alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7202. Restriction

#### (a) New sanctions

Except as provided in sections 7203 and 7204 of this title and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may not impose a unilateral agricultural sanction or unilateral medical sanction against a foreign country or foreign entity, unless—

(1) not later than 60 days before the sanction is proposed to be imposed, the President submits a report to Congress that—

(A) describes the activity proposed to be prohibited, restricted, or conditioned; and

(B) describes the actions by the foreign country or foreign entity that justify the sanction; and

(2) there is enacted into law a joint resolution stating the approval of Congress for the report submitted under paragraph (1).

#### (b) Existing sanctions

The President shall terminate any unilateral agricultural sanction or unilateral medical sanction that is in effect as of October 28, 2000.

(Pub. L. 106–387, §1(a) [title IX, §903], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–68.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Arthur Barry, Appellant.

Order of the County Court of Nassau County denying appellant’s motion to set aside a sentence for a term of twenty-five years in State prison, imposed in the *year*1929 upon a conviction of burglary in the first degree, and to impose a new sentence providing for an indeterminate term of imprisonment, affirmed. Notwithstanding the provisions "of section 2189 of the Penal Law (as amd. by L. 1919, ch. 411), the flat sentence was authorized by section 2191 of the Penal Law (L. 1909, eh. 88; L. 1892, eh. 662, § 25) and section 407 of the Penal Law (as amd. by L. 1926, ch. 436). Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
### §170a. Maximum amount available from Federal sources

In fiscal year 1989 and thereafter, the maximum amount available to Saint Elizabeths Hospital from Federal sources shall not exceed the total of the following amounts: the appropriations made under this heading, amounts billed to Federal agencies and entities by the District of Columbia for services provided at Saint Elizabeths Hospital, and amounts authorized by titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq., 1396 et seq.]. This maximum amount shall not include Federal funds appropriated to the District of Columbia under "Federal Payment to the District of Columbia" and payments made pursuant to section 9(c) of Public Law 98–621.

(Pub. L. 100–436, title II, Sept. 20, 1988, 102 Stat. 1693.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The appropriations made under this heading, referred to in text, refers to appropriations under the headings "Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration" and "federal subsidy for saint elizabeths hospital" of title II, "Department of Health and Human Services", of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1989, Pub. L. 100–436.

The Social Security Act, referred to in text, is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620. Titles XVIII and XIX of the Act are classified generally to subchapters XVIII (§1395 et seq.) and XIX (§1396 et seq.), respectively, of chapter 7 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of Title 42 and Tables.

Section 9(c) of Public Law 98–621, referred to in text, is section 9(c) of Pub. L. 98–621, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3378, par. (1) of which is classified to section 225g(c) of this title.

#### Codification

Section is from the appropriation act cited as the credit to this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Similar Provisions

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 100–202, §101(h) [title II], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–256, 1329–267.

Pub. L. 99–500, §101(i) [H.R. 5233, title II], Oct. 18, 1986, 100 Stat. 1783–287, and Pub. L. 99–591, §101(i) [H.R. 5233, title II], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341–287.

Pub. L. 99–178, title II, Dec. 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1113.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF ARMKEL, LLC

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary
(As it is stated in its                                 State or Other Jurisdiction
organizational document under which it does business) of Incorporation or Organization
----------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
Domestic:
---------
<S>                                                   <C>
     Armkel Condoms, LLC.............................          Delaware
     Armkel Depilatories, LLC........................          Delaware
     Armkel Diagnostics, LLC.........................          Delaware
     Armkel Dentures, LLC............................          Delaware
     Armkel Drops, LLC...............................          Delaware
     Armkel Cranbury, LLC............................          Delaware
     Armkel Products, LLC............................          Delaware
     Armkel Finance, Inc.............................          Delaware

International:
--------------
     Armkel Holding (Netherlands) B.V................          Netherlands
     Armkel Canada (Netherlands) B.V.................          Netherlands
     Armkel (Canada) Corp............................          Canada
     Horner Pharmaceuticals Inc......................          Canada
     Carter-Horner Inc...............................          Canada
     Carter Products (Australia) Pty Ltd.............          Australia
     CWA Superannuation Pty Ltd......................          Australia
     Armkel Company (France) S.A.S...................          France
     Sofibel S.A.S...................................          France
     Barbara Gould S.A.S.............................          France
     Laboratoires Sante Beaute S.A.S.................          France
     Laboratoires Fumouze S.A.S......................          France
     Armkel Company (U.K.) Limited...................          United Kingdom
     Carter Products Limited.........................          United Kingdom
     Denver Laboratories Limited.....................          United Kingdom
     Armkel Company de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V......          Mexico
     Carter Wallace, S.A.............................          Mexico
     Armkel Company (Spain), S.r.l...................          Spain
     Icart, S.A......................................          Spain
     Armkel Company (Italy) S.r.l....................          Italy
     S.p.A. Italiana Laboratori Bouty................          Italy
     Technogenetics S.r.l............................          Italy
     Sanodent S.r.l..................................          Italy
     Carter-Wallace (N.Z.) Inc.......................          New Zealand
     Armkel Company (Cayman) Ltd.....................          Cayman Islands
     Carter Wallace (Hong Kong) Limited..............          Hong Kong
     Karlan International S.A........................          Luxembourg
     Teutonia Beteilingungsverwaltung Gmbh...........          Germany
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41240.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*327Marjorie A. Meyers, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roberto Rodriguez appeals his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of firearm ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). He argues for the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the instant case because it does not require a substantial effect on interstate commerce. He also argues for the first time on appeal that his conviction should be reversed because the indictment does not allege that the offense had a substantial impact on interstate commerce. He acknowledges that these arguments are foreclosed by precedent, but raises them to preserve them for possible Supreme Court review.

We have repeatedly held that “the constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question.” *United States v. Daugherty,*264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001)(quoting *United States v. DeLeon,*170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.1999)). Evidence that a weapon was manufactured in one state and possessed in another is sufficient to sustain a conviction under § 922(g). *Daugherty,*264 F.3d at 518; *United States v. Kuban,*94 F.3d 971, 973 (5th Cir.1996); *United States v. Rawls,*85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir.1996). Additionally, in *United States v. Gresham,*118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir.1997), we rejected a challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment under § 922(g)(1) that was identical to the one raised by Rodriguez in this case. Accordingly, Rodriguez’s challenges to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and to the indictment are foreclosed by circuit precedent.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Detail

# Low-Income Households' Expenditures on Fruits and Vegetables

Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-833) 31 pp, May 2004

by Noel  Blisard, Hayden  Stewart, and Dean  Jolliffe

This report analyzes fruit and vegetable expenditures by low-income households and higher income households, and compares the sensitivity of both groups' purchases to changes in income. On average, low-income households spent $3.59 per capita per week on fruits and vegetables in 2000 while higher income households spent $5.02-a statistically significant difference. In addition, a statistical demand model indicates that marginal increases in income received by low-income households are not spent on additional fruits and vegetables. In contrast, increases in income received by higher income households do increase their fruit and vegetable expenditures. One interpretation of this finding is that low-income households will allocate an additional dollar of income to other food or nonfood items deemed more essential to the household such as meats, clothing, or housing.

**Keywords:** fruits and vegetables, household food expenditures, low-income households

**In this publication...**

-  Entire Report 
-  Research Brief 

**Last updated:** Monday, May 24, 2004

**For more information contact:** Noel  Blisard, Hayden  Stewart, and Dean  Jolliffe
### §1116. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 89–659, §6, Oct. 14, 1966, 80 Stat. 909, which provided for distribution of certain judgment funds to individuals whose names appeared on the roll prepared pursuant to former section 1113 of this title, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
§ 2.303 What are DOI's requirements for protecting SSNs in document sent by mail? ( a ) DOI bureaus and offices may not include the full or partial SSN of an individual on any document sent via mail unless: ( 1 ) The inclusion of an SSN on a document sent by mail is required or authorized by law;
( 2 ) The responsible program office has conducted the proper assessment and taken steps to mitigate the use of the SSN and any impacts to individual privacy; and
( 3 ) The Secretary of the Interior has determined that the inclusion of the SSN on the document is necessary and appropriate to meet legal and mission requirements in accordance with this subpart.
( b ) Bureaus and offices shall partially redact or truncate SSNs in documents sent by mail where feasible to reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs and mitigate risk to individuals' privacy.
( c ) In no case shall any complete or partial SSN be visible on the outside of any envelope or package sent by mail or displayed on correspondence that is visible through the window of an envelope or package.
Table 36
                           U.S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation
                                  Central Valley Operations Office
 
                                      TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL
 
                                                  1997
Monthly Deliveries in AF
 
Water Users         Jan Feb    Mar    Apr    May    Jun    Jul    Aug    Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec   Total
 
 
Colusa County WD     0   0   3326   7914  10748  13453  13971   7474   4516  3575   752   122   65851
Cortina WD           0   0    122    205    210    210    260    280    256    38     1     0    1582
Davis WD             0   0    240    479    433    565    225    249     82     0     0     0    2273
Dunnigan WD          0   0    883   1901   2298   3483   4205   2126    897   348    36     3   16180
4-M Water District   0   0    165    237    512    378    499    297    227    68    14     0    2397
Glenn Valley WD      0   0    126    124     34     68     44     21      0     0     0     0     417
Glide WD             0   0    119    980   3676   2942   3739   2570    535    95     0    90   14746
Holthouse WD         0   0     23     79    435    252    543    496    100    71    13     0    2012
Kanawna ID           0   0   1010   4120   6522   8094   8590   5144   1021    95     6     1   34603
Kirkwood WD          0   0     19     62     93    223    191    132     71     7     0     0     798
LaGrange WD          0   0     68    701   1153   1014   1096    642     34    22     0     2    4732
Myers-Marsh WD       0   0     20     70     48     10      0      0      0     0     0     0     148
Orland-Artois        0   0   1655   6308  10068  11045  12040   7930   4282  1433   201   129   55091
Westside WD          0   0   2728   4926   7558   8651   6323   3316    989   430    58     2   34981
 
Total                0   0  10504  28106  43788  50388  51726  30677  13010  6182  1081   349  235811
 
Data supplied by Willows Field Division, Water and Lands Division
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VENTURE HOLDINGS TRUST FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0001088341
<NAME> VENTURE HOLDINGS CO. LLC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,204
<SECURITIES>                                     6,989
<RECEIVABLES>                                  379,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,582
<INVENTORY>                                    165,453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               614,686
<PP&E>                                         618,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,603
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,401,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          323,959
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,401,201
<SALES>                                        879,841
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               879,841
<CGS>                                          772,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  845,587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                72,806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,582
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,361
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (615)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  5,569
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,046)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        5
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     9
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       9
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               84
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                        (87)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         9
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       13
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (13)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (13)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (13)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
(No. 1175

Claimant awarded $4,350.00.)

#### Blanche Coons, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles J. Coons, Deceased, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 12, 1927.*

Workmen’s compensation *act*— when *award fixed under provisions of.*Where an employee of the State engaged in a hazardous employment, and is ' injured while in the discharge of his duty, an award will be made, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act will be used as a basis in fixing the amount of the award to him.

Policy op *state*— when *award made under.*The court will consider and treat the employees of the State in the same manner as if they1 were employees of private individuals.

Oscar J. Putting, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, as administratrix of the estate of Charles J. Coons, deceased, comes and represents that said deceased was regularly employed as foreman in charge of sewer work at *385Elgin State Hospital; that on the 22nd day of March, 1927, while employed laying sewer pipe in a ditch and while cementing the joint of the pipe so laid the sides of the ditch caved in, suffocating and seriously injuring deceased, that as a result of such injuries said deceased died; that deceased was 37 years of age and in good health prior to his injuries; that deceased left surviving him his wife and five minor children, the oldest of said children being 15 years and the youngest 6 years at the time of his death. The claimant asks for damages of $6,000.00. However, the only rule the court can follow in a case of this kind is the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as it has been the rule of this court to endeavor to treat the employees of the State of Illinois who are injured in the employment of the State of Illinois in the same manner as if they were employed by private individuals.

■ The Attorney General comes and admits the facts as stated and the law as hereinbefore construed.

Under the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as a measure for damages in this case, the claimant would be entitled to $4,350.00. Therefore this court recommends that payment be allowed in the sum of $4,350.00. .
#### ARGO DUTCH INDUSTRIES LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, and Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade, Defendant.

No. 05-1288.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 28, 2006.

ORDER

The order of dismissal and the mandate dated 02/10/2006 having been issued in error, the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the notice of appeal is REINSTATED.
### SUBCHAPTER I—RECOGNITION OF TRUST RESPONSIBILITY
### §1041f. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 106–568, title VII, §708, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2916, which related to jurisdiction over tribal lands, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.