alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 60-1.40 Affirmative action programs. ( a ) ( 1 ) Each nonconstruction (supply and service) contractor must develop and maintain a written affirmative action program for each of its establishments, if it has 50 or more employees and: ( i ) Has a contract of $50,000 or more; or
( ii ) Has Government bills of lading which in any 12-month period, total or can reasonably be expected to total $50,000 or more; or
( iii ) Serves as a depository of Government funds in any amount; or
( iv ) Is a financial institution which is an issuing and paying agent for U.S. savings bonds and savings notes in any amount.
( 2 ) Each contractor and subcontractor must require each nonconstruction subcontractor to develop and maintain a written affirmative action program for each of its establishments if it has 50 or more employees and: ( i ) Has a subcontract of $50,000 or more; or
( ii ) Has Government bills of lading which in any 12-month period, total or can reasonably be expected to total $50,000 or more; or
( iii ) Serves as a depository of Government funds in any amount; or
( iv ) Is a financial institution which is an issuing and paying agent for U.S. savings bonds and savings notes in any amount.
( b ) Nonconstruction contractors should refer to part 60-2 for specific affirmative action requirements. Construction contractors should refer to part 60-4 for specific affirmative action requirements.
[65 FR 68042, Nov. 13, 2000]
**EXHIBIT12.1**

** **

**DUKE REALTYLIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

**EARNINGS TOFIXED CHARGES CALCULATION**

**(inthousands, except ratios)**

 
| ** **                                                                     | ** ** | **December 31, 2007** | ** **    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|---------------|
|                                                                           |       |                            |          |   |
| Net income from  continuing operations, less preferred distributions           |       | $                               | 107,511       |   |   |
| Preferred  distributions                                                       |       |                            | 58,292        |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                               |       |                            | 168,358       |   |   |
| Earnings before  fixed charges                                                 |       | $                               | 334,161       |   |   |
|                                                                           |       |                            |          |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                               |       | $                               | 168,358       |   |   |
| Interest costs  capitalized                                                    |       |                            | 59,167        |   |   |
| Total fixed  charges                                                           |       |                            | 227,525       |   |   |
|                                                                           |       |                            |          |   |
| Preferred  distributions                                                       |       |                            |   58,292 |   |   |
| Total fixed charges and preferred distributions                                |       | $                               | 285,817       |   |   |
|                                                                           |       |                            |          |   |   |
| **Ratio  of earnings to fixed charges**                                        | ** ** | ** **                      | **1.47**      | ** ** | ** ** |
| ** **                                                                     | ** ** | ** **                      | ** **    | ** ** | ** ** |
| **Ratio  of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred   distributions** |       |                            | **1.17**      |   |   |
|                                                                           |
| ** **                                                                     |
|                                                                                |            |                                 |               |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

----
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 12, 1999, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act“), Telematics Suppliers Consortium, Inc. has filed written                           ( print page 40133)                        notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) The identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objective of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., Torrance, CA; AMP Inc., Harrisburg, PA; Cellport Labors Inc., Boulder, CO; Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI; Kenwood Corp., Tokyo, JAPAN; and Motorola Inc., Schaumburg, IL. The nature and objectives of the venture are to promote the development and adoption of open, accessible, secure, end to end technical specification (“Telematics Specifications“) permitting the transaction of data to and from, as well as within, automobiles and other vehicles; to promote such specifications and solutions worldwide to ensure that a broad spectrum of goods and services is developed and are available to provide for testing and conformity assessment of network components in order to ensure robust system operation; to create and own distinctive trademarks; and to operate a branding program based upon distinctive trademarks to create high customer awareness of, demand for, and confidence in products designed in compliance with Telematics Specification.                

Constance K. Robinson, 

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-16484  Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
SERVED: August 28, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MICHELLE KRAEMER 

Docket No. FAA-2015- 2441 

(Civil Pep.alty,l\ction) ." ..... 

AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER 

Paragraphs #2 and #3 of the Procedural Order are amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following 

procedural schedule: 

1. On or before January 15, 2016, the parties shall conclude all discovery 

including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses 

to production requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve 

a discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for 

resolution in a timely manner; 

2. The parties shall be prepared to present this case at a hearing on or after 

January 18, 2016, subject to the availability of courtroom facilities. The 

specific date and time for ,the he~ri,ng will be forthcoming in a separate 

Order. 1 ': .. ,-.~. ; '\"'·· 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

1 The undersigned is transferring to another federal agency as an Administrative Law Judge. 

i . 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2Wl 0001 

Brian J. Lawler, Respondent's Counsel 

PILOT LAW, P.C. 

1551 9TH Avenue 

San Diego, CA 921 01 

TEL: 619-255-2398 

FAX: 619-231-4984 

Briana Martino, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

23 00 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 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: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2015-2441 

(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 2Wl000, Washington, 

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

,, 2 \,• ' '{•
#### § 60-1.25 Assumption of jurisdiction by or referrals to the Director.

The Director may inquire into the status of any matter pending before an agency. Where he considers it necessary or appropriate to the achievement of the purposes of the order, he may assume jurisdiction over the matter and proceed as provided herein. Whenever the Director assumes jurisdiction over any matter, or an agency refers any matter he may conduct, or have conducted, such investigations, hold such hearings, make such findings, issue such recommendations and directives, order such sanctions and penalties, and take such other action as may be necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of the order. The Director shall promptly notify the agency of any corrective action to be taken or any sanctions to be taken or any sanction to be imposed by the agency. The agency shall take such action, and report the results thereof to the Director within the time specified.

[43 FR 49240, Oct. 20, 1978, as amended at 62 FR 66971, Dec. 22, 1997]
S90O0023.

#### MOORE v. JAMES.

(386 SE2d 661)

Decided November 1, 1989.

James Claude Moore, *pro se.*

*Frank C. Winn, District Attorney,*for appellee.

Marshall, Chief Justice.

This case involves a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a superior court judge to act on a motion for new trial.

In view of the fact that this is a direct application to this Court for a writ of mandamus, this case is controlled by *Brown v. Johnson,*251 Ga. 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983), and the petition is therefore dismissed.

*Petition for writ dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
162P95-6

#### State v. Isaac Jackson Stroud

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for a Redetermination of Its Order

Dismissed
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00207-CV

Antonio JIMENEZ and Mary Louise Jimenez,

Appellants

v.

Carlos GONGORA,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-02692

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. We order 

appellee recover his costs of this appeal from appellants. 

SIGNED December 7, 2016.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
§ 302-17.61 Is the WTA optional under the two-year process? ( a ) Yes. If your agency makes the WTA optional to you, you may choose to not receive the WTA.
( b ) When deciding whether or not to receive the WTA, you should consider the following: ( 1 ) If you expect that your marginal Federal tax rate will be equal to or higher than the supplemental wage rate for the calendar year in which you received the majority of your relocation reimbursements, you may want to elect to receive the WTA.
( 2 ) If you expect that your marginal Federal tax rate will be less than the supplemental wage rate for the calendar year in which you received the majority of your relocation reimbursements, you may want to decline receiving the WTA to avoid or limit possible overpayment of the WTA, the so-called “negative RITA” situation. In a “negative RITA” situation, you must repay some of the WTA in Year 2. However, even if your marginal Federal tax rate will be less than the supplemental wage rate, you may want to accept the WTA so that your initial reimbursement is larger.
( 3 ) Examples showing relocation allowances paid by accepting or declining the WTA are published in an FTR bulletin available at *https://gsa.gov/ftrbulletins*.
[FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49645, Aug. 21, 2014, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2020-02, 84 FR 64783, Nov. 25, 2019]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          38,597
<SECURITIES>                                    70,436
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                        68
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,973
<PP&E>                                          17,983
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,940
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        12,014
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,538
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,788
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               291,827
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  235,567
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,733
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,773
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,897
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,876
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,876
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 42 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 42

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the low-income 
                       housing credit permanent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Rangel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the low-income 
                       housing credit permanent.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) General Rule.--Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking subsection (o) (relating to termination).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to periods after June 30, 1992.

                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16278]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Northwest Sacramento Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:  Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY:  The Northwest Sacramento Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) 
will meet on Friday, July 14, 2000, at the French Gulch Hotel, French 
Gulch, California. The meeting will start at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 3 
p.m. topics for the meeting are: (1) An update on the Northwest Forest 
Plan Implementation; (2) update on the Clear Creek/Resource 
Conservation District proposal; (3) discussion on the French Gulch 
community fuels area; and (4) public comment periods. All PAC meetings 
are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Hendryx, USDA, Klamath National 
Forest, 11263 N. Highway 3, Fort Jones, California 96032; telephone 
530-468-1281; TDD (530) 468-2783; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#74171c111a10060d0c3412075a1211105a0107"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe9d969b909a8c8786be988dd0989b9ad08b8d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: June 22, 2000.
Constance J. Hendryx,
PAC Support Staff.
[FR Doc. 00-16278 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 11-9245.

#### Like *v.*Palmer, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 109-43.312 Use of excess personal property on cost-reimbursement contracts. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) It is DOE policy for designated contractors to use Government excess personal property to the maximum extent possible to reduce contract costs. However, the determination required in 41 CFR 101-43.312(b) does not apply to such contracts, and a DOE official is not required to execute transfer orders for authorized designated contractors. The procedures prescribed in 41 CFR 101-43.309-5 for execution of transfer orders apply.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                                 Exhibit 12

                           IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED
       STATEMENT OF THE CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in thousands)

                                                                          Year Ended December 31,
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1992           1993           1994              1995           1996
                                                  ----------     ---------       ---------        ---------       ----------
<S>                                               <C>            <C>             <C>              <C>             <C>
Earnings:
     Income from operations before provision
       for income taxes .....................     $    3,682     $   3,656       $   3,241        $   1,945       $   1,792
     Add:  Fixed charges ....................         12,079        12,430          13,472           17,058          21,939
                                                  ----------     ---------       ---------        ---------       ---------
                                                  $   15,761     $  16,086       $  16,713        $  19,003       $  23,731
                                                  ==========     =========       =========        =========       =========

Fixed charges:
     Interest expense ......................      $    8,412     $   8,203       $   8,954        $  11,838       $  14,901
     Interest portion of rent expense ......           3,667         4,227           4,518            5,220           7,038
                                                  ----------     ----------      ---------        ---------       ---------
                                                  $   12,079     $  12,430       $  13,472        $  17,058       $  21,939
                                                  ==========     =========       =========        =========       =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .........             1.3x          1.3x            1.2x             1.1x            1.1x
                                                  ==========     =========       =========        =========       =========
</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 11 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-14518

 

D. C. Docket No. 05-00741 CV-ORL-31-KRS

PATRICK E. MAHONEY, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NOKIA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

 

(June 11, 2007)

Before DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.

PER CURIAM:

_____________________________

*Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by

designation.
In his brief on appeal, Mahoney attempts to challenge three additional orders of the district 1

court: (1) the district court’s order denying Mahoney’s sur-replymotion; (2) the district court’s order

giving effect to Mahoney’s stipulation of dismissal; and (3) the district court’s order denying

Mahoney’s motion for a protective order. We conclude that we either lack jurisdiction to review any

of these orders on the ground that they were not designated in Mahoney’s notice of appeal or, they

are otherwise without merit.

Although this was not the basis of the district court’s grant of summary judgment, “[t]his 2

court may affirm the district court where the judgment entered is correct on any legal ground

regardless of the grounds addressed, adopted or rejected by the district court.” Bonanni Ship Supply,

Inc. v. United States, 959 F.2d 1558, 1561 (11th Cir. 1992).

2

Appellant, Patrick E. Mahoney, Sr. (“Mahoney”), appeals the district court’s

grant of summary judgment in favor of Nokia, Inc. (“Nokia”), in this Family and

Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) case.1

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the

benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment

on the ground that Mahoney was not an “eligible” employee at the time that he

requested FMLA leave. 

2

AFFIRMED.