alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued and submitted December 7, 1994,

affirmed January 4,

petition for review denied April 4, 1995 (320 Or 749)

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Frances C. Johnson, Claimant. LEGACY HEALTH SYSTEMS, *Petitioner, v.*Frances C. JOHNSON, *Respondent.*

(92-15069; CA A83208)

887 P2d 394

Jerald P. Keene argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Roberts, Reinisch, Mackenzie, Healey & Wilson, P.C.

Kimberley Chaput argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O’Leary & Conboy.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge,* and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*

 Richardson, C. J., *vice*Rossman, P. J., retired.

*370PER CURIAM

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, contending that the Board erred in concluding that claimant is entitled to an award for both scheduled and unscheduled disability for her compensable injury. We have reviewed that Board’s order and conclude that it is supported by substantial evidence and that the Board could properly make an award for both scheduled and unscheduled disability.

Employer also asserts that ORS 656.268(4)(g), under which the Board assessed a penalty against employer, is unconstitutional. Employer did not properly raise that argument before the Board, and we will not consider it for the first time on review.

Affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

GREGORY LEONARD DICKERSON , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2946

[ December 19, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Glenn D. Kelley , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2015

- CF

- 012162

- AXXX

- MB

.
Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , T AYLOR and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(h), of the receipt of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications.

Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive an exempt or a prohibited off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested on-the-record proceeding, to deliver a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication, to the Secretary.

Prohibited communications will be included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such requests only when it determines that fairness so requires.

Exempt off-the-record communications will be included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

                    The following is a list of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications received in the Office of the Secretary within the preceding 14 days. The documents may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​Start Printed Page 3443online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                

Exempt

1. Project No. 696—12/3/99—Kit T. Mullen.

2. Project No. 420-009—12/22/99—Steven Pennoyer.

3. Project No. 2336-041—11/22/99—Jon Cofrancesco.

4. Project No. 10865—12/15/99—Jeffery R. Soth.

5. RM99-2-000, ER99-3144-000 and EC99-80-000—12/9/99—The Honorable Dennis J. Kucinich.

6. CP00-6-000—12/15/99—Jo Lewis.

7. CP99-44-000—12/22/99—Wayne Daltry.

8. CP00-6-000—12/17/99—C.B. Shirey.

9. Project Nos. 1975, 2061, 2777 and 2778—12/1/99—John Blair.

10. CP00-14-000, CP00-15-000 and CP00-16-000—1/3/00—Kim Jessen.

11. Project No. 2609-013—12/16/99—Tom Dean.

12. Project No. 2609-013—1/6/00—Tom Dean.

13. CP00-14-000—1/9/00—Mary Mosley.

14. Project No. 420-009—12/30/99—Pamela Bergmann.

15. Project No. 10865-001—12/22/99—Timothy Ballew, Sr.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-1426 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 147.831 Holstein Truss Spar safety zone. ( a ) *Description.* Holstein, Green Canyon 645 (GC 645), located at position 27°19′17′′ N, 90°32′08′′ W. The area within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on the structure's outer edge is a safety zone. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983.
( b ) *Regulation.* No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone except the following: ( 1 ) An attending vessel;
( 2 ) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or
( 3 ) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[CGD08-03-028, 69 FR 6147, Feb. 10, 2004]
older Americans makes 

1in4

a positive impact 

through volunteering.

THE BENEFITS:

• Volunteering can lead to 

improved physical and 

mental health

• Older volunteers report 

greater life satisfaction 

than non-volunteers

• New relationships and 

making a difference 

provide a greater sense 

of purpose

• Research suggests that 

those who volunteer are 

more likely to live longer

GETTING INVOLVED

Schedule service that fits your lifestyle and determine how 

much time you want to give. If you are a morning person, the 

early shift at an animal shelter or reading to kids might be a 

good fit. 10-20 hours per week is common for many retirees. 

Find the right opportunities. Volunteering works best when 

you involve your interests and skills. If you are handy, a Habitat 

for Humanity project may be most rewarding. If you enjoy 

working with kids, contact a local school to talk about ways you 

can help. Need inspiration? Visit nationalservice.gov/serve for 

more tips and ideas.

The do-it-yourself guides at createthegood.org/how-to-guides

can help you if you have trouble finding the right opportunity 

or you have an idea for a new project. These toolkits will help 

to turn your concept into a successful activity. 

If you want to help others more informally, think about 

driving neighbors to appointments, babysitting for working 

parents, or tutoring kids in your neighborhood. If you are a 

member of a spiritual community or club, ask if there are 

outreach programs that need help.

GIVE BACK 

Civic engagement means working to make a difference in the lives of community members. It’s 

often referred to as community service and volunteering. No matter what you call it, older 

Americans are doing it, and in higher numbers than ever before. 

Beyond helping and the people around you, being involved in your community benefits you. From 

preventing mental health issues by engaging in meaningful work to the physical benefits of being 

active and social, civic engagement is a win-win. It is never too late to give back!

Or check with other older adults in your community. Studies 

show that being asked to get involved is a great motivator.

ASK FRIENDS OR FAMILY TO JOIN YOU! 

SCHEDULE TAILOR REVIEW SUPPORT

More resources: http://oam.acl.gov/resources.html

OLDER

AMERICANS

MONTH

ENGAGE AT EVERY A G E : MAY 2018
§ 155.245 Damage stability information for inland oil barges. ( a ) Owners or operators of inland oil barges shall ensure that the vessel plans necessary to perform salvage, stability, and residual hull strength assessments are maintained at a shore-based location.
( b ) Access to the plans must be available 24 hours a day.
[CGD 90-068, 58 FR 67997, Dec. 22, 1993, as amended by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35531, June 30, 1998]
# Background and Purpose

## A. Goal: 

The goal of the project is to modernize Iowa’s congregate meal program infrastructure, delivery mechanisms, and outreach to increase the number of consumers and meals served.

## B. Objectives: 

1) Establishing a restaurant partnership infrastructure in the Elderbridge AAA service region

2) Developing flexible approaches to congregate meal service delivery mechanisms to target and outreach to two generations of older adults

3) Modernizing a streamlined intake process through technology use

4) Identifying seniors who may be food insecure, socially isolated, and rural and providing nutrition education.

## C. Overview of Project: 

The Iowa Department on Aging in partnership with Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) received a 2020 Administration for Community Living Nutrition Innovations Grant to modernize Iowa’s Congregate Meal Program infrastructure. The Iowa Café project will transform traditional congregate meal sites to attractive restaurant partnership sites for older adults to gather and enjoy nutritious meals. This will be a mutually beneficial project for Iowa’s food insecure older adults and local communities to generate economic stimulus.

## D. Project Results: 

· County 1 had 20 participants before the grant and 80 participants after the grant 

· NEI3A (AAA): Served 48,000 meals during the timespan of the grant

· 95% of participants showed a decrease in social isolation 

13

*Figure A. Demonstrates the increase of restaurant partnerships per year with The Iowa Department on Aging for the grant.*

*Figure B. Demonstrates the number of meals each restaurant served over the course of the grant period.*

Increase in Restaurant Partnerships per Year

# of Meals per Restaurant

13
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
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Modernizing Older Americans Actprograms**
 
2006 | 2007
 
SuDoc Number:HE 1.1001:
Item Number:0447-A-09 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000637138
 
December 4, 2019
#### § 780.405 Exemption is direct and does not mean activities are agriculture.

The exemption provided in section 13(b)(12) for irrigation activities is a direct exemption which depends for its application on its own terms and not on the meaning of “agriculture” as defined in section 3(f). This exemption was added by an amendment to section 13(a)(6) in 1949 to alter the effect of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in *Farmers Reservoir Company* v. *McComb,* 337 U.S. 755, so as to exclude the type of employees involved in that case from certain requirements of the Act. Congress chose to accomplish this result, not by expanding the definition of agriculture in section 3(f), but by adding a further exemption. In view of this approach, it can well be said that Congress agreed with the Supreme Court's holding that such workers are not employed in agriculture. (*Goldberg* v. *Crowley Ridge Assn.,* 295 F. 2d 7.) Irrigation workers who are employed in any workweek exclusively by a farmer or on a farm in irrigation work which meets the requirement of performance as an incident to or in conjunction with the primary farming operations of such farmer or such farm, as previously explained, are considered as employed in agriculture under section 3(f) and may qualify for the minimum wage and overtime exemption under section 13(a)(6) or for the overtime exemption provided agricultural workers under section 13(b)(12). Where they are not so employed, they are not considered as agricultural workers (*Farmers Reservoir Co.* v. *McComb,* supra), but may qualify for the overtime exemption under section 13(b)(12) relating to irrigation work if their duties and the irrigation system on which they work come within the express language of the statute. Where this is the case, it is not material whether the employees are employed in agriculture.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 5559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2135]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

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


Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / 
Notices

[[Page 5559]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[Docket No.: 110121055-1055-01]


Public Availability of Department of Commerce FY 2010 Service 
Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Public Availability of FY 2010 Service Contract 
Inventories.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), Department 
of Commerce is publishing this notice to advise the public of the 
availability of the FY 2010 Service Contract inventory. This inventory 
provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were 
made in FY 2010. The information is organized by function to show how 
contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The 
inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on 
November 5, 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf. Department of 
Commerce has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory on the 
Office of Acquisition Management homepage at the following link http://oam.eas.commerce.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the service 
contract inventory should be directed to Virna Evans, Director for 
Acquisition Workforce and Policy Division at 202-482-4248 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d4b584b5c534e7d59525e135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="22544754434c5162464d410c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 21, 2011.
Scott Quehl,
Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Commerce.
[FR Doc. 2011-2135 Filed 1-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Argued and submitted June 29,

affirmed September 30, 1992

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*RICKY RAY FREELAND, *Appellant.*

(C91-04-31704; CA A71496)

838 P2d 642

Steven V. Humber, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

*388-aJanet A. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*389PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) and two counts of forgery. ORS 164.135; ORS 165.013. The sentencing court merged the forgery convictions and imposed dispositional departure sentences on the UUV conviction and the forgery convictions, to be served consecutively. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in placing the forgery convictions in grid block 3-F. He argues that, under OAR 253-12-020, the grid block should be 3-1.

There was no error. Under the sentencing guidelines, defendant’s convictions come within grid blocks that have presumptive probationary sentences. The limitations on consecutive sentences under OAR 253-12-020 and OAR 253-08-007 do not apply to consecutive departure sentences that have presumptive probationary sentences. *State v. Ripka,*111 Or App 469, 827 P2d 189, *rev den*313 Or 300 (1992).

 Defendant also argues that the court erred in imposing more than a single term of post-prison supervision on the consecutive sentences. He is correct. Multiple terms of post-prison supervision are served as a single term. OAR 253-12-020(3); OAR 253-12-040. However, there is no error that requires correction, because imposing more than one supervision term is effectively surplusage. *State v. Enos,*114 Or App 208, 836 P2d 1347 (1992); *State v. Markham,*114 Or App 5, 836 P2d 1348 (1992).

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement of Gencor Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 for the registration of 3,556,000 ($.10 par value) shares of its common stock issuable pursuant to its 1992 Stock Option Plan, 1996 Stock Option
Agreements and 1997 Stock Option Plan (SEC File Number 333-61769) and in the related prospectus of our report dated December 28, 2009 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Gencor Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|/s/ MOORE STEPHENS LOVELACE, P.A.
|                                 
|MOORE STEPHENS LOVELACE, P.A.    
|                                 
|CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS     
|                                 
|Orlando, Florida                 
|                                 
|December 28, 2009
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-16-0000563 21-FEB-2017 01:40 PM

SCAD-16-0000563 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
IKE EMANUEL DURU, Petitioner,

vs. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (Prior Supreme Court No. 27356; ODC Case No. 05-031-8183) ORDER DENYING PETITION ( By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of the Disciplinary Board’s Report and Recommendation to Deny Reinstatement of Petitioner Ike Emmanuel Duru and the record in this matter, we find and conclude, after careful and thorough review, that Petitioner Duru failed to follow court rules governing his disbarment, particularly in his failure to inform his Maui employer or the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) of his foreign disbarment, and failed to fulfill substantive conditions of this court’s November 10, 2005 reciprocal disbarment, particularly his failureto successfully seek reinstatement in Georgia. We further find and conclude that Respondent Duru has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence, as required by Rule 2.17(b)(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ' i, that he is rehabilitated from the ethical conduct underlying that disbarment, particularly his engaging in discussion of legal matters with a licensed attorney and the attorney’s client, his failure to report in his petition criminal and civil litigation in which he was involved during his disbarment, and his failure to timely act with initiative regarding his outstanding student loan obligations. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Duru shall bear the expenses incurred in the investigation into and processing of his petition, upon the timely submission of a verified bill of costs by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, February 21, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2