alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 29.2567 Uniformity.

An element of quality which describes the consistency of a lot of tobacco as it is prepared for market. Uniformity is expressed as a percentage in grade specifications. (See Rule 14, § 29.2630.)

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70937-70938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29174]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

 Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a 
Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

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

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, 
Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 3001 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 
<greek-i>8, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315, 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#07646577296b66656f7647636f7429606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="27444557094b46454f5667434f5409404851">[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 Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as 
commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on August 25, 2010. 
The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Malana, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.


[[Page 70938]]


    Dated: November 8, 2010.
 Ira S. Reese,
 Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-29174 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>
(50 Misc. Rep. 49.)

#### FULLER BUGGY CO. v. CUDNEY et al.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, Fulton County.

March, 1906.)

Judment—Opening Default—Order. •

Where the court, on opening a judgment, ordered that it should stand for whatever judgment the plaintiff may finally obtain against the defendant, the motion to cancel the record of such judgment while plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment dismissing the complaint is still pending will be denied.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 30, Cent. Dig. Judgment, § 331.]

Action by the Fuller Buggy Company against Charles E. Cudney and others. Judgment for plaintiff by default. Motion to cancel judgment ordered to stand as security on opening default denied.

N. B. Spaulding, for plaintiff.

James Á. Leary, for defendant Cudney,

*283SPENCER, J.

The plaintiff obtained judgment by default. On motion, the default was opened as to the defendant Cudney, the order providing as follows:

> “Said judgment stand for whatever judgment the plaintiff may finally obtain herein against said defendant.”

On the trial, the defendant prevailed, and judgment dismissing the •complaint has been entered, plaintiff has appealed, and the appeal is still pending. This is a motion by the defendant Cudney to cancel the record of the judgment. The plaintiff contends that the judgment should stand until the termination of the appeal or any other which may be had in the action.

Although we have courts many and appeals many, nevertheless there is an end to all things, including litigation, and this case cannot be said to be finally determined until all the appeals have been decided or the right thereto lost. This was the holding in this district in a case where security given for costs was attempted to be withdrawn before the time for appeal had expired. First Nat. Bank v. Hall, 19 Misc. Rep. 278, 44 N. Y. Supp. 255. The practice of requiring judgments to stand as security upon opening defaults is common (3 Nichols, Pr. 2877), and is equivalent to requiring the defendant to give undertaking to pay any judgment which the plaintiff may finally or ultimately recover against him (Dudley v. Brinck, 8 Misc. Rep. 76, 28 N. Y. Supp. 527; Glickman v. Loew, 29 App. Div. 479, 51 N. Y. Supp. 1078). The undertaking, when so given, extends to a judgment on appeal. Caponigri v. Cooper, 70 App. Div. 124, 74 N. Y. Supp. 1116. The sanie ruling should apply to a judgment allowed to stand in lieu of an undertaking. It follows, therefore, that the motion to cancel judgment must be denied.

Motion denied, with costs.
**SeriesType Notes** 

Baseline I - Non-Condensing Baseline II - Non-Condensing Baseline III - Non-Condensing Two-Stage (PSC) - Non-Condensing Two-Stage (ECM) - Non-Condensing Baseline I - Condensing Baseline II - Condensing Baseline III - Condensing Two-Stage (PSC) - Condensing Two-Stage (ECM) - Condensing
Baseline I - Weatherized
Baseline II - Weatherized
Baseline III - Weatherized Two-Stage (PSC) - Weatherized Two-Stage (ECM) - Weatherized

Manufactured Home - Non-Condensing

Manufactured Home - Condensing Modulating (ECM) - Condensing Packaged Unit (Gas Heat/Electric Cooling)
#### § 27.20 Drawing and handling of samples of cotton; inspection of bales.

One sample shall be drawn from the top side of each bale and one from the bottom side. Each such sample shall weigh not less than 5 ounces, the two samples from each bale to weigh together not less than 10 ounces. The bale shall be inspected and any condition not fully indicated by the samples shall be explained by the supervisor of cotton inspection or exchange inspection agency in a written memorandum, which shall acompany the samples to the Marketing Services Office. Samples shall not be dressed or trimmed and shall be carefully handled in such manner as not to cause loss of leaf, sand, or other material, or otherwise change their representative character. Any sample which does not meet the requirements of this section may be rejected by the supervisor of cotton inspection or the Area Director.

[48 FR 49210, Oct. 25, 1983]
#### § 15.118 Cross-examination.

Cross-examination will be limited to the scope of direct examination and matters at issue in the hearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM B. HALL, a/k/a Bill,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-87-100-N)

Submitted: September 17, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William B. Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district's order denying his motions for production of grand jury documents, production of arrest

records and associated documents, and for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court, United States v. Hall, No. CR-87-100-N (E.D.

Va. Jan. 9, 1996), and we conclude that the appeal is frivolous. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CERTIFICATION



I, Christine Thomas, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/Amendment #1 of the Company;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I (we) have:



a.

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b.

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (Evaluation Date); and

c.

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b.

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



6.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were any significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.







/s/ Christine Thomas

Date: August 27, 2007

Christine Thomas, Secretary/Director

Chief Financial Officer
NON-STATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT PURSUANT
        TO THE NET LNNX, INC. 1997 RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN

     THIS AGREEMENT is made as of January 31, 1997, between Net
Lnnx, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the "Company"), and Ronald
W. Hayes, Jr. (the "Optionee"). 

     THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

      1.   Option Grant.  The Company hereby grants to the Optionee
an option (the "Option") to purchase the number of shares of the
Company's common stock (the "Shares"), for an exercise price per
share (the "Option Price") and based upon a Grant Date, all as set
forth below:

      Shares under option:        100,000
      Option Price per Share:     $0.875
      Grant Date:                 January 31, 1997

     The Option will be subject to all of the terms and conditions
set forth herein and in the Company's 1997 Restricted Stock Plan
(the "Option Plan"), a copy of which is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.  The Option granted hereunder will be a
nonstatutory or nonqualified option for tax purposes.

   2.   Stockholder Rights.  No rights or privileges of a
stockholder in the Company are conferred by reason of the granting
of the Option.  Optionee will not become a stockholder in the
Company with respect to the Shares unless and until the Option has
been properly exercised and the Option Price fully paid as to the
portion of the Option exercised.

      3.   Termination.  Subject to earlier termination as provided
in the Option Plan, this Option will expire, unless previously
exercised in full, on January 31, 1999.

      4.   Terms of the Option Plan.  The Optionee understands that
the Option Plan includes important terms and conditions that apply
to this Option.  Those terms include (without limitation): 
important conditions to the right of the Optionee to exercise the
Option; and important restrictions on the ability of the Optionee
to transfer the Option or to transfer Shares received upon exercise
of the Option;  The Optionee acknowledges that he or she has read
the Option Plan, agrees to be bound by its terms, and makes each of
the representations required to be made by the Optionee under it.

      5.   Miscellaneous.  This Agreement (together with the Option
Plan) sets forth the complete agreement of the parties concerning
the subject matter hereof, superseding all prior agreements,
negotiations and understandings.  This Agreement will be governed
by the substantive law of the State of Pennsylvania, and may be
executed in counterparts.

<PAGE>

     The parties hereby have entered into this Agreement as of the
date set forth above.

     NET LNNX, INC.


     __________________
     By: Ronald P. Perella,
     Director, Executive
     Vice President

     "Optionee"

     __________________
     Ronald W. Hayes, Jr.

     Address:
     ______________________________
     ______________________________
     ______________________________



 Attachments:(1) 1997 Restricted Stock Plan
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-14T20:13:05-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1069

BRADLEY BERRY; DONNA DAVID ELLIOTT, as Administratrix of the estate of CharlesElliott; LOUIS FETHERMAN; HOPE RAMIREZ, personal representative of the estate of Martin Lumbert and sole surviving heir; MUSTAFAH MANNSUR; KEVIN MILLER; JOHN RODRIGUEZ; JIM ROOS; RANDALL SCHARMEN; ROBERT SETTLE; LETICIA FETHERMAN; MARGARET ANN MANNSUR; SONDRA SETTLE SORRENDINO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-1057-5-3-BO) Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Haral E. Carlin, Richard B. Glazier, BEAVER, HOLT, RICHARDSON, STERNLICHT, BURGE & GLAZIER, P.A., Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellants. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, R. A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting the Appellee’s motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Berry v. United States , CA-96-1057-5-3-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. Thus, Appellee’s motion to submit the case on briefs without oral argument is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED
|  |  |  |  |  |
|--|--|--|--|--|
|  |  |  |  |

  New Mexico

> - Albuquerque
- Laguna Pueblo
- Las Cruces

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21D0179. IN THE INTEREST OF B. M. R., A CHILD (MOTHER).

On November 6, 2020, the juvenile court entered an order terminating the

mother’s parental rights to her child, B. M. R. On January 6, 2021, the mother filed

this application for discretionary review. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App. 582, 583

(420 SE2d 393)(1992). Thisstatutory deadline isjurisdictional, and we cannot accept

an application for appeal not made in compliance with OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). Boyle v.

State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Here, the mother filed her

application 61 days after entry of the termination order. Because the mother’s

application was untimely filed, we lack jurisdiction and the application is hereby

DISMISSED.

Finally, the mother is informed that a juvenile court may grant an out-of-time

application if a parent’s appellate due process rights were frustrated by ineffective

assistance of counsel. See In the Interest of B. R. F., 299 Ga. 294, 298 (788 SE2d

January 22, 2021
416) (2016). This determination must be made by the juvenile court in the first

instance. Id.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/22/2021
98- 451.

#### Mayfield City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 97-G-589 and 97-G-594. *Sua sponte,*cause held for decision in 97-1880, 97- 2423, 98-704, 98-758 and 98-984.

Moyer, C.J., dissents and would set this case for oral argument.

Resnick, J., dissents and would consolidate all cases for oral argument.
Exhibit 13.1

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 China Natural Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Li Feilie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Li Feilie

Li Feilie

Chief Executive Officer

April 29, 2014

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.668 Term of grant.

HPG projects may be funded under the terms of a grant agreement for a period of up to 2 years commencing on the date of execution of the grant agreement by the Rural Development approval official. Term of the project will be based upon HPG resources available for the proposed project and the accomplishability of the applicant's proposal within 1 or 2 years. Applicants requesting a 2 year term may be asked to develop a feasible 1 year program if sufficient funds are not available for a 2 year program.
---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---










---