alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 381 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 381

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to require that courts, upon the 
    criminal conviction under that Act, notify the employer of the 
                           convicted person.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Solomon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to require that courts, upon the 
    criminal conviction under that Act, notify the employer of the 
                           convicted person.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Employer Notification Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.

    (a) In General.--The Controlled Substances Act is amended by adding 
at the end of part D the following:

                      ``Notification of Employers

    ``Sec. 423. Upon the conviction of a person for an offense under 
this title or title III, the court shall notify the employer of such 
person of that conviction.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the Comprehensive 
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 864 the following:

``Sec. 423. Notification of Employers.''.

                                 <all>
```
AGREEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
AND NON-COMPETITION
 THIS AGREEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-COMPETITION   ENERGY FOCUS INC.,
 A. Employment Relationship.
 B. Definitions.
    C. Confidential Information.




---



##### 



D. Inventions.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)




---



##### 



E. Conflict of Interest.
 F. Property of Employer.
 G. Non-compete.
 H. Employees and Consultants of Employer.
 I. Rights and Remedies Upon Breach.




---



##### 



Specific Performance.
 Accounting.
 Blue-Penciling.
 J. Disclosure.
 K Governing Law and Jurisdiction.
 L. Binding Effect.
 M. Severability.
 N. Effect of Captions.




---



##### 



O. Construction.
 P. Notices.
 Q. Counterparts.
 R. Acknowledgment.
 S. Assignment.
 T. Entire Agreement.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 ENERGY FOCUS INC.By:Its:Employee




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 INVENTIONS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZATREA EVANS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY

SERVICES LLP; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-15264

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-04993-MMC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 11, 2011** 

Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Zatrea Evans appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her

action alleging state law employment claims and its order denying her motion to

remand the action to state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

FILED

AUG 17 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-15264

We review de novo the district court’s order denying the motion to remand, and for

clear error its underlying factual findings. United Computer Sys., Inc. v. AT&T

Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Evans was subject to a

collective bargaining agreement during the relevant time period in light of

defendants’ evidence and Evans’s own allegations referencing “union rules.” 

Accordingly, the district court properly denied the motion to remand because some

of Evans’s claims were completely preempted under § 301 of the Labor

Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), see Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc.,

255 F.3d 683, 693 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), and thus these claims were removable

to federal court, see Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6-7 (2003). 

Evans’s non-preempted state law claims were also removable under the

supplemental jurisdiction statute. See id. at 8 n.3.

Evans’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 0005 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 1 44 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 2013 - 0165 **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, list 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 together. 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 w ith 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 Man ager**  **Date**
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10800

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS REYNA-MORENO, also known as Ernesto Vega

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-10-ALL

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos Reyna-Moreno

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug.

28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of FS Energy and Power Fund (the "Company") for the three months ended
September 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), Michael C. Forman, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edward T.
Gallivan, Jr., as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:



Dated:
November 13, 2015

/s/ MICHAEL C. FORMAN Michael C. Forman
Chief Executive Officer/s/ EDWARD T. GALLIVAN, JR. Edward T. Gallivan, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
# Un ited States Cour t of Appeals F orthe F ir st Cir cuit

No. 01-1980 KAREN LYNN BIENKOWSKI, DAVID EBERLE,

DELIA ANN HOYE AND EDWARD MCDONALD, Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v. NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on April 8, 2002, is amended as follows: On p.8, line 10: replace "Once" with "One".
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40796 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SCOTT MARK LAIR, Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-97-CR-287-1

__________________________________________

August 4, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Scott Mark Lair appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence of his alleged mental incompetence and erred in denying his request for a downward departure based on diminished mental capacity. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. United States v. Jaramillo , 42 F.3d 920, 924 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Sanchez-Sotelo , 8 F.3d 202, 212 (5th Cir. 1993). With regard to the district court’s refusal to depart downward, this court has jurisdiction if a refusal to depart downward was premised upon a mistaken conclusion that the guidelines do not2

permit such a departure, but lacks jurisdiction if the refusal was premised on a determination that a departure was not warranted under the facts of the case. United States v. Brace , 145 F.3d 247, 263 (5th Cir.)(en banc), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 426 (1998). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court erroneously believed that it lacked authority to depart downward. See United States v. Landerman , 167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir. 1999)(citing United States v. Willey , 57 F.3d 1374, 1392 n. 32 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Valencia-Gonzales , 172 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1999)

. As a result, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s refusal to downwardly depart. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.
#### Charles Bono et al., Respondents, v Nanco Contracting Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and Sheila Nevins et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Air Freight Transportation Corp. of New York et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Sheila Nevins, Edward B. Sadin and Harry Ladner appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), dated October 27, 1989, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike their answer pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

On this record, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing the drastic sanction of striking the answers of the individual defendants upon their repeated, willful failure to comply with numerous orders directing them to appear for depositions *(see,*CPLR 3126; *Rubin v Pan Am. World Airways,*128 AD2d 765). Brown, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 results of operations of the Company.
 Date: March 7, 2006
    
    /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.Anthony F. Earley, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of The Detroit Edison Company
725 TOWN & COUNTRY RD., SUITE 300 · ORANGE, CA 92868 · TEL (714) 835-6355 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA2015-1969 

Petition for Amendment to 

Exemption No. 12790 
725 TOWN & COUNTRY RD., SUITE 300 · ORANGE, CA 92868 · TEL (714) 835-6355






no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public safety that were the basis for the initial grant 

of exemption. 

Because the requested amendment would not set any precedent or otherwise raise any novel issue, and 

because JLP seeks to begin these operations without delay, JLP respectfully requests the FAA to 

determine that good cause exists to dispense with publication of the summary of this petition in the 

Federal Register and grant the requested amendment expeditiously by sum mary means. 

Thank you for your consideration of this petition. 

Sincerely, 

J.L. Patterson & Associates, Inc. 

Jacqueline L. Patterson, P.E. 

President
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 44673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18871]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Corrected Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Richard 
M. Osborne, Sr., et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-2039-CAB, was lodged with the 
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on 
August 10, 2018.
    This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the 
United States against Defendants Richard M. Osborne, Sr., Great Plains 
Exploration, LLC, Center Street Investments, Inc., Callendar Real 
Estate Development Company, LLC, and Osair, Inc., pursuant to Sections 
301(a), 309(b), and 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), 
1319(b), and 1319(d), to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil 
penalties against the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by 
discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United 
States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by 
requiring the Defendants to mitigate for the harms caused by the 
impacted areas.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Corrected Notice. Please address comments to 
Phillip R. Dupr[eacute], United State Department of Justice, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, Post Office Box 7611, 
Washington, DC 20044-7611 and refer to United States v. Richard M. 
Osborne, Sr., et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-2039-CAB, DJ #90-5-1-1-18628.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Carl B. 
Stokes United States Courthouse, 801 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, 
OH 44113. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined 
electronically at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

Cherie L. Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-18871 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
#### CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MICHIGAN MUTUAL LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 73-311.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 24, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1973.

*685Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellant.

Horton & Perse, Welsh & Carroll, Miami, Parkhurst & LaHurd, Fort Lauder-dale, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

CHARLES CARROLL, Judge.

This appeal challenges an order for payment of an attorney’s fee by one insurance company to another insurance company, incident to ordering pro rata contribution by two insurers, of an uninsured motorist claim for which both insurers had supplied coverage.

The claimants were insured under an automobile liability policy issued by Central Mutual Insurance Company, with uninsured motorist coverage. When injured they were in an automobile, the owner of which was similarly insured by Michigan Mutual Liability Company. The claim was for injury caused by a third party, an uninsured motorist. Each insurer filed an action for declaratory judgment relating to coverage. The cases were consolidated.

The litigation between the insurers was as to whether one was liable to the exclusion of the other, or whether the loss payment was to be pro rated.

Central settled with its insureds for $4,750, which included $500 attorney’s fee. The claimants made no claim for attorney’s fees from the other insurer, Michigan. On final hearing the court ruled that the coverage should be pro rated between the two insurers, pursuant to Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co., Fla.1972, 271 So.2d 457. By a separate judgment entered on the motion of Michigan against Central for attorney’s fee, the court entered judgment in favor of Michigan against Central for an attorney’s fee in the amount of $1,500.

Section 627.428(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. directs the trial court to “adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the *insured or beneficiary*a reasonable sum as fees or compensation *for the insured’s or beneficiary’s attorney prosecuting the suit*in which the recovery is had,” *upon the entry of a judgment “against an insurer and in favor of an insured or the named beneficiary*under a policy or contract executed by the insurer.” [Emphasis added.]

The attorney’s fee allowance here was not one authorized or directed by the statute.1 Michigan was not a party to the contract of insurance issued by Central. Michigan was not “an insured or the named beneficiary” under the Central policy. The insured claimants were not concerned in the outcome of the actions prosecuted by the two insurers.

Reversed.

1

. This is not a case for the enforcement of a claim of an insured under a policy, by an assignee of the insured or by another in the name of the insured. Of. Cosmopolitan Mutual Ins. Co. v. Eden Roc Hotel, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 310; All Ways Reliable Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Moore, Fla.1972, 261 So.2d 131.
# C_2015218EN.01000501.xml

| 3.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/5

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2015/C 218/05)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 22.6.2015 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 22.6.2015-31.12.2015 |
| Member State | Sweden |
| Stock or Group of stocks | SOL/3A/BCD |
| Species | Common Sole (solea solea) |
| Zone | IIIa; Union waters of Subdivisions 22-32 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 04/TQ104 |

Date and time of closure

22.6.2015

Duration

22.6.2015-31.12.2015

Member State

Sweden

Stock or Group of stocks

SOL/3A/BCD

Species

Common Sole (solea solea)

solea solea

Zone

IIIa; Union waters of Subdivisions 22-32

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

04/TQ104

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
#### Henry HARVEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. U-99.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 1974.

John F. Welch, Ocala, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Turner v. State ex rel. Pellerin, 272 So.2d 129 (Fla.1973).

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.
#### Robert Lee WILSON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50466.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 24, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1978.

Gene Brown, Meridian, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Carolyn B. Mills, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Lester F. Williamson, Judge.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., LEE and BOWLING, JJ., and J. C. FEDUCCIA, Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.