alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 302-7.13 What are the various methods of shipping HHG and how is the weight determined for each type of shipment?

HHG should be shipped by the most economical method available. The various methods of shipment and weight calculations include the following:

| Method of shipment | How weight of shipment is determined |
| --- | --- |
| (a) Uncrated (shipped in HHG movers van or similar conveyance) | An allowance of up to 2,000 pounds, exclusive of the 18,000 pounds net weight of HHG shipment, is used for the packing weight covering barrels, boxes, cartons, and similar material but does not include pads, chains, dollies and other equipment to load and secure the shipment. |
| (b) Crated shipments | When crated the net weight will not include the weight of the crating material. The net weight will be computed as being 60 percent of the gross weight. However, if the net weight computed in this manner exceeds the applicable weight limitation and if it is determined that, for reasons beyond the employee's control, unusually heavy crating and packing materials were necessarily used, the net weight may be computed at less than 60 percent of the gross weight. |
| (c) Containerized shipments (Special containers designed, e.g., lift vans, CONEX transporters, HHG shipping boxes, for repeated use) | When the known tare weight does not include the weight of interior bracing and padding materials but only the weight of the container, the net weight will be 85 percent of the gross weight less the weight of the container. If the known tare weight includes such material, so that the net weight is the same as it would be for uncrated shipments in interstate commerce, the net weight will not be subject to reduction. |
| (d) Constructive weight | If adequate scales are not available at origin, en route or at destination, a constructive weight based on 7 pounds per cubic foot of properly loaded van space may be used. Such weight may be used for a part-load when its weight could not be obtained, without first unloading it or other part-loads being carried in the same vehicle or when the HHG are not weighed because the carrier's charges for local or metropolitan area moves are properly computed on the basis other than weight or volume of the shipment (as when payment is based on an hourly rate and distance involved). In such instances a statement from the carrier showing the properly loaded van space required for the shipment should be obtained with respect to proof of entitlement to a commuted rate payment when net weight cannot be shown. |

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated and amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18340, Apr. 1, 2011]
§ 302-6.6 Am I eligible for a TQSE allowance if I transfer to or from a foreign area? ( a ) You may not receive a TQSE allowance under this part when you transfer to a foreign area. However, you may qualify for a comparable allowance under the Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR) (Government Civilians, Foreign Areas) (see § 302-3.101 of this chapter).
( b ) You may receive a TQSE allowance under this part when you transfer from a foreign area and occupy temporary quarters in the United States. You may also be authorized a comparable allowance, prescribed by the Department of State, at the foreign area preceding final departure subsequent to the necessary vacating of residence quarters (see § 302-3.101 of this chapter).
No. 11-9550.

#### Young v. Miller-Stout, Superintendent, Airway Heights Corrections Center.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
010P16

#### State v. Purcell Orlando Jones, Jr.

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Decision of COA

1. Denied

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

2. Dismissed as moot
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT FILED: November 26, 1997

No. 96-2253
JONATHAN LEWIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MEDICAL COLLEGE OF HAMPTON ROADS, a/k/a Eastern Virginia Medical School of the Medical College of Hampton Roads; JAMES E. ETHERIDGE, JR.; WILLIAM J. COOKE; CLINTON H. TOEWE, II; ROBERT M. MCCOMBS; JAMES F. LIND; THOMAS J. MANSER, Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER Appellant has filed a Petition for Rehearing with Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc, alleging error with respect to this Court's August 5, 1997 opinion. We grant the petition for rehearing to clarify that our affirmance also extends to the district court's January 12, 1996, order granting a motion to dismiss, in part. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accord ingly, we affirm both orders on the reasoning of the district court. Lewin v.2 Medical College of Hampton Roads , No. CA-95-279-N (E.D. Va. Jan. 12 and Aug. 2, 1996). For the Court /s/ PATRICIA S. CONNOR CLERK3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2253
JONATHAN LEWIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MEDICAL COLLEGE OF HAMPTON ROADS, a/k/a Eastern Virginia Medical School of the Medical College of Hampton Roads; JAMES E. ETHERIDGE, JR.; WILLIAM J. COOKE; CLINTON H. TOEWE, II; ROBERT M. MCCOMBS; JAMES F. LIND; THOMAS J. MANSER, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-279-N) Submitted: June 10, 1997 Decided: August 5, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Lewin, Appellant Pro Se. David Kegebein Sutelan, MAYS & VALENTINE, Norfolk, Vi rginia; Alfred James Johnston, Jonathan Barkasy Sprague, POST & SCHELL, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.4 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summaryjudgment against him in his action alleging a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1232g(a)(2) (West Supp. 1997), and related state law claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lewin v. Medical College of Hampton Roads , No. CA-95-279-N (E.D. Va. Jan. 12 and Aug. 2, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### § 302-7.100 How are the charges of transporting HHG, and temporary storage calculated?

The charges for transporting HHG, and temporary storage are computed by multiplying the number of pounds shipped divided by 100 (within the 18,000 maximum limitation) by the applicable rate per one-hundred pounds for the distance transported. This includes, but is not limited to packing/unpacking, crating/uncrating, drayage, weighing, pickup/delivery, line-haul, accessorial charges, and temporary storage charges, including but not limited to handling in/out, etc. However, your reimbursement may not fully cover your total out-of-pocket expenses. In determining the distance shipped you may use the tariffs filed with GSA travel management centers or any other mileage guide authorized by your agency. If the exact mileage is not shown, the next higher mileage distance applies. If there is a minimum weight charge above the actual weight under applicable tariffs, reimbursement will be based on the minimum weight charge instead of the actual weight.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2013-03, 78 FR 75484, Dec. 12, 2013]
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ 

Project No.: 0172.07.005.504 DISTRIBUTION 

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: 304(m) Annual Review 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Outgoing Call 

Date: 3/17/2010 Time: 10:30 am EST 

Company Name: DEC Region 3 Office 

 NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 

Contact Name: John Sansalone 

Phone No.: 845-256-3019 

Name: Elizabeth Sabol Eastern Research Group 

GENERAL SUBJECT : Flows reported to DMR in 2008 

 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

I called DEC Region 3 Office on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 11:00 am to discuss DMR data submitted by 

Catskill State Fish Hatchery (NY0035327). I was directed to Adam Peterson, and I left him a message briefly 

describing the 304(m) project and how we obtain DMR data. Mr. Peterson returned my phone call later that 

day, and left a message asking me to return his call. I called him back on Thursday March 18, 2010 and left 

another message. 

On Wednesday, March 24, 2010, I was able to reach Mr. Peterson and asked him about the flows at Catskill. He 

stated that he would look into the submitted reports and the permit to confirm flow units and that he would get 

back to me by the end of the day. 

On Friday, March 26, 2010, Mr. Peterson returned my phone call and stated that I should contact John 

Sansalone, for information regarding the Catskill State Fish Hatchery facility. I called and left Mr. Sansalone a 

message on Friday at 1:30 pm, identifying myself and why I was contacting him. 

Mr. Sansalone left me a message on Monday, March 29, 2010, at 11:30 am. I returned his call and had to leave 

another message. Mr. Sansalone left me a message on Tuesday, stating that he would be in the field and that I 

should contact him on Thursday. 

I called Mr. Sansalone on Thursday, April 1, 2010, at 1:00 pm. We briefly discussed Outfall 001 and the flows 

reported to DMR in 2008. He stated that this outfall is the main outfall and that he would contact the personnel 

responsible for reporting the flows. He asked that I send him an e-mail with the flow information currently 

provided in the database. I sent Mr. Sansalone the information Thursday afternoon. 

Mr. Sansalone left me a message on Monday, April 5, 2010, and 10:30 am stating that the flows reported to 

DMR in 2008 had a units error. The flows should have been reported in GPM, not MGD.
#### § 304-5.6 May we authorize acceptance of payment from more than one non-Federal source for a single trip?

Yes, you may accept payment from more than one non-Federal source for a single trip, as long as the total of such payments do not exceed the total cost of the trip.

[FTR Amdt. 2003-02, 68 FR 12604, Mar. 17, 2003. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2009-06, 74 FR 55151, Oct. 27, 2009]
##### 



Exhibit 3.3
  
 DEAN HELLER
Secretary of State
204 North Carson Street. Suite 1
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4299
(775) 684 5708
Website: secretaryofstate.biz
 
    Certificate of Amendment
 
   Important
Read attached instructions before completing form.
    
    ABOVE SPACE & FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
 Certificate
of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation  For Nevada Profit Corporations
 (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390  After Issuance of Stock)
 
   
     (must not be later then 90 days
after the certificate is filed)5. Officer Signature (required):
  IMPORTANT:
 This form must be accompanied
by appropriate fees. See attached for schedule.
    
    Nevada Security of State AM
78.385 Amend 2003Revised on: [ILLEGIBLE]
§ 109-45.303-3 Delivery. ( a ) - ( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) Guidelines for signature authorization and control of blank copies of Standard Form 97, United States Government Certificate to Obtain Title to a Vehicle are contained in subpart 109-38.7 of this chapter.
<PAGE>

                                                                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 Quarterly Report of Angelica Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 29, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen M. O'Hara, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section
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 (15 U.S.C. 78m
            or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: September 7, 2006

                                         /s/ Stephen M. O'Hara
                                         ------------------------------------
                                         Stephen M. O'Hara
                                         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.10015 Are there exceptions for emergency filings? ( a ) Sometimes we grant licenses, modifications or renewals even if no one files an application. Instances where this may occur include: ( 1 ) If we find there is an emergency involving danger to life or property, or because equipment is damaged;
( 2 ) If the President proclaims, or if Congress declares, a national emergency;
( 3 ) During any war in which the United States is engaged and when grants, modifications or renewals are necessary for national defense, security or in furtherance of the war effort; or
( 4 ) If there is an emergency where we find that it is not feasible to secure renewal applications from existing licensees or to follow normal licensing procedures.
( b ) Emergency authorizations stop at the end of emergency periods or wars. After the emergency period or war, you must submit your request by filing the appropriate form electronically.
( c ) The procedures for emergency requests, as described in this section, are as specified in §§ 25.120 and 63.25 of this chapter.
[69 FR 40327, July 2, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 17285, Mar. 27, 2020]
Motion Granted; Order filed, January 8, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00160-CV

____________

J. PAUL CAVER, Appellant

V.

CYNTHIA CLAYTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-65040

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was originally due May 7, 2018. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 35.1. On June 21, 2018 this court abated the appeal and ordered the court 

reporter to file the record. On November 5, 2018 the court reporter filed an 

inaccurate record, which was refused by this court. On December 11, 2018 appellant 

filed a motion to compel the court reporter to file an accurate reporter’s record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been 

filed timely, we grant appellant’s motion and issue the following order.
We order Michelle Tucker, the official court reporter, to file the corrected 

record in this appeal within 15 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2013 - 0020 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 - SW - 107 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
§ 303-70.801 To whom should we make payment? You should: ( a ) Pay the person performing the service; or
( b ) Reimburse the person who made the original payment.
#### SABRA FAIRES, BENNETT COTTON, AND DIANE P. LAHTI, Plaintiff-Appellees v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; A. GRANT WHITNEY, JR., Chair, and RHONDA K. AMOROSO, JOSHUA D. MALCOLM, MAJA KRICKER, and JAMES L. BAKER, members of the State Board (in their official capacities only); and KIM WESTBROOK STRACH, Executive Director of the State Board (in her official capacity only), Defendant-Appellants

From Wake County

No. 84A16

ORDER

Parties’ Joint Motion for Expedited Hearing is allowed as follows. The Record on Appeal and Defendant-Appellants’ brief are due on or before 24 March 2016. Plaintiff-Appellees’ brief is due on or before 31 March 2016. Defendant-Appellants’ reply brief, if any, is due on or before 5 April 2016. Oral Argument will be heard'at 9:30 a.m. on 13 April 2016.

By order of the Court in Conference, this the 10th day of March, 2016.

s/Ervin. J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 11th day of March, 2016.

CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER Clérk of the Supreme Court

s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk
No. 11-1095.

#### Graves *v.*International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 572 et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 51-11.10 Restrictions that apply to testimony. ( a ) Conditions or restrictions may be imposed on the testimony of the Committee employees including, for example, limiting the areas of testimony or requiring the requester and other parties to the legal proceeding to agree that they will seek to file the transcript of the testimony under seal and that it will be used or made available only in the particular legal proceeding for which testimony was requested. The General Counsel may also require a copy of the transcript or testimony be provided to the Committee at the requester's expense.
( b ) The Committee may offer the employee's written declaration in lieu of testimony.
( c ) If authorized to testify pursuant to this part, an employee may testify as to facts within his or her personal knowledge, but, unless specifically authorized to do so by the General Counsel, the employee shall not: ( 1 ) Disclose confidential or privileged information;
( 2 ) Testify as to any information outside the scope of the General Counsel's authorization (*see* § 51-11.7); or
( 3 ) For a current Committee employee, testify as an expert or opinion witness with regard to any matter arising out of the employee's official duties or the functions of the Committee unless testimony is being given on behalf of the United States whether or not the United States is a party.
§ 60-741.24 Drugs and alcohol. ( a ) *Specific activities permitted.* The contractor: ( 1 ) May prohibit the illegal use of drugs and the use of alcohol at the workplace by all employees;
( 2 ) May require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol or be engaging in the illegal use of drugs at the workplace;
( 3 ) May require that all employees behave in conformance with the requirements established under the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.*);
( 4 ) May hold an employee who engages in the illegal use of drugs or who is an alcoholic to the same qualification standards for employment or job performance and behavior to which the contractor holds its other employees, even if any unsatisfactory performance or behavior is related to the employee's drug use or alcoholism;
( 5 ) May require that its employees employed in an industry subject to such regulations comply with the standards established in the regulations (if any) of the Departments of Defense and Transportation, and of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other Federal agencies regarding alcohol and the illegal use of drugs; and
( 6 ) May require that employees employed in sensitive positions comply with the regulations (if any) of the Departments of Defense and Transportation, and of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other Federal agencies that apply to employment in sensitive positions subject to such regulations.
( b ) *Drug testing* — ( 1 ) *General policy.* For purposes of this part, a test to determine the illegal use of drugs is not considered a medical examination. Thus, the administration of such drug tests by the contractor to its job applicants or employees is not a violation of § 60-741.23. Nothing in this part shall be construed to encourage, prohibit, or authorize the contractor to conduct drug tests of job applicants or employees to determine the illegal use of drugs or to make employment decisions based on such test results.
( 2 ) *Transportation employees.* Nothing in this part shall be construed to encourage, prohibit, or authorize the otherwise lawful exercise by contractors subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation of authority to test employees in, and applicants for, positions involving safety-sensitive duties for the illegal use of drugs or for on-duty impairment by alcohol; and remove from safety-sensitive positions persons who test positive for illegal use of drugs or on-duty impairment by alcohol pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( 3 ) Any information regarding the medical condition or history of any employee or applicant obtained from a test to determine the illegal use of drugs, except information regarding the illegal use of drugs, is subject to the requirements of § 60-741.23(b)(5) and (c).
# Comments on: 18-1849: INTRA-CELLULAR THERAPIES, INC v. IANCU [OPINION], Precedential