alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 95.43 Competition.

All procurement transactions shall be conducted in a manner to provide, to the maximum extent practical, open and free competition. The recipient shall be alert to organizational conflicts of interest as well as noncompetitive practices among contractors that may restrict or eliminate competition or otherwise restrain trade. In order to ensure objective contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantage, contractors that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, invitations for bids and/or requests for proposals shall be excluded from competing for such procurements. Awards shall be made to the bidder or offeror whose bid or offer is responsive to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the recipient, price, quality and other factors considered. Solicitations shall clearly set forth all requirements that the bidder or offeror shall fulfill in order for the bid or offer to be evaluated by the recipient. Any and all bids or offers may be rejected when it is in the recipient's interest to do so.
#### The State of Vermont *v.*William H. M. Howard.

*Practice. Criminal law. Supreme court.*

The supreme court have no power to order a change of venue in a criminal case.

Neither can the county court order a trial of a criminal case in any other county than that in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Redeieed, Ch. J.

This was a petition by the state’s attorney of Orange County to order the change of venue in this case, which is an indictment for manslaughter and procuring abortion, pending in said county, on the ground of the impracticability of obtaining a fair trial in *415the county of Orange, by reason of the excitement and disordered state of public opinion in regard to the case.

Redfield, Ch. J.

We do not regard this court as having any control over this subject. Its jurisdiction, at present, is by statute limited to certain specified matters, the chief of which are hearing matters in error from the county court, chancery appeals, and that general supervision of inferior tribunals, and public officers, which are at common law exercised by the court of King’s Bench in England. .

The several county courts have exclusive jurisdiction of the trial of all persons charged with crime and criminal offences, above the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. If there is any power, any where, to grant this petition, it must reside in the county court for the county of Orange. But as the statute provides, in general terms, for the trial of criminal cases in the county where the offence is charged to have been committed, we do not perceive how any court could order a trial in such cases in any other county.

There will sometimes arise cases where a change of venue might be desirable, and this may be one of that class. But it will require the interference of the legislature before that can be done, and it is for them to determine when such provision becomes desirable.
#### Richard Becker, Appellant, v Alan Kasper et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 25, 1996;

decided June 6, 1996

Motion to vacate this Court’s February 28, 1996 order of dismissal denied. *[See,*87 NY2d 969.]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13739]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Rescission of Order of 
Revocation

    Notice is hereby given that the Order revoking the license of Ned 
Shipping Co., Inc. is being rescinded by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to sections 14 and 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining 
to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 
515.

License No. and Name/Address

2045--Ned Shipping Co., Inc., 5247 Wisconsin Ave., N.W. #3, Washington, 
D.C. 20015

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 00-13739 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### ROSA REDER, estate of, on complaint of JACOB REDER, et v IKE REDER

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1684.

Decided April 8, 1930

Johnathan Taylor, Akron, for-Plaintiff in Error.

R. H. Nesbitt, Akron, for Defendant in Error. 1

PER CURIAM

The only error complained of is that the trial court, over objection, permitted evidence to be given and considered by the jury as to the good reputation of Ike Reder for truth.

It is conceded that in a criminal prosecution, where the question of whether a witness is guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude becomes a legitimate subject of inquiry on the trial, his good character for truth may be established by adducing evidence of his general reputation in that respect.

Webb v. State, 29 OS. 351.

While it id a general rule that a party cannot fortify the credit of his witness by proving good character for truth until the credibility of the witness has been assailed, it is also settled that where evidence is offered directly attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence to sustain the witness’s credibility is clearly competent in civil as well as criminal cases.

Therefore, in order to show that the admission of evidence of the good reputation of Ike Reder was error, it is incumbent upon the complainant to show by the record that Ike Reder’s reputation was not directly attacked.

The record in this case does not so show, for only a small part of the testimony adduced at the trial is shown in the bill of exceptions, and the trial judge did not certify that no such evidence was introduced;-' on the contrary, the trial judge certified that the bill of exceptions contains only about one-fifth of the evidence offered upon the trial’ and that “there is not a complete record showing the acts and conduct of the defendant, Isaac Reder, tending to prove acts involving moral turpitude, in rebuttal whereof testimony as to reputation was permitted to be introduced.”

The record contains all of the testimony of Ike Reder on cross-examination and it therefore seems that said certificate of the trial judge is a declaration that there was evidence constituting a direct attack upon the credibility of Ike Reder and that said attack was in reference to his acts and conduct involving moral turpitude and that the evidence about which complaint is made was admitted to counteract such attack.

But regardless of whether the certificate of the trial judge means- what we have just indicated, it is sufficient to preclude us from finding that there was no direct attack upon the credibility of Ike Reder when only one-fifth of the testimony appears in the record.

Under the state of the record we cannot say it was error to admit evidence as to the good reputation of Ike Reder for truth.

Funk, PJ., Pardee, J., and Washburn, J., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.969 Lavaca River.

The draws of the Union Pacific railroad bridge, mile 11.2, and the highway bridge, mile 11.2, both at Vanderbilt, shall open on signal if at least 48 hours notice is given. In emergencies, the draws shall open as soon as possible.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

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

Tri al court: 313th District Court of Harris County

This case is a priority, accel erated appeal of a decree terminating the appellant ’ s p arental rights to his child, A.F. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a), reprinted in T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE , tit. 2,
subtit. F

— Appendix ( appeal from suit terminating the parent

- child relationship filed by

gove rnmental agency must be disposed by court of appeals within 180 days of the fili ng of notice of appeal ). The notice of appeal was prematurely filed in this case on October 15, 2020, before
the t rial court signed the final judgment on December 4, 2020. U nd er Rule 6.2 (a), th e deadline
for this Court ’ s disposition of this appeal is June 2, 2021.
Appellant is indigent, and he i s represented by appointed counsel, Angela Ellis. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE § 107.013(a)(1) (statutory right of indigent parent to appointed counsel in suit filed by govern mental entity seeking termination of the parent

- child relationship); id. § 107.016(2) (in digent parent ’ s right to counsel continues through exhaustion of appea ls).

On March 16, 2021, we abated this appeal and ordere d the trial court to hold a hearing regarding Ms. Ellis ’ s ability to continue with this representation. On March 25, 20 21, Ms. Ellis
filed a brief on behalf of the app ella nt. T he same day, the trial court held the hearing and
dete rmi ned that the issues were moot because the brief had been filed.
The appellant ’ s brief includes an unredacted appendix , which fail s to protect the minor ’ s identity as required by Texa s Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.8

. The brief also appears to rai se an issue about the sufficiency of the evidence to support a n implied tri al court finding regarding the
best interest of the child. See App. B r. 24. But that portion of the br ief does not comply with appellate briefing rule s. E. g. , T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 accord ance with th is schedule:

1. The appellant is ordered to fil e an amen ded brief by A pril 12, 2021

. 2. The appellee is ordered to file a respons e brief by May 3, 2021

.3. T he appellant may file a response brief no later than May 10, 2021

.

S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6 (Time to File Briefs); id. 38.6 (d) ( “ The court may also, in the interests of justi c e , shorten the time for filing briefs and for submission of the case. ” ).

I t is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/ Peter Kelly

_________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ April 6, 2021

______
79–008 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–67 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE 

AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL (H.R. 1388) TO REAUTHORIZE AND REFORM THE NATIONAL SERVICE LAWS 

MARCH 30, 2009.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Ms. MATSUI, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 296] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 296, 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 provides for the consideration of the Senate 

amendments to H.R. 1388, to reauthorize and reform the national 

service laws. The resolution makes in order a motion by the Chair 

of the Committee on Education and Labor to concur in the Senate 

amendments. The resolution waives all points of order against the 

motion except clause 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides that 

the Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as 

read. The resolution provides one hour of debate on the motion 

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. House Resolution 289 is laid on the table. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

Although the rule waives all points of order against consideration 

of the motion (except for clause 10 of rule XXI) the Committee is 

not aware of any points of order against the motion. The waiver of 

all points of order against the motion is prophylactic. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
#### § 778.208 Inclusion and exclusion of bonuses in computing the “regular rate.”

Section 7(e) of the Act requires the inclusion in the regular rate of all remuneration for employment except eight specified types of payments. Among these excludable payments are discretionary bonuses, gifts and payments in the nature of gifts on special occasions, contributions by the employer to certain welfare plans and payments made by the employer pursuant to certain profit-sharing, thrift and savings plans. These are discussed in §§ 778.211 through 778.214. Bonuses which do not qualify for exclusion from the regular rate as one of these types must be totaled in with other earnings to determine the regular rate on which overtime pay must be based. Bonus payments are payments made in addition to the regular earnings of an employee. For a discussion on the bonus form as an evasive bookkeeping device, see §§ 778.502 and 778.503.

[33 FR 986, Jan. 26, 1968, as amended at 76 FR 18858, Apr. 5, 2011]
[Cite as Pishok v. Kelly, 122 Ohio St.3d 292, 2009-Ohio-3452.]

P ISHOK , A PPELLANT , v. K ELLY , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE . [Cite as Pishok v. Kelly, 122 Ohio St.3d 292, 2009-Ohio-3452.] Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — Habeas corpus not available to remedy claim concerning validity or sufficiency of an indictment — Judgment affirmed. (No. 2009-0342 — Submitted July 14, 2009 — Decided July 21, 2009.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No. 2008-T-0093, 2009-Ohio-287.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of a ppellant, David J. Pishok. Habeas corpus is not available to challenge the validity or sufficiency of a charging instrument.
McCuller v. Hudson , 121 Ohio St.3d 168, 2009-Ohio-721, 902 N.E.2d 979, ¶ 1. Following Pishok’s conviction and sentence for crimes charged in the indictment, the judgment bound him, and he had an ade quate remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal to raise his claim that the indictment was defective. Monroe v.
Jackson , 119 Ohio St.3d 344, 2008-Ohio-4480, 894 N.E.2d 43, ¶ 4. Judgment affirmed.
M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ David J. Pishok, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney Genera l, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

______________________
I SERVED: MAY 15,2014 .. ··,. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC i2it: ;:_: '( ! b /\ <,. 2 2 

In The Matter Of: 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE 

AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011S0290032 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO SUSPEND LITIGATION DATES 

On May 2, 2014, an Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part the Respondent's 

Motion to Compel Discovery was filed. 

On May 14, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Suspend Litigation Dates. The 

parties point to the following factors in support of the Motion: 1) the need for time to review the 

materials addressed in the May 2, 2011 Order; 2) the need to conduct depositions regarding those 

materials; and 3) the uncertainty of counsels' schedules in the coming weeks. 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§§ 13.205(a)(6) and (8), and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, 

regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Joint Motion to Suspend Litigation Dates is granted. All litigation dates in this 

proceeding are temporarily suspended. _ 

2. On or before June 16, 2014, the parties shall file a revised litigation sc~edule. The 

revised litigation schedule should include a date/time for a telephone conference with the 

Judge, to discuss the revised litigation schedule. The parties should determine their 

calendar availability for such a conference and, prior to filing the revised litigation 

schedule, contact Mr. Cody Smith (202-366-6491) to schedule the conference. 

Attachment: Service List 
. ' 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI0001 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation· Adm.inistration 

ONE COPY 

. Office of the Regional Counsel, Southern Region 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Robert P. Silverberg 

Respondent's Counsel 

Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 

Georgetown Place, Suite 120 

1101 30th St., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20007 

TEL: 202-944-3300 

FAX: 202-944-3306 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0291 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

. 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2016]

The following Commission staff are assigned to assist in the preparation of an offer of settlement in these licensing proceedings that may be presented to the Commission.

### Office of General Counsel

John Clements (202) 208-2070.

### Office of Energy Projects

Bob Easton (202) 219-2782.

The staff listed above are separated from the advisory staff in these proceedings and will not participate as advisory staff in these proceedings.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-13917 Filed 6-2-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Connecting Seniors to Care: Implementing Amazon Alexa 

Technology into the Homes of Meals on Wheels (MOW) Clients

A. Goal: 

The Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston (IMGH) Connecting Seniors to Care project explored the ways 

that a virtual assistant device (Amazon Echo Show 8) with Alexa can support the social determinants of 

health together with Meals on Wheels (MOW) deliveries to improve health outcomes, reduce isolation, 

and provide innovations to support the principles of Aging in Place of older adults.

B. Objectives: 

1) Conduct an IRB approved medical study measuring physical and mental conditions through multiple 

interventions including meal delivery and technology implementation.

2) Pilot a program that promotes Mental, Physical, and Spiritual well-being along with Caregiver 

coordination in the homes of MOW Clients with an installed virtual assistant device (Amazon Echo Show 8 

with Alexa) utilizing a custom developed Amazon Alexa skill (application).

3) Study the feasibility of technology utilization and acceptance by older adults receiving MOW.

C. Overview of Project: 

The project was a feasibility study involving 2 cohorts totaling 110 clients in the Greater Houston Area. 

Cohort 1 involved 52 clients in an 18-week, 3 phase, 3 interventions (Meals, virtual assistant device, and 

expanded technology interaction) study conducted in partnership with University of Texas Health Science 

Center. Cohort 2 study involved 58 clients in a 12-week, 2 phase, 2 interventions (Virtual assistant device 

and custom developed IMGH MOW Well-Being Menu) study.

D. Project Results: 

The majority of project participant’s responses were positive towards using the Amazon Echo Show 8 with 

Alexa. The top 5 uses being: Music, Asking Alexa a Question, Weather, Pleasantry (humorous interaction 

or remark with Alexa) and Asking the Time. Participants valued the device as a voice assistant and its 

ease of use. This study proved the implementation of technology is feasible and warrants expansion. 

Figure A. Based on the Technology Acceptance 

Measurement (TAM) majority of clients agreed 

the device was easy to use. 

Figure B. Demonstrates the overall Amazon Echo 

Show 8 device utilization by all cohort 2 clients 

during the study.

This project was supported, in part by grant number 90INNU0017, from the Administration for Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. 

20201. Grantees undertaking projects with government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their findings and conclusions. Points of view or opinions do not, therefore, 

necessarily represent official ACL policy.
§ 531.27 Payment in cash or its equivalent required. ( a ) Standing alone, sections 6 and 7 of the Act require payments of the prescribed wages, including overtime compensation, in cash or negotiable instrument payable at par. Section 3(m) provides, however, for the inclusion in the “wage” paid to any employee, under the conditions which it prescribes of the “reasonable cost,” or “fair value” as determined by the Secretary, of furnishing such employee with board, lodging, or other facilities. In addition, section 3(m) provides that a tipped employee's wages may consist in part of tips. It is section 3(m) which permits and governs the payment of wages in other than cash.
( b ) It should not be assumed that because the term “wage” does not appear in section 7, all overtime compensation must be paid in cash and may not be paid in board, lodging, or other facilities. There appears to be no evidence in either the statute or its legislative history which demonstrates the intention to provide one rule for the payment of the minimum wage and another rule for the payment of overtime compensation. The principles stated in paragraph (a) of this section are considered equally applicable to payment of the minimum hourly wage required by section 6 or of the wages required by the equal pay provisions of section 6(d), and to payment, when overtime is worked, of the compensation required by section 7. Thus, in determining whether he has met the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Act, the employer may credit himself with the reasonable cost to himself of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by him to his employees when the cost of such board, lodging, or other facilities is not excluded from wages paid to such employees under the term of a bona fide collective bargaining agreement applicable to the employees. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the term “wage” is used in this part to designate the amount due under either section 6 or section 7 without distinction. It should be remembered, however, that the wage paid for a job, within the meaning of the equal pay provisions of section 6(d), may include remuneration for employment which is not included in the employee's regular rate of pay under section 7(e) of the act or is not allocable to compensation for hours of work required by the minimum wage provisions of section 6. Reference should be made to parts 778 and 800 of this chapter for a more detailed discussion of the applicable principles.
( c ) Tips may be credited or offset against the wages payable under the Act in certain circumstances, as discussed later in this subpart. See also the recordkeeping requirements contained in part 516 of this chapter.