alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 780.9 Related exemptions are interpreted together.

The interpretations contained in the several subparts of this part 780 consider separately a number of exemptions which affect employees who perform activities in or connected with agriculture and its products. These exemptions deal with related subject matter and varying degrees of relationships between them were the subject of consideration in Congress before their enactment. Together they constitute an expression in some detail of existing Federal policy on the lines to be drawn in the industries connected with agriculture and agricultural products between those employees to whom the pay provisions of the Act are to be applied and those whose exclusion in whole or in part from the Act's requirements has been deemed justified. The courts have indicated that these exemptions, because of their relationship to one another, should be construed together insofar as possible so that they form a consistent whole. Consideration of the language and history of a related exemption or exemptions is helpful in ascertaining the intended scope and application of an exemption whose effect might otherwise not be clear (*Addison* v. *Holly Hill,* 322 U.S. 607; *Maneja* v. *Waialua,* 349 U.S. 254; *Bowie* v. *Gonzales* (C.A. 1), 117 F. 2d 11). In the interpretations of the several exemptions discussed in the various subparts of this part 780, effect has been given to these principles and each exemption has been considered in its relation to others in the group as well as to the combined effect of the group as a whole.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14227]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 137-002]


Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Meetings

June 1, 2000.
    Take notice there will be meetings of the Ecological Resources 
subgroup of the Mokelumne Relicensing Collaborative on June 7-8, and 
13-15, 2000. There will be meetings of the Recreation subgroup on June 
8 and 14-15, 2000. The Ecological Resources and Recreation subgroups 
will meeting jointly on June 9, 2000. The Full Collaborative will meet 
on June 21-22, and 28-29, 2000. These meetings will be held from 9 a.m. 
to 4 p.m. at 2740 Gateway Oaks Drive, in Sacramento, California. 
Expected participants need to give their names to David Moller (PG&E) 
at (415) 973-4696.
    For further information, please contact Diana Shannon at (202) 208-
7774.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14227 Filed 6-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61600-CIV-SINGHAL/VALLE

SHARLENE BANCS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF 

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER has come before the Court upon a Paperless Report and 

Recommendation (DE [26]) filed on March 31, 2023, recommending that the Court 

dismiss the instant action for a failure to prosecute. The Court has reviewed the entire file 

and record and has made a de novo review of the issues. 

No objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation having been 

filed, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Paperless Report and Recommendation (DE [26])

is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Any other pending 

motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 25th day of 

April 2023.

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:22-cv-61600-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 1 of 1
SLIP. OP. 99-36 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

: THE TIMKEN COMPANY, : : Plaintiff and : Defendant-Intervenor, : : v. : : Consol. Court No. UNITED STATES, : 96-12-02686 : Defendant, : : NTN BEARING CORPORATION : OF AMERICA, AMERICAN NTN : BEARING MANUFACTURING : CORPORATION and NTN : CORPORATION; NSK LTD. : and NSK CORPORATION, : : Defendant-Intervenors : and Plaintiffs, : : AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., : INC., HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., : INC. and HONDA MOTOR CO., : LTD., : : Defendant-Intervenors. : : JUDGMENT On December 3, 1997, this Court remanded to the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (“Commerce”) several issues arising from the final results of the administrative review, entitled Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches orConsol. Court No. 96-12-02686 Page 2 Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Finding , 61 Fed. Reg. 57,629 (Nov. 7, 1996) (“Final Results”). See Timken Co. v. United States , 21 CIT __, 989 F. Supp. 234 (1997). The Court ordered Commerce, inter alia , to treat NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation’s (“NSK”) return rebates as direct expenses. On April 21, 1998, Commerce released draft remand results in this action and invited interested parties to comment. In NSK’s comments to the draft remand results, NSK argued that Commerce erred in its calculation of foreign market value (“FMV”) by treating NSK’s return rebates as price adjustments rather than promotional expenses as Commerce had done in three determinations decided between the original Final Results and the remand. On June 1, 1998, in compliance with this Court’s remand order, Commerce filed its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“Remand Results”). In the Remand Results, Commerce treated NSK's return rebates as direct expenses, but nonetheless denied any adjustment to FMV for such expenses because the reported amounts could not be tied to specific transactions. The Court finds that Commerce correctly treated NSK’s return rebates as direct expenses pursuant to this Court’s order inConsol. Court No. 96-12-02686 Page 3 determining that the rebates constituted direct price adjustments. Commerce’s prior treatment of NSK’s return rebates as promotional expenses in previous determinations has no bearing on the Final Results of this case. Commerce having complied with this Court’s remand order, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Remand Results are affirmed in their entirety, and all issues having been previously decided, it is further

ORDERED that this case is dismissed.

NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS SENIOR JUDGE Dated: April 16, 1999 New York, New York
§ 155.120 Equivalents. ( a ) For ships required to be surveyed under § 151.17 of this chapter, the Commandant may, upon receipt of a written request, allow any fitting, material, appliance or apparatus to be fitted in a ship as an alternative to that required by both MARPOL 73/78 and subpart B of this part if such fitting, material, appliance, or apparatus is at least as effective as that required by subpart B. Substitution of operational methods to control the discharge of oil in place of those design and construction features prescribed by MARPOL 73/78 that are also prescribed by subpart B of this part is not allowed.
( b ) Any equivalent to a feature prescribed by MARPOL 73/78 that is authorized for a ship having an IOPP Certificate is noted on that Certificate.
( c ) For tank vessels required to have overfill devices installed under parts 155 and 156 of this chapter, the Commandant may, upon receipt of a written request, allow any fitting, material, appliance, or apparatus to be fitted in a tank vessel as an alternative to the required overfill device(s) that are specified in these parts if the proposed alternative device is at least as effective as that required in the regulations.
[CGD 75-124a, 48 FR 45714, Oct. 6, 1983, as amended by CGD 90-071a, 59 FR 53290, Oct. 21, 1994]
Exhibit 32.1


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


In connection with the Annual Report of Main Street Trust,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-K  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Van A.
Dukeman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/  Van A. Dukeman
-----------------------
Van A. Dukeman
Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2005


                                       1
ACL State Grants for Assistive Technology Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2016 Annual Allocation

2/1/2016

State/Territory

State Grants for 

Assistive 

Technology (SGAT)

Alabama $449,771

Alaska $431,469

Arizona $614,250

Arkansas $473,712

California $1,091,874

Colorado $471,379

Connecticut $408,305

Delaware $415,498

District of Columbia $372,978

Florida $701,384

Georgia $600,656

Hawaii $449,746

Idaho $423,587

Illinois $610,511

Indiana $477,809

Iowa $447,790

Kansas $408,621

Kentucky $471,516

Louisiana $499,264

Maine $462,506

Maryland $498,213

Massachusetts $518,603

Michigan $660,694

Minnesota $490,874

Mississippi $393,205

Missouri $556,320

Montana $444,639

Nebraska $456,271

Nevada $417,447

New Hampshire $430,278

New Jersey $489,504

New Mexico $444,847

New York $708,323

North Carolina $553,294

North Dakota $371,524

Ohio $567,860

Oklahoma $432,964

Oregon $426,057

Pennsylvania $696,350

Rhode Island $370,261

South Carolina $520,063

South Dakota $420,122

Tennessee $448,702

Texas $892,445

Utah $457,285

Vermont $407,585

Virginia $502,926

Washington $485,973

West Virginia $423,756

Wisconsin $471,125

Wyoming $363,720

American Samoa $125,528

Guam $126,558

Northern Mariana Islands $125,498

Puerto Rico $428,256

Virgin Islands $126,008

TOTAL $26,535,704
§ 183.630 Standards for natural ventilation. ( a ) For the purpose of § 183.620, “natural ventilation” means an airflow in a compartment in a boat achieved by having: ( 1 ) A supply opening or duct from the atmosphere or from a ventilated compartment or from a compartment that is open to the atmosphere; and
( 2 ) An exhaust opening into another ventilated compartment or an exhaust duct to the atmosphere.
( b ) Each exhaust opening or exhaust duct must originate in the lower third of the compartment.
( c ) Each supply opening or supply duct and each exhaust opening or exhaust duct in a compartment must be above the normal accumulation of bilge water.
( d ) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, supply openings or supply ducts and exhaust openings or exhaust ducts must each have a minimum aggregate internal cross-sectional area calculated as follows: A = 5 ln (V/5); where: ( 1 ) A is the minimum aggregate internal cross-sectional area of the openings or ducts in square inches;
( 2 ) V is the net compartment volume in cubic feet, including the net volume of other compartments connected by openings that exceed 2 percent of the area between the compartments; and
( 3 ) ln (V/5) is the natural logarithm of the quantity (V/5).
( e ) The minimum internal cross-sectional area of each supply opening or duct and exhaust opening or duct must exceed 3.0 square inches.
( f ) The minimum internal cross-sectional area of terminal fittings for flexible ventilation ducts installed to meet the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section must not be less than 80 percent of the required internal cross-sectional area of the flexible ventilation duct.
[CGD 76-082, 44 FR 73027, Dec. 17, 1979; 45 FR 7544, Feb. 4, 1980]
cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge 

DeAnn Justine Wiesner 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) )947A cier
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00179-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.K.O., K.Z.B., Q.K.B., and A.E.B., Children

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-02560

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. No costs of appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED September 8, 2021.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.245 Smyrna River.

The draw of the Delaware highway bridge, mile 4.0 at Flemings Landing, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
§ 133.3 Definitions. ( a ) As used in this part, the following terms have the same meaning as set forth in section 1001 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 2701): “discharge”, “exclusive economic zone”, “Fund”, “incident”, “National Contingency Plan”, “navigable waters”, “oil”, “remove”, “removal”, “removal costs”, “responsible party”, “State”, and “United States”.
( b ) As used in this part—
*Act* means Title I of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 through 2719).
*Director, NPFC,* means the person in charge of the U.S. Coast Guard National Pollution Funds Center or that person's authorized representative.
*NPFC* means the Director National Pollution Funds Center, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7605, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7605.
On-Scene Coordinator or OSC means the Federal official predesignated by the Environmental Protection Agency or the U.S. Coast Guard to direct and coordinate all efforts for removal of a discharge, or the mitigation or the prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil.
*Removal action* means an incident-specific activity taken under this part to contain or remove a discharge, or to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil.
[CGD 92-014, 57 FR 53969, Nov. 13, 1992, as amended by USCG-2009-0416, 74 FR 27440, June 10, 2009; USCG-2016-0498, 82 FR 35081, July 28, 2017]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60899

Summary Calendar

MICHELE RENEE PEARSON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GUIDEONE AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:18-CV-782

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michele Pearson brought several claims against GuideOne America 

Insurance Company, including fraud and breach of contract. The district court 

granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and entered judgment in defendant’s 

favor. Ms. Pearson timely appealed.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 28, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-60899 Document: 00515431246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2020
No. 19-60899

2

After carefully reviewing the briefs, record, and applicable law, we affirm 

for essentially the reasons given by the district court in its November 8, 2019, 

order.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 19-60899 Document: 00515431246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2020
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  Coalition of Federal Ombuds

															Home/Coalition of Federal Ombuds Coalition of Federal OmbudsADR2024-02-20T11:05:49-05:00						**Welcome, Fellow Ombuds!**
The Coalition of Federal Ombuds is the principal interagency forum that provides collaboration, advice, and guidance on professional Ombuds standards, skills development, program development, and effectiveness. Coalition members and committees work as an integrated and networked enterprise to increase the professionalism and effectiveness of Ombuds serving United States government agencies by sharing experiences, ideas, policies, standards, best practices, and innovative approaches to providing world-class Ombuds services.
Upcoming Meetings
Meetings are held from 1:30 to 3pm E.T. on the second Wednesday of each month, except in October, when the annual conference is held. Location and call-in information is sent to COFO mailing lists at least one week prior to each meeting.
Upcoming COFO Membership Meetings
March 13, 2024
April 10, 2024
May 8, 2024
June 12, 2024
July 10, 2024
August 14, 2024
September 11, 2024
November 13, 2024
December 11, 2024Upcoming COFO Ombuds Supporting Ombuds (OSO) Meetings (2-3 PM Eastern time):
February 28, 2024
March 27, 2024
April 24, 2024
May 22, 2024
June 26, 2024
July 24, 2024
August 28, 2024
September 25, 2024**Please write to the COFO coordinators to join the COFO mailing list or to RSVP for a meeting. Virtual links for meetings will be provided via the COFO mailing list. When meetings are held in-person, directions to the site will be provided.**Coalition of Federal OmbudsCOFO Annual Conference
Information
Charter
COFO Executive Committee Charter
Leadership
Coalition History
Voting Membership
Standards & Foundational Documents
Prior Conferences & Meetings
Additional Guidance
Other Ombuds & ADR Organizations
ABA Ombuds Day 2024 Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

DELIO BATISTA , et al,,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AVANT ASSURANCE INC. et al,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Attorney Samuel Alexander, of Alexander 

Appellate Law P.A., admitted to practice law in this Court, hereby appears in this 

case as counsel for Defendant Avant Assurance, Inc.

Dated: July 28, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Samuel Alexander 

Samuel Alexander

Fla Bar No. 1007757

Alexander Appellate Law P.A.

120 S Woodland Blvd Suite 200

DeLand, Florida 32720

(407) 907-4305

samuel@alexanderappeals.com

Counsel for Defendant

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 28, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of 

electronic filing to all counsel of record.

/s/ Samuel Alexander 

Samuel Alexander

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2023 Page 2 of 2
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > What Industry Means to Women Workers

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Van Kleeck, Mary, 1883-1972. 						*What Industry Means to Women Workers : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 31*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1923,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5354,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
###### Editorial Note on Part 149

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 149.640 What are the requirements for fire protection systems?

Manned deepwater ports built after January 1, 2004, and manned deepwater ports that undergo major conversions, must comply with the requirements for structural fire protection outlined in this part.

[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39180, July 1, 2013]
###### Editorial Note on Part 165

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

#### § 165.714 Regulated Navigation Area; Atlantic Ocean, Charleston, SC.

(a) *Location.* The following area is a Regulated Navigation Area: A trapezoid at the water surface, and the entire water column from surface to seabed inclusive of the vessel, bounded by the following four coordinates:

| | Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Western boundary | 32°42′56′′ N | 79°47′34′′ W |
| Southern boundary | 32°42′32′′ N | 79°46′42′′ W |
| Eastern boundary | 32°43′26′′ N | 79°45′27′′ W |
| Northern boundary | 32°43′56′′ N | 79°46′08′′ W |

(NAD 83)

(b) *Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, all vessels and persons are prohibited from anchoring, diving, laying cable or conducting salvage operations in this zone except as authorized by the Captain of the Port.

[CGD 07-95-054, 60 FR 45047, Aug. 30, 1995]