alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Together, America Prospers 

USDA Support for Opportunity Zones 

Rural Development 

Priority Programs 

USDA stands ready to partner 

with rural communities in 

Opportunity Zones to help attract 

investors and create jobs. USDA 

Rural Development has several 

programs that communities can 

use to fnance projects to build 

critical infrastructure and improve 

community services. 

Currently, the agency has fve 

programs that offer priority 

points for fscal year 2020 

applications for projects located 

in Opportunity Zones: 

• Rural Business 

Development Grants 

• Solid Waste 

Management Grants 

• ReConnect Pilot Program 

• Water and Waste Disposal 

Technical Assistance and 

Training Grants 

• Distance Learning and 

Telemedicine Grants 

What are Opportunity Zones? 

Opportunity Zones bring long-term 

investments to low-income communities, 

creating economic activity and jobs. 

Congress created them in the Tax 

Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. They are 

designated by governors and certifed 

by the U.S. Department of Treasury. 

Opportunity Zones provide tax 

incentives for private-sector investors 

to deploy capital into the zones. 

By investing in Opportunity Zones, 

investors may defer capital gains taxes 

if they hold their investments for at 

least fve years. Investors are exempt 

from capital gains taxes if they hold 

the investments for 10 years. 

Opportunity Zones and 

Rural Prosperity 

Opportunity Zones are expected to 

generate $100 billion in private capital 

investment and bring economic 

opportunity to American communities 

that need it most. 

Did you know? 

• 23 percent of all Opportunity Zones 

are in rural communities. 

• 35 million Americans live in rural 

Opportunity Zones. 

• 294 Opportunity Zones contain 

Native American lands. 

For More Information 

For more information on prioritized Rural 

Development fnancing, contact your 

local USDA Rural Development state 

offce or Jamie.Davenport@usda.gov. 

To learn more about Opportunity Zones, 

please visit https://www.cdffund. 

gov/Pages/Opportunity-Zones.aspx 

or https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/ 

opportunity-zones-frequently-askedquestions. 

NOTE: Because citations and other information may be subject to change, 

please always consult the program instructions listed in the section above titled 

“For More Information.” You may also contact your local offce for assistance. You 

will fnd additional forms, resources, and program information at rd.usda.gov. USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

Last Updated February 2020
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.907 Maintenance of records. ( a ) *General.* An importer claiming preferential tariff treatment for a good imported into the United States under § 10.903(b) of this subpart must maintain, for a minimum of five years after the date of importation of the good, all records and documents that the importer has demonstrating that the good qualifies for preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA. These records are in addition to any other records that the importer is required to prepare, maintain, or make available to CBP under Part 163 of this chapter.
( b ) *Method of maintenance.* The records and documents referred to in paragraph (a) of this section must be maintained by importers as provided in § 163.5 of this chapter.
### **CHAPTER 25—DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS SELF-SUFFICIENCY ASSISTANCE**
!" 


 ! #







 


!

$

 



	 % &

!



#



	 


	


	


  


'




#

$


 

(


!

	  	

 

 ) 

 

"



!


 





	 *


   

 $	

  

+#





$







 "



 


"

$#

 #



"  $
"


" 	

  

$

 #	





 	

 

 +	







	




	



	





 



 	



	

  	

		

	

 	 	


	
	

		

	

	

 	

 	

 	

 		 


	



 





,




,
-#

 



 



























	  
 	

 

 	 




 	
	 
	 
	
	
  	 		 	 	
 
	 	  	!"# 	
"
 $	

 

)#"""#*' (
 """"" % )		 	 *'"("	+

 

)#
$!""*

 

 """

 

 ""(,

	

 # $!"" 

	 )	 *%*'#*' *'"

*' *'#,(( (,"("*' "#"  )"
§ 6.71 Federal Register notice of establishment of new system or alteration of existing system. Notice of the proposed establishment or alteration of a system of records shall be published in the Federal Register, in accordance with FEMA procedures when: ( a ) Notice is received that the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Office of Management and Budget do not object to the establishment of a new system or records or to the alteration of an existing system of records, or
( b ) No fewer than 30 calendar days elapse from the date of submission of the proposal to the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Office of Management and Budget without receipt of an objection to the proposal. The notice shall include all of the information required to be provided in FEMA Form 11-2, System of Records Covered by the Privacy Act of 1974, and such other information as the Administrator deems necessary.
### §182d. Audits by Comptroller General

Each of the revolving funds established under sections 182a to 182d of this title shall be subject to audit by the Comptroller General at the Comptroller General's discretion.

(Pub. L. 106–481, title I, §104, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2190.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to fiscal year 2002 and each succeeding fiscal year, see section 105 of Pub. L. 106–481, set out as a note under section 182a of this title.
§ 11.13 False designations of origin and false descriptions; false marking of articles of gold or silver. ( a ) Articles which bear, or the containers which bear, false designations of origin, or false descriptions or representations, including words or other symbols tending falsely to describe or represent the articles, are prohibited importation under 15 U.S.C. 294, 295, 296, 1124, 1125 or 48 U.S.C. 1405q, and shall be detained.
( b ) Articles made in whole or in part of gold or silver or alloys thereof imported for sale by manufacturers or dealers which are marked or labeled in a manner indicating a greater degree of fineness than the actual fineness of the gold or silver or alloys thereof, and any plated or filled articles so imported which are marked or labeled to indicate the fineness of the gold or silver and are not also marked or labeled to indicate the plated or filled condition or are marked or labeled with the word “sterling” or the word “coin”, are prohibited importation and shall be detained, and the facts shall be reported to the United States attorney.
( c ) Whenever any articles are detained in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section, and the case of any articles detained under paragraph (b) of this section the United States attorney has indicated that he does not intend to prosecute, the articles shall be seized and forfeited in the usual manner, except that, upon the filing of a petition therefor by the importer prior to final disposition of the articles, the port director may release the articles upon the condition that the prohibited marking be removed or obliterated or that the articles and containers be properly marked to indicate their origin, contents, or condition, or may permit the articles to be exported or destroyed under Customs supervision, and without expense to the Government.
( d ) Articles forfeited for violation of section 294, 1124, or 1125, Title 15 and section 545, Title 18, U.S. Code, may be disposed of in accordance with the procedure applicable to other Customs forfeitures, but may not be released from Customs custody except upon the removal by and at the expense of the party in interest of the prohibited marking by reason of which the articles were seized, except articles disposed of under § 133.52 (a) or (b) of this chapter.
(Secs. 1-5, 34 Stat. 260-262, secs. 42, 43, 60 Stat. 440, 441, sec. 1, 62 Stat. 716, sec. 618, 46 Stat. 757; 15 U.S.C. 294-298, 1124, 1125, 18 U.S.C. 545, 19 U.S.C. 1618)
[28 FR 14701, Dec. 31, 1963, as amended by T.D. 79-159, 44 FR 31967, June 4, 1979; T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51253, Dec. 21, 1988]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

KEY WEST DIVISION

CASE NO. 4:20-cv-10091-JLK

DAVID JAMES LOLA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

MIAMI HERALD, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the October 13, 2020 Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid (DE 12), recommending that 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (DE 1) be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for 

failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders.

The record reflects that Plaintiff was afforded multiple opportunities to amend his 

complaint to comply with the local rules. (See DE 3, 5, 9). However, instead of amending his 

complaint as Judge Reid so ordered (see DE 5,9), Plaintiff appealed these orders to the district 

court for review. (See DE 6,11). Plaintiff ultimately filed an Amended Complaint “under protest” 

(Am. Compl. ¶1, DE 13), yet Plaintiff still failed to comply with the local rules and Judge Reid’s 

instructions.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s October 13, 2020 Report and Recommendation (DE 

Case 4:20-cv-10091-JLK Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2020 Page 1 of 2
12) be, and the same is, hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court;

2. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE 13) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with court 

orders. Plaintiff may file a new case under a new case assignment, if he so desires;

3. All pending motions are hereby DENIED as moot; and

4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice 

Building and United States Courthouse, Miami, Florida, this 16th day of October, 2020.

______________________________________ 

JAMES LAWRENCE KING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 4:20-cv-10091-JLK Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2020 Page 2 of 2
§ 132.12 Procedure on opening of potentially filled quotas. ( a ) *Preliminary review before opening.* When it is anticipated that a quota will be filled at the opening of the quota period, entry summaries for consumption, or withdrawals for consumption, with estimated duties attached, shall not be presented before 12 noon Eastern Standard Time in all time zones. However, an entry summary for consumption, or withdrawal for consumption, for merchandise which has arrived within the Customs territory of the United States may be submitted for preliminary review without deposit of estimated duties within a time period before the opening approved by the Center director. Submission of these documents before opening will not accord the merchandise quota priority or status.
( b ) *Simultaneous presentation.* Special arrangements shall be made so that all entry summaries for consumption, or withdrawals for consumption, for quota merchandise may be presented at the exact moment of the opening of the quota in all time zones. All importers prepared to present entry summaries for consumption, or withdrawals for consumption, when the quota opens shall be given equal opportunity to do so. All entry summaries for consumption, or withdrawals for consumption, presented in proper form (including those submitted for review before opening of the quota period if accompanied by the deposit of estimated duties) shall be considered to have been presented simultaneously.
( c ) *Proration of quantities.* ( 1 ) The quantities on all entry summaries for consumption, or withdrawals for consumption, submitted simultaneously shall be prorated by Headquarters against the quota quantity admissible to determine the percentage to be allocated to each importer under the quota. Merchandise in excess of the quota shall be disposed of in accordance with § 132.5.
( 2 ) In the event a quota is prorated, entry summaries for consumption, or withdrawals for consumption, with estimated duties attached, shall be returned to the importer for adjustment. The time of presentation for quota purposes, in that event, shall be the exact moment of the opening of the quota provided: ( i ) An adjusted entry summary for consumption, or withdrawal for consumption, with estimated duties attached, is deposited within 5 working days after Headquarters authorizes release of the merchandise, and
( ii ) The importer takes delivery of the merchandise within 15 working days after release is authorized.
[T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46814, Aug. 9, 1979, as amended by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93017, Dec. 20, 2016]
#### In the Matter of Manhattan Savings Bank, Respondent. Tillie Segall, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Martin, P. J., taking no part.
Order entered March 2 5 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 12
- 01018
- CR
STEPHEN COLEMAN SHOCKLEY, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. 366
- 82727
- 09 

### O RDER On February 14, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding the reporter’s record in this appeal. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent an d entitled to proceed without payment for the record ; (3) Talmadge Nix was appellant’s trial attorney and is also handling the appeal; (4) Janie Lindley
is the court reporter who recorded the proceedings; (5) Ms. Lindley did not prepare the record
because she had not been paid to do so; (6) the trial court informed Ms. Lindley that appellant has been declared indigent and she is to pr epare the record for the appeal; and (7) Ms. Lindley needs sixty days to complete the reporter’s record.
We ORDER court repor ter Janie Lindley to file the complete reporter’s record, including exhibits, by MAY 2 8 , 2013

.We DIRECT the Clerk to add Ms. Lindley to the Court’s case m anagement system so that she will receive the proper notices regarding th e appeal. We DIRECT the Cle rk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Janie Lindley, court reporter, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
#### § 118.3 Written agreement.

The applicant tentatively selected to operate a CES must sign a written agreement with CBP before commencing operations. Failure to execute a written agreement with CBP in a timely manner will result in the revocation of that applicant's tentative selection and may result in tentative selection of another applicant or republication of the notice soliciting applications. In addition to the provisions described elsewhere in this part, the agreement will specify the duration of the authority to operate the CES. That duration will be not less than three years nor more than five years. Such agreements cannot be transferred, sold, inherited, or conveyed in any manner. At the expiration of the agreement, an operator wishing to reapply may do so pursuant to this part and his application will be considered de novo.

[T.D. 93-6, 58 FR 5604, Jan. 22, 1993, as amended at CBP Dec. 10-29, 75 FR 52452, Aug. 26, 2010]
Filed 3/27/15 P. v. Caballero CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRANDON ALBERTO CABALLERO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B257544

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. YA090136)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Thomas R. Sokolov, Judge. Affirmed. 

Christine C. Shaver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________
2

Defendant Brandon Alberto Caballero appeals from the judgment entered after his 

no contest plea to grand theft under Penal Code section 487, subdivision (c).

1

His

appointed counsel filed a Wende brief. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On 

October 29, 2014, we directed appointed counsel to send the record and a copy of 

counsel’s brief to defendant and notified defendant of his right to respond within 30 days. 

We received no response. 

Defendant’s notice of appeal states that the appeal is based upon the sentence or 

other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect its validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.304(b)(4).)2 We have reviewed the entire record under People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106, focusing upon the sentence as that is the only matter that occurred after 

entry of the plea. We note there is no abstract of judgment in the clerk’s transcript. 

Defendant originally was charged with three counts: 1) second degree robbery

(§ 211), 2) assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and (3) petty theft (§ 484, 

subd. (a)). The complaint eventually was amended to add one count of grand theft

(§ 487, subd. (c), count 4). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to 

count 4, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The trial court suspended imposition 

of sentence and placed defendant on three years’ formal probation. He was ordered to 

serve 180 days in county jail, with 34 days of custody credit (17 days of actual credit and 

17 days of conduct credit). The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, 

subd. (b)), a $300 suspended parole revocation fine (§ 1202.44), a $40 court operations 

assessment fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. 

Code, § 70373), and a $10 crime prevention fine (§ 1202.5). 

Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that no arguable issues for appeal 

exist. 

 

1

All subsequent references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2

Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause, which was denied by the trial 

court. 
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

MANELLA, J.

COLLINS, J.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Jerrard McGary

No. 06-21-00070-CR

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED AUGUST 6, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/     LEO F. WELLS, III                                  
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive
Officer November 12, 2004





|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                   
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial
Officer November 12, 2004
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-01 January 2, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH WISCONSIN ELECTRIC TO DISCUSS

RECENT INSPECTION FINDINGS AND POINT BEACH 2 STARTUP ACTIVITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet January 10

with representatives of Wisconsin Electric Power Company to

discuss the findings of a special NRC team inspection at the

Point Beach Nuclear Power Station. The nuclear facility is near

Two Rivers, Wisconsin.

The NRC staff will also meet with utility officials to

discuss the status of utility performance improvement initiatives

and to consider issues to be resolved prior to restarting Unit 2

at the plant. Unit 2 has been shut down since October of last

year for refueling and for replacement of its steam generators.

The meeting to discuss the team inspection findings will be

at 10 a.m. on January 10. The second meeting will follow at

12:30 p.m. Both meetings, which are open to public observation,

will be in the Two Creeks Town Hall at Highway 42 and Tapawingo

Road north of Two Rivers.

The inspection by the 10-person NRC team began December 2 at

the Point Beach plant near Two Rivers, Wisconsin. The team spent

two weeks at the plant and then continued its inspection during

the week of December 16 at the utility's corporate offices in

Milwaukee.

The inspection was scheduled to provide a broad review of

plant activities following problems in 1996 with control room

operations and with the equipment testing program.

The team inspection included around-the-clock surveillance

of routine activities in the plant's control room for several

days. Inspectors also reviewed maintenance, testing, and

engineering activities.

#####
#### § 147.630 Debarment.

*Debarment* means an action taken by a Federal agency to prohibit a recipient from participating in Federal Government procurement contracts and covered nonprocurement transactions. A recipient so prohibited is debarred, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for procurement contracts (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4) and the common rule, Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), that implements Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689.