alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFCCP 保护您免受性别歧视

联邦合同遵循项目办公室 (OFCCP) 施行经修订

的第 11246 号行政命令。该令禁止联邦承包商

及分包商基于性别歧视雇员及求职者。

1. 什么是性别歧视?

就业歧视通常指:雇主因性别问题不友善地对待雇

员或求职者。由于性别问题,雇主看似公平的政策

或程序也会对雇员或求职者产生巨大的负面影响。

2. 我的雇主是否可以基于我的性别而支付给

我不同的薪资或提供不同的附加福利?

不可以,承包商不能基于您的性别而支付不同的薪

资或提供不同的附加福利。例如,他们不能因您的

性别而拒绝向您提供加班、培训或者高薪或高薪职

位。附加福利包括医疗津贴、住院津贴、意外赔

偿、人寿保险和退休金;利润分成和奖金计划;休

假;以及其他雇佣条款、条件和特权。

3. 承包商是否可以基于性别刻板印象而区别

对待雇员?

不可以。承包商不能因为您不符合女性或男性预期

应有的表现,或者未从事男性或女性预期应当从事

的工作类型而基于刻板印象不公平对待您。

4. 家庭照顾者是否可以得到保护从而免受性

别歧视?

是的。承包商不能根据对家庭照顾责任的刻板假设

而区别对待您。例如,承包商不能拒绝向母亲们提

供父亲们可以获得的就业机会,也不能拒绝向父亲

们提供母亲们可以获得的灵活工作安排。

5. 我的雇主是否必须向我提供平等的工作和

发展机会?

是的。承包商必须向您提供平等的工作和发展机

会。承包商不得根据性别来设置要求,除非承包商

能够说明这些要求只能由男性或女性完成。此外,

承包商不能因为求职者性别而制定对求职者产生

负面影响的要求,除非这些要求都与工作相关且必

要。承包商不能基于性别拒绝向您提供可以晋升至

高薪职位的培训、工作任务或其他发展机会。

6. OFCCP 是否保护我不受承包商性骚

扰?

是的。性骚扰是性别歧视的一种形

式。OFCCP 保护您免受那些不受欢迎的性企

图、性行为要求、性冒犯言论以及其他语言

上或肢体上与性有关的不当行为。不得视这

些行径作为您的就业条款或条件,禁止视屈

从或拒绝此等行为作为决定雇佣的依据,或

让此等行为无理干扰您的工作表现,亦不可

营造恐吓、敌对或攻击性工作环境。

7. OFCCP 如何保护孕妇和初产妇?

OFCCP 保护联邦承包商的求职者和雇员不会因

怀孕、生育或相关医疗状况而受到歧视,例如

失业、工资损失和丧失医疗保险。而且,如果

承包商在工作场所为存在残疾或工伤的员工提

供便利,那么在这种情况下,这些承包商也必须

为怀孕、生育或有相关医疗状况的员工提供类似

的便利。

8. OFCCP 如何为变性员工提供保护? 

承包商不得基于性别认同进行歧视。承包商必须允

许雇员和求职者使用与其认同性别相一致的浴室、

更衣室、淋浴和类似设施。此外,承包商提供的医

疗福利计划不能基于性别认同或变性身份而拒绝提

供医疗保险或限制医疗保险范围。

9. OFCCP 的保护对象有哪些?

OFCCP 保护与联邦政府有业务往来的企业的雇员和

求职者的权利,包括银行、IT 公司、肉类包装厂、

零售店、制造厂、会计师事务所和建筑公司等机构的

雇员。

10.如果雇主歧视我的性别,我该怎么做?

如果您认为您遭遇就业或求职歧视,您可以向 OFCCP 

投诉。即使不确定雇主是否是联邦承包商或分包商,

也可提出投诉。

了解您的权利

性别歧视

200 CONSTITUTION AVENUE NW | WASHINGTON, DC 20210 | 电话: 1-800-397-6251 | TTY: 1-877-889-5627 | www.dol.gov/ofccp
11.如何向 OFCCP 投诉?

可以通过以下方式提出歧视投诉:

• 在 OFCCP 的网站在线填写并提交表格; 

• 亲自到 OFCCP 办公室填写表格;或

• 通过邮寄、邮件或传真的方式将填写完整的表格交

至歧视发生地的 OFCCP 地区办公室。

可访问 http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/pdf/

pdfstart.htm 下载表格,或在任一 OFCCP 办公室领

取纸质表格。如需寻找最近的办公室,请访问 http://

www.dol.gov/ofccp/contacts/ofnation2.htm. 查看 OFCCP 

办公室清单。

务必在填写完整的投诉表格上签名。如未签名,OFCCP 

仍会受理您的投诉,但调查员会在后续面谈中要求您

在表格中签名。指控歧视种族、肤色、宗教、性别、

性取向、性别认同、国籍的投诉需在指控后的 180 天

内呈交,出于正当理由延迟呈交的情况除外。180 天

的时限同样适用于针对讨论、公开或询问薪酬等歧视

的投诉。

12. 雇主可以因为我的投诉而解雇、降职或差别

对待我吗?

不可以。您的雇主因您投诉或参与调查而对您进行

报复是违法的。OFCCP 的规定能保护您免受骚扰、恐

吓、威胁、胁迫或报复,从而维护您的权利。

13. 能否同时向 OFCCP 及美国公平就业机会委员会 

/ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) 呈交歧视诉状?

是的。如果您同时向 OFCCP 及 EEOC 投诉,将仅由一家机

构展开调查。

OFCCP 一般会保留和调查因求职者或雇员的性取向或性别认

同受歧视而对联邦承包商的投诉。如果联邦承包商的歧视影

响了一群雇员或求职者,且该歧视是针对残疾人、受保护的

退伍军人身份或者因讨论、公开或询问薪酬而起,OFCCP 通

常也会自行处理。

14. 如果发现我是就业歧视受害者会怎样?

您将有权获得补偿,被分配在应有的职位(如果没有发生歧

视,已经就职的职位)。您将有权被雇用、升职、复职或调

岗。您也会有权获取欠薪、预支工资、加薪或上述补偿中的

多项。此外,如果 OFCCP 裁定联邦承包商或分包商有歧视

行为,OFCCP 可将相关企业从后续联邦合同的考虑范围中排

除或移除,或取消相关企业的当前合同。

如需其它信息,请联系

the u.s. department of labor

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20210

1-800-397-6251

TTY: 1-877-889-5627

www.dol.gov/ofccp

请注意,本情况说明书仅提供基本信息,无法取代与此处所述项目相关的现行法律和法规。

200 CONSTITUTION AVENUE NW | WASHINGTON, DC 20210 | 电话: 1-800-397-6251 | TTY: 1-877-889-5627 | www.dol.gov/ofccp 2016 年 9 月修订
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-28-2000
<CASH>                                          12,527
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                       478
<INVENTORY>                                     21,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,210
<PP&E>                                          61,608
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,394
<BONDS>                                         26,524
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,440
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,977
<SALES>                                        112,772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,562
<CGS>                                           72,006
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,506
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,054
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,452
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,452
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46



</TABLE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1714 

To amend the charter of the Gold Star Wives of America to remove the 

restriction on the federally chartered corporation, and directors and officers of the corporation, attempting to influence legislation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2019 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. TESTER, and Mr. MANCHIN) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the charter of the Gold Star Wives of America 

to remove the restriction on the federally chartered corporation, and directors and officers of the corporation, 

attempting to influence legislation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Elevating the Voices 

5 of Gold Star Wives Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1714 IS

1 SEC. 2. REVISION OF FEDERAL CHARTER RESTRICTIONS 

2 ON GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA. 

3 Section 80507(b) of title 36, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘or in any manner attempt to influ5 ence legislation’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Case 1:07-cv-03359-NRB     Document 4      Filed 05/29/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03359-NRB     Document 4      Filed 05/29/2007     Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. BARKER

No. 92 PC.

Case below: 8 N.C. App. 311.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 July 1970.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Frank and Senior Judge Overton 

Argued by teleconference 

JOHN LESTER SCOTT 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 0831-04-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 MARCH 29, 2005 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 

Jerome James, Judge 

 James O. Broccoletti (Zoby & Broccoletti, P.C., on brief), for 

appellant. 

 Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

A jury found John Lester Scott guilty of first-degree murder, as well as other crimes. On 

appeal, Scott challenges only his murder conviction and claims his short-form indictment, patterned 

after the language of Code § 19.2-221, charged him with second-degree, but not first-degree, 

murder. Scott contends the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Apprendi v. New 

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), required the indictment to charge all the elements of the offense. 

Because the indictment did not specifically state all the elements of first-degree murder, Scott 

maintains, the trial court erred in refusing to amend the charge to second-degree murder. 

In Walshaw v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 103, 113, 603 S.E.2d 633, 638 (2004), this 

Court rejected arguments identical to those advanced by Scott in this case and found the statutory 

short-form indictment “clearly charged first-degree murder.” This Court further concluded that 

Apprendi did not require a murder indictment to state the killing was done with malice or 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
 -2-

premeditation in order to constitute a valid first-degree indictment under Virginia law, which 

requires proof of both elements of the offense for conviction. Id.

Because our decision in Walshaw governs this case, we reject Scott’s claim that the trial 

court erred in refusing to amend the indictment to charge second-degree murder. Accordingly, 

appellant’s conviction in affirmed. 

 Affirmed.
#### PRUNEAU v. SANDERS

No. 141 PC.

Case below: 25 N.C. App. 510.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 26 June 1975.
#### KALE v. FORREST

No. 140 PC.

Case below: 9 N.C. App. 82.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 5 October 1970.
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 16 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 20 of 20
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6 9 03

DEMMERICK ERIC BROWN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 01453

- CMH

- JFA )

Submitted : December 9, 2021 Decided: January 5, 2022

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Demmerick Eric Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Demm e rick Eric Brown, a Virginia inmate, appeals the dist rict court ’ s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for fail ure to comply with a
court order. We affirm. A district court may dismiss an action based on a litigant’s failure to comply with any order

. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

. Where a litigant has ignored an express warning that noncompliance with a court order will result in dismissal, the district court should dismiss
the case. See Ballard v. Carlson , 882 F.2d 93, 95

– 96 (4th Cir. 1989)

. We review a decision to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order for abuse of discretion. Id.
We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court ’ s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 15.2


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Silicon Manufacturing Partners Pte Ltd:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-56878) on Form F-3 and the registration statements (No. 333-63814, No.
333-63816, No. 333-89849 and No. 333-116844) on Form S-8 of Chartered
Semiconductor Manufacturing Ltd of our report dated February 4, 2005, relating
to the balance sheet of Silicon Manufacturing Partners Pte Ltd as of December
31, 2004, and the related statements of income, comprehensive income,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended, which report
appears in the December 31, 2005, annual report on Form 20-F of Chartered
Semiconductor Manufacturing Ltd.


KPMG
SINGAPORE


March 1, 2006
#### MOORE v. TILLEY

No. 22 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 378.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 11 October 1972.
#### STATE v. WARD

No. 55 PC.

Case below: 9 N.C. App. 684.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 January 1971.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERIC D. RUTLEDGE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 59 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of July, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**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 Annual Report of Brek Energy Corporation (“Brek”) on Form
      10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard N. Jeffs,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of Brek and a member of the Board of
      Directors, certify, pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial
      condition and result of operations of the Company.








*/s/Richard
      N. Jeffs*


Richard
      N. Jeffs


Chief
      Executive Officer






October
      31, 2005






**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 Annual Report of Brek Energy Corporation (“Brek”) on Form
      10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard n. Jeffs,
      Chief Financial Officer of Brek and a member of the Board of Directors, certify,
      pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial
      condition and result of operations of the Company.








*/s/Richard
      N. Jeffs*


Richard
      N. Jeffs


Chief
      Financial Officer






October
      31, 2005
#### MANAGEMENT, INC. v. DEVELOPMENT CO.

No. 292 PC

Case below: 46 NC App 707

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 September 1980. Motion of defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 16 September 1980. Motion of plaintiff for correction of findings of fact, conclusions of law and order denied 16 September 1980.
#### SPINKS v. TAYLOR and RICHARDSON v. TAYLOR CO.

No. 377PC

No. 148 (Fall Term)

Case below: 47 N.C. App. 68

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 7 October 1980.
# Soldier Accounted for from WWII (Wolfe, J.)

/ Published March 14, 2024
Washington, 
The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) announced today that U.S. Army Cpl. Julius G. Wolfe, 20, of Liberal, Missouri, killed during World War II, was accounted for Aug. 21, 2023.

In June 1944, Wolfe was assigned to Company B, 149th Engineer Combat Battalion in the European Theater. On June 6, Wolfe was aboard Landing Craft Infantry (Large) 92, along with roughly 200 other servicemembers, enroute to land on Omaha Beach, in Normandy, France. As LCI-92 steamed toward the shore, it struck an underwater mine which caused the craft to burst into flames. The craft was also hit by enemy artillery fire, causing an explosion that ignited the ships fuel stores and instantly killed everyone in the troop compartment. Due to the urgency of the situation, it was impossible for others to search for survivors. Wolfe’s remains were not accounted for after the war.

Around June 10, members of the 500th Medical Collecting Company examined the wreckage of LCI-92 and noted the burnt remains of servicemen in the troop compartment, where Wolfe and others were last seen. American Graves Registration Command (AGRC), the organization that searched for and recovered fallen American personnel in the European Theater, removed small amounts of remains from LCI-92 and buried them in the United States Military Cemetery (USMC) St. Laurent-sur-Mer.

Beginning in 1946, AGRC analyzed the remains found in LCI-92, segregating them into four separate Unknowns (X-53, X-83, X-83B, and X-83C). Despite their efforts, AGRC were unable to identify the Unknowns at the time and they were interred in Normandy American Cemetery, an American Battle Monuments Commission site in Normandy, France.

In June and August 2021, the Department of Defense and ABMC officials exhumed the comingled remains of the four Unknowns and transferred them to the DPAA Laboratory for analysis.

To identify Wolfe’s remains, scientists from DPAA used anthropological analysis. Additionally, scientists from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-chromosome DNA (Y-STR) analysis.

Wolfe’s name is recorded on the Walls of the Missing at Normandy American Cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer, France, along with others still missing from WWII. A rosette will be placed next to his name to indicate he has been accounted for.

Wolfe will be buried in Liberal, Missouri, on a date to be determined.

For family and funeral information, contact the Army Casualty Office at (800) 892-2490.

For additional information on the Defense Department’s mission to account for Americans who went missing while serving our country, visit the DPAA website at www.dpaa.mil or find us on social media at www.facebook.com/dodpaa or https://www.linkedin.com/company/defense-pow-mia-accounting-agency.

Wolfe’s personnel profile can be viewed at  https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaProfile?id=a0Jt0000000Xm2hEAC.
#### PARTIN v. CITY OF RALEIGH

No. 143 PC.

Case below: 9 N.C. App. 269.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 October 1970.
Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 18 Filed 09/20/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 18 Filed 09/20/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 18 Filed 09/20/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 18 Filed 09/20/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 18 Filed 09/20/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 18 Filed 09/20/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 18 Filed 09/20/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:06-cv-14954-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-14848-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Construction

Toolbox Talk Materials Handling: Drywall 

Workers who handle drywall sheets are at high risk of 

overexertion. The weight and bulkiness of drywall can 

intensify any bending, twisting, turning, or lifting 

motions and cause serious injury. 

Sam’s Story 

Sam had worked as a drywall installer for 10 years. 

On his last job, he began to feel pain in his elbow 

after lifting and carrying a 10-foot section of drywall 

up 20 steps. Sam went to his doctor and was 

diagnosed with tendonitis. 

# What caused this incident? 

# How could this have been prevented?

# Have you ever been injured from lifting or 

handling drywall, or do you know someone who 

has? If so, what happened? 

Remember This

• Always stage materials as close as possible to where 

they will be used. 

• Always use safe lifting practices such as lifting with leg 

muscles and avoiding twisting while carrying materials. 

Try out safe lifting practices through a free app “Best 

Built Plans” available at Amazon, App Store, or Google 

Play.

• Lift only one sheet at a time. Never try to lift materials 

weighing more than 50 pounds by yourself.

• Use two workers to lift larger, thicker, and heavier 

sheets. Never try to lift materials weighing more than 

50 pounds by yourself.

• Use lifting tools and devices to move sheets instead of 

carrying them by hand.

• Use a vertical lift to position and hold the drywall so 

you can screw sheets to the ceiling more safely.

• Follow these steps for vertical hanging:

1. Raise the sheet. 

2. Shift grip to opposite sides of the sheet.

3. Rotate the sheet into a vertical position.

4. Secure it to the wall.

• Plan your lifts; make sure the path is clear and you are 

facing the direction of travel before lifting.

• Keep materials and tools orderly and stored safely to 

prevent tripping and other safety hazards.

How can we stay safe today?

What will we do at the worksite to minimize risks from lifting and handling drywall?

OSHA General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act
Construction

Toolbox Talk Materials Handling: Drywall 

; Lift only one sheet at a time. Never try to lift materials weighing more than 50 pounds by yourself.

; Use two workers to lift larger, thicker, and heavier sheets. 

; Use a vertical lift to help hold the drywall so you can screw sheets to the ceiling more safely.

; Use lifting tools and devices to move sheets.

GET 

INFORMATION 

CDC/NIOSH INFO: 1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636) | TTY: 1-800-232-6348 | cdc.gov/info | cdc.gov/niosh

CPWR: Contact 301-578-8500 | cpwr-r2p@cpwr.com | www.cpwr.com/toolbox-talks

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2022-140 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2022140 | August 2022
#### STATE v. MILLER

No. 31 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 610.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 October 1972.
#### STATE v. McGILVERY

No. 131 PC.

Case below: 9 N.C. App. 15.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 28 August 1970.
Case 1:06-cv-15124-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### HARRISON v. HERBIN

No. 83 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 259.

Petition by plaintiff for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 May 1978.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of ARTISTdirect, Inc. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
Report), I, Robert N. Weingarten, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my best knowledge: (1) the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant. Date: May 21, 2004 /s/ Robert N. WeingartenRobert N. WeingartenChief Financial Officer
Case 1:06-cv-15006-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1