alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 29.3155 Mixed (M Group).

This group consists of tobacco of distinctly different groups which are mixed together in various combinations.

| Grades | Grade names and specifications |
| --- | --- |
| M3F | Good Light Mixed. |
| | General quality of X3, C3, B3, T3, medium to tissuey body, light general color, under 20 percent greenish, and 15 percent injury tolerance. |
| M4F | Fair Light Mixed. |
| | General quality of X4, C4, B4, T4, medium to tissuey body, light general color under 20 percent greenish, and 20 percent injury tolerance. |
| M5F | Low Light Mixed. |
| | General quality of X5, C5, B5, T5, medium to tissuey body, light general color, under 20 percent greenish, and 30 percent injury tolerance. |
| M3FR | Good Dark Mixed. |
| | General quality of X3, C3, B3, T3, heavy to medium body, dark general color, under 20 percent greenish, and 15 percent injury tolerance. |
| M4FR | Fair Dark Mixed. |
| | General quality of X4, C4, B4, T4, heavy to medium body, dark general color, under 20 percent greenish, and 20 percent injury tolerance. |
| M5FR | Low Dark Mixed. |
| | General quality of X5, C5, B5, T5, heavy to medium body, dark general color, under 20 percent greenish, and 30 percent injury tolerance. |
| M4K | Fair Variegated Mixed. |
| | General quality of X4, C4, B4, T4, fleshy to thin body, under 20 percent greenish, and 20 percent injury tolerance. |
| M5K | Low Variegated Mixed. |
| | General quality of X5, C5, B5, T5, fleshy to thin body, under 20 percent greenish, and 30 percent injury tolerance. |
| M4G | Fair Green Mixed. General quality of X4, C4, B4, and T4, heavy to tissuey body, immature, and 20 percent injury tolerance. |
| M5G | Low Green Mixed. General quality of X5, C5, B5, and T5, heavy to tissuey body, immature, and 30 percent injury tolerance. |

[[35 FR 10490](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/35-FR-10490), June 27, 1970, as amended at [49 FR 16758](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/49-FR-16758), Apr. 20, 1984; [51 FR 40407](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/51-FR-40407), Nov. 7, 1986; [55 FR 40645](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/55-FR-40645), Oct. 4, 1990]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1553

NATHANIEL E. DOZIER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

DOZIER & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY J. SKALSKY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-00015-JRS)

Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 14, 2009

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel E. Dozier, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Richard Cranwell, CRANWELL MOORE & EMICK, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, Mark Quentin Emick, Jr., CRANWELL MOORE & EMICK, PLC, Vinton, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel E. Dozier, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his civil action against Jerry Skalsky, a
member of the Board of Supervisors of Prince George County,
Virginia. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Dozier v. Skalsky , No. 3:09-cv-00015-JRS (E.D.
Va. Apr. 28, 2009). We deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss the
appeal or disregard Dozier’s informal reply brief. 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1539

JAMES T. LUTHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Michael F. Urbanski, 

District Judge. (4:13-cv-00072-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015

Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James T. Luther, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Catherine Frank, 

KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Hunter Wilmer Sims, 

Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James T. Luther appeals from the district court’s order 

granting in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, its order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

granting summary judgment to the Defendants on the remaining 

claims, and its order denying reconsideration. Many of Luther’s 

claims on appeal were never properly presented to the district 

court; thus, we do not consider those claims. Muth v. United 

States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 

As to the properly presented claims, we have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Luther v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A., No. 4:13-cv-00072-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2014,

Apr. 9, 2015, Apr. 21, 2015). We deny Luther’s motion to show 

cause. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### § 29.3116 Rule 13.

Degrees of uniformity shall be expressed in terms of percentages. The percentages shall govern the portion of a lot which must meet the specifications of the grade. The minor portion must be closely related but may be of a different group, quality, and color from the major portion. These percentages shall not affect limitations established by other rules.
Exhibit 21.0

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Advanced Digital Networks, Inc.

A.E. Lander Corp. (formerly Alexander Edwards International, Inc.)

Burrows, Hayes Company, Inc.

CareerEngine, Inc.

Dover, Sussex Company, Inc.

Helmstar Funding, Inc.

Housing Capital Corporation

Matthews & Wright, Inc.

McAdam, Taylor & Co., Inc.

Movieplex Realty Leasing, LLC

Parker, Reld & Co., Inc.

Randel, Palmer & Co., Inc.

Randolph, Hudson & Co., Inc.

Ryan, Jones & Co., Inc.

Shaw Realty Company, Inc.

Snider, Williams & Co., Inc.
#### Henry Loeding, appellant, v. East Brothers Coal Company, appellee.

Gen. No. 37,559.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

Meyer Shapiiro, for appellant. Altlieimer, Mayer, Woods & Smith, for appellee; Roy C. Woods and Charles H. Blumenfeld, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice 0 ’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:03cr12-SPM/AK

CARLOS HERMAN SALMERON,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Pending before the court is Defendant Carlos Herman Salmeron’s request

for certificate of appealability (doc. 97). The Court will not issue a certificate of

appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) because Salmeron has failed to

make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The United

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already ruled that Booker

does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. Varela v. United

States, 400 F.3d 864 (11th Cir. 2005). Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the request for certificate of

appealability (doc. 97) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00012-SPM-AK Document 99 Filed 10/31/05 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.1055 Side.

A certain phase of quality, color, or length as contrasted with some other phase of quality, color, or length; or any peculiar characteristic of tobacco.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
IC Burden Analysis Table

(XXXX) XXXX-XXXX vX

Please enter Name of Instrument here.

Respondent Type # of Respondents # of Responses Hours/Response

Total Burden 

Hours Reporting Requirement

Cost per 

Repondent

Total Costs 

per 

Respondent

Burden by Affected Entity:

Federal Government 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

 Individuals or Households 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

 Farms 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Sub-total 0 0 0 $0

 Private Sector

 Business or other for-profits 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

 Not-for profits 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Sub-total 0 0 0 $0

 State, Local, or Tribal Governments

 Public Institutions 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

 Private Institutions 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Sub-total 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 $0

CURRENT INVENTORY

Current # of Respondents 0

Current # of Responses 0

Current Inventory of Hours 0

Difference 0 0 0

Document Type

Available Electronically?

Can be submitted Electronically?

Percent Reporting Electronically?

Obligation to Respond?

Frequency?

Revised: XX/XX/XXXX 1
IC Burden Analysis Table

(XXXX) XXXX-XXXX vX

IC Title

Affected 

Public

Reporting 

Requirement

Available 

Electronically

Can be 

Submitted 

Electronically

Percent 

Reporting 

Electronically

Electronic 

Capability

Obligation to 

Respond

# of 

Respondents

# of 

Responses Hrs/Resp Total Hours 

MIL

Individua

ls or 

Househ

olds Reporting Yes No 0% Fillable Printable

Required to 

Obtain or 

Retain a 

Benefit 16000 16000 0.5 8000

SCRA

Individua

ls or 

Househ

olds Reporting Yes No 0% Fillable PrintableVoluntary 4708 4708 0.25 1177

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 0

Total 20,708 20,708 9,177

CURRENT INVENTORY

Current # of Respondents 16,000

Current # of Responses 16,000

Current Inventory of Hours 8,000

Revised XX/XX/XXXX 1
IC Burden Analysis Table

(XXXX) XXXX-XXXX vX

Difference 4,708 4,708 1,177

IC Title Instrument Filename Frequency

Number of 

Respondents

Cost Per 

Respondent

Total Cost 

Per 

Respondent

On Occasion 16000 $0.46 $7,360

On Occasion 4708 $0.46 $2,166

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

MIL

SCRA

Revised XX/XX/XXXX 2
IC Burden Analysis Table

(XXXX) XXXX-XXXX vX

$0

$0

$0

Total Costs $9,526

Revised XX/XX/XXXX 3
98-1539.

#### Russell v. Mitchell.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2385 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act to set the rate of pay for employees of the Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection in accordance with the General Schedule. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2013 

Mr. DUFFY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to set the rate of pay for employees 

of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection in accordance with the General Schedule. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘CFPB Pay Fairness 

5 Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2385 IH

1 SEC. 2. RATE OF PAY FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF 

2 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1013(a)(2) of the Dodd4 Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

5 (12 U.S.C. 5493(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(2) COMPENSATION.—The rates of basic pay 

7 for all employees of the Bureau shall be set and ad8 justed by the Director in accordance with the Gen9 eral Schedule set forth in section 5332 of title 5, 

10 United States Code.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply to service by an employee of the 

13 Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection following the 

14 90-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this 

15 Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOANNE JENKINS and

QUENTON WOODEN,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 4:03cv208-SPM/AK

CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DISCOVERY, RESPONSE, AND REPLY

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Consented Motion to

Extend Time for Discovery, for Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Summary

Judgment and Any Replies Thereto (doc. 139). Upon consideration, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motion (doc. 139) is granted.

2. The discovery deadline is extended to May 26, 2006.

3. Plaintiffs’ response to the summary judgment motion shall be filed

on or before June 9, 2006.

4. Defendants shall have up to and including June 23, 2006 to file a

reply. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 141 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 1:19CR37 AW

DOMINGO PAEZ-BAUTISTA,

 /

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

COMES NOW the Defendant, DOMINGO PAEZ-BAUTISTA, and requests 

this Court’s order continuing trial in the above styled case and in support would 

state:

1. The Defendant’s trial is scheduled for November19, 2019, at 8:30 a.m.

2. Undersigned counsel anticipates that the Defendant will enter a guilty plea.

3. Additional time is necessary to schedule change of plea hearing and to give 

the Defendant an opportunity enter his plea.

4. The Defendant herein waives his right to a speedy trial only with regard to the 

above requested timeframe.

5. Undersigned counsel has conferred with Assistant U. S. Attorney Christopher 

Elsey who does not object to the granting of this request.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests this Court’s order granting this motion 

and continuing the currently scheduled trial for approximately thirty (30) days.

Case 1:19-cr-00037-AW-GRJ Document 18 Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1 

I hereby certify that undersigned counsel has conferred with counsel for the 

United States, Christopher Elsey, and that he has no objection to this motion. 

I further certify that this motion contains 135 words.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been 

electronically furnished to Christopher Elsey, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Gainesville, FL, on this 12th day of November 2019.

Respectfully Submitted,

RANDOLPH P. MURRELL

Federal Public Defender

By: s/ Darren Johnson

______________________________

Darren J. Johnson

Assistant Federal Public Defender

New York Bar No. 4056800

101 S. E. 2nd Place, Suite 112

Gainesville, FL 32601

(352) 373-5823

Case 1:19-cr-00037-AW-GRJ Document 18 Filed 11/12/19 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.2565 Type 96.

That type of fire-cured tobacco known as Foreign-grown Fire-cured produced in countries other than the United States.

[49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

RICHARD KEITH WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1194, Motion for Sentence Reduction, filed by

Defendant Richard Williams. By prior order, the Government was directed to file a response to

Defendant’s motion, and has done so. Doc. 1202. In its response, the Government argues that

Defendant’s motion has already been decided on its merits, and that the Supreme Court’s

decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 124 S.Ct. 2519 (2005), does not provide a

jurisdictional basis for the Court to consider Defendant’s motion. As the Government points out,

the Eleventh Circuit has held that “Booker is inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions.” United

States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005). After reviewing Defendant’s motion

and the Government’s response, the Court agrees with the Government that Booker does not

provide Defendant with a basis for relief. Therefore, Defendant Williams’ Motion for Sentence

Reduction, Doc. 1194, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of November, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1203 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 1
§ 247.22 Allocation and disbursement of administrative funds to State agencies. ( a ) *What must State agencies do to be eligible to receive administrative funds?* In order to receive administrative funds, the State agency must have signed an agreement with FNS to operate the program, in accordance with § 247.4(a)(1), and must have an approved State Plan.
( b ) *How does FNS allocate administrative funds to State agencies?* ( 1 ) As required by law, each fiscal year FNS allocates to each State agency an administrative grant per assigned caseload slot, adjusted each year for inflation.
( 2 ) For fiscal year 2003, the amount of the grant per assigned caseload slot was equal to the per-caseload slot amount provided in fiscal year 2001, adjusted by the percentage change between: ( i ) The value of the State and local government price index, as published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce, for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2001; and
( ii ) The value of that index for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2002.
( 3 ) For subsequent fiscal years, the amount of the grant per assigned caseload slot is equal to the amount of the grant per assigned caseload slot for the preceding fiscal year, adjusted by the percentage change between: ( i ) The value of the State and local government price index, as published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce, for the 12-month period ending June 30 of the second preceding fiscal year; and
( ii ) The value of that index for the 12-month period ending June 30 of the preceding fiscal year.
( c ) *How do State agencies access administrative funds?* FNS provides administrative funds to State agencies on a quarterly basis. Such funds are provided by means of a Letter of Credit, unless other funding arrangements have been made with FNS. The State agency obtains the funds by electronically accessing its Letter of Credit account.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0584-0293)
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2160 

To support and encourage the health and well-being of elementary school 

and secondary school students by enhancing school physical education 

and health education. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Ms. FUDGE (for herself, Mr. POLIS, and Mr. LEWIS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To support and encourage the health and well-being of elementary school and secondary school students by enhancing school physical education and health education. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Promoting Health as 

5 Youth Skills In Classrooms And Life Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HEALTH EDUCATION AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION AS 

7 CORE ACADEMIC SUBJECTS. 

8 Section 9101(11) of the Elementary and Secondary 

9 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(11)) is amended 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2160 IH

1 by striking ‘‘and geography’’ and inserting ‘‘geography, 

2 physical education, and health education’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS 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
report of Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC (the Fund) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), each of 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:

(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 operations of the Fund.

|       |  |                  |     |  |        |  |                                                                                                    
|------ |  | ---------------- | --- |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: |  | November 2, 2007 |     |  |        |  | RIDGEWOOD ENERGY P FUND,
 LLC                                                                      
|       |  |                  |     |  |        |  |                                                                                                    
|       |  |                  | By: |  | /s/    |  | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                                                                  
|       |  |                  |     |  | Name:  |  | Robert E. Swanson                                                                                  
|       |  |                  |     |  | Title: |  | President and Chief
 Executive Officer                                                             
|       |  |                  |     |  |        |  | (Principal Executive
 Officer)                                                                     
|Dated: |  | November 2, 2007 |     |  |        |  |                                                                                                    
|       |  |                  | By: |  | /s/    |  | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                                                               
|       |  |                  |     |  | Name:  |  | Kathleen P. McSherry                                                                               
|       |  |                  |     |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President
 and Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this
written statement 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 Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC and
will be retained by Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

23

---