alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 520.26 Public hearings. ( a ) A public hearing on a proposed or ongoing action covered by a DEIS shall be held upon the determination by the official responsible for such action, in consultation with the Associate Administrator for Planning and Evaluation, that a public hearing would be appropriate and in the public interest. In deciding whether a public hearing is appropriate, the responsible official should consider: ( 1 ) The magnitude of the proposal in terms of economic costs, the geographic area involved, and the uniqueness or size of the commitment of the resources involved;
( 2 ) The degree of interest in the proposal, as evidenced by requests from the public and from Federal, State, and local authorities that a hearing be held;
( 3 ) The likelihood that information will be presented at the hearing which will be of assistance to the agency in fulfilling its responsibilities under the NEPA;
( 4 ) The extent to which public involvement already has been achieved through other means, such as earlier public hearings, meetings with citizen representatives, and/or written comments on the proposed action; and
( 5 ) The extent of potential environmental impact.
( b ) If it is determined that a public hearing is to be held in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the official responsible for the action shall both announce the hearing through newspaper articles, direct notification to interested parties, and clearinghouses, and cause a notice to be issued in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to the time of such hearing: ( 1 ) Identifying the subject matter of the hearing;
( 2 ) Announcing the date, time, and place of the hearing and the procedures to be followed; and
( 3 ) Announcing the availability of the DEIS and any other information, as appropriate, for public inspection at one or more locations in the area affected by the action.
#### Whiting v. Cochran.

Rule of Decision.

No rule of this court has been more often declared and better understood than that, where the testimony is conflicting on issues of fact, it will not pass upon the weight or preponderance of evidence nor interfere with the finding of facts by court or jury when there is testimony to sustain it.

*Appeal from, the County Court of HI Paso County.*

Mr. Owen Prentis, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Reed, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action at law by appellee, an attorney at law, to recover $250, alleged to be due from appellant for retainer and services rendered upon a trial involving the title to mining property at Cripple Creek. Trial was had to the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff (appellee) for $250, from which an appeal was taken to this court. No question of law is presented. The errors assigned are that the judgment was not warranted by, and was against *534the weight of, evidence. Counsel in argument says : “ The only contention in this case is that the appellee never was employed by the appellant to perform the services claimed to be rendered by him, for which he obtained judgment in the court below.” This is followed by an analysis of the evidence to show that the court erred in finding the facts. The evidence of services performed and the extent of the employment was contradictory, but all the evidence shows some kind of employment and the appearance and participation of plaintiff upon the trial, and professional services rendered at the instance of appellant and his agent.

These undisputed facts having been established, the only remaining question of any importance was the amount he was entitled to as compensation. There having been no contract in regard to it, witnesses were called to fix the value of his services, some of whom testified to $500, others to less. From such evidence the court was warranted in fixing the amount at |250, the amount claimed.

No rule of this court has been more often declared and better' understood than that this court will not, where the testimony is conflicting on issues of fact, pass upon the weight or preponderance of evidence nor interfere with the finding of facts by court or jury where there is evidence to sustain it.

The judgment of the county court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### § 599.517 Other sanctions.

The procedures and penalties described in this subpart are not the only procedures and penalties that may apply to someone who violates the CARS Act or submits a false certification required by this rule. Anyone who submits false information on these forms or otherwise violates the CARS Act or this part may not only be subject to the procedures and penalties described in this subpart, but also civil and criminal penalties. Such civil and criminal penalties may include penalties three times any amount falsely claimed to be due from the United States pursuant to the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729), or imprisonment of up to 5 years and fines of up to $250,000 (18 U.S.C. 1001). In addition, NHTSA may request that the Attorney General seek appropriate injunctive relief to address violations of the CARS Act or this part.
§ 512.18 How will I be notified of the confidentiality determination? ( a ) If a request for confidential treatment is granted, the submitter of the information will be notified in writing of the determination and of any appropriate limitations.
( b ) If a request for confidential treatment is denied in whole or in part, the submitter of the information will be notified in writing of the determination, and the reasons for the denial, by certified mail, return receipt requested. The information may be made available to the public twenty (20) working days after the submitter of the information has received notice of the denial, unless a request for reconsideration is filed. The information may be released publicly on an earlier date, if the Chief Counsel determines in writing that the public interest requires that the information be made available to the public on such date.
H. Res. 169

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 19, 2001.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON RULES: Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### § 630.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to prescribe requirements and procedures necessary for compliance with the National Transit Database Reporting System and Uniform System of Accounts, as mandated by 49 U.S.C. 5335, and to set forth the procedures for addressing a reporting entity's failure to comply with these requirements.
#### § 585.71 Scope.

This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger cars, and of trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less, to submit a report, and maintain records related to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet the moving deformable barrier test requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214, *Side impact protection* (49 CFR 571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test requirements of S9 of that standard.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-10-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,675,298
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    851,882
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,189,539
<PP&E>                                      67,571,019
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,387,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,220,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,667,033
<BONDS>                                     22,956,181
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       425,631
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,166,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,220,494
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            53,173,019
<CGS>                                       14,123,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,349,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,571,923
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,147,084
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,062,285
<INCOME-TAX>                                   637,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,425,285
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,425,285
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
#### Giuseppe Iandiorio, as Administrator of the Estate of Giuseppe Maffei, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*American Silk Dyeing and Finishing Company, Respondent.

*Iandiorio*v. *American Silk D. & F. Co.,*136 App. Div. 930, affirmed.

(Argued June 7, 1911;

decided June 16, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 20, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of defendant, his employer.

*623
      *Rosario Maggio*for appellant.

*Bertrand L. Pettigrew*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscocic and Collin, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 24



                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


     Each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints the
Registrant's Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and
General Counsel or Controller his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact, with
full power of substitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and
stead, in any and all capacities, to sign this report and any and all amendments
to this Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact, or his
substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


                        By   /s/ Betty C. Alewine
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Betty C. Alewine, President and Chief
                        Executive Officer and Director)



                        By   /s/ Allen E. Flower
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Allen E. Flower, Vice President and
                        Chief Financial Officer)



                        By   /s/ Edwin I. Colodny
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Edwin I. Colodny, Chairman and
                        Director)


                        By   /s/ Marcus C. Bennett
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Marcus C. Bennett, Director)


                        By   /s/ Lucy Wilson Benson
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Lucy Wilson Benson, Director)
<PAGE>

                        By   /s/ Neal B. Freeman
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Neal B. Freeman, Director)


                        By   /s/ Caleb B. Hurtt
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Caleb B. Hurtt, Director)


                        By   /s/ Peter W. Likins
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Peter W. Likins, Director)


                        By   /s/ Larry G. Schafran
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Larry G. Schafran, Director)


                        By   /s/ John V. Sponyoe
                        --------------------------------------
                        (John V. Sponyoe, Director)


                        By   /s/ Robert G. Schwartz
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Robert G. Schwartz, Director)


                        By   /s/ Kathryn C. Turner
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Kathryn C. Turner, Director)


                        By   /s/ Guy P. Wyser-Pratte
                        --------------------------------------
                        (Guy P. Wyser-Pratte, Director)
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 236 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 73
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 236

                          [Report No. 107-204]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

           September 13 (legislative day, September 11), 2001

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of Thursday, September 13, 
2001, providing for consideration or disposition of a bill making 
emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for 
additional disaster assistance, for anti-terrorism initiatives, for 
assistance in the recovery from the tragedy that occurred on September 
11, 2001, and for other purposes, any amendment thereto, any conference 
report thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement from a 
conference thereon.

                                                  House Calendar No. 73

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 236

                          [Report No. 107-204]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

           September 13 (legislative day, September 11), 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                           CLARCOR INC. SUBSIDIARIES
 
                            AS OF FEBRUARY 18, 1999
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        JURISDICTION OF
                                                        INCORPORATION OR                    PERCENT OF
                NAME                                      ORGANIZATION                      OWNERSHIP
------------------------------------                    ----------------                    ----------
<S>                                                     <C>                                 <C>
CLARCOR Consumer Products, Inc.                         Delaware                               100%
  J.L. Clark, Inc.                                      Delaware                               100%
  Clark Europe, Inc.                                    Delaware                               100%
CLARCOR Filtration Products, Inc.                       Delaware                               100%
  Airguard Industries, Inc.                             Kentucky                               100%
     Airklean Engineering Pte. Ltd.                     Singapore                              100%
     Airguard Asia Sdn. Bhd.                            Malaysia                               100%
  Baldwin Filters, Inc.                                 Delaware                               100%
     Baldwin Filters N.V.                               Belgium                                100%*
     Baldwin Filters Limited                            United Kingdom                         100%*
     Baldwin South Africa, Inc.                         Delaware                               100%
       Baldwin-Unifil S.A.                              South Africa                            80%
     Hastings Filters, Inc.                             Delaware                               100%
       Hastings Filters Ltd. Canada                     Canada                                 100%
  Baldwin Filters (Aust.) Pty.
     Limited                                            Australia                              100%
  Clark Filter, Inc.                                    Delaware                               100%
  Filtros Baldwin de Mexico                             Mexico                                  90%
United Air Specialists, Inc.                            Ohio                                   100%
  United Air Specialists (U.K.) Ltd.                    United Kingdom                         100%
CLARCOR International, Inc.                             Delaware                               100%
  Baldwin-Weifang Filters Ltd.                          China                                   70%
CLARCOR Foreign Sales Corporation                       Barbados                               100%
CLARCOR Trading Company                                 Delaware                               100%*
</TABLE>
 
------------------------------
* Direct or indirect
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges

EVELEE WHEELER (MOTHER) AND ARTHUR RONALD WALDROP (DECEASED) MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1677-05-3 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 8, 2005 VIRGINIA PANEL CORPORATION AND CINCINNATI IN SURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Thomas W. Dixon, Jr.; Nels on, McPherson, Summers & Santos, L.C., on brief), for appellant. (Cathleen P. Welsh; Keeler Obenshain PC, on brief), for appellees.

Evelee Wheeler, mother of Arthur Ronald Waldrop (decedent), appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commissi on denying benefits on the basis that the evidence failed to

establish a causal connection between the deceden t’s work-related injury and his death several years later. Wheeler also contends the commissi on erred in refusing to consider Dr. Thomas J. Spicuzza’s June 27, 2004 letter and a letter i ssued by the medical examiner’s office on August 16, 2004 as after-discovered evidence. 1 We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Waldrop et al. v. Virginia Panel Corporation , VWC File No. 193-84-21 (June 10, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 In light of our decision summarily affirmi ng the commission’s decision, we decline to address the question presented by employer regard ing Wheeler’s standing to assert a claim for death benefits. We note that the commission did not specifically decide that issue, but only alluded to it in dicta in its opinion.- 2 - because the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
§ 583.8 Procedure for determining country of origin for engines and transmissions (for purposes of determining the information specified by §§ 583.5(a)(4) and 583.5(a)(5) only). ( a ) Each supplier of an engine or transmission shall determine the country of origin once a year for each engine and transmission. The origin of engines shall be calculated for engines of the same displacement produced at the same plant. The origin for transmissions shall be calculated for transmissions of the same type produced at the same plant. Transmissions are of the same type if they have the same attributes including: Drive line application, number of forward gears, controls, and layout. The U.S. and Canada are treated separately in making such determination.
( b ) The value of an engine or transmission is determined by first adding the prices paid by the manufacturer of the engine/transmission for each component comprising the engine/transmission, as delivered to the assembly plant of the engine/transmission, and the fair market value of each individual part produced at the plant. The assembly and labor costs incurred for the final assembly of the engine/transmission are then added to determine the value of the engine or transmission.
( c ) *Determining the country of origin of components.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in (c)(2), the country of origin of each item of equipment is the country which contributes the greatest amount of value added to that item (the U.S. and Canada are treated separately).
( 2 ) Instead of making country of origin determinations in the manner specified in (c)(1), a manufacturer may, at its option, use any other methodology that is used for customs purposes (U.S. or foreign), so long as a consistent methodology is employed for all components.
( d ) *Determination of the total value of an engine/transmission which is attributable to individual countries.* The value of an engine/transmission that is attributable to each country is determined by adding the total value of all of the components installed in that engine/transmission which originated in that country. For the country where final assembly of the engine/transmission takes place, the assembly and labor costs incurred for such final assembly are also added.
( e ) The country of origin of each engine and the country of origin of each transmission is the country which contributes the greatest amount of value added to that item of equipment (the U.S. and Canada are treated separately).
[59 FR 37330, July 21, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 47895, Sept. 15, 1995; 64 FR 40781, July 28, 1999]