alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                 5
       
<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                            DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                              NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                                        308,000
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               3,232,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   50,000
<INVENTORY>                                                 3,103,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            7,791,000
<PP&E>                                                      7,552,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                              5,725,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              9,694,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       4,009,000
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                      465,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                 11,154,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                9,694,000
<SALES>                                                    19,307,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           19,307,000
<CGS>                                                      15,468,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              15,468,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            313,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (1,276,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    7,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (1,283,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    (.29)
        



<PAGE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THECHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFGLOBAL PARTNERS LPPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

** **

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2008 of Global Partners LP (the “Partnership”)and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Eric Slifka, President and Chief Executive Officer of Global GP LLC, thegeneral partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.     The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
| Dated:  May 9, 2008 | By:    | /s/Eric  Slifka                        |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Eric Slifka                            |
|                     |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                     |   | of Global GP LLC, general  partner     |
|                     |   | of Global Partners LP                  |

 

----
#### § 205.509 Peer review panel.

The Administrator shall establish a peer review panel pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2 *et seq.*). The peer review panel shall be composed of not less than 3 members who shall annually evaluate the National Organic Program's adherence to the accreditation procedures in this subpart F and ISO/IEC Guide 61, General requirements for assessment and accreditation of certification/registration bodies, and the National Organic Program's accreditation decisions. This shall be accomplished through the review of accreditation procedures, document review and site evaluation reports, and accreditation decision documents or documentation. The peer review panel shall report its finding, in writing, to the National Organic Program's Program Manager.
Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 369 Filed 05/21/19 Page 1 of 3
IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2885

SCHEDULE CTO−12 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

ALABAMA NORTHERN

ALN 2 19−00675 Short v. 3M Company

ALN 5 19−00666 Overton v. 3M Company et al

ALABAMA SOUTHERN

ALS 1 19−00215 Warren v. 3M Company

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN

CAS 3 19−00873 Mills et al v. 3M Company et al

COLORADO

CO 1 19−01272 Bugg v. 3M Company et al

FLORIDA SOUTHERN

FLS 0 19−61124 Germain v. 3M Company

ILLINOIS NORTHERN

ILN 1 19−03033 Smith et al v. 3M Company

INDIANA NORTHERN

INN 3 19−00346 Bonnema v. 3M Company

INDIANA SOUTHERN

INS 1 19−01788 KOERS v. 3M COMPANY

LOUISIANA WESTERN

LAW 5 19−00575 Woods v. Aearo Technologies L L C

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 369 Filed 05/21/19 Page 2 of 3 Case MDL No. 2885 Document 441 Filed 05/21/19 Page 2 of 3
MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN

MSN 1 19−00090 Jackson v. 3M Company

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN

MSS 2 19−00072 Matthews v. 3M Company et al

MISSOURI EASTERN

MOE 4 19−01176 Talley v. 3M Company et al

NEW YORK NORTHERN

NYN 5 19−00526 Braudrick v. 3M Company et al

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN

PAE 2 19−01893 KELSON v. 3M COMPANY

PAE 5 19−01902 ROBBINS v. 3M COMPANY

PAE 5 19−02025 HOWES et al v. 3M COMPANY et al

TEXAS EASTERN

TXE 4 19−00324 Smith v. 3M Company

TEXAS SOUTHERN

TXS 4 19−01629 Mercado−Morales v. 3M Company

TXS 4 19−01630 Bridges v. 3M Company

TEXAS WESTERN

TXW 1 19−00480 Swann v. 3M Company et al

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 369 Filed 05/21/19 Page 3 of 3 Case MDL No. 2885 Document 441 Filed 05/21/19 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1467.10 Cost-share payments. ( a ) NRCS may share the cost with participants of implementing the WRPO on the enrolled land. The amount and terms and conditions of the cost-share assistance shall be subject to the following restrictions on the costs of establishing or installing conservation practices or activities specified in the WRPO: ( 1 ) On enrolled land subject to a permanent easement, NRCS will offer to pay at least 75 percent but not more than 100 percent of such costs; and
( 2 ) On enrolled land subject to a non-permanent easement, 30-year contract, or restoration cost-share agreement, NRCS will offer to pay at least 50 percent but not more than 75 percent of such costs.
( 3 ) The total amount of payments that a person or legal entity may receive, directly or indirectly, for one or more restoration cost-share agreements, for any year, may not exceed $50,000.
( b ) Cost-share payments may be made only upon a determination by NRCS that an eligible conservation practice or component of the conservation practice has been implemented in compliance with appropriate NRCS standards and specifications; or an eligible activity has been implemented in compliance with the appropriate requirements detailed in the WRPO. Identified conservation practices or activities may be implemented by the participant, NRCS, or other NRCS designee.
( c ) Cost-share payments may be made for replacement of an eligible conservation practice, if NRCS determines that the practice is still needed and that the failure of the original conservation practice was due to reasons beyond the control of the participant.
( d ) A participant may seek additional cost-share assistance from other public or private organizations as long as the conservation practices or activities funded are in compliance with this part. In no event shall the participant receive an amount that exceeds 100 percent of the total actual cost of the restoration.
[74 FR 2328, Jan. 15, 2009, as amended at 74 FR 26284, June 2, 2009]
§ 1970.1 Purpose, applicability, and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to ensure that the Agency complies with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.*), and other applicable environmental requirements in order to make better decisions based on an understanding of the environmental consequences of proposed actions, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the quality of the human environment.
( b ) *Applicability.* The environmental policies and procedures contained in this part are applicable to programs administered by the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), Rural Housing Service (RHS), and Rural Utilities Service (RUS); herein referred to as “the Agency.”
( c ) *Scope.* This part integrates NEPA with other planning, environmental review processes, and consultation procedures required by other Federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders applicable to Agency programs. This part also supplements the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. To the extent appropriate, the Agency will take into account CEQ guidance and memoranda. This part also incorporates and complies with the procedures of Section 106 (36 CFR part 800) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Section 7 (50 CFR part 402) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
#### §§ 1c.105-1c.106 [Reserved]
Exhibit 10y1


Description of base salaries for each of Fortune Brands, Inc.’s (“Fortune”) Named Executive Officers effective January 1, 2005, constituting Exhibit 10y1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fortune for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Named Executive Officer 
	 	2005 Salary
	
	 	

	Mark Hausberg 
	 	$	325,000	 
	Christopher J. Klein 
	 	$	390,000	 
	Craig P. Omtvedt
	 	$	555,000	 
	Mark A. Roche 
	 	$	458,000	 
	Norman H. Wesley 
	 	$	1,100,000
#### § 215.7a Fluid milk and non-dairy milk substitute requirements.

Fluid milk and non-dairy fluid milk substitutes served must meet the requirements as outlined in this section.

(a) *Types of fluid milk.* All fluid milk served in the Program must be pasteurized fluid milk which meets State and local standards for such milk, have vitamins A and D at levels specified by the Food and Drug Administration, and must be consistent with State and local standards for such milk. Lactose-free and reduced-lactose milk that meet the fat content and flavor specifications for each age group may also be offered. Fluid milk must also meet the following requirements:

(1) *Children 1 year old.* Children one year of age must be served unflavored whole milk.

(2) *Children 2 through 5 years old.* Children two through five years old must be served either unflavored low-fat (1 percent) or unflavored fat-free (skim) milk.

(3) *Children 6 years old and older.* Children 6 years old and older must be served low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or fat-free (skim) milk. Milk may be flavored or unflavored.

(b) *Fluid milk substitutes for non-disability reasons.*

(1) A school food authority or child care institution may offer fluid milk substitutes based on a written request from a child's parent or guardian, a State licensed healthcare professional, or registered dietitian. A school food authority or child care institution choosing to offer fluid milk substitutes for a non-disability reason is not required to offer the specific fluid milk substitutes requested but may offer the fluid milk substitutes of its choice, provided the fluid milk substitutes offered meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(2) If a school food authority or child care institution chooses to offer one or more fluid milk substitutes for non-disability reasons, the fluid milk substitutes must provide, at a minimum, the nutrients listed in the following table. Fluid milk substitutes must be fortified in accordance with fortification guidelines issued by the Food and Drug Administration.

| Nutrient | Per cup (8 fl. oz.) |
| --- | --- |
| Calcium | 276 mg. |
| Protein | 8 g. |
| Vitamin A | 150 mcg. retinol activity equivalents (RAE). |
| Vitamin D | 2.5 mcg. |
| Magnesium | 24 mg. |
| Phosphorus | 222 mg. |
| Potassium | 349 mg. |
| Riboflavin | 0.44 mg. |
| Vitamin B-12 | 1.1 mcg. |

Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)—Nutrient Requirements for Fluid Milk Substitutes

(3) Expenses incurred when providing fluid milk substitutes that exceed program reimbursements must be paid by the school food authority or child care institution; costs may be paid from the nonprofit food service account.

[81 FR 24375, Apr. 25, 2016, as amended at 82 FR 56714, Nov. 30, 2017; 83 FR 63790, Dec. 12, 2018; 85 FR 74849, Nov. 24, 2020; 87 FR 7006, Feb. 7, 2022; 89 FR 32077, Apr. 25, 2024]
Editorial Note on Part 1980
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1980.414 Fees and charges by lender and others. [See Subpart A, § 1980.22] ( a ) All fees and charges must be specifically documented and justified on the Form RD 449-1 or on an addendum to the application at the time the loan request is submitted to Rural Development for processing. Allowable fees will be those reasonably and customarily charged borrowers in similar circumstances in the ordinary course of business and are subject to Rural Development review and approval.
( b ) Packaging fees include services rendered by the lender or others in connection with preparation of the application and seeing the project through to final decision. These services may or may not be performed by an investment banker. If an investment banker provides needed assistance in addition to the packaging of the loan, additional charges may be added to the packaging fee. The maximum allowable packaging fees are 2 percent of the total principal amount of the loan up to $1 million and on all amounts over $1 million, an additional one-fourth percent up to total maximum fee of $50,000. Packaging fees, investment banker fees and other fees and charges not specifically provided for in this section are permitted subject to Rural Development review and approval. Loan proceeds may be used to pay fees as specifically authorized under §§ 1980.411(a)(12) and (13). Packaging fees, investment banker fees, and any other fees or charges shall not be paid from loan proceeds.
[52 FR 6501, Mar. 4, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 45258, Nov. 9, 1988]
Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 4
Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 2 of 4
Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 3 of 4
Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-12 Filed 08/09/22 Page 4 of 4
#### In re STERN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

In the matter of Charles ID. Stern.

No opinion. Reference ordered. Settle order on notice.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Mitchell E. Bouldin, * From the 277th District

 Court of Williamson County,

 Trial Court No. 11-852-C26.

Vs. No. 11-14-00088-CV * August 7, 2014

Systems & Services Technologies, Inc., * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered Mitchell E. Bouldin’s and Systems & Services 

Technologies, Inc.’s agreed motion to dismiss this appeal and concludes that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against 

the party incurring same.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1962

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1962 appear at 80 FR 9902, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1962.5 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1980.1203 Definitions.

*Agency.* One of the three Rural Development agencies, the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service or the Rural Utilities Service.

*Agency head.* The Administrator of the applicable RD agency.

*Awarding Agency.* An agency which has received an application for special broadband authority or has approved an application for such authority.

*Broadband service.* Any technology identified by the Secretary as having the capacity to provide transmission facilities that enable a subscriber to originate and receive voice, data, graphics, and video.

*Con Act.* The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, as codified and amended at 7 U.S.C. 1921 *et seq.*

*Minimum acceptable level of broadband service.* The minimum transmission capacity with respect to terrestrial service that will qualify as broadband service, as published by the RUS in the Federal Register pursuant to 7 CFR part 1738. If a new minimum transmission capacity is published in the Federal Register while a request for smart utility authority is pending, broadband service for the purpose of reviewing the request will be defined by the minimum transmission capacity that was in effect at the time the request was received by the Agency.

*Rural Development (RD).* A mission area of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) made up of the Rural Housing Service (RHS), Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS).

*Retail broadband service.* For the purposes of this subpart, retail broadband service means any broadband service that is provided to the public at a charge. Broadband Service which is used exclusively by the recipient for its own purposes and is not sold to the public is not retail broadband. Broadband service which is sold to other service providers through wholesale agreements shall also not be considered retail broadband service.

*RE Act.* The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as codified and amended at 7 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.*

*Secretary.* The Secretary of Agriculture.

*Special broadband authority.* Approval by an RD program to use up to 10 percent of the proceeds of an RD loan, grant, or loan guarantee for the purposes of constructing, improving, or acquiring broadband facilities and equipment in rural areas, whether or not retail or wholesale broadband service will be provided.

*Smart utility.* The use of broadband facilities and equipment that is only available internally by a recipient during the economic life of the assets financed by an RD loan, grant, or loan guarantee.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69650-69651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28751]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

[Docket ID: USA-2010-0026]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to Delete a System of Records.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army is deleting a systems of record 
notice from its existing inventory of record systems subject to the 
Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
December 15, 2010 unless comments are received which result in a 
contrary determination.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or 
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by any of the following 
methods:
    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    * Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, Room 3C843, 1160 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this 
Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other 
submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions 
available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any 
personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department of the Army, Privacy 
Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 
Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905, 
Mr. Leroy Jones at (703) 428-6185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Army systems of 
records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 
amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available 
from the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT address above.
    The Department of the Army proposes to delete one system of records 
notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act 
of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not 
within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 
U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or 
altered system report.

    Dated: November 9, 2010.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    Deletion:

[[Page 69651]]

A0608-10 CFSC
    Child Development Services (CDS) (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10002).

Reason:
    The Child Development Services (CDS) is covered under system of 
records notice A0215 FMWRC, General Morale, Welfare, Recreation and 
Entertainment Records (July 7, 2008, 73 FR 38420); therefore the notice 
can be deleted.

[FR Doc. 2010-28751 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P