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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1261 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1261

  To clarify the treatment of 2 or more employers as joint employers 
under the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act 
                                of 1938.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2023

   Mr. Marshall (for himself, Mr. Braun, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Rubio, Mr. 
Wicker, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Scott of 
 Florida, and Mr. Budd) introduced the following bill; which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify the treatment of 2 or more employers as joint employers 
under the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act 
                                of 1938.

    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 ``Save Local Business Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF JOINT EMPLOYMENT.

    (a) National Labor Relations Act.--Section 2(2) of the National 
Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(2)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The term `employer''' and inserting ``(A) 
        The term `employer'''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(B) An employer may be considered a joint employer of the 
employees of another employer only if each employer directly, actually, 
and immediately exercises significant control over the essential terms 
and conditions of employment of the employees of the other employer, 
such as hiring such employees, discharging such employees, determining 
the rate of pay and benefits of such employees, supervising such 
employees on a day-to-day basis, assigning such employees a work 
schedule, position, or task, or disciplining such employees.''.
    (b) Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.--Section 3(d) of the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(d)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ```Employer' includes'' and inserting ``(1) 
        `Employer' includes''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) An employer may be considered a joint employer of the 
employees of another employer for purposes of this Act only if each 
employer meets the criteria set forth in section 2(2)(B) of the 
National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(2)(B)) except that, for 
purposes of determining joint-employer status under this Act, the terms 
`employee' and `employer' referenced in such section shall have the 
meanings given such terms in this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Bulmaro AISPURO-GUADIANA, Appellant.

No. 03-3102.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 7, 2004.

Decided May 25, 2004.

Jamie Bowers, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Priscilla Elizabeth Forsyth, Sioux City, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Bulmaro Aispuro-Guadiana (Aispuro) appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the Northern District of Iowa after he entered an *Alford*plea2 to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The district court sentenced Aispuro to 63 months imprisonment and 4 years supervised release. Counsel has moved to withdraw on appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court plainly erred in conducting the plea and sentencing hearings without certified interpreters. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

The Court Interpreters Act requires judicial officers in judicial proceedings instituted by the United States to “utilize the services of the most available certified interpreter, or when no certified interpreter is reasonably available ... the services of an otherwise qualified interpreter.” *See*28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1). Because Aispuro did not object at the plea or sentencing hearing to the court’s failure to use a certified interpreter — and in fact approved the interpreters provided — we review for plain error. *See United States v. Gonzales,*339 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir.2003) (plain error is clear under current law and affects defendant’s substantial rights). *77We find insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the court’s decision to use qualified but uncertified interpreters affected Aispuro’s substantial rights: there is no indication in the record that the interpreters and Aispuro had communication problems, or that any confusion on Aispuro’s part stemmed from any translation error; the plea hearing transcript supports that Aispuro ultimately understood his *Alford*plea and desired the benefits it yielded; and counsel offers no other evidence that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. *See id.*at 729 (because defendant pointed to no evidence that his plea agreement was not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, defendant failed to show that district court’s error in using uncertified interpreters affected his substantial rights).

We have reviewed the record independently for any nonfrivolous issues, *see Penson v.*Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we have found none.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

*.*The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

2

. *See North Carolina v. Alford,*400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (guilty plea coupled with claims of innocence).
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA RCH 20, 2020

NO. 03

- 20

- 00094

- CR

Joseph Weber, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KE LLY, AND SMITH DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a postconviction application for a writ of habeas corpus

entered by the Court of C riminal Appeals. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court

lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of

jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of cos ts

is made.
Elizabeth LAMORTE, Appellant, v. Pablo TESTONI, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3487

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 14, 2018]

Manuel Farach of McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Michael S. Dyer of the Law Office Michael Samuel Dyer, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Taylor, J.

The mother, Elizabeth LaMorte, appeals an Amended Final Judgment of Determination of Paternity, which established the appellee's paternity of the parties' minor children and adjudicated issues regarding timesharing and child support. We affirm on all issues, but write to address one of the mother's arguments.

With respect to the mother's argument that the trial court erred by failing to provide for support of the parties' special needs child past the age of majority, we find that this issue was not preserved. However, our affirmance on this issue is without prejudice to the mother seeking a modification of child support on the basis that section 743.07(2), Florida Statutes, applies. *See* § 61.13(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2017) ("The court initially entering an order requiring one or both parents to make child support payments has continuing jurisdiction after the entry of the initial order to modify the amount and terms and conditions of the child support payments ... if s. 743.07(2) applies ...."); § 743.07(2), Fla. Stat. (2017) (a court may require support "for a dependent person beyond the age of 18 years when such dependency is because of a mental or physical incapacity which began prior to such person reaching majority ....").

*Affirmed.*

May and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JULY 16, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE TWENTY-EIGHT WEEK PERIOD ENDED JULY 16, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-16-1997
<CASH>                                          29,399
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,032
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,834
<PP&E>                                         483,520
<DEPRECIATION>                                 150,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 393,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,848
<BONDS>                                         45,528
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           452
<OTHER-SE>                                     251,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   393,784
<SALES>                                        431,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               431,277
<CGS>                                          382,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  382,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 848
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,371
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,504
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,867
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential.


# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

SOLAS OLED LTD.,

Appellant

v.

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of

Commerce for Intellectual Property and

Director of the United States Patent and

Trademark Office,

Intervenor

______________________

2022

- 1309

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019

- 01668

.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App.

P. 42 (b). Case: 22-1309 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2022S OLAS OLED L TD

. V

. V IDAL 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

July 18, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 18, 2022 Case: 22-1309 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

   
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                           4,050
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,603
<INVENTORY>                                     48,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,121
<PP&E>                                          37,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,874
<BONDS>                                         15,390
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,349
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,863
<SALES>                                         81,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,196
<CGS>                                           44,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,496
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,803
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,693
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,693
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        
    

</TABLE>
Stephen Parker BLACKWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3523

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
William D. TUCKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2003

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 1, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies, in her capacity as the Principal Financial Officer of Energy Partners, Ltd. (the Company),
that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Tiffany J. Thom                                             
|Senior Vice President, Treasurer and
Principal Financial Officer

Dated: May 6, 2010
# Official Journal L 018/2018

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 18 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6123 January 2018 |

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 18

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6123 January 2018

---

| Contents | | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | | |
| | | II	Non-legislative acts | |
| | | REGULATIONS | |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/62 of 17 January 2018 replacing Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament
  and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance.
  ) | 1 |
| | | |

Contents

page

II	Non-legislative acts

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/62 of 17 January 2018 replacing Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament
  and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance.
  )

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally
  valid for a limited period.



  The titles of all other acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally
  valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EX PARTE Kenneth James JACKSON

1151246 (CR-15-0898)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



EXHIBIT 11 -- STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES




The following tabulation presents the calculation of primary and fully diluted
earnings per common share for the nine-month and three-month periods ended
September 30, 1999 and 1998.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Nine Months Ended                  Three Months Ended
                                                           September 30,                      September 30,
                                                  -------------------------------    -------------------------------
                                                      1999              1998              1999              1998
                                                  -------------    --------------    -------------     -------------

<S>                                               <C>              <C>               <C>               <C>
  Reported net income........................     $   2,198,928    $    2,512,822    $   1,026,569     $     923,883

  Earnings on common shares..................     $   2,198,928    $    2,512,822    $   1,026,569     $     923,883
                                                  =============    ==============    =============     =============

  Weighted average common
         shares outstanding - basic..........         4,425,095         3,915,091        4,436,823         3,859,060
                                                  =============    ==============    =============     =============

  Earnings per common share-basic

    Income from continuing operations........     $         .50    $          .64    $         .23     $         .23
                                                  =============    ==============    =============     =============

    Net income...............................     $         .50    $          .64    $         .23     $         .23
                                                  =============    ==============    =============     =============


  Weighted average common
         shares outstanding - diluted........         4,545,150         3,970,174        4,582,910         4,066,897
                                                  =============    ==============    =============     =============

  Earnings per common share-diluted

    Income from continuing operations........     $         .48    $          .63    $         .22     $         .23
                                                  =============    ==============    =============     =============

    Net income...............................     $         .48    $          .63    $         .22     $         .23
                                                  =============    ==============    =============     =============
</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00571

- CV

Jack Gerald Larkins v. Angela Kim Larkins

On Appeal from the County Court at Law of Kleberg County , Texas Trial Cause No. 19

- 429

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this caus e on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. No c osts are assessed , due to appellant ’ s inability to pay costs.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Jan uary 7, 2021
**Exhibit 99.14**

 
|                                                                                      | Principal Officers: |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
| Keith M. Braaten, P. Eng.                                                            |
| President & CEO                                                             |
| Jodi L. Anhorn, P. Eng.                                                              |
| Executive Vice   President & COO                                            |
|                                                                                 |
| Officers / Vice Presidents:                                                          |
| Terry L. Aarsby, P. Eng.   Caralyn P. Bennett, P. Eng.   Leonard L. Herchen, P. Eng. |
| Myron J. Hladyshevsky, P. Eng.   Bryan M. Joa, P. Eng.                               |
| Mark Jobin, P. Geol.   John E. Keith, P. Eng.   John H. Stilling, P. Eng.            |
| Douglas R. Sutton, P. Eng.   James H. Willmon, P. Eng.                               |

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**

 

In connection with the filing of the annual report on Form 40-F of Franco-Nevada Corporation, we consent to references to our name and to the use of the reserves assessment and evaluation in respect of the oil & gas reserves including the Weyburn Unit, Midale Unit and Edson Property dated February 12, 2013, with an effective date of December 31, 2012 (the “Report”) in the 2012 Annual Information Form of Franco-Nevada Corporation dated March 19, 2013 (the “AIF”) and in Management’s Discussion and Analysis, which are filed as exhibits to, and incorporated in, the Form 40-F.

 

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-176856) and on Form F-10 (No. 333-176722) of the references to our name and the use of the Report. We also consent to reference to us under the heading “Experts” in the AIF which is filed as an exhibit to, and incorporated by reference in, this Annual Report on Form 40-F which is incorporated by reference in such Registration Statements.

 
|       | Yours truly,                       |
|------------|------------------------------------|
|       |                               |
|       | **GLJ PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD.** |
| ** ** |                               |
| ** ** | *ORIGINALLY SIGNED BY*             |
| ** ** | * *                           |
| ** ** | Doug R. Sutton, P. Eng.            |
| ** ** | Vice President                     |

 

Calgary, Alberta

March 19, 2013

 

4100, 400 - 3rd Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4H2 · (403) 266-9500 · Fax (403) 262-1855 · GLJPC.com

 

----
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Winland Electronics, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jennifer A.
Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; 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: November 3, 2004 /s/ Jennifer A. ThompsonJennifer A. ThompsonChief Financial Officer