alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Judge Brian Duncan Joins the Review Commission

**Judge Brian Duncan Joins the Review Commission**

Judge Brian Duncan has rejoined the U.S Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission as an Administrative Law Judge in its Denver regional office after serving as a judge with the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review in Wichita, Kansas.

Prior to his judicial appointment, he was a Supervisory Attorney Advisor for the Review Commission’s Denver Regional Office where he advised the Denver judges on issues presented in each of their cases, assisted them in preparing and issuing trial decisions, and supervised the Denver judicial support staff. Judge Duncan also enjoyed an outstanding legal career as a Senior Trial Attorney with the Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, in Dallas, Texas. During his tenure at the Department of Labor, he litigated Occupational Safety and Health Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Mine Safety and Health Act, Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and Executive Order 11246 cases.

When asked about his judicial appointment, Judge Duncan stated that he is, "honored to participate in the Commission’s important work of adjudicating federal safety and health cases, and privileged to join such a distinguished group of judges."

Judge Duncan received his Juris Doctorate degree, with distinction, from the University of Oklahoma. He is a member of the Oklahoma bar, along with the bars of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Commission Monthly Case Activity for April 30, 2019

1. Cases Pending Beginning of Month 17

2. Cases Added to Docket 1

Tampa Electric Company

No. 17-2144

Direction for Review April 9, 2019

3. Cases Subtracted From Docket 0

4. Total Cases Pending End of Month 18
### May 18, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis for Chromium Electroplating RTR

FROM: Tom Walton

Economist ABCG (C439-02)

TO: Phil Mulrine Engineer MMG (D243-02)

This document addresses the economic impacts of the chromium electroplating RTR.

Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with the rule and the distribution of these costs among affected f acilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to rule. Total annua lized costs for the option of installing HEPA

filters on all affected sources for the rule are estimated to be $121,738,000. If this option were selected, 1,770 facilities are projected to incur costs that range from $51,000 to $140,000.

Because sales information was not available at the facility level, 2002 Economic Census Industry Series Reports were used to devel op average value of shipments estimates for three different levels of employment for an average plant in each of the four subcategories identified in the NESHAP. F acilities that are subject to the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP are generally cl assified under NAICS Code 332813, which includes facilities engaged in electroplating, plating, polishi ng, anodizing, and coloring. In addition to plants that perform chromium electroplating, this NAICS code also covers other facilities that perform other t ypes of electroplating. The Small Business Administration definition for NAICS 332813 is less than 500 employees. In 2006, 2,622 of the 2,659 firms or almost 99% of the firms were small. See the table on the next page. All costs and sales are in 2009 dollars.Cost

‐ to

‐ Sale Ratios (CSR) ‐ By Emission Limit Category

Model Plant Estimated Number

of Facilities

Nationwide 1

‐ 20 employees 20 to 99 employees 100 to 499 employees

Hard Chromium Electroplating

Small (< 60 million A

‐ hr/yr) 658 8.1% 1.3% 0.6%

Large (at least 60 million A

‐ hr/yr) 132 21.9% 3.5% 1.7%

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 740 10.7% 1.7% 0.8%

Chromium Anodizing 240 12.3% 2.0% 1.0%

Total 1,770 10.8% 1.7% 0.8%



### While we do not know the way the affected f acilities are distributed by employment, the information that in 2006, 1,877 of the 2,659 fac ilities had less than 20 employees implies that even if only the very largest 1,770 facilitie s were affected, 988 of the controlled facilities would fall in the category of less than 20 employees. Therefore, over half of the

facilities would face cost to sale s ratios in the 8% to 22% range. This would be expected to be a significant impact on a substantial number of small facilities. More detailed analysis would be required to estimate how many would close rather than add the control equipment. Projecting what portion of this co st would be passed on in higher prices and what portion would be absorbed would be difficult because of the size of the cost

increase. The costs of this action w ould exceed $100 million year and require a regulatory impact analysis.
#### E. B. RICE *against*WILLIAM RICHARDS, AND J. COFFIN, EX’RS OF JOHN RICHARDS.

A bond made to a partnership, upon the death of one partner survives to his copartner; therefore any payments thereon made by the obligor to the representative of the deceased partner are made in his own wrong.

The plaintiff, in 1848, executed his single bond to John and ’William Richards, partners in trade, for the sum of $225. Shortly thereafter John died, leaving a will and the defendant Coffin bis executor. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant Coffin made application to him for the payment of said land (which was in the hands of William,) stating that one half of the amount was going to him as executor, that William was insolvent, and if he got hold of it, he would not account for the share of his testator ; and he cordingly paid the bond to Coffin — of which he states William had notice. William Richards as surviving partner subsequently brought suit on the bond and obtained judgment-thereon against the plaintiff ; and the prayer of the bill is for an injunction against its collection.

The defendant William answers that as to the payment made by the plaintiff to Coffin, as executor, he believes it was by a fraudulent combination between them to fake advantage of him, as the said firm of himself and brother was largely indebted to him, which fact was well known to the plaintiff and Coffin. And he insists on his right as surviving partner to the bond, and that the plaintiffs’ payment to the executor of John was illegal and gratuitous.

His honor Judge Caldwell at Rowan, on the last Spring Circuit, dissolved the injunction theretofore granted in the cause, and from his order therein the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*A. H.*Caldwell, for the plaintiff.

*Craige,*for the defendant Richards.

PeaesoN, J.

The entire legal ownership of the note survived to the defendant William Richards, and the personal representative of the deceased obligee had no right to receive any part of it. The plaintiff, therefore, made the payment in his own wrong.

*278Whether the personal representative of the deceased obligee has a right in Equity to call upon the survivor for an account, it is not necessary now to decide, because the defendant fully meets and denies all supposed grounds of equity. The order dissolving the injunction is affirmed.

Per Curiam. Interlocutory order affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S1]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  Eternal Lord God, our shelter from life's storms, as we begin the 
111th Congress, we ask for Your guidance. Lead our Senators on a path 
that will bring blessings, as they seek to honor Your Name. Forgive 
them when they lean too heavily upon their wisdom, forgetting to look 
to You, the author and finisher of destinies.
  Lord, thank You for the opportunity to serve You and country and to 
daily contribute to building a better world. As our Nation waits with 
expectancy during this transition time, help us to remember that Your 
sovereignty is changeless. Remind us to have confidence in our future 
because we know and depend on You.
  We pray in Your wonderful Name. Amen.

                          ____________________
```
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## October 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136263 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136263 COA: 281978 Ingham CC: 06-000401-FC TIMOTHY PAUL HOLLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 29, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

0924 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 1, 2008

Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2
                             ------------

                            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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the
"Report") of AMCON Distributing Company (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter
ended December 31, 2007, I, Andrew C. Plummer, Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
my knowledge, that:

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

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


Date: January 16, 2008           /s/ Andrew C. Plummer
                                 -------------------------
                                 Title: Vice President and
                                  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1





                          Independent Auditors' Consent

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form S-3 No.  333-70967  and  related  Prospectus  and  Forms S-8 No.  2-80776,
33-2139, 33-7901, 33-15062, 33-43635, 33-62799, 33-59803,  333-82157,  333-82161
and 333-87773) of Albertson's  Inc. and  subsidiaries  of our report dated March
17,  1999 with  respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  of American
Stores  Company,  included in the Annual  Report  (Form 10-K) for the year ended
February 3, 2000 of Albertson's Inc. and subsidiaries  filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
---------------------
Ernst & Young LLP
Salt Lake City, Utah
April 25, 2000
AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION


                                   EXHIBIT 99

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Annual Report of American Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), the undersigned officers of
the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of their knowledge:

       (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
            or 15(d) of the Securities 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.




March 27, 2003                        BY: s/Carl H. Lindner
--------------------------                -----------------------------------
Date                                      Carl H. Lindner
                                          Chairman of the Board and
                                            Chief Executive Officer




March 27, 2003                        BY: s/Fred J. Runk
--------------------------                -----------------------------------
Date                                      Fred J. Runk
                                          Senior Vice President and Treasurer





















                                       E-4
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 91748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27312]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meetings; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is correcting a 
notice published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2024. This 
document, noticing a closed meeting held on October 8, 2024, contained 
an incorrect report of the vote regarding the closing of the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Friday, October 
11, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024-23688, on page 82608 in the second column, 
correct the text ``vote of Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, Vice Chairman 
Travis Hill, Director Jonathan McKernan, Director Michael J. Hsu 
(Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and Director Rohit Chopra 
(Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)'' to read: ``vote of 
Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, Vice Chairman Travis Hill, Director 
Jonathan McKernan, and Director Rohit Chopra (Director, Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau)''.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary, 
at 202-898-8748.

    Dated: November 18, 2024.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-27312 Filed 11-18-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
```
Reviewer: 

Affiliation: MSHA

Comment: Please see attached .pdf document

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have incorporated all of the suggested changes into the 

final document.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E56]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      TRIBUTE ON THE DEPARTURE OF CHIEF OF STAFF DAVID GOLDENBERG

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 9, 2009

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my 
departing Chief of Staff, David Goldenberg. With great reluctance but 
immense gratitude, I bid farewell to David after almost 9 years in my 
office, nearly 2 as my Chief of Staff.
  Madam Speaker, David will be sorely missed. His policy knowledge, 
political acumen, generosity of heart, and dedication to his work 
leaves an indelible impression, not only on myself but on all those 
members of my staff who work closely with him. David has served as a 
colleague, leader, mentor and, friend to much of my staff over the 
years, and it is on their behalf, as well as mine, that I honor him 
today.
  David is reliable and good-natured, hard-working and humorous. His 
leadership in my office has been marked by charity and devotion, 
acceptance and affection. David has been an asset not only to Florida's 
23rd District, and not only to the State of Florida, but also to the 
entire country, as an advocate of those policies that seek to uplift 
people and better their lives.
  Madam Speaker, as David and his wife, Nami, move from Washington, 
D.C. to Chicago, I wish them much happiness and the best of luck in 
this new chapter in their lives. I only insist that they both return to 
Washington to visit me as soon as possible.
  David, I thank you.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   207977
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     294840
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                556158
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3415802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1453262
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       2250271
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1720696)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3415802
<SALES>                                        1359042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1289072
<CGS>                                          1517166
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2251688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               33893
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (992352)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (992352)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (992352)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 1 of 2

COALEX STATE COMPARISON REPORT - 204

February 1992

Patrick R. Ralston, Director

Department of Natural Resources

608 State Office Building

100 N. Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

TOPIC: LENGTH OF TIME FOR PERMIT APPROVAL 

INQUIRY: Please poll the IMCC member states for the following information: "How long 

(number of months) does it take to approve a new, first time permit, from the time of receipt until 

final approval?" 

SEARCH RESULTS: Eight states responded to the survey. The results are summarized on the 

attached table. Also attached are five state's responses to a similar survey conducted by the 

National Coal Association. 

States that responded to the IMCC Survey:

1. Alabama 

2. Illinois 

3. Kentucky 

4. Maryland 

5. Missouri 

6. Pennsylvania 

7. Texas 

8. Virginia 

Responses from the NCA survey are included for:

1. Alabama 

2. North Dakota 

3. Pennsylvania 

4. Ohio 

5. Virginia 

Survey was conducted by: Gregory Conrad and Beth Bostis
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 2 of 2

TABLE OF SURVEY RESPONSES 

STATE MONTHS DAYS EXPLANATION

ALABAMA 3-4 months N/A If applicant provides complete and accurate 

information, approval process may take a little 

over 2 months. 

ILLINOIS 11 months 330 

days 

The permit application is in the operator's hands 

for revisions/modifications for a significant 

amount of the time. 

KENTUCKY 6 months N/A If applicant provides complete and accurate 

information, with no revisions required, permit 

would be issued in 65 days. Realistic minimum 

time is 3 months. 

MARYLAND 12 months N/A Process ranges 5 months - 2 years with the 

permit application residing with the applicant 

for revision for at least half of the time. 

MISSOURT 5 months N/A This is the maximum time. 

PENNSYLVANIA 6 months 180 

days 

N/A 

TEXAS 15-18 

months

N/A This is the worst-case scenario. 

VIRGINIA 3 months 140 

days 

The Virginia permit review team has 20 days to 

perform reviews of any portions of a permit 

application; this would allow a permit to be 

issued in as few as 60 days.
<PAGE>   1
                          AMERICAN GENERAL CORPORATION
                         1984 STOCK AND INCENTIVE PLAN,
                        RESTATED AS OF FEBRUARY 8, 1994,
                        AS FURTHER AMENDED AND RESTATED
                             AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 1998


     WHEREAS, AMERICAN GENERAL CORPORATION and its shareholders have heretofore
adopted the above-captioned stock and incentive plan (the"1994 Plan") for the
benefit of certain eligible individuals; and

     WHEREAS, Section 12 of the 1994 Plan allows AMERICAN GENERAL CORPORATION
to amend the 1994 Plan (subject to the limitations expressed therein);

   NOW, THEREFORE, the 1994 Plan shall be amended effective as of January 20,
2000, as follows:

     1.   The following shall be added as subparagraph (q) to Section 2:

               "(q) Immediate Family" means, with respect to a Holder, the
          Holder's spouse, children or grandchildren (including adopted
          children, step children and grandchildren)."

     2.   Subparagraph (e) to Section 7 shall be modified to read in its
          entirety, as follows:

               "(e) An Incentive Stock Option shall not be transferable or
          assignable otherwise than by will or the laws of descent and
          distribution."

     3.   The following shall be added as subparagph (d) to Section 13 :

                  "(d) Restrictions on Transfer. An Award (other than an
          Incentive Stock Option, which shall be subject to the transfer
          restrictions set forth in Section 7(e)) shall not be transferable or
          assignable otherwise than (i) by will or the laws of descent and
          distribution, (ii) pursuant to a "qualified domestic relations order"
          (as defined by the Code), (iii) with respect to Awards of
          Non-Qualified Options, if such transfer is permitted in the sole
          discretion of the Committee, by transfer by a Holder to a member of
          the Holder's Immediate Family, to a trust solely for the benefit of
          the Holder and the Holder's Immediate Family, or to a partnership or
          limited liability company whose only partners or shareholders are the
          Holder and members of the Holder's Immediate Family, or (iv) with the
          consent of the Committee."

     4.  As amended hereby, the 1994 Plan is specifically ratified and
         reaffirmed.

                                      -1-
<PAGE>   2


     EXECUTED by the undersigned officer as of January 20, 2000.


                                             AMERICAN GENERAL CORPORATION


                                            By:  /S/ JON P. NEWTON
                                                 Jon P. Newton
                                                 Vice Chairman



                                      -2-
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Commission Monthly Case Activity for November 2021

1. Cases Pending Beginning of Month							19

2. Cases Added to Docket								 	 1
Generational Buildings, LLC
21-0447
Directed for Review on November 22, 2021


3. Cases Subtracted from Docket							 	 0

						

4. Total Cases Pending End of Month							20