alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 205.663 Mediation. ( a ) A certifying agent must submit with its administrative policies and procedures: decision criteria for acceptance of mediation, and a process for identifying personnel conducting mediation and setting up mediation sessions per § 205.504(b)(8).
( b ) A certified operation or applicant for certification may request mediation to resolve a denial of certification or proposed suspension or proposed revocation of certification issued by a certifying agent or State organic program. ( 1 ) A certified operation or applicant for certification must submit any request for mediation in writing to the applicable certifying agent or State organic program within 30 calendar days of receipt of the notice of proposed suspension or proposed revocation of certification or denial of certification.
( 2 ) A certifying agent or State organic program may accept or reject a request for mediation based on the decision criteria required in paragraph (a) of this section. Certifying agents must document these criteria and how the certifying agent applied the criteria to the request.
( 3 ) If a certifying agent rejects a mediation request, it must provide this rejection, and the justification for the rejection, in writing to the applicant for certification or certified operation. The rejection must include the right to request an appeal, pursuant to § 205.681, within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt of the written notification of rejection of the request for mediation.
( 4 ) When an operation appeals a rejection of mediation, the adverse action which is contested must not be finalized during the appeal proceeding.
( c ) Both parties must agree on the person conducting the mediation.
( d ) If a State organic program is in effect, the parties must follow the mediation procedures established in the State organic program and approved by the Secretary.
( e ) The parties to the mediation have a maximum of 30 calendar days from the start of mediation to reach an agreement. Successful mediation results in a settlement agreement agreed to in writing by both the certifying agent and the certified operation. If mediation is unsuccessful, the applicant for certification or certified operation has 30 calendar days from receipt of a written notice of termination of mediation to appeal the denial of certification or proposed suspension or revocation pursuant to § 205.681.
( f ) Any settlement agreement reached through mediation must comply with the Act and the regulations in this part. The Program Manager may review any mediated settlement agreement for conformity to the Act and the regulations in this part and may reject any agreement or provision not in conformance with the Act or the regulations in this part.
( g ) The Program Manager may propose mediation and enter into a settlement agreement at any time to resolve any adverse action notice.
[88 FR 3626, Jan. 19, 2023]
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****USDC approvedlist of fish establishments and products**** 
SuDocNumber:C55.338:
ItemNumber:0609-C-9(online)
CGPsystem Number:000528520
 
2000
2001
2003
 **
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 3 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 4 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 5 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 6 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 7 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 8 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 9 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 10 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 11 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 12 of 13
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1452 Doc: 44-2 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 13 of 13
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                                Subsidiaries of
                       STERLING CHEMICALS HOLDINGS, INC.
                            As of September 30, 1997

Owns 100% of:

  Sterling Chemicals, Inc., a Delaware corporation

    Owns 100% of:

    Sterling Fibers, Inc., a Delaware corporation

    Sterling Chemicals Acquisitions, Inc., a Delaware corporation

      Owns 100% of:

      Sterling (Sask) Holdings Ltd., an Ontario corporation

        Owns 100% of:

        Sterling Pulp Chemicals (Sask) Ltd., an Ontario corporation

          Owns 100% of

          619220 Saskatchewan Ltd., a Saskatchewan corporation

    Sterling Chemicals International, Inc., a Delaware corporation

    Sterling Chemicals Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation

    Sterling Chemicals Marketing, Inc., a Virgin Islands corporation

    Sterling Canada, Inc., a Delaware corporation

      Owns 100% of:

      Sterling Pulp Chemicals U S, Inc., a Delaware corporation

        Owns 100% of:

        Sterling Pulp Chemicals, Inc., a Georgia corporation

      Sterling NRO, Ltd., an Ontario corporation

      Sterling Pulp Chemicals, Ltd., an Ontario corporation
EXHIBIT 32CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the annual report of Innova Pure Water, Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A#2 for the year ended December 31, 2005, I hereby certify, solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:  1.The annual report on Form 10-KSB/A#2 of Innova Pure Water, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.The information contained in the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Innova Pure Water, Inc. fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Innova Pure Water, Inc. as of, and for, the periods represented in this annual report.  Date: March 12, 2007/s/ Don HarrisPrint Name:Don HarrisTitle:President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Jim R. DavissonPrint Name:Jim R. DavissonTitle:Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer   1
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r 

### 136732 Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices 

### JOHN JOSEPH SHULICK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 136732 COA: 285128 Ingham CC: 07-001677-AA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0915 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 22, 2008

Clerk
#### § 2811.6 Fee schedule.

Department regulations provide for a schedule of reasonable standard charges for document search and duplication. See 7 CFR 1.2(b). Fees to be charged are set forth in 7 CFR part 1, subpart A, appendix A.
*Wednesday, September 16, 1998*

MERIT DOCKET

98-1716.

#### In re Jane Doe 5.

Butler App. No. CA98-08-168. This cause, here on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, was considered in the manner prescribed by law. On consideration thereof, the appeal is dismissed, *sua sponte,*as having been improvidently allowed.

It is further ordered that the parties are to bear their respective costs herein expended; and that a mandate be sent to the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County to carry this judgment into execution; and that a copy of this entry be certified to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for Butler County for entry.

Moyer, C.J., F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cook, J., concurs, as there is no ripe constitutional question.

Douglas, J., dissents.

Resnick, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3: 94CR3012 LAC

MARTIN WILLIAMS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MARCH 18, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 3/18/2008 Doc.# 769

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 14

TH day of

April, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) At sentencing, the defendant was held accountable for 25 kilograms of cocaine

base which ultimately resulted in a base offense level of 38. Pursuant to 

Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the Drug Quantity Table at §2D1.1

assigns a base offense level of 38 for 4.5 kilograms or more of cocaine base.

Since the defendant’s base offense level is unchanged, he is not eligible for any

reduction in his sentence of imprisonment pursuant to Amendment 706. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:94-cr-03012-LC-MD Document 774 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                               BERNARD CHAUS, INC.
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                  In connection with the Annual Report of Bernard Chaus, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

o    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

o    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


September 8, 2003

                                      /s/ Barton Heminover
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Barton Heminover
                                      Chief Financial Officer
AWARD AGREEMENT
                                 ---------------

         This Agreement is entered into as of this ________day of ________,
______ by and between Lawson Products, Inc. ("Lawson") and ____________
("Participant").

         WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Lawson
(the "Committee") has selected Participant to receive an award under the
Long-Term Capital Accumulation Plan of Lawson (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, Participant wishes to accept that award, subject to the terms
and conditions of the Plan and this Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, Lawson and Participant hereby agree as follows:

         1. The award evidenced by this Agreement (the "Award") consists of
__________ (________) Shareholder Value Appreciation Rights ("SVARs") with an
effective date of __________. This Agreement supersedes and replaces all
previous oral or written communications between Lawson and Participant about any
award to Participant under the Plan.

         2. All aspects of the SVARs evidenced by this Agreement (including but
not limited to vesting, valuation, payment and possible forfeiture) shall be
governed by this Agreement and by the Plan, a copy of which has been provided to
Participant and is hereby acknowledged by Participant, and the terms and
conditions of which are incorporated into this Agreement by reference.

         3. Without limiting the scope of Section 2, above, Participant
acknowledges that:

            (a) No payment shall be made with respect to the SVARs constituting
the Award unless and until the material terms of the Plan have been approved by
a majority vote of the shareholders of Lawson;

            (b) As a condition to retaining the SVARs constituting the Award,
Participant shall be required to enter into an employment agreement with Lawson
including confidentiality and other restrictive covenants, as described in
Section 14 of the Plan;

            (c) Any amount that would otherwise be payable to Participant or
his/her beneficiaries with respect to the SVARs constituting the Award shall be
subject to reduction in accordance with Section 13 of the Plan as a result of
the special excise tax rules described in Section 13 of the Plan; and

            (d) The Committee may amend or terminate any or all of the
provisions of the Plan and any or all of the provisions this Agreement in
accordance with Section 24 of the Plan.



<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Participant and Lawson have executed this Agreement
as of the date set forth above.

                                                   LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC.



                                          By:
----------------------------------                 -----------------------------
Participant
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70936-70937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29180]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, 
as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 2 Williams Street, 
Chelsea, MA 02150, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test 
petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance 
with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing 
to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger 
services should request and receive written assurances from the entity 
that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. 
Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service 
this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The 
inquiry may also be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d6b5b4a6f8bab7b4bea796b2bea5f8b1b9a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adcecfdd83c1cccfc5dcedc9c5de83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web 
site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and 
accredited laboratories. http:[sol][sol]cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/
operations--support/labs--scientific--svcs/commercial--gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on 
June 25, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for 
June 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Malana, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania

[[Page 70937]]

Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

    Dated: November 8, 2010.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-29180 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### SIMONSON, Respondent, v. MENDHAM et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Arthur F. Simonson against Louis P. Mendham and Maurice B. Mendham.

No opinion. Motion denied.
#### Harry H. Pace, appellant, v. Euler Davis, etc., et al., appellees.

Gen. No. 37,395.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

William H. Haynes, for appellant. No appearance for appellees.

Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### The State ex rel. Keebler Company, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Keebler Co. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 367.]

(No. 97-1894

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, Samuel M. Duran*and *Cynthia C. Felson,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Craigg E. Gould,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

*Young, Reverman & Napier Co., L.P.A., Martin M. Young*and *Stephen S. Mazzei,*for appellee Gladys Carter.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 16 AND 17 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1995, 
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1995
<CASH>                                          10,441
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,953
<INVENTORY>                                        191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,329
<PP&E>                                          47,834
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,776
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,553
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        173
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,793
<SALES>                                         34,602
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,856
<CGS>                                           10,878
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,661
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                96,737<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   683
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 266
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (46,244)<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,118<F2>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,362)<F1><F2>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,362)<F1><F2>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.47)
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES A $17.2 MILLION CHARGE FOR THE WRITE-DOWN OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND A
$7.1 MILLION CHARGE FOR RESTRUCTURING OF THE COMPANY'S WORLDWIDE OPERATIONS.
<F2>INCLUDES A $1.9 MILLION CHARGE FOR REVALUATION OF THE COMPANY'S DEFERRED TAX
ASSET.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1





SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





CERTIFICATION OF DR. RALPH S. CUNNINGHAM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


OF EPE HOLDINGS, LLC, THE GENERAL PARTNER OF


ENTERPRISE GP HOLDINGS L.P.





In connection with this quarterly report of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr. Ralph S. Cunningham, Chief Executive Officer of EPE Holdings, LLC, the General Partner of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.








/s/ Dr. Ralph S. CunninghamName:
Dr. Ralph S. CunninghamTitle:
Chief Executive Officer of EPE Holdings, LLC,the General Partner of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.





Date:      May 10, 2010
#### § 29.1127 Rule 21.

Damaged tobacco which otherwise meets the specifications of a grade shall be treated as a special factor grade by placing the special factor “U” after the grademark.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2291 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Vincent R. 

Sombrotto Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2013 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York (for herself and Ms. WILSON of 

Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New 

York, as the ‘‘Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. VINCENT R. SOMBROTTO POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 450 Lexington Avenue in New 

6 York, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2291 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Vincent R. Sombrotto 

3 Post Office’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS