alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 205.271 Facility pest management practice standard. ( a ) The producer or handler of an organic facility must use management practices to prevent pests, including but not limited to: ( 1 ) Removal of pest habitat, food sources, and breeding areas;
( 2 ) Prevention of access to handling facilities; and
( 3 ) Management of environmental factors, such as temperature, light, humidity, atmosphere, and air circulation, to prevent pest reproduction.
( b ) Pests may be controlled through: ( 1 ) Mechanical or physical controls including but not limited to traps, light, or sound; or
( 2 ) Lures and repellents using nonsynthetic or synthetic substances consistent with the National List.
( c ) If the practices provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are not effective to prevent or control pests, a nonsynthetic or synthetic substance consistent with the National List may be applied.
( d ) If the practices provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section are not effective to prevent or control facility pests, a synthetic substance not on the National List may be applied: *Provided,* That, the handler and certifying agent agree on the substance, method of application, and measures to be taken to prevent contact of the organically produced products or ingredients with the substance used.
( e ) The handler of an organic handling operation who applies a nonsynthetic or synthetic substance to prevent or control pests must update the operation's organic handling plan to reflect the use of such substances and methods of application. The updated organic plan must include a list of all measures taken to prevent contact of the organically produced products or ingredients with the substance used.
( f ) Notwithstanding the practices provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section, a handler may otherwise use substances to prevent or control pests as required by Federal, State, or local laws and regulations: *Provided,* That, measures are taken to prevent contact of the organically produced products or ingredients with the substance used.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

CD

o

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

No. 69961-0- m ^ CD O o

DIVISION ONE

3»

EDWARD FULTON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant. FILED: February 10,2014

no

Per Curiam — Edward Fulton appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty pleas to reckless endangerment, attempting to elude a pursuing police

vehicle, second degree malicious mischief, and third degree malicious mischief.

He contends the court's boilerplate finding that he "has the present or likely future

ability to pay the legal financial obligations imposed" is not supported by the

record. He does not challenge the financial obligations imposed by the court—

i.e., the victim's penalty assessment and DNA collection fee—but instead seeks

onlyto strike the court's finding regarding his ability to pay. Because Fulton did

not raise this issue below, he is barred from raising it for the first time on appeal.

State v. Calvin. 176 Wn. App. 1, 302 P.3d 509 (2013).

Even ifthe argument could be raised, the challenged finding is immaterial

and thus provides no basis for relief. A trial court is not required to enter findings

regarding a defendant's ability to pay before it orders the defendant to pay

financial obligations. State v. Blank. 131 Wn.2d 230, 241-42, 930 P.2d 1213

(1997); State v. Curry. 118 Wn.2d 911, 916, 829 P.2d 166 (1992). The proper

time forfindings "is the point of collection and when sanctions are sought for

nonpayment." Blank. 131 Wn.2d at 242; State v. Crook. 146Wn. App. 24, 189

o—
P.3d 811 (2008). While sentencing courts must consider the defendant's

financial situation before imposing non-mandatory costs, see RCW 10.01.160(3),

State v. Baldwin. 63 Wn. App. 303, 308-12, 818 P.2d 1116 (1991), such

consideration is not necessary at sentencing when, as here, the financial

obligations imposed are mandatory. See e.g., State v. Thompson. 153 Wn. App.

325, 336-38, 223 P.3d 1165 (2009)(DNA fee is mandatory and imposed

regardless of hardship); State v. Williams. 65 Wn. App. 456, 460, 828 P.2d 1158

(1992)(victim penalty assessment "is mandatory and requires no consideration of

a defendant's ability to pay" at sentencing); Curry. 62 Wn. App. 676, 682-83, 814

P.2d 1252 (1991); RCW 43.43.690(1) ("the court shall levy a crime laboratory

analysis fee. . . ."). In these circumstances, the challenged finding is immaterial

surplusage and does not warrant relief. State v. Caldera. 66 Wn. App. 548, 551,

832P.2d 139(1992).

Fulton's pro se Statement of Additional Grounds for Review fails to

articulate any additional basis for relief.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Melvin Horton, Respondent.

Appeals from (1) orders of the County Court of Schuyler County, entered July 9, 1979, which, *inter alia,*granted motions by defendant to suppress evidence and to dismiss the indictment, and (2) an order of the same court, entered July 20, 1979, which refused to rule on defendant’s motion to be relieved of the obligation to comply with the "Notice of Alibi” at this stage of the proceedings. Orders entered July 9, 1979 affirmed. No opinion. Appeal from order entered July 20, 1979 dismissed as moot. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
October 31, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NEW CONCEPT TRADE INCORP ORATED AKA AND DBA N EW CONCEPT TRADE, INC., NEW CONCEPT TRADE
, AND SHEHZAD SADARUDD IN

AKA AND BSPA SHEHZAD SADWDDI N , Appellant s
NO. 14

- 13

- 00601

- CV V.
QUA LITY KING FRAGRANCE, INC. DB A QUALITY FRAGRANCE GR OUP
, Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on May 9, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant s , New Concept Trade Incorpo rated AKA and DBA New Concept Trade, Inc., New Concept Trade
, and Shehzad Sadaruddin AKA and BSPA Shehzad Sadwddin, jointly and severally. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
(February 10, 1967)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Norbert Harris, Also Known as James Clark, Appellant, v. Daniel J. McMann, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. (See *People*v. *Porter,*19 A D 2d 928, affd. 14 N Y 2d 785.) Gibson, P, J,, Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.
is the

e NFIP

 won’t

pply for

eowners,

nters all

as long

cipate in

are paid

declared

FIP

y, so

r quick

urance

an

 for your

rses you

p to

usinesses,

e con

e, so

on, too.

Flooding—the risk is real.

Don’t gamble any longer.

For more information about the NFIP 

and flood insurance, call 

1-800-427-4661,

or contact your 

insurance company or agent.

For an agent referral, call 

1-888-435-6637

TDD 1-800-427-5593

http://www.fema.gov/nfip

National Flood Insurance ProgramWhat You Need toKnow about FederalDisaster Assistanceand National FloodInsurance

F-001 08/04
to

, do

gs like

Answers to Common Misconceptions about Flood Insurance

urance?

ss is ever

stance

too

 never

"Who needs flood insurance?If my home or business is everflooded, disaster assistance willbail me out."

THE FACTS ARE:

• Before most forms of federal disaster assistance can be offered, the President must

declare a major disaster.

• The most common form of federal disaster

assistance is a loan, which must be paidback with interest.

• The average federal Individuals and

Households Program (IHP) award isaround $4,000.

• To qualify for federal Home Repair

Assistance, your home must have relativelyminor damage that can be repaired quickly.

• You can’t qualify for federal Rental

Assistance unless your home has beenheavily damaged or destroyed.

"Flood insurance is too expensive."

THE FACTS ARE:

• The average duration of a U.S. Small

Business Administration (SBA) disasterhome loan is 30 years.

• The recipient of a $50,000 SBA residential

disaster loan must pay back about $240 amonth at 4% interest.

• The average premium for federally backed

flood insurance through the National FloodInsurance Program (NFIP) is about $400 ayear.

"We’re not going to be flooded. This

area has never been flooded."

THE FACTS ARE:

• Floods are the most common, and most

costly, natural disaster.

• In the past several years, about 60% of all

Presidentially declared disasters involvedflooding.

• Because more roads, buildings, and parking

lots are being constructed where forestsand meadows once stood, floods arebecoming more severe throughout the U.S.

• In areas with the greatest risk of flooding,

called Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs),a building has a 26% chance of beingflooded during a 30-year mortgage.

• About 20-25% of all flood insurance claims

paid by the NFIP are for property outsideof SFHAs.
§ 205.103 Recordkeeping by certified operations. ( a ) A certified operation must maintain records concerning the production, harvesting, and handling of agricultural products that are or that are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).”
( b ) Such records must: ( 1 ) Be adapted to the particular business that the certified operation is conducting;
( 2 ) Fully disclose all activities and transactions of the certified operation, in sufficient detail as to be readily understood and audited; records must span the time of purchase or acquisition, through production, to sale or transport and be traceable back to the last certified operation;
( 3 ) Include audit trail documentation for agricultural products handled or produced by the certified operation and identify agricultural products on these records as “100% organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” or similar terms, as applicable;
( 4 ) Be maintained for not less than 5 years beyond their creation; and
( 5 ) Be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part.
( c ) The certified operation must make such records available for inspection and copying during normal business hours by authorized representatives of the Secretary, the applicable State program's governing State official, and the certifying agent.
[65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 3621, Jan. 19, 2023]
#### § 160.10 Sulphate wood turpentine.

The designation “sulphate wood turpentine” shall refer to the kind of spirits of turpentine prepared from the condensates that are recovered in the sulphate process of cooking wood pulp, and commonly known as sulphate turpentine or sulphate wood turpentine.
#### The Engineering Agency, Inc. (plaintiff) appellee, v. Robert H. Ford, Jr., defendant, on appeal of The Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company of California, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,083.

Opinion filed May 29, 1929.

McKinley & Killinger, for appellant; Henry A. Steinberg, of counsel. Clarence A. Samuel, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Ryner

delivered the opinion of the court.
Editorial Note on Part 1942
Editorial Notes: Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1942.9 Planning, bidding, contracting, and constructing. ( a ) *Review of construction plans and specifications.* All plans and specifications will be submitted as soon as available to the State Office for review and comments.
( b ) *Contract approval.* The State Director or designee is responsible for approving all construction contracts using legal advice and guidance of OGC as necessary. The National Office must concur with the use of a contracting method under § 1942.18(l) of this subpart exceeding $250,000. When an applicant requests such concurrence, the State Director will submit the following to the National Office: ( 1 ) State Director's and Rural Development engineer/architect's comments and recommendations, and if noncompetitive negotiation per § 1942.18(k)(4) is accepted by the Agency, submit an evaluation of previous work of the proposed construction firm.
( 2 ) Regional attorney's opinion and comments regarding the legal adequacy of the proposed procurement method and proposed contract documents.
( 3 ) Copy of owner's written request and description of the procurement method proposed.
( 4 ) Copy of the proposed contract.
( c ) *Bid irregularities.* Any irregularities in the bids received or other matters pertaining to the contract award having legal implications will be cleared with OGC before the State Director consents to the contract award.
( d ) *Noncompliance.* State Directors, upon receipt of information indicating borrowers or their officers, employees, or agents are not performing in compliance with § 1942.18(j)(1) of this subpart, may request the Regional Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to investigate the matter and provide a report. The State Director is responsible for resolving the issue.
[50 FR 7296, Feb. 22, 1985, as amended at 53 FR 6787, Mar. 3, 1988; 77 FR 29539, May 18, 2012]
Editorial Note on Part 1980
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1980.413 Transactions which will not be guaranteed. ( a ) The following transactions will not be guaranteed by the Agency: ( 1 ) The guarantee of lease payments.
( 2 ) The guarantee of loans made by other Federal agencies. This does not preclude the guaranteeing of loans made by the Bank for Cooperatives, Federal Land Bank, or Production Credit Association.
( 3 ) The guarantee or making of any B&I loans(s), to any one borrower, when the total amount of the B&I loans(s) requested plus the outstanding balance of any existing B&I loan(s) is in excess of $10 million.
( b ) Guaranteeing of loans involved in tax-exempt obligations under § 1980.23 of subpart A of this part.
Administrative The State Director will consider the overall State allocations of funding authority in recommending loans for processing. Loan requests which fall within Small Business Administration (SBA) authority should continue to be referred to SBA. If the State Director decides to process SBA size loans, the loan file must be fully documented as to the reasons for such actions.
[52 FR 6501, Mar. 4, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 40401, Oct. 17, 1988]
#### § 1789.159 Contract administration.

The government shall be solely responsible for the administration of a Consulting Contract and shall have complete control over the scope of the Consultant's work, the timetable for performance, the standards to be applied in determining the acceptability of deliverables and the approval of payment of Invoices.
#### Wake *et al. vs.*The Bank of the Commonwealth.

If a partial payment be' made upon a note, which is after-wards paid in fall, or merged in a renewal, without deduction of the partial payment, 'that may then he considered as so much money had and received bythe payee, to the use of the party who paid it; and he may maintain assumpsit for it, or may plead it as a set-off, *pro*tanto, against the new note. It cannot• be deemed a paymentonthenew note,not executed until afier the money was paid.

[Mr. Owsley for Plaintiffs: Mr. Crittenden for Defendants.]

From the Circuit Court for Jessamine County.

*November*6.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

To a petition and summons,- brought by the-Bank of the Commonwealth against Wake, as principal, and others as his sureties, on a note for six hundred and nineteen dollars, he pleaded that the note sued on was only a renewal of a former note, on which he had paid seventy five dollars, for which he never had received any credit J and which, therefore, he pleaded as a set off, *pro tanto.*The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the plea, and thereupon gave judgment for the whole amount of the note.

The only question now presented, is, whether the matter pleaded was pleadable as a set off: and it is the opinion of this court that it was.

If, instead of giving a new note, the obligors had paid off and taken in the old note, without being credited for the seventy five dollars which had, as averred, been paid, that sum might *then*have been deemed so-much money received by the Bank to the use of the obligors, and for which an action of *indebitatus*assumpsit,5 might have been maintained. The new note having extinguished the old, the seventy' five dollars could not have been pleaded gs a payment on the new note. And consequently, if, as alleged in the pleá, the seventy five dollars were inadvertently omitted in calculating" the amount for which the new note should be given, the Bank should account for the sum so omitted ; and it seems to us that *assumpsit*might be maintained for it, and, consequently, that it is a fit subject matter of a plea of set off.

Wherefore, the judgment must be reversed, and the1 eause remanded, with instructions to overrule-the d©imarrer to the plea of set off.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0554]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Daniel Gittleson, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-5156,                         *Daniel.Gittleson@fda.hhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9605), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0601. The approval expires on September 30, 2013. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*

Dated: November 12, 2010.

Leslie Kux,

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-29055 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
M. P. No. 79-274.

#### Mayer Levitt *v.*Mary Jane O’Neill.

The petitioner’s motion for stay of the Superior Court judg*875ment is granted pending a determination by this court on the petition for writ of certiorari.

Mr. Justice Weisberger did not participate.

*Paul V. Curdo,*for plaintiff, *Amato DeLuca, Ronald Glantz,*for respondent.
#### § 1900.57 [Reserved]
#### § 1c.112 Review by Institution

Research covered by this policy that has been approved by an IRB may be subject to further appropriate review and approval or disapproval by officials of the institution. However, those officials may not approve the research if it has not been approved by an IRB.
#### Associates Discount Corporation, Respondent, v. Worden Service, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In affirming the judgment herein we would point out that the trial court in its decision stated that it “must construe this ambiguous contract in the light of the parties’ conduct.” Upon its finding of ambiguity in the contract the court admitted parol evidence as to representations of plaintiff’s agent at the time the parties entered into their contractual arrangement. The testimony received does not support defendant’s contention that plaintiff was to have no claim against the defendant in the event of default in payments under conditional contracts assigned. At most it would limit plaintiff’s recovery to the amount of reserve provided in the contract. Such a construction of the contract would be clearly at variance with its terms. The action is not based on any of the individual assignments but rather on the contract itself. By its provisions it was agreed that “in the event of default by the purchaser in the payment of any amount due, whether in whole or in part, then and in such event, * * * we [the defendant] promise to pay to you [the plaintiff] upon demand, the amount remaining unpaid on such paper”. Plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendant the entire amounts remaining unpaid on the contracts assigned it by defendant pursuant to the agreement of the parties. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Trial Term without a jury, in an action for breach of contract.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the**

**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ruth’sChris Steak House, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and President of Ruth’s ChrisSteak House, Inc., certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof Ruth’s Chris Steak House, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2007 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ruth’sChris Steak House, Inc. and will be retained by Ruth’s Chris Steak House, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.