alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Civ. No. 11377.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

June 9, 1937.]

#### CORNELIA C. MAGERS et al., Appellants, v. DELUXE WATER TAXI CO. (a Corporation), Respondent.

Will H. Winston for Appellants.

George H. Moore and Gerald O’C. Egan for Respondent.

McCOMB, J.

—This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent after trial before the court without a jury in an action to recover damages for personal injuries.

The essential facts are these:

Plaintiff, Cornelia Hagers, the wife of her coplaintiff, Del Rey Hagers, on August 3, 1935, was transported on a water taxi operated by defendant from the navy landing in Long *317Beach to the *ü. S. S. Saratoga*anchored at Long Beach harbor. While endeavoring to board the *TJ. S. S. Saratoga,*she suffered personal injuries.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

> *Is there substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s injuries did not result from defendant’s negligence?*

This question must be answered in the affirmative. We have examined the record and are of the opinion there was substantial evidence considered in connection with such inferences as the trial court may have reasonably drawn therefrom to sustain the finding of fact set forth, *supra,*and each and every other material finding of fact upon which the judgment was necessarily predicated. We therefore refrain from further discussion of the evidence. *(Thatch*v. *Livingston,*13 Cal. App. (2d) 202 [56 Pac. (2d) 549]; *Koeberle*v. *Hotchkiss,*8 Cal. App. (2d) 634 [48 Pac. (2d) 104] ; *Leavens*v. *Pinkham & McKevitt,*164 Cal 242, 245 [128 Pac. 399].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Grail, P. J., concurred.

A petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on August 5, 1937.
#### § 778.104 Each workweek stands alone.

The Act takes a single workweek as its standard and does not permit averaging of hours over 2 or more weeks. Thus, if an employee works 30 hours one week and 50 hours the next, he must receive overtime compensation for the overtime hours worked beyond the applicable maximum in the second week, even though the average number of hours worked in the 2 weeks is 40. This is true regardless of whether the employee works on a standard or swing-shift schedule and regardless of whether he is paid on a daily, weekly, biweekly, monthly or other basis. The rule is also applicable to pieceworkers and employees paid on a commission basis. It is therefore necessary to determine the hours worked and the compensation earned by pieceworkers and commission employees on a weekly basis.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36642-36643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14202]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32

RIN 1018-AF52


1999-2000 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations; 
Correction

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final regulations 
which were published Friday, May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30772). The document 
related to the 1999-2000 refuge-specific hunting and sport fishing 
regulations.

DATES: This correction is effective May 12, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Marler, (703) 358-2397.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections add 
certain national wildlife refuges to the list of areas open for hunting 
and/or sport fishing, along with pertinent refuge-specific regulations 
for such activities; and amend certain regulations on other refuges 
that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big 
game hunting, and sport fishing for the 1999-2000 season.

Need for Correction

    As published, an amendatory instruction contains an error which may

[[Page 36643]]

prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication on May 12, 2000 of the final 
regulation, which was the subject of FR Doc. 00-11410, is corrected as 
follows:


Sec. 32.67  [Corrected]

    1. On page 30793, in the first column, amendatory instruction 44.e. 
is corrected to read as follows:
    e. Revising paragraphs A.6. and B.4. of Umatilla National Wildlife 
Refuge to read as follows:

    Dated: June 1, 2000.
Leslie A. Marler,
Division of Refuges, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-14202 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
#### Francis A. Nicolai et al., Respondents, v Matthew T. Crosson, as Chief Administrator of the Courts, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Submitted February 13, 1996;

decided May 2, 1996

Motion for reconsideration granted and, upon reconsideration, order dismissing appeal upon the ground that the order appealed from did not finally determine the action vacated. *[See,*87 NY2d 896.] Cross motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed, with $400 costs and $100 costs of motion upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Chief Judge Kaye taking no part.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

EVAN S. GUTMAN

, Appellant,

v.

CITIBANK, N.A.

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 2821

[ July 20, 2023 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Edward A. Garrison , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502020 CC 005756

.

Evan S. Gutman, Boca Raton, pro se.

Donald A. Mihokovich of Adams and Reese, LLP, Tampa, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, G ERBER and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Legend
64 : :
C) Recreation Site and
Identifier
See Table 15
_...32... Recreation Trail and

Identifier
See Table 16

62 Area of Critical Environmental
Concern and Identifier
See Table 10

22 Special Recreation
Management Area and
Identifier
See Table 14

Environmental Education Site
See Table 18

SSS Recreation Site Leased under
R&PP Authority or
Congressional Withdrawal
See Table 19

BLM Administered Land

R13 W

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.

GENT OF
SW

$
“Arcus,

5
s
yous

US 5

Lakeside

R12W R11W R10W ROW R7W
EUGENE DISTRICT
x COOS BAY DISTRICT
Woahin
T ake
19 :
Ss Dunes City
Vy Siltcoos
Lake. a
-— we -——1_____LANE_COUNTY
DOUGLAS COUNTY
T S gmith T
20 20
S S
Tahkenitch River 68 70
Lake (ai a
CSS ° fos
68
t
21
Ss
AO >> 7
~ flog yg
Gon & SY. ’. 3
Wwe tf
Dean Creek INE a ts
Elk Viewing Area = 218
9 gis
Din
\N FY
S A T
ZF Z ais 22
Zs Elkton 68) Ss
]
~—-—-t_____ __DOUGLAS_COUNTY _____|
a COOS COUNTY i ae |

Tenmile Lake

R14W
.
27
N Ss
!

Miles

1 i} 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
— a —— a
Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection
North American Datum of 1983

Map
Area
Coos
Bay
District

OREGON

Rock Prairie

Coquille

past
Dd
Cl River
was

R12W

+
23
Ss
T
24
Ss
T
25
Ss
T
26
Ss
Laverne
County Park
os
312
ee are
2
gig
ale T
ala a7
af Ss
= Ss
Middle Creek
Park ork
Ma
R10W ROW R8w R712? W R7W
28
Ss
uMpQua MAP 2A
RESOURCE AREA}
RESOURCE AREA : Coos Bay District
29
s Resource Management Plan
2008
Umpqua Resource Area
Recreation Sites and Trails, Special Recreation
Management Areas, Back Country Byways,
ao Environmental Education Sites and
° Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
R11W M08-09-04
###### Editorial Note on Part 150

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 150.600 What does this subpart do?

This subpart sets safety and health requirements for the workplace on a deepwater port.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

This package contains a copy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Pressed Wood 

Manufacturing Industry Survey. As part of an ongoing project investigating formaldehyde emissions 

from composite or pressed wood products, EPA is surveying all U.S. pressed wood manufacturers to 

learn more about formaldehyde emissions, how those emissions might be reduced, and at what cost. 

It is important that you take part in the survey. EPA needs information from all companies 

(including those making products with low formaldehyde emissions or no added formaldehyde) to 

determine whether further action is needed, and to understand the impact of potential actions on

manufacturers. Your participation will help EPA understand your company and the industry as a whole. 

There are separate questionnaires for plants making hardwood plywood, medium density 

fiberboard, and particleboard; for plants making hardboard or structural composites (including engineered 

wood flooring, glulam, I-joists, laminated strand lumber, laminated veneer lumber, oriented strandboard, 

oriented strand lumber, parallel strand lumber, and softwood plywood); and for idled plants. If your plant 

makes products that fall into different pressed wood categories, or you are completing surveys for 

multiple plants, your package will include more than one type of questionnaire. 

Please review the instructions before completing the questionnaire. 

This package contains both a paper version of the survey and a USB drive with an identical 

electronic version of the survey. If possible, please complete and return the electronic version instead of 

the paper version. 

Please return the completed response no later than September 10, 2010. 

Thank you for your time. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact William 

Silagi at silagi.william@epa.gov or (202) 564-8788; or Peter Nagelhout at nagelhout.peter@epa.gov or 

(202) 566-2313.
§ 127.611 International shore connection. The marine transfer area for LNG must have an international shore connection that is in accordance with ASTM F1121-87 (Reapproved 2019) (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003), a 21 ⁄ 2 inch fire hydrant, and 21 ⁄ 2 inch fire hose of sufficient length to connect the fire hydrant to the international shore connection on the vessel. [CGD 88-032, 56 FR 35819, July 29, 1991, as amended by CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39796, Aug. 3, 1995; USCG-2000-7223, 65 FR 40057, June 29, 2000; USCG-2019-0444, 87 FR 5691, Feb. 2, 2022]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          18,894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  402,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,008
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               522,657
<PP&E>                                         363,140
<DEPRECIATION>                               (156,545)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,429,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          248,099
<BONDS>                                        370,779
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           504
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,429,105
<SALES>                                        478,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               478,626
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  436,453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (13,366)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,035
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,504
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,949
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,555
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,555
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57


</TABLE>
§ 104.275 Security measures for handling cargo. ( a ) *General.* The vessel owner or operator must ensure that security measures relating to cargo handling, some of which may have to be applied in liaison with the facility or another vessel, are specified in order to: ( 1 ) Deter tampering;
( 2 ) Prevent cargo that is not meant for carriage from being accepted and stored on board the vessel;
( 3 ) Identify cargo that is approved for loading onto the vessel;
( 4 ) Include inventory control procedures at access points to the vessel; and
( 5 ) When there are regular or repeated cargo operations with the same shipper, coordinate security measures with the shipper or other responsible party in accordance with an established agreement and procedures.
( b ) *Maritime Security (MARSEC) Level 1.* At MARSEC Level 1, the vessel owner or operator must ensure the implementation of measures to: ( 1 ) Unless unsafe to do so, routinely check cargo and cargo spaces prior to and during cargo handling for evidence of tampering;
( 2 ) Check that cargo to be loaded matches the cargo documentation, or that cargo markings or container numbers match the information provided with shipping documents;
( 3 ) Ensure, in liaison with the facility, that vehicles to be loaded on board car carriers, RO-RO, and passenger ships are subjected to screening prior to loading, in accordance with the frequency required in the VSP; and
( 4 ) Check, in liaison with the facility, seals or other methods used to prevent tampering.
( c ) *MARSEC Level 2.* In addition to the security measures required for MARSEC Level 1 in this section, at MARSEC Level 2, the vessel owner or operator must also ensure the implementation of additional security measures, as specified for MARSEC Level 2 in the approved Vessel Security Plan (VSP). These additional security measures may include: ( 1 ) Increasing the frequency and detail of checking cargo and cargo spaces for evidence of tampering;
( 2 ) Intensifying checks to ensure that only the intended cargo, container, or other cargo transport units are loaded;
( 3 ) Intensifying screening of vehicles to be loaded on car-carriers, RO-RO, and passenger vessels;
( 4 ) In liaison with the facility, increasing frequency and detail in checking seals or other methods used to prevent tampering;
( 5 ) Increasing the frequency and intensity of visual and physical inspections; or
( 6 ) Coordinating enhanced security measures with the shipper or other responsible party in accordance with an established agreement and procedures.
( d ) *MARSEC Level 3.* In addition to the security measures for MARSEC Level 1 and MARSEC Level 2, at MARSEC Level 3, the vessel owner or operator must ensure the implementation of additional security measures, as specified for MARSEC Level 3 in the approved VSP. These additional security measures may include: ( 1 ) Suspending loading or unloading of cargo;
( 2 ) Being prepared to cooperate with responders, facilities, and other vessels; or
( 3 ) Verifying the inventory and location of any hazardous materials carried on board.
[USCG-2003-14749, 68 FR 39302, July 1, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 60514, Oct. 22, 2003]
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 360 

Offering condolences regarding the tragic fire in Ocean Isle Beach, North 

Carolina, which killed 6 University of South Carolina students and 1 

student from Clemson University on October 28, 2007. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2007 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Offering condolences regarding the tragic fire in Ocean Isle 

Beach, North Carolina, which killed 6 University of 

South Carolina students and 1 student from Clemson 

University on October 28, 2007. 

1 Resolved, That the Senate offers its heartfelt condo2 lences to the victims and their families regarding the trag3 ic fire on October 28, 2007, in Ocean Isle Beach, North 

4 Carolina, which killed 6 University of South Carolina stu5 dents and 1 student from Clemson University, and to the 

6 students, faculty, administration, and staff and their fami7 lies who have been deeply affected by these tragic events. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
#### Wadkins *v.*The State.

Submitted November 19,

Decided December 11, 1906.

A'ccusation of cheating, etc. Before Judge Stark. City court of Jefferson. October 6, 1906.

*James B. & Noel P. Park,*for plaintiff in error.

Lumpkin, J.

1. Under the act establishing the city court of Jefferson (Acts 1903, p. 138, 146) it is provided “That all criminal cases in said city court shall be tried by the judge thereof without a jury, except when the accused, in writing, shall demand a jury. A plea to the accusation shall be a waiver of .the jury, and the accused may not thereafter have the right to recall such waiver except in the discretion of the court.” Where a defendant charged with a misdemeanor in that court did not demand a jury, but waived arraignment, pleaded not guilty, and insisted that he should be tried by the judge, it was error to overrule such contention and compel him to be tried by a jury.

2. Each of the city-court acts construed in *Central Railroad*v. *Gleason,*69 *Ga.*200, and *Thornton*v. *Travelers Ins. Co.,*116 *Ga.*121, conferred power and authority on the presiding judge to try eases without a jury, but was not mandatory like the act now involved.

3. Under the preceding notes, the trial of the defendant before a jury being without warrant of law, the charges and rulings on such trial need non be dealt with in detail;

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
HEALTHYLIVINGTIPS

Caregiver Survival Tips

Providing care for an elderly person can be a rewarding 

experience, but caregivers also are subject to stress and frustration. 

A few simple steps can help prevent exhaustion and other issues that make a 

caregiver’s job more difficult:

•	Plan ahead to be sure you have the supplies and resources you need.

•	Learn about available resources that can lend support.

•	Take one day at a time.

•	Develop contingency plans for emergencies and obstacles.

•	Accept help – don’t take on more than you can handle.

•	Make YOUR health a priority.

•	Get enough rest and eat properly.

•	Make time for leisure.

•	Be good to yourself!

•	Share your feelings with others – it’s okay to be tired and frustrated.

Useful Resources

National Family Caregiver Support Program

http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/AoA_Programs/HCLTC/Caregiver/index.aspx

Lifespan Respite Care Program

http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/AoA_Programs/HCLTC/LRCP/index.aspx

National Caregiver Resources

http://www.eldercare.gov/eldercare.net/public/resources/topic/Caregiver.aspx

Eldercare Locator 

Find out what is available in your community by contacting the Eldercare Locator 

at 1-800-677-1116 or visit www.eldercare.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT AOA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

ADMINISTRATION ON AGING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201

PHONE: (202) 619-0724 | FAX: (202) 357-3555 | EMAIL: AOAINFO@AOA.GOV | WEB: WWW.AOA.GOV |

FACEBOOK: WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/AOA.GOV
Title VII - Allotments for Vulnerable Elder Rights Protection Activities 9/8/2010 

FY 2010 Final Allocation 

State Ombudsman Elder Abuse Total Title VII 

Alabama $264,292 $78,707 $342,999 

Alaska $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

Arizona $352,186 $104,883 $457,069 

Arkansas $167,058 $49,751 $216,809 

California $1,703,142 $507,205 $2,210,347 

Colorado $222,532 $66,271 $288,803 

Connecticut $197,313 $59,907 $257,220 

Delaware $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

District of Columbia $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

Florida $1,249,006 $371,960 $1,620,966 

Georgia $426,175 $126,917 $553,092 

Hawaii $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

Idaho $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

Illinois $647,031 $197,384 $844,415 

Indiana $335,450 $99,899 $435,349 

Iowa $177,244 $55,927 $233,171 

Kansas $149,063 $45,843 $194,906 

Kentucky $235,478 $70,126 $305,604 

Louisiana $225,227 $68,518 $293,745 

Maine $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

Maryland $286,666 $85,371 $372,037 

Massachusetts $358,952 $109,606 $468,558 

Michigan $541,752 $161,337 $703,089 

Minnesota $268,281 $79,895 $348,176 

Mississippi $153,463 $45,702 $199,165 

Missouri $330,143 $98,318 $428,461 

Montana $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

Nebraska $96,755 $29,770 $126,525 

Nevada $128,482 $38,263 $166,745 

New Hampshire $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

New Jersey $473,225 $143,950 $617,175 

New Mexico $105,123 $31,306 $136,429 

New York $1,069,764 $318,581 $1,388,345 

North Carolina $482,691 $143,748 $626,439 

North Dakota $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

Ohio $641,831 $197,185 $839,016 

Oklahoma $201,454 $60,208 $261,662 

Oregon $212,847 $63,387 $276,234 

Pennsylvania $766,140 $242,944 $1,009,084 

Rhode Island $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

South Carolina $252,516 $75,200 $327,716 

South Dakota $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

Tennessee $343,717 $102,361 $446,078 

Texas $1,045,289 $311,293 $1,356,582 

Utah $102,099 $30,406 $132,505 

Vermont $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

Virginia $397,554 $118,394 $515,948 

Washington $335,165 $99,814 $434,979 

West Virginia $116,871 $36,736 $153,607 

Wisconsin $306,821 $91,373 $398,194 

Wyoming $83,947 $25,224 $109,171 

American Samoa $10,493 $3,153 $13,646 

Guam $41,974 $12,612 $54,586 

Northern Mariana Islands $10,493 $3,153 $13,646 

Puerto Rico $224,389 $66,824 $291,213 

Virgin Islands $41,974 $12,612 $54,586 

TOTAL $16,789,432 $5,044,712 $21,834,144
11th Conference on Air Quality 

Modeling

EPA RTP, NC Campus – August 12-13, 2015

Public Hearing

Public Presentations
11th Conference on Air Quality Modeling

• Thursday Public Presentation Session Logistics

– The Conference is a Public Hearing for a proposed 

rulemaking.

• All presentations are officially part of the record and will be submitted to 

the proposed rulemaking Docket (ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0310).

• Everyone speaking today must identify themselves and their affiliation.

• All dialog is being transcribed and will also be submitted to the Docket.

• There will not be any Q&A during or following any presentation.

• Anyone not requesting a reserved spot to present will have an 

opportunity later today to provide oral comments.

• Comments can be submitted to the Docket through October 27, 2015.

– Thursday morning’s schedule is brisk!

• There are 10 requested public presentations this afternoon.

• All presentation spots are 15 minutes in length.

• Speakers, please be respectful of the set time schedule.

08/13/2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2
§ 96.12 Audit requirements. ( a ) Organizations covered by this subpart are responsible for arranging for independent audits that meet the requirements of this section.
( b ) The audit requirements contained in 29 CFR part 99 shall be followed for audits of all fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1996.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the audit requirements applicable to earlier fiscal years under regulations and award conditions in force when the awards were made shall continue in force.
( d ) The Secretary or his/her designee may provide written notice to recipients/subrecipients subject to paragraph (c) of this section directing them to follow the requirements of 29 CFR 99.320, which provides for submission of audit data collection forms and reporting packages to a Federal clearinghouse designated by OMB.