alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 28.23 Suspension or revocation of license. ( a ) Any license issued to a warehouse or gin to sample cotton may be suspended or revoked, following notice and opportunity for hearing, if the licensee has knowingly or carelessly sampled cotton improperly, or has submitted improper samples for classification, or has violated any provision of the Act or the regulations, or has used the license, or allowed it to be used, for any improper purpose.
( b ) *Procedure.* ( 1 ) All cases arising under this paragraph shall be conducted under the Uniform Rules of Practice, 7 CFR 1.130 *et seq.,* and instituted upon a complaint filed by the Administrator.
( 2 ) In all cases except those involving willfulness, or in which the public health, interest, or safety otherwise requires, prior to the institution of a formal proceeding, the Administrator shall give written notice to the licensee of facts or conduct which appear to warrant institution of such a proceeding and shall afford the licensee the opportunity, within a reasonable time, to demonstrate or achieve compliance with the Act and regulations.
( c ) *Suspension pending adjudication.* In any situation where the integrity of sampling procedures would be seriously jeopardized if a license remained valid pending formal adjudication, the Administrator may temporarily suspend the license effective on or after the third day after mailing notice thereof to the licensee's last know address. Notice of temporary suspension may be made at or after the filing of a complaint and shall contain the reasons for the action.
( d ) *Conditional suspension.* ( 1 ) The Administrator may temporarily suspend a license, without hearing, for a correctable cause. Such suspension, after appropriate corrective action is taken, will terminate.
( 2 ) Written notice shall be given to the licensee in advance of a temporary suspension if practicable, or within 2 days of oral notice, stating the reasons and grounds for temporary suspension.
( 3 ) A licensee may request a formal hearing procedure following receipt of oral or written notice of temporary suspension.
( e ) During any period in which the cotton sampling license of a warehouse or gin is suspended or revoked, the Division will not accept any samples from the licensee for Form A determination, or for classification pursuant to §§ 28.901 through 28.917.
CIT Y O F CHARLOTTESVILL E 

•>1 World Class City' 

Office of Tlie City Manager 

P.O. Box 911 • Charloitesville, Virginia 22902 

Telephone (434) 970-3101 

Fax (434) 970-3890 

www.charlottcsville.org 

C D 

August! 3,2010 -* 2?=%;j-:^ 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: U.S. DOT Small Community Air Ser\'ice Development Program 

Charlo»es\nl!e-Albcmarlc Airport 

Charlottesville, VA 

Dear Mr, LaHood: 

I am pleased to submit this letter of support on behalf of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport 

Authorit>''s (CHO) application to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Small Communily Air 

Service Development Program (SCASDP). The Airport's grant application highlights the need to 

improve the quality of service and airfares at CHO and requests financial assistance to pursue 

new nonstop service to Chicago-O'Hare International Airport (ORD). The availability of 

quality, commercial air service has a profound impact oh the region's economy through improved 

access for visitors but equally important, supports the needs of area businesses, organizations and 

educational institutions. 

I want to assure you that the "public - private" partnership that has been developed between CHO 

and the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce for the purpose of supporting new 

nonstop air service to ORD will have-our full support. Where small community air service 

initiatives are concerned, it is partnerships like this that can make a difference. We have cvcr>' 

confidence that the program will have the full support of the Greater Charlottesville community. 

Sincerely, 

Maurice Jones 

Acting City Manager
#### § 29.110 Method of sampling.

In sampling tobacco under the Act, at least three breaks shall be made at different points in the lot, and in the discretion of the sampler as many more breaks shall be made as seem necessary to show the range of the entire lot. From the breaks so made tobacco to be used in the official sample shall be selected. The official shall, so far as practicable, include tobacco of each quality, color, length, and other characteristics found in the lot in such proportions as would truly represent the lot. In case a lot is found to be damaged, nested, or in doubtful keeping order, the official sample tag shall be so marked. Official sample tags shall be attached to the sample, in a manner prescribed by the Director.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 17 57

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ja m es W at so n
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Osc eo laPo li ce Dep art m en t; Mi ss is si pp i Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep art m en t; Arka ns as Paro le Bo ard
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rnDis tri ctof Ark an sa s - J on es bo ro

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Octo be r 15 , 20 15 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 6, 2 01 5 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, COLLOTO N, andSHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Ja m es W at so n ap pe al s th e di st ric t c ou rt’s 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 A di sm is sa l, 1 wit ho ut pr ejud ic e, of h i s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n. Hav in g care fu ll y rev ie wed th e
reco rd an d W at so n’s arg um en ts on ap pe al , we co nc lu de th at th e di sm is sa l was pr op er fo r th e reas on s st at ed by th e di st ric t co ur t. See Co op er v. Sch rir o, 18 9 F.3 d 78 1, 78 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (p er cu ria m ) (§ 19 15 A di sm is sa l is rev ie wed de no vo ). Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t i s af

firm ed . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le D.P. Mar sh al l Jr ., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s. -2

-
f10k2012ex10ii_chinaceetop.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  






 





 


4
KEVIN OWENS , Petitioner ,

v. JULIE JONES, SECRETARY , FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1098

_____________________________/ Opinion filed October 4, 2016.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari

. Kevin Owens, pro se , Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Matthew F. Vitale, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.

PER CURIAM. Kevin Owens, an inmate who challenged in the trial court four disciplinary reports, appeals the order dismissing in part and denying in part his petition for writ2 of mandamus . Because only the trial court’s denial s of claims on the merits are being challe nged , we treat the appeal as a petition invoking this Court ’ s certiorari jurisdiction and deny the petition on the merits without further
discussion

. See Thomas v. State, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. , 89 So. 3d 300, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ( reviewing the trial court’s order dismissing in part and deny ing in part a mandamus petition and treating as an appeal the dismissal of claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but reviewing under the certiorari standard the
denial of claims on the me rits); see also Williams v. Tucker , 87 So. 3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (treating the appeal as a petition invoking the Court’s certiorari jurisdiction where the trial court denied the mandamus petition upon finding that the petitioner failed to demon strate any liberty interest to challenge his disciplinary report ).
DENIED on the merits

. WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                             687,830
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      65,133
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   0
<PP&E>                             16,958,250     <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     18,385,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              0
<BONDS>                            8,594,600      <F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           0              <F3>
<OTHER-SE>                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       0
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   2,133,858      <F4>
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      915,882        <F5>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 837,593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    0
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0
<DISCONTINUED>                     (278,713)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       101,670
<EPS-BASIC>                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0

<FN>

<F1>   "PP&E" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE [LAND AND
BUILDING]
<F2>   "BONDS" REPRESENTS MORTGAGES PAYABLE
<F3>   "COMMON" REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERS CAPITAL
<F4>   "TOTAL REVENUES" REPRESENTS RENTAL, INTEREST, AND OTHER
INCOME
<F5>   "TOTAL COSTS" REPRESENTS TOTAL EXPENSES LESS INTEREST
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### § 29.2315 Unstemmed.

A form of tobacco, including whole leaf and leaf scrap, from which the stems or midribs have not been removed.

[37 FR 13521, July 11, 1972. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1940

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1940.966-1940.967 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                         363,948
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,703,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                   188,768
<INVENTORY>                                  9,378,116
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,596,582
<PP&E>                                      12,597,013
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,585,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,775,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,064,232
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,490
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,708,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,775,135
<SALES>                                     54,153,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            54,153,476
<CGS>                                       33,019,849
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,351,132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (423,545)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             257,872
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,948,168
<INCOME-TAX>                                   842,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,106,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   106,168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60
        

</TABLE>
#### § 254.1 General purpose.

This part sets the requirement under which commodities (available under part 250 of this chapter) may be distributed to households residing in FNS service areas in Oklahoma. This part also sets the conditions for administration of the Food Distribution Program by eligible Oklahoma tribes determined capable by the Department.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2125 

To prevent implementation and enforcement of Obamacare. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. SHUSTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy 

and Commerce, Education and the Workforce, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, and House Administration, 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 prevent implementation and enforcement of Obamacare. 

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 ‘‘No IRS Implementa5 tion of Obamacare Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) Between March 2010 and May 2012, the 

9 Internal Revenue Service (hereafter referred to as 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2125 IH

1 the ‘‘IRS’’) engaged in specific targeting of conserv2 ative groups that submitted 501(c)(4) applications. 

3 (2) IRS employees searched terms such as ‘‘pa4 triots’’ and ‘‘tea party’’ and purposefully singled out 

5 these small-government organizations for additional 

6 scrutiny and delay. 

7 (3) The IRS sat on applications from over 75 

8 conservative groups for months, and in some cases, 

9 even years while sending them exhaustive question10 naires delaying their approval for as long as pos11 sible. 

12 (4) This blatant breach of the public’s trust 

13 and misuse of taxpayer money runs counter to the 

14 core function of the IRS to collect taxes from U.S. 

15 citizens regardless of their political affiliations. 

16 (5) The IRS is responsible for implementing the 

17 tax increases of Obamacare. 

18 (6) The IRS will make the final decisions of 

19 who is eligible for subsidies after sharing taxpayer 

20 information with the Department of Health and 

21 Human Services. 

22 (7) A healthy democracy is one where people 

23 feel free to express their views, not one where Fed24 eral agencies discriminate based on political beliefs. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2125 IH

1 SEC. 3. PREVENTION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCE2 MENT OF OBAMACARE BY IRS. 

3 The Secretary of the Treasury, or any delegate of the 

4 Secretary, shall not implement or enforce any provisions 

5 of Public Law 111–148 and Public Law 111–152 (other 

6 than subtitle A of title II thereof). 

7 SEC. 4. PREVENTION OF USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS TO IM8 PLEMENT OR ENFORCE OBAMACARE. 

9 No taxpayer funds shall be used for the implementa10 tion or enforcement of Public Law 111–148 and Public 

11 Law 111–152 (other than subtitle A of title II thereof). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ACACIA WILLIAMS et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

RON DESANTIS et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________________/

KIRK NIELSEN et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 4:20cv236-RH-MJF

RON DESANTIS et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________________/

ORDER REQUIRING A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

By noon on May 26, 2020, the plaintiffs in No. 1:20cv67 must file a succinct 

more definite statement with two numbered lists. The first must list the acts or

failures to act that the plaintiffs assert are unconstitutional or unlawful. The list 

should include no argument, unnecessary detail, or clutter and thus should include 

a description such as “failure to provide a method for a blind plaintiff to cast a 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 107 Filed 05/24/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

secret ballot remotely” or “failure to provide postage for mailing in a ballot.” The 

second list must identify, for each item on the first list, the plaintiffs who assert the 

claim and the defendants against whom they assert it. The more definite statement 

need not list the constitutional or statutory provision on which the plaintiffs base a 

claim.

SO ORDERED on May 24, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 107 Filed 05/24/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 250.57 Commodity schools. ( a ) *Categorization of commodity schools.* Commodity schools are schools that operate a nonprofit school food service in accordance with 7 CFR part 210, but receive additional donated food assistance rather than the general cash payment available to them under Section 4 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753). In addition to requirements in this part relating to donated foods, commodity schools must adhere to Federal regulations in 7 CFR part 210, as applicable.
( b ) *Value of donated foods for commodity schools.* For participating commodity schools, the distributing agency receives donated foods valued at the sum of the national per-meal value and the value of the general cash payment available to it under Section 4 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753), multiplied by the number of reimbursable lunches served by commodity schools in the previous school year. From the total value of donated food assistance for which it is eligible, a commodity school may elect to receive up to 5 cents per meal in cash to cover processing and handling expenses related to the use of donated foods. In addition to Section 6 and Section 14 foods under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755 and 1762(a)), the distributing agency may also receive donated foods under Section 32 (7 U.S.C. 612c), Section 416 (7 U.S.C. 1431), or Section 709 (7 U.S.C. 1446a-1), as available, for commodity schools.
nn"1f"tnn To: DTundermann@parsonsbehle.com,**~.** Cc' Callie Videtich <videtich.callie@EPA.gov>, Catherine Roberts/RS/USEPAlUS,



# ..lGJ..**Bc~:**



## .y. Subject: Docket 10 No. EPA-ROS-OAR-2006-0013**~From:** Monica Morales/RS/USEPAlUS
- Tuesday 12/29/200910:09AM «."",.".,,,,,,,, """,W", Mr. Tundermann: We are in receipt ofthe Utah Industry Environmental Coalition's (UIENC) requestthat EPA extend the public comment period on the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2009 related to Utah PM 10 submittals. We received a number of requests to extend the comment period. We intend to publish a notice in the Federal Register by the end of this year to extend the comment period until March 1,2010. Thank you.
Monica S. Morales, Unit Chief Air Quality Planning Unit Air Program (8P-AR) U.S. EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 phone (303) 312-6936 fax (303) 312-6064

# Parsons Behle & 

# Latimer®

201 South Main Street David W. Tundermann Suite 1800 Sail Lake City, lIT 84111 Telephone 801.532.1234 A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Direct Dial (80l) 536-6726**~'acsimile** 801.536.6111 Salt Lake City • Reno • LasVegas E-Mail DTundel'mann@parsonsbehle.com December 16, 2009

VIAE-MAILAND U.S. MAIL Ms. CallieVidetich Director, AirProgram U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8 Mailcode 8P-AR 1595 Wynkoop St. Denver, CO 80202-1129 videtich.callie@epa.gov Re: DocketID No. EPA-R08-0AR-2006-0013 DearMs. Videtich: This letter is a request for an extension ofthe comment period on EPA's proposed disapproval of Utah's request to (a) redesignate the Salt Lake County, Utah County and Ogden City PM10 nonattainment areas to attainment and (b) approve certain State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Maintenance Plan provisions for those areas. 74 Fed. Reg. 62717 (Dec. I, 2009). The Utah Industry Environmental Coalition ("UIENC") requests an extensionofthe commentperioduntil March 31, 2010. UIENC is a group of Utah manufacturing and utility companies some of whose members are directly affected by Utah's PMlO SIP provisions and EPA's proposed disapprovals ofUtah's redesignation requests and SIP and maintenance plans. UIENC's members include companies in the mining and mineral processing, steel, aerospace, pipe manufacture and natural gas industries. The proposed EPA disapprovals raise numerous legally and technically complex issues which cannot possibly be adequately addressed in the current thirty day comment period. Further, since years have passed since Utah submitted its requests, large files of data and analysis must be located and institutional memories refreshed to enable interested parties to comment knowledgably. Compounding the commentingtask is thatthe commentperiod overlaps the holiday season. Accordingly, UIENC respectfully requests that the comment period for this proposed actionbe extendeduntil March 31, 2010.

4849-6446-3877.1

# '.

Ms. Callie Videtich December 16, 2009 Page Two
Thankyou for your consideration. Sincerelyyours,

# ~~J:r~atimer...........--- David W. Tundermann DWT/lb

4849-6446-3877.1
-------~-~~~~==="""'"==""'="-============~~-,.'I

Chief Essential Air Service & Domestic Analysis Division

United States Department of Transportation

l200 New Jersey Ave SE

Washington, DC 20590

.'.

Trane Comnmrcial Systems

101 William White Blvd

Pueblo, CO 81001 USA

Tol (719) 585-3800

www.Trane.com

October 15,2013

Dear Mr. Schlemmer:

•..•.• ..1'

Iam aware of the commitments made and executed by the City of Pueblo, the State of Colorado, and

the United States Department of Transportation to improve Pueblo Memorial Airport and am grateful

for the improvements witnessed to date. Iam writing today to personally communicate my thanks for

those efforts and to support the request made by representatives of the City of Pueblo, Pueblo Economic

Development Commission, Pueblo Chamber of Commerce and Pueblo County to expand and improve

air service offerings at Pueblo Memorial Airport.

Trane I Ingersoll Rand maintain a significant presence in Pueblo. The Trane campus is located on 27

acres in the Pueblo airport industrial park. The campus is comprised of two buildings totaling

approximately 450,000 square feet. Local operations include two manufacturing groups employing

approximately 350 people in the production of commercial chillers and HV AC climate solution

products shipped around the world. In addition, the Trane-Pueblo campus is home to commercial

product engineering, product development and product marketing teams. Total Pueblo employment is

approximately 425 people.

The campus includes the world's first American Heating & Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) approved

run test facility for air cooled chillers. Pueblo's product test capability aids our customers and the

community as customers from around the world travel to Pueblo LO view Trane product capabilities and

witness performance testing of the products they purchase. We host approximately 50 customer groups

annually; bringing significant travel, lodging and related revenue to Pueblo and the Southern Colorado

region.

The benefits of expanded air service at Pueblo Memorial Airport would aid the provision of efficient

and effective service to our customers thereby enhancing the success of our organization. Please

consider these facts ill your review and determination.

Respectfully,

David "Mitch"

Human

Trane-Pueblo

Leader

(jjJW)Ingersoll Rand