR was issued, with copies to the person making the request and the owner or operator; or
( 2 ) Revise the LOR, and send the revised LOR to the agency to which the original LOR was issued, with copies to the person making the request and the owner or operator.
( c ) A person whose request for reconsideration results in a confirmation as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and who is not satisfied with that outcome, may request, in writing, the opinion of the District Commander of the district in which the LOR was issued. ( 1 ) The request must explain why the person believes the District Commander should instruct the COTP to reconsider his or her recommendation.
( 2 ) A person making a request under paragraph (c) of this section must send a copy of the request to the agency to which the LOR was issued.
( 3 ) In response to the request described in this paragraph (c), the District Commander will do one of the following— ( i ) Send a written confirmation of the LOR to the agency to which the LOR was issued, with copies to the person making the request, the owner or operator, and the COTP; or
( ii ) Instruct the COTP to reconsider the LOR, and send written notification of that instruction to the agency to which the original LOR was issued, with copies to the person making the request and the owner or operator.
( d ) The District Commander's written confirmation described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section ends the reconsideration process with respect to that specific request for reconsideration. If the COTP issues an LOR pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) or (c)(3)(ii) of this section, persons described in § 127.009(c) may request reconsideration of that revised LOR using the process beginning in paragraph (a) of this section.
[USCG-2011-0227, 77 FR 70890, Nov. 28, 2012]
#### § 778.118 Commission paid on a workweek basis.

When the commission is paid on a weekly basis, it is added to the employee's other earnings for that workweek (except overtime premiums and other payments excluded as provided in section 7(e) of the Act), and the total is divided by the total number of hours worked in the workweek to obtain the employee's regular hourly rate for the particular workweek. The employee must then be paid extra compensation at one-half of that rate for each hour worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.103 Bayou La Batre.

The draw of SR 188 Bridge, mile 2.3, at Bayou La Batre, will open on signal every hour on the hour daily between 4 a.m. and 8 p.m., Monday through Sunday. The bridge need not open for the passage of vessels on the hours of 7 a.m., 3 p.m., and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Monday through Friday the draw will open on signal for the passage of vessels at 3:30 p.m. The bridge will remain closed to marine traffic from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. daily except for emergencies.

[CGD08-05-001, 70 FR 37675, June 30, 2005]
#### §§ 100.550-100.699 [Reserved]
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Keith Dewayne Martin

, * From the 35th District

Court of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CR218 98

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 0027 4

- CR * October 31, 2013

T he State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T F R AN K C . C AR S ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C OU NT Y O F S T AN I S L AU S ; S T E VE J A C O B S E N , D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 17392 D . C . N o . 1 : 1 0 - c v - 0 2 1 3 3 - O WW S MS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O l i ve rW . W a nge r , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J une 14, 2013 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED JU N 25 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS** T he H on orabl e J am es K . S i ng l et on , S eni or U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ct

J udge f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

2 B e f o r e : O’ S C AN NL AI N an dM. S MI T H, C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n dS I NG L E T ON , D i stri ctJudg e. ** W e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew C ar son’ s F i rs tA m endm entcl ai m , w hi ch w as di s m i s s e d w i th pr e

j udi c e a nd w i thoutl e a ve t o a m e nd, e ve n though C a r s on di d not r e a lle g e th a t c la im in h is f ir s t a m e n d e dc o m p la in t. Se e L a c e yv . M a r ic o p a C o u n ty , 693 F . 3d 896, 928 ( 9th C i r . 2012) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n di s m i s s i ng the fed eral cl ai m s setfo rth i n C arso n ’ s o ri g i n al an dfi rstam en d ed co m p l ai n tb ecau se ne i the rc om pl a i nts a t i s f i e d the pl e a di ng s t a ndar ds s e tf orth i n B e ll A tla n tic C o r p o r a tio n v . T

w o m b ly , 550 U . S . 544, 570 ( 2007) , a nd A s hc r of t v . I qbal , 556 U . S . 66 2, 67 8 (20 09 ). C ar son al l eged i nsuffi ci entfa ct s t o sup po rtthe i nfer ence th a t J a c o b s e n a c te du n d e rc o lo ro f s ta te la w . See A nder

son v. W arner , 451 F . 3d 1063, 1068- 69 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . J a c obs e n’ s s t a tus a s ape a c e of f i c e ra tthe t i m e of th e a lle g e din c id e n t d o e s n o t au to m a tic a llyr e n d e rh is c o n d u c t s ta te a c tio n . See G ri tchen v. C ol l i er , 2 5 4 F .3 d8 0 7 , 8 1 2 - 1 3 ( 9 th . C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n di s m i s s i ng C a r s on’ s f e de r a l c l a i m s w i thoutf

urthe rl e a ve to a m e n db e c au s e a m e n d m e n t w o u ldh a v e b e e n f u tile . Se e Ke n da ll v . V

is a U .S.A ., Inc. , 5 1 8 F .3 d1 0 4 2 , 1 0 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . A f te rtw o a tte m p ts , C a r s o n f a ile dto3

a lle g e f a c ts s u p p o rtin g th e in f

e r e n c e th a t J a c o b s e n a c te du n d e rc o lo ro f la w . See id . a t 1 0 5 1 - 5 2 . AF F I RME D.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief FinancialOfficer of Modtech Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his knowledge:

|   | • | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|   | • | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                            |

Dated:   August 13, 2003

|   | /s/ DENNIS L. SHOGREN                          |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                |   |
|   | **Dennis L. Shogren  Chief Financial Officer** |   |

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not be deemed filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.