alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6521. Administration

#### (a) Regulations

Not later than 540 days after November 28, 1990, the Secretary shall issue proposed regulations to carry out this chapter.

#### (b) Assistance to State

#### (1) Technical and other assistance

The Secretary shall provide technical, administrative, and National Institute of Food and Agriculture assistance to assist States in the implementation of an organic certification program under this chapter.

#### (2) Financial assistance

The Secretary may provide financial assistance to any State that implements an organic certification program under this chapter.

#### (c) Access to data documentation systems

The Secretary shall have access to available data from cross-border documentation systems administered by other Federal agencies, including the Automated Commercial Environment system of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

#### (d) Reports

#### (1) In general

Not later than March 1, 2020, and annually thereafter through March 1, 2023, the Secretary shall submit to Congress, and make publicly available on the website of the Department of Agriculture, a report describing national organic program activities with respect to all domestic and overseas investigations and compliance actions taken pursuant to this chapter during the preceding year.

#### (2) Requirements

The data described in paragraph (1) shall be broken down by agricultural product, quantity, value, and month.

#### (3) Exception

Any data determined by the Secretary to be confidential business information shall not be provided in the report under paragraph (1).

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XXI, §2122, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3951; Pub. L. 110–234, title VII, §7511(c)(24), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1269; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VII, §7511(c)(24), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2031; Pub. L. 115–334, title X, §10104(h), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4901.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2018—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 115–334 added subsecs. (c) and (d).

2008—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 110–246, §7511(c)(24), substituted "National Institute of Food and Agriculture" for "Extension Service".

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

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.

Amendment by section 7511(c)(24) of Pub. L. 110–246 effective Oct. 1, 2009, see section 7511(c) of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 1522 of this title.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 22-50002 

Summary Calendar 

Thirplus Timo Moose, 

Petitioner—Appellant, 

versus

FNU LNU, Warden of Bastrop and/or Title Holder, 

Respondent—Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:21-CV-891 

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Thirplus Timo Moose, federal prisoner # 21011-045, was convicted of 

conspiracy to commit bank robbery, armed bank robbery with forcible 

restraint, and use or discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence causing 

murder. He now appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

September 27, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-50002 Document: 00516486508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2022
No. 22-50002 

2 

he asserted he should be released immediately on the basis of a purported 

novation agreement he sent the Government, which, among other things, 

deemed his term of imprisonment satisfied. According to Moose, the 

Government assented to the novation by failing to reject it. Additionally, 

Moose seeks leave to file a supplemental brief. 

“In an appeal from the denial of habeas relief, this court reviews a 

district court’s findings of fact for clear error and issues of law de novo.” 

Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). This court “may affirm 

the district court’s denial of relief on any ground supported by the record.” 

Hunter v. Tamez, 622 F.3d 427, 430 (5th Cir. 2010). Here, Moose attempts 

to unilaterally change the terms of his plea agreement and sentence to obtain 

immediate release and asserts that the Government has agreed to this 

novation by its silence. This contention is without merit. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Moose’s motion 

for leave to file a supplemental brief in support is DENIED. 

Case: 22-50002 Document: 00516486508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2022
### §2203. Seal

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to procure a proper seal, with such suitable inscriptions and devices as he may approve, to be known as the official seal of the Department of Agriculture, and to be kept and used to verify official documents, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe.

(Aug. 8, 1894, ch. 238, 28 Stat. 272.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 513 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
# .\LG

expectmore

July 7, 2015

VIA FED EX ONLY (TRACKING #8062 8187 2423} U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 NewJerseyAve., SE Washington, DC 20590 L:

Re: Amendmentto Exemption No. 11756 Issued to Fenestermaker Inc., Pursuantto Section 333 ofthe FAA Modernization andReformActof2012 Dear Sir or Madam: C.H. Fenestermaker 

### & Associates, LLC ("Fenestermaker") was issued Exemption No. 11756 on June 5, 2015 (hereinafter "the Exemption") authorizing commercial operations, with conditions and limitations, for a DJI Innovations S800 UAS for the purpose aerial data collection to include precision aerial surveying and mapping. Fenestermaker now requests an amendmentto the Exemption allowing itto operate additional sUAS pursuant to the same conditions and limitations contained in the Exemption. The additional aircraftforwhich relieffrom 14CFR Part 21, Certification proceduresfor Products and Parts, Subpart HAirworthiness Certificates and additional FAR's as contained in the original Exemption will be required and which Fenestermaker requests be included in its exemption are : 1) DJI Inspiration 1; 2) Phantom 2 Vision, and 3) X-UAV Talon FPV. These additional aircraft fall within the limitations prescribed in the exemption for weight, size, and performance. Aircraft operating and maintenance manuals for these aircraft are attached tothis amendment request. The FAA has previously granted exemptions forthese aircraft.Fenestermaker has revised its sUAS Operators Handbook to include the additional aircraft requested to be added tothe Exemption. A copy ofthe revised Operator's Handbook is attached. The Operator's Handbook and Operations Manuals contain confidential commercial and/or proprietary information to Fenestermaker and are not generally available to the public and are protected from release underthe Freedom of InformationAct, 5 U.S.C. §552 etseq. Fenestermaker respectfully submits thatthis amendment qualifies for summary grant approval. The FAA has previously granted exemptionsforthe operation ofthe additional aircraft requested in this amendment. Similarly, as the proposed operations of these additional aircraft will be in full conformance withthe otherconditions and limitations ofthe Exemption,there is no need forthe FAAto repeat the analysis performed for the original exemption on which this amendment is based. For the same reasons, good cause exists to preclude the requirement to publish the requested amendment in the Federal Register.

ALGATTORNEYS. PLLC (720) 530 4600 (720) 530 iHl01 ALGA TTORNEYS.COMPlease feel free to contact me ifthere are any questions orany additional information needed to process this amendmentto include these otheraircrafton Exemption 11756.
Sincerely,

Encls:- Fenstermaker sUAS Operator's Handbook (CONFIDENTIAL- NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE) Fenstermaker sUAS Operator's Handbook (CONFIDENTIAL- NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE) Fenstermaker Fixed-wing sUAS Operator's Handbook (CONFIDENTIAL- NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE)

LJ.S.

**~** 8, 5
···--------·-··· . ?
#### Edith Brodsky, Respondent, v. Philip Brodsky, Appellant.

Determination of the Appellate Term affirming judgment in favor of plaintiff, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. In this action against plaintiff’s husband to recover sums allegedly due under a separation agreement, defendant pleaded that he was induced to enter into the agreement through misrepresentations that “ plaintiff was suffering from an advanced stage of cancer and would only live a short time.” Plaintiff had undergone a radical mastectomy for carcinoma in 1952. In December, 1958 negotiations with respect to the terms of a separation agreement commenced. During them the state of plaintiff’s health and her life expectancy were discussed, and that these matters were material in fixing the monetary provisions was well within the province of the jury to find. It was the view of the trial court that the statements which were made on plaintiff’s behalf in the course of the discussions, and which defendant contends constituted representations of fact, amounted to no more than predictions that plaintiff had but a short time to live, and on this basis alone the court directed a verdict in her favor. In our opinion the jury, if it believed defendant, could reasonably find that representations of fact were made. 'Thus, he testified that he had been told that “metastasis -had set in, the spreading of the cancer” and that *“*the cancer had spread and that it had affected her vision ”, While these statements of course had a bearing on plaintiff’s life expectancy, they pictured an existing physical condition. That a statement of fact may form the •predicate of a prognostication does not per se convert it into one. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.
### §6917. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, §12414(a)(4), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4981

Section, Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §217, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3212, related to reports by Secretary.
§ 99.1 Scope and purpose. ( a ) The Department of Defense (DoD), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), or Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has the right to criminal history information of States and local criminal justice agencies in order to determine whether a person may: ( 1 ) Be eligible for access to classified information;
( 2 ) Be assigned to sensitive national security duties; or
( 3 ) Continue to be assigned to national security duties.
( b ) This part sets out the conditions under which the DoD, OPM, or CIA may sign an agreement to indemnify and hold harmless a State or locality against claims for damages, costs, and other monetary loss caused by disclosure or use of criminal history record information by one of these agencies.
( c ) The procedures set forth in this part do not apply to situations where a Federal agency seeks access to the criminal history records of another Federal agency.
( d ) By law these provisions implementing 5 U.S.C. 9101 (b)(3) shall expire December 4, 1988, unless the duration of said section is extended or limited by Congress.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ROBERT HUGHES HARRIS

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 3587

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed March 23, 2018

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County

, Leticia J. Marques , Judge.

Robert Hughes Harris, Raiford, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Harris appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief

filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds Two,

Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight. However, because the record does not conclusively

refute Harris’s sufficiently pled claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to ask for an

alibi instruction, we reverse the summary denial of Ground One and remand for2

attachment of portions of the r ecord conclusively refuting this claim or for an ev identiary

hearing. See Freeman v. State

, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) (" [A] defendant is

entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion,

files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief,

or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing Maharaj v. State , 684

So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996))). We also reverse the summary denial of Ground Three,

regarding counsel’s alleged misleading advice o n H arris’s right to testify, and remand for

an evidentiary hearing. Simon v. State , 47 So. 3d 883, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)

(concluding evidentiary hearing is usually necessary to determine whether counsel’s

advice not to testify is deficient).

AFFIRMED in par t, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

BERGER, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur
Employment Offer











Employment Offer Letter






 



April 5, 2006






Robert C. Pfeiffer



P.O. Box 13091



Coyote, CA 95013






Dear Chris, 



It is with great pleasure that I extend to you an offer of employment with Sunrise Telecom. This offer letter will confirm the terms and conditions set forth for the position of Acting VP of Engineering, SRS. Upon acceptance, please sign this letter and return via fax (408-360-1959) and mail in the enclosed envelope at your earliest convenience. 






	Starting Salary:$14,166.67/month

	Start Date:April 5, 2006

	Job Duties (tentative assignments, some or all may change in future)


	Manage the San Jose R&D lab
	Oversee management of the Sunrise Telecom China R&D lab














	Working Hours

Starting from no later than 9:00 am daily.






	Benefits (per company policy)

-10 paid holidays per year per company policy, 15 days of paid time off per year



-Medical, dental & vision insurance:      100% premium paid for employee



      50% premium paid for spouse and children



-Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Profit Sharing Plan 



-401(k) plan per company policy



-Others per employee handbook






5. Performance Review 



Performance reviews are generally given every on an annual basis on or around March 1st.






	Trial Period (First 3 months of employment with a performance evaluation upon successful completion)

Paid Personal Time Off (PTO) is not allowed, however, PTO hours are accrued normally.






	


 



/S/     PAUL A. MARSHALL



Paul Marshall,



Chief Executive Officer
	






 



Accepted by /S/    ROBERT C. PFEIFFER            



                       Robert C. Pfeiffer












Sunrise Telecom, Incorporated advises that conditions of employment may change from time to time without prior notice, and that any such changes could effect one or more of the above employment descriptions. Employment with Sunrise Telecom may be terminated by either Robert C. Pfeiffer or Sunrise Telecom for any reason at any time.  Offer expires April 5, 2006
# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No . 1 7 -2 0 88

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Os car Dav i dIb an ez l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l lPet i t i o n er

v . W i l l i am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gen eral o f t h e Un i t edSt at es l l l ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll Res

po n den t

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No . 1 8 -2 5 18

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Os car Dav i dIb an ez l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l lPet i t i o n er

v . W i l l i am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gen eral o f t h e Un i t edSt at es l l l ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll Res

po n den t

_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ Pet i t i o n fo r Rev i ew o f anOrd er o f t h e Bo ardo f Imm i g rat io n Ap peal s

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Sub m i t t ed : M ay

3 0 , 2 0 1 9 Fi l ed : J u n e 4 , 2 0 1 9 [Unpub l is h ed ]

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _Befo re BENTON, STRAS, an dKOBES, Ci rcu i tJ u d g es .

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ PER CURIAM
. Sal v ad o ran ci t izen Os car Ib an ez p et i t i o ns fo r rev i ew o f t w o o rd ers o f th e Bo ard o f Im m i g rat i o n Ap p eal s. Th e fi rs t o rd er d e n i e d h i m v o lu n t ary dep artu re an d can cel l at i o n o f rem o v al ; t h e s eco n d o rd er d en ied h i s m o t i o n t o reo p en an d ad m i n is t rat i v el y

cl o s e h is rem ov al p ro ceed in gs . Aft er carefu l rev i ew, t h i s co u rt den i es t h e p et i t i o n s fo r rev i ew. See 8 t h Ci r. R. 4 7 B.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

-2
-
EXHIBIT
32.1





Section
1350 Certification


By
Principal Executive Officer





I, Daniel
Greenberg, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report
on Form 10-Q of Electro Rent Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended
February 28, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission upon request.





Date:  April
7, 2010





/s/ Daniel GreenbergDaniel
      Greenberg
                Chief
      Executive Officer
### §1444–2. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §171(b)(2)(B), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 938

Section, act Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, title I, §103B, as added Nov. 28, 1990, Pub. L. 101–624, title V, §501, 104 Stat. 3421; amended Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101–508, title I, §1101(c), 104 Stat. 1388–1; Dec. 13, 1991, Pub. L. 102–237, title I, §§102(b), 106(b), 107, 113(2), (3), 125, 126, 105 Stat. 1821, 1825, 1827, 1837, 1845; Aug. 10, 1993, Pub. L. 103–66, title I, §1101(a), 107 Stat. 313; May 6, 1994, Pub. L. 103–247, §1(a), 108 Stat. 618; Oct. 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103–354, title I, §119(a)(3), 108 Stat. 3207; Dec. 8, 1994, Pub. L. 103–465, title IV, §401(b)(2), 108 Stat. 4957; Aug. 20, 1996, Pub. L. 104–188, title I, §1954(b)(5), 110 Stat. 1928, related to loans, payments, and acreage reduction programs for 1991 through 1997 crops of upland cotton.
Editorial Note on Part 724
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

§ 724.223 NDRB support and augmentation by regular and reserve activities. ( a ) When an NDRB Panel travels for the purpose of conducting hearings, it shall normally select Navy or Marine Corps installations in the area visited as review sites.
( b ) The NDRB Traveling Board shall normally consist of members from the NCPB and augmentees from regular and reserve Navy and Marine Corps sources, as required.
( c ) Navy and Marine Corps activities in the geographical vicinity of selected review sites shall provide administrative support and augmentation to an NDRB Panel during its visit where such assistance can be undertaken without interference with mission accomplishment. The NDRB shall coordinate requests for augmentees and administrative support through Commandant of the Marine Corps or the Chief of Naval Reserve, as appropriate.
( d ) The administrative staff of the NDRB shall undertake all arrangements for NDRB Traveling Panel visits and shall process associated review documents.
[50 FR 10943, Mar. 19, 1985, as amended at 75 FR 747, Jan. 6, 2010]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 1526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00143]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Digital Manufacturing Design Innovation 
Institute

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 18, 2020, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Digital Manufacturing 
Design Innovation Institute (``DMDII'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Ubisense, Denver, CO; EmpowerXR, Chicago, 
IL; ProshopERP, Bellingham, WA; Supply Chain Risk Management Consortium 
(SCRMC), Flemington, NJ; Formic Technologies, Chicago, IL; Supply Chain 
Operations Preparedness Education, Fairfax, VA; Y-12, Oak Ridge, TN; 
Uncomn, Scott AFB, IL; University of Houston, Houston, TX; Illinois 
Institute of Technology (IIT), Chicago, IL; Innovation Quality Business 
Solutions, Bethlehem, PA; Frontier Aerospace, Simi Valley, CA; 
ActivTech, Dunwoody, GA; SquareOne PD, Chicago, IL; Atomus Printing, 
Los Angeles, CA; CANA LLC, Gainsville, VA; Imprimis, Colorado Springs, 
CO; Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ; and Simio, Sewickley, PA have been 
added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and DMDII intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 5, 2016, DMDII filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
March 9, 2016 (81 FR 12525).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
30, 2020. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 15, 2020 (85 FR 65425).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-00143 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P