alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 201.10 Variety. ( a ) The following kinds of agricultural seeds are generally labeled as to variety and shall be labeled to show the variety name or the words “Variety Not Stated.” Alfalfa; Bahiagrass; Barley; Bean, field; Beet, field; Brome, smooth; Broomcorn; Clover, crimson; Clover, red; Clover, white; Corn, field; Corn, pop; Cotton; Cowpea; Crambe; Fescue, tall; Flax; Lespedeza, striate; Millet, foxtail; Millet, pearl; Oat; Pea, field; Peanut; Radish; Rice; Rye; Safflower; Sorghum; Sorghum-sudangrass, Soybean; Sudangrass; Sunflower; Tobacco; Trefoil, birdsfoot; Triticale; Wheat, common; Wheat, durum.
( b ) If the name of the variety is given, the name may be associated with the name of the kind with or without the words “kind and variety.” The percentage in such case, which may be shown as “pure seed,” shall apply only to seed of the variety named, except for the labeling of hybrids as provided in § 201.11a. If separate percentages for the kind and the variety or hybrid are shown, the name of the kind and the name of the variety or the term “hybrid” shall be clearly associated with the respective percentages. When two or more varieties are present in excess of 5 percent and are named on the label, the name of each variety shall be accompanied by the percentage of each.
[32 FR 12778, Sept. 6, 1967, and 33 FR 10840, July 31, 1968, as amended at 35 FR 6108, Apr. 15, 1970; 59 FR 64491, Dec. 14, 1994; 85 FR 40579, July 7, 2020]
-  Home 
-  Data & Research 

# In This Section

                      -  Accident & Incident Data                          -  Overview 
                        -  Preliminary Accident & Incident Data 
                      -  Aviation & Data Statistics                          -  Overview 
                        -  Airmen Knowledge Test Statistics 
                        -  Data Downloads 
                      -  Aviation Forecasts                          -  Overview 
                        -  Aerospace Forecasts 
                        -  Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) 
                      -  Funding & Grant Data 
                      -  Passengers & Cargo                          -  Overview 
                      -  Research                          -  Overview 
                        -  Aerospace Medical and Human Factors Research 
                        -  Modernization Highlights 
                      -  Safety 
                      -  Technical Library                          -  Overview 
                        -  About Us 
                        -  Contact Us 

## Related Links

                  -                                          Review preliminary accident data                   
                  -                                          Read final accident data                   
                  -                                          Look up airline on-time statistics                   
                  -                                          Search airport data                   
                  -                                          Research DOT airline data & statistics                   

# Aviation Forecasts

## Aerospace Forecasts

The FAA has developed a set of assumptions and forecasts consistent with the emerging trends and structural changes taking place within the aviation industry. The purpose of the forecasts is to accurately predict future demand. FAA develops the commercial aviation forecasts and assumptions from statistical (econometric) models that explain and incorporate emerging trends for the different segments of the industry.
                  - FY 2024-2044 Full Forecast Document and Tables
                  - Additional forecast data

## Terminal Area Forecast (TAF)

The Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) are prepared to meet the budget and planning needs of the FAA and provide information for use by state and local authorities, the aviation industry, and the public.
                  - Query all TAF data
                  - Additional TAF data
                  - TAF Modernization (TAF-M) Methodology
                  - TAF Database Structure
                  - Historical TAF Forecast Variance
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Updated Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Schools      

# Resource: Updated Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Schools

This letter from Secretary Miguel Cardona to chief state school officers and district and school leaders confirms the Department’s belief that religious freedom in and outside of public schools has been and continues to be vital to the strength of our country and our democracy.**Learn more.**
#### In the Matter of Village Board of the Village of Fayetteville, Appellant, v Richard Jarrold et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Fayetteville, et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition granted. Memorandum: On February 13, 1979 respondent Cosser applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Fayetteville for a use variance to permit him to make commercial use of the parcel involved in this appeal. The parcel, fronting on Route 5 in Fayetteville, was zoned residential. Cosser proposed to operate an upholstery and furniture refinishing business on the premises and to house the operation in an old barn which he proposed to renovate. After hearings, the zoning board approved the variance on June 14, 1979. On August 2,1979 petitioner commenced this proceeding, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul the resolution of the zoning board granting the variance. It is from the denial of that petition that petitioner appeals. In reviewing the determination of the zoning board, we cannot make new or substitute judgments but must, instead, limit our inquiry to whether there has been illegality, arbitrariness, or an abuse of discretion *(Matter of Fiore v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southeast,*21 NY2d 393; *Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin,*11 NY2d 20). Such an inquiry must focus upon whether there was substantial evidence to support the zoning board’s decision *(Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*40 NY2d 309, 314; *Banos v Colborn,*35 AD2d 281, 284). For an applicant to be entitled to a use variance, he must come forward with "dollars and cents” proof that the property cannot yield a reasonable return if confined to the uses allowed by present zoning. He must further show that the owner’s plight is due to unique circumstances and not to general conditions in the neighborhood, and that the proposed use will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood *(Matter of Otto v Steinhilber,*282 NY 71, 76; *Matter of Bartholomay v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Rochester,*70 AD2d 784, 785; Zoning Ordinance of Village of Fayetteville, § 1, C2 [c]). Here, the applicant presented no "dollars and cents” proof as to the infeasibility of residential use of the subject parcel. Additionally, the evidence of the uniqueness of the subject parcel was inadequate. The applicant has made no showing that the slope of the subject property was any different from the slope of adjoining properties. Additionally, there is nothing to indicate that the presence of an old barn upon the subject parcel distinguishes it from neighboring properties in any meaningful way. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence before the zoning board to support its decision (cf. *Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*40 NY2d 309, *supra,*pp 313-314). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court —CPLR art 78.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Witmer and Moule, JJ.
Exhibit 10.19

                     PRINCIPAL OFFICER; TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT
                     --------------------------------------

     Jerry P. Rebel, Vice President and Controller of Jack in the Box Inc., was
named Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer effective January 24, 2005.
Mr. Rebel's employment with the Company is on an at-will basis. In connection
with Mr. Rebel's promotion his annual base compensation increased from $248,000
to $300,000.
#### § 18.6 [Reserved]
#### Hans H. Bundt et al., Respondents, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Edward Embro, Jr., Defendant, and Wallach’s Auto Rental, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 9, 1966, denying three motions for summary judgment, one by appellant Peckham Road Corporation, one by the other appealing defendants, and one hy the nonappealing defendant, modified to the extent of granting the motions of the appealing defendants as to plaintiffs who were plaintiffs in Actions Nos. 1 and 3 before the actions were consolidated, namely plaintiffs Bundt, Mondini (three) and Ferrario. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In September, 1962 two cars collided at an intersection in Greene County, New York. The three actions thereafter commenced were consolidated and, in the consolidated action, appellants, whose answers alleged the defense of satisfaction and discharge, moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs Bundt, Mondini and Ferrario, during the pendency of the three actions, had accepted payments of judgments obtained by them against the State of New York in the Court of Claims for injuries caused in the collision. In our opinion, appellants’ motions should have been granted as to said plaintiffs. The papers submitted at Special Term showed only that the State was concurrently negligent with appellants and defendant Embro and that, because of the State’s concurrent negligence, the said plaintiffs had recovered the judgments aaginst it. Having shown a satisfaction of damages, appellants were entitled to a dismissal of said plaintiffs’ consolidated actions *(Walsh*v. *New York & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co.,*204 N. Y. 58, 62-63; cf. *Matter of Parchefsky*v. *Kroll Bros.,*267 N. Y. 410; see Court of Claims Act, § 8). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 1787.6 Nondomestic products. A product is considered to be nondomestic for the purpose of compliance with the “Buy American” requirement if: ( a ) The product is manufactured outside the United States or any eligible country; or
( b ) The product is manufactured in the United States or in any eligible country, but the cost of nondomestic components used therein constitutes 50 percent or more of the cost of all components. The cost of components shall be determined on a comparable basis, so that only the cost of domestic and nondomestic components, up to the point where they are combined and manufactured into a complete product shall be considered. ( 1 ) The determination of the cost of the nondomestic components of a product shall include: ( i ) The price paid to the nondomestic source;
( ii ) The cost of shipment to the port of entry into the United States;
( iii ) Applicable tariffs or duties;
( iv ) The cost of transportation from the port of entry to the distributor's plant or warehouse; and
( v ) Profit, overhead, and commissions of domestic and nondomestic suppliers and subcontractors of the components.
( 2 ) The following items shall not be considered in determining the cost of components, although they are proper elements in the determination of the final selling price of the product: ( i ) Fabrication or processing costs, if any, of nondomestic or domestic components at the assembly plant, or any other place of fabrication in the United States or any eligible country;
( ii ) Testing costs at the assembly plant or at the installation site;
( iii ) Direct profit, overhead, and commissions of the domestic distributor; and
( iv ) Cost of transportation from the domestic assembly point to the installation site.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2011 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2011

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2013

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a two-year 
      extension of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Advisory Committee on 
Education Improvement Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF VETERANS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON 
              EDUCATION.

    Section 3692 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by inserting ``31,'' after ``30,''; and
                    (B) by striking ``and the Persian Gulf War'' and 
                inserting ``the Persian Gulf War, and the post-9/11 
                operations in Iraq and Afghanistan''; and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``December 31, 2013'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2015''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 28, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1980.419 Eligible lenders.

[See Subpart A, § 1980.13.]

## Administrative

A. *Par (a) of subpart A, § 1980.13* requires National Office approval for any variations.

B. *Par (b)(4) of subpart A, § 1980.13,* State Director submits information to National Office with recommendations.

C. With prior written approval of the Rural Development National Office, a new eligible lender may be substituted for the original lender provided the new lender agrees to assume all original loan requirements including liabilities, servicing responsibilities and acquiring legal title to the unguaranteed portion of the loan. Such approval will be granted by the National Office only when a lender discontinues lending operations or other extreme situations require a substitution of lender. If approved by the National Office, the State Director will submit to the Finance Office Form RD 1980-42. “Notice of Substitution of Lender.”
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1012

In re: STEVE HALE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(3:13-cr-00280-MOC-DSC-1; 3:18-cv-00383-MOC)

Submitted: June 18, 2020 Decided: June 22, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steve Hale, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Steve Hale petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has 

unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. He seeks an order from this 

court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals 

that on January 22, 2020, the district court denied relief on Hale’s § 2255 motion. 

Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Hale’s case, we deny the 

mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
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 .*

§ 1470.35 Offsets and assignments. ( a ) Any payment or portion thereof due to any participant under this part will be allowed without regard to any claim or lien in favor of any creditor, except agencies of the United States Government. The regulations governing offsets and withholdings found at part 3 of this title will be applicable to contract payments.
( b ) Any participant entitled to any payment may assign such payments in accordance with regulations governing assignment of payment found at 7 CFR part 1404.
[84 FR 60891, Nov. 12, 2019, as amended at 85 FR 64003, Oct. 9, 2020]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50471

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR HUGO TORRES-VARGAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-3096-1

Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Hugo Torres-Vargas asserts that his below-guidelines 60-month

sentence for illegal reentry is substantively unreasonable. According to TorresVargas, the guidelines sentencing range was unreasonably high because the

guideline was not empirically based and it double-counted his criminal history. 

He further asserts that the guidelines range was unreasonably high because his

offense amounted to a non-violent trespass offense. In addition, Torres-Vargas

contends that his sentence did not account for his history and characteristics,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 26, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-50471 Document: 00512222549 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2013
No. 12-50471

including that he entered the United States as a seven-year-old child, that he

lived here for forty years, and that he returned to see his family. Finally, he

contends thatthe below-guidelines sentence overstated his risk of recidivism and

his danger to the community because his past crimes were the result of

substance abuse that has ended.

We review the substantive reasonableness of Torres-Vargas’s sentence for

abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The

sentence is not rendered unreasonable by the lack of empirical basis for the

illegal reentry guideline or by any double-counting of Torres-Vargas’s criminal

history. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). We

also find no merit in the argument that the sentence is unreasonable because

illegal reentry amounts to a nonviolent trespass offense. See United States v.

Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court considered

Torres-Vargas’s motive for returning and his personal history and

characteristics, including his past substance abuse, and it sentenced him 10

months below the applicable guidelines range. He has not shown that the

sentence was unreasonable. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 12-50471 Document: 00512222549 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2013
#### § 1786.106 Other prepayments.

RUS loan documentation generally permits borrowers to prepay RUS Notes by paying the outstanding balance due thereon. Nothing in this subpart shall prohibit any borrower from prepaying its outstanding RUS Notes in accordance with the terms thereof. The provisions of this subpart shall not be applicable to such prepayment.
#### Frost *vs.*Reynolds.

*Scire Facias.*

Requisites of a *scire facias*against bail, under the act of 1829.

A *scire facias*which does not contain the necessary recitals and allegations to shew the legal right of the pltf.tohavejndg ment against the defendant, is insufficient, and will be quashed on demurrer.

[Mr. Backner for Plaintiff: no .appearance for Defendant.]

From the Circuit Court for" Wayne County.

*April*17.

Judge Underwood

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The demurrer to the *scire facias*should have been sustained.

The *scire facias*has been drawn so unskilfully, that we are constrained to pronounce it destitute of substance as well as form.

A *scire facias*against bail should set out the pendency of the action ; the issuing of the process; the order recpiiring bail; the nature of the undertaking of the bail, in the words of the recognisance or the substance of them that the recognisance or bail piece was entered into before the sheriff or other proper officer, while the writ or process wais in full force, and in his hands; the rendition of the judgment, the issuing of execution thereon, *directed to*tiie proper *county, and*the return by the proper officer, “of no property found.” These things being done with certainty, according to the record, the foundation is exhibited upon which the liability of the bail rests. The *scire facias*should then proceed to suggest or charge, that the defendant in the action against whom the judgment was rendered, had removed his effects out of the commonwealth after the undertaking of the bail, and conclude by commanding the sheriff to summon the bail, to appear, to *make known*or to *shew cause,*if any he can, why judgment of execution shall not be awarded against him. The foregoing *95is required to make out a dear right to recover against the bail, under the'act of the 29th of January, 1829. The *scire facias*must present such a right, and is defectiv.e if it does not.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment on the demurrer, in favor of Frost.