alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 246
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 246 appear at 76 FR 35097, June 16, 2011.

§ 246.29 Waivers of program requirements. ( a ) *Required conditions.* The Secretary may waive or modify any qualified administrative requirement for one or more State agencies during an emergency period or supply chain disruption. Waivers or modifications may be issued following a State agency request or at the discretion of the Secretary. To be considered, a waiver or modification issued under this Section must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) The qualified administrative requirement cannot be implemented during any part of the emergency period or supply chain disruption.
( 2 ) The waiver or modification is necessary to serve participants and does not substantially weaken the nutritional quality of supplemental foods.
( 3 ) The waiver or modification would not result in material impairment of any statutory or regulatory rights of participants or potential participants as set forth at 7 CFR 246.8 or 7 CFR parts 15, 15a and 15b.
( 4 ) The waiver or modification would not create a barrier to participation.
( 5 ) The waiver or modification would not create additional eligibility requirements for participation.
( 6 ) The waiver or modification would comply with 7 CFR 246.13(b).
( 7 ) The waiver or modification must offer substitution options with similar nutritional quality, that most closely provide the maximum monthly allowance of supplemental foods, and that do not create new supplemental food categories as set forth in 7 CFR 246.10(e)(12) Table 4.
( 8 ) A State agency that requests a waiver or modification meets additional requirements for the request and approval as determined necessary by FNS.
( b ) *Timeframes for waiver request and use.* ( 1 ) Waiver starts. A waiver or modification may be granted any time during an emergency period or supply chain disruption.
( 2 ) Waiver duration. ( i ) A waiver or modification established during an emergency period may be available for the emergency period and up to 60 days after the end of the emergency period.
( ii ) A waiver or modification established during a supply chain disruption may be available for: ( A ) a period of up to 45 days from the date of waiver issuance and renewed with at least 15 days' notice provided by the Secretary; and
( B ) no more than 60 days after the supply chain disruption declaration ceases to exist.
( c ) *State agency waiver requests.* State agencies shall submit requests for a modification or waiver for USDA approval. Requests shall include but not necessarily be limited to: ( 1 ) The qualified administrative requirement the State agency is requesting to modify or waive (including the statutory or regulatory citation) and an explanation for why it cannot be met;
( 2 ) Justification for why the waiver is necessary to continue WIC services;
( 3 ) An explanation that the waiver meets the conditions set forth in 7 CFR 246.29(a);
( 4 ) The emergency period or supply chain disruption under which the request is being made;
( 5 ) The period for which the flexibility is being requested.
[88 FR 86563, Dec. 14, 2023]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

STATE OF TEXAS,

 State, 

v.

RODOLFO MORALES,

 Appellee.

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

No. 08-20-00021-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal Court at Law No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20180C06554)

 

O R D E R

Following the grant of several extensions and a status hearing in the trial court, the 

Appellee's Brief was ordered due in this Court on February 22. 2021. Our previous order contained 

a warning stating that Appellee's failure to file a brief would result in this State's appeal being 

submitted without the benefit of an Appellee's Brief. As of this date, Appellee has not filed a brief.

Therefore, we order this case to be submitted without the benefit of an Appellee's Brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
<PAGE>53


              FORM OF NOTICE OF FILING PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION
                   SENT TO HOLDERS OF ELCOA'S DEBT SECURITIES


Dear Certificate Holder,

    On Friday August 8, 1997, in order to protect the viability of the Company, 
the Company filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

    The proceedings were filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania.

    The Company is confident that with the cooperation of all interested 
parties, the Company believes that it will complete a satisfactory 
reorganization of its financial affairs.

    You will be sent notice from the Clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court within 
the next several weeks.

    We apologize for any inconvenience the Company has caused you.  With your 
cooperation, we anticipate a satisfactory conclusion to these proceedings.

Very truly yours,



William Shapiro, President
For:  Equipment Leasing Corporation of America
#### §§ 25.624-25.999 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:96cr57/RV

CHARLES RANDALL HARRISON

ORDER

The defendant has filed a notice of appeal (doc. 465) of this court’s order denying

his motion seeking relief from final judgment pursuant to 60(b), (doc. 459), which the court

construes as a request for a certificate of appealability. Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d

1083 (11th Cir. 1997). An appeal of the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion requires a certificate

of appealability. Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2007). A COA

should not issue in the appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion unless the petitioner

shows, at a minimum, that it is debatable among jurists of reason whether the district court

abused its discretion in denying his motion. See Mobley v. Head, 306 F.3d 1096, 1097

(11th Cir. 2002) (“This Court reviews a denial of a 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.”)

Defendant has not made this showing, and his request for a certificate of appealability is

DENIED. 

 Defendant has not filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because

the court finds that this appeal is not taken in good faith and the defendant is not otherwise

entitled to so proceed, should he file such a motion, it would be denied. Defendant shall

pay the $455.00 filing fee within thirty days.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 2008.

/s/ Roger Vinson_____________________

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:96-cr-00057-RV-MD Document 474 Filed 09/24/08 Page 1 of 1
#### McCORMACK, Respondent, v. LANGER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by John J. McCormack against Ferdinand Danger.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
#### § 250.5 Civil rights.

Distributing agencies, subdistributing agencies and recipient agencies must comply with the Department's nondiscrimination regulations (7 CFR parts 15, 15a, and 15b) and the FNS civil rights instructions to ensure that in the operation of the program no person is discriminated against on protected bases as such bases apply to each program.
98-1827.

#### State v. Johnson.

Hamilton App. No. C-970695. On motion for stay. Motion denied.
#### §§ 205.208-205.235 [Reserved]
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10 (t)

            COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS WITH CERTAIN EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

     Set forth below are the base salaries of the named executive officers of
the Company, effective February 1, 2005:

<Table>
<Caption>
         NAME AND TITLE                     2005 SALARY
         --------------                     -----------
<S>                                         <C>
George H. Glatfelter II
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer           $530,200

Dante C. Parrini                               $334,008
Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer

John C. van Roden, Jr.                         $305,340
Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer

Werner A. Ruckenbrod                           $301,298
Vice President Long Fiber & Overlay
Papers
</Table>

---------------------
(1)  Mr. Ruckenbrod's compensation is paid in Euros. The amount set forth above
     represents the U.S. dollar equivalent based on the average exchange rate
     during the first two months of 2005.

     The annual base salaries are subject to adjustment pursuant to the
Company's employee compensation policies in effect from time to time. Each of
the above executive officers has a change in control employment agreement, which
is included as exhibits to the 2004 10-K. Also, each executive officer
participates in the Company's 1992 Long-Term Incentive Plan and in its
Management Incentive Plan, each of which are included as exhibits to the 2004
10-K.
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA DIVISION

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.1:82CR1005-MMP/AK

MARK WELDON CANTRELL,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to §

2255. Doc. 28. 

The original judgment in this case was entered in 1982. Defendant did not

appeal. On December 20, 2001, Defendant filed a § 2255 motion, Doc. 20, which the

Court denied, primarily, because it was grossly out of time, and alternatively, because

Apprendi does not apply retroactively on collateral review. Docs. 24, 25, & 27. 

Defendant did not appeal the ruling.

On this occasion, Defendant raises three grounds for relief. In the first two, he

charges that his conviction was obtained by a coerced confession and that his attorney

was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal. Doc. 28. In the third ground, he

Case 1:82-cr-01005-MP-AK Document 29 Filed 03/23/05 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No.1:82cr1005-mmp/ak

claims a violation of his due process right under the parole guidelines because he has

not been timely afforded a hearing on a parole violation.

Defendant is clearly barred from seeking § 2255 relief at this time on the first two

grounds. He was previously denied § 2255 relief and may not file a second or

successive motion under § 2255 without prior certification from the Eleventh Circuit. 28

U.S.C. § § 2244(b)(3) & 2255. Even then, a second or successive motion will not be

allowed absent newly discovered evidence or “a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously

unavailable.” § 2255. Defendant has not sought or been granted leave by the appellate

court to file a second or successive motion to vacate, and thus, the first two claims are

plainly foreclosed from review here.

As to the third claim, § 2255 is not the appropriate avenue for relief. Instead,

Defendant should file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241 in the district of incarceration to protest an alleged constitutional violation by the

Parole Commission. Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.3d 1488 (11th Cir. 1991).

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Doc. 28, be

DENIED.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 23rd day of March, 2005.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:82-cr-01005-MP-AK Document 29 Filed 03/23/05 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No.1:82cr1005-mmp/ak

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 1:82-cr-01005-MP-AK Document 29 Filed 03/23/05 Page 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Robinson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 16, 1976, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Hopkins, J. P., Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Lazer, J., dissents and votes to modify the judgment by vacating the sentence and remanding the case to Criminal Term for resentencing, with the following memorandum:

When the defendant appeared for sentencing after having pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the third degree, he already had been sentenced to 15 years imprisonment by a Federal court for the crime of conspiracy to steal and forge United States Treasury checks. This is what took place in the sentencing court: "the clerk: Mr. Robinson, do you have anything you want to say before sentence? Anything at all you want to tell the Court? the defendant: Yes, I do. the clerk: Tell the Court, the defendant: Your Honor, I’d like to say something before the Court—I don’t really want to say anything but my lawyer was ill advised, I think, to a lot of stuff because a lot of documents was not turned over to us. It’s not his fault at all. First of all, I was detained on October 22, 1975 which is a total of eights *[sic]*months I have been detained on this charge. I believe it is a violation of state speedy trial law and also federal, the court: What do you want to do? Why don’t you withdraw the plea then? the defendant: I’m ready for sentence. This is open court plea bargaining, your Honor, the court: do you want to withdraw your plea? the defendant: No, sir. the court: *I am going to impose consecutive sentences here if this defendant has motions he’s making directed towards this indictment,*the defendant: Your Honor, I’m ready for sentence. You have the right to go right ahead and sentence and I won’t say a word, the court: I certainly don’t want to cut you off, if you have statements to make and motions, the defendant: And I have been threatened with—the court: Do it. the defendant: No. the court: Don’t walk inside and then sit around second guessing yourself. If you want to say something, say it. the defendant: No. I don’t want to say anything.” (Emphasis added.) The court then imposed an indeterminate sentence of up to four years in prison to be served concurrently with the Federal sentence. Although the historical basis for allocution has long since eroded, it continues as a substantial right in this State and is codified now in CPL 380.50 *(People v McClain,*35 NY2d 483). In my view, the sentencing court’s threat to impose consecutive sentences chilled the defendant’s right to speak in his own behalf and thus constituted an improper cutoff mandating reversal (see *People v Chapman,*42 AD2d 680). I therefore dissent and vote to modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed and remanding the case for resentencing.
#### § 29.2560 Tobacco.

Tobacco as it appears between the time it is cured and stripped from the stalk, or primed and cured, and the time it enters into the different manufacturing processes. The acts of stemming, threshing, sweating, and conditioning are not regarded as manufacturing processes. Tobacco, as used in these standards, does not include manufactured or semimanufactured products, stems, cutting, clippings, trimmings, siftings, or dust.

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated and amended at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984, and further redesignated 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
p120566.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0566 Focus Ready Draft 10/15/2012
ENGINEER: Hall \ AG PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER: Firmenich Inc.
USE: Fragrance ingredient for perfumes, cleaners and other consumer products. Analogs

. OTHER USES: Analogs , STN CA 152:568324: chemical intermediate to prepare a fragrance chemical.

MSDS: Yes Label: No
Gen Eqpt: Maintain adequate local and general ventilation; adequate protective gloves and safety glasses, protective clothing, overall if neceesary Respirator: Breathing of the vapors or dust particles may be hazardous. In the absence of appropriate engineering controls such as spot ventilation, ventilated enclosures, etc, workers should avail themselves of the appropriate NIOSH approved respiratory protection. Health Effects: Harmful if swallowed / Irritating to eyes / May cause sensitization by skin contact / Dangerous to the environment TLV/PEL: None for the PMN

Consumer Use: Yes
SAT (concerns) (10/02/2012): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox Related Cases:
Migration to groundwater: Negl to slow due to biodeg PBT rating: P1B1T2 . Page 1p120566.eng Health: 1-2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 3 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: P2 Claims: Mixtures containing this chemical, which do not pass specifications, are blended together with other like off-specification materials, and these blends of waste are sold for one-time use as fragrance oils for specific low-value applications. Thus, waste recapture eliminates material from the manufacturing plant. When the containers are empty, the covers are replaced, without washing, and the containers are removed by a private contractor for incineration of any residue in the container. The vessel in which the new chemical has been mixed/blended is cleaned with hot water and soap solution after processing, and the waste treated on site. Transfer of the mixture containing the new chemical to drums for shipping is accomplished by pumping in a closed system.

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: Yes PMN: 12-0566 Processing 1: Master formula compounding
Number of Sites/ Location: 1 Firmenich Plainsboro NJ 08536 Days/yr: 100

Process Description: PMN imported in containers (liquid, 100%) --> Weighing into an open vat --> Blending with other materials --> Mix vessel covered, continuous Page 2p120566.eng blending --> Fragrance compound at less than or equal to 1% LVE --> Package fragrance oil containing PMN (liquid, 1%) (per submission)

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0566
Page 3p120566.eng Processing 2: Blending into consumer products
Number of Sites/ Location: 50 unknown sites Days/yr: 100

Process Description: Unload fragrance oil containing PMN from packaging containers (liquid, 1%) --> Blend fragrance oil into consumer products (0.1%) --> Consumer products packaged for sale (per submission)

Page 4p120566.eng

Page 5
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I,Jack Pearlstein, Chief Financial Officer of Solera Holdings, Inc., certifythat:

 

1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Solera Holdings, Inc.;

 

2. Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: February 13,2008

 
|       |                        |
|------------|-----------------------------|
|       | /s/  Jack Pearlstein        |
| ** ** | **Jack Pearlstein**         |
| ** ** | **Chief Financial Officer** |

----
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Steven J. MalcolmSteven J. MalcolmChief Executive Officer of Williams Partners GP
LLC, general partner of Williams Partners L.P.
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### KUELLING v. RODERICK LEAN MFG. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

September 26, 1906.)

Action by Reinhart Kuelling against the Roderick Lean Manufacturing Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs and disbursements.