alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 29.3101 Elements of quality and degrees of each element.

These standardized words or terms are used to describe tobacco quality and to assist in interpreting grade specifications. Tobacco attributes or characteristics which constitute quality are designated as elements of quality. The range within each element is expressed by the use of words or terms designated as degrees. These several degrees are arranged to show their relative value, but the actual value of each degree varies with type, group, and grade. In each case the first and last degrees represent the full range for the element, and the intermediate degrees show gradual steps between them.

| Elements | | | Degrees | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Body | Tissuey | Thin | Medium | Fleshy | Heavy. |
| 2 Maturity | Mellow | Ripe | Mature | Underripe | Immature. |
| 3 Leaf structure (porosity and solidity). | Porous | Open | Firm | Close | Solid. |
| 4 Leaf surface (smoothness) | Smooth | Even | Wavy | Wrinkly | Rough. |
| 5 Finish | Bright | Clear | Moderate | Dull | Dingy. |
| 6 Color intensity | Deep | Strong | do | Weak | Pale. |
| 7 Width | Broad | Spready | Normal | Narrow | Stringy. |
| 8 Length | (1) | (1) | (1) | (1) | (1) |
| 9 Uniformity | (2) | (2) | (2) | (2) | (2) |
| 10 Injury tolerance | (2) | (2) | (2) | (2) | (2) |
| | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Expressed in inches. | | | | | |
| 2 Expressed in percentage. | | | | | |
H. R. 2251 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen 

An Act 

To designate the United States courthouse and Federal building located at 118 

South Mill Street, in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Edward J. Devitt United 

States Courthouse and Federal Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The United States courthouse and Federal building located 

at 118 South Mill Street, in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, shall be 

known and designated as the ‘‘Edward J. Devitt United States 

Courthouse and Federal Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the United States courthouse 

and Federal building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

to be a reference to the ‘‘Edward J. Devitt United States Courthouse 

and Federal Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29142]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: (10-148)]

NASA Advisory Council; NASA Commercial Space Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration announces a meeting of the Commercial Space Committee of 
the NASA Advisory Council.

DATES: Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 1:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., Local Time.

ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Glennan Conference 
Center Room 1Q39, Washington, DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Emond, Office of Chief 
Technologist, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
Washington, DC 20546. Phone 202-358-1686, fax: 202-358-3878, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda for the meeting includes a 
briefing from the NASA Commercial Space Team, a briefing on activities 
of the Education and Public Outreach Committee, and an administrative 
discussion on Committee plans for the coming year.
    The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity 
of the room. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors 
will need to show a valid picture identification such as a driver's 
license to enter the NASA Headquarters building (West Lobby--Visitor 
Control Center), and must state that they are attending the NASA 
Advisory Council Commercial Space Committee meeting in the Glennan 
Conference Center room 1Q39 before receiving an access badge. All non-
U.S. citizens must fax a copy of their passport, and print or type 
their name, current address, citizenship, company affiliation (if 
applicable) to include address, telephone number, and their title, 
place of birth, date of birth, U.S. visa information to include type, 
number, and expiration date, U.S. Social Security Number (if 
applicable), and place and date of entry into the U.S., fax to John 
Emond, NASA Advisory Council Commercial Space Committee Executive 
Secretary, FAX: (202) 358-3878, by no later than Wednesday December 7, 
2010. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizenship can 
provide identifying information 3 working days in advance by contacting 
John Emond via email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 
358-1686 or fax: (202) 358-3878.

    Dated: November 15, 2010.
P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-29142 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
**Exhibit32.1**

 

Certification of PrincipalExecutive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/Afor the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) of Federal ServicesAcquisition Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joel R. Jacks, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  September 29, 2006 | By:    | /s/    Joel R. Jacks |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | **Joel R. Jacks**                        |
|                      |   | **Chairman and Chief Executive Officer** |
|                      |   | **(Principal Executive Officer)**        |

 

1

----
#### Central Republic Trust Company, appellee, v. Joe Satin et al., defendants, on appeal of Dora Satin et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 37,671.

*624Opinion filed November 20, 1934.

Erwin E. Cowen and Max Satin, for appellants. Castle, Williams, Long & McCarthy, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.514 Comprehensive TSA grant projects. ( a ) The rural area to be covered by the TSA project must be realistically serviceable by the applicant in terms of funding resources, manpower, and distances and generally should be limited to one to four counties within the service area of one District Office.
( b ) Consideration of the following items may assist applicants develop TSA projects which meet the needs of low-income families in the proposed TSA service area: present population distribution, projected population growth or decline, the amount of inadequate housing, economic conditions, and trends of the rural areas concerned, and any other factors affecting the quantity and quality of housing currently available or planned for the area. Consideration must also be given to the needs and desires of the community; the financial and social condition of the individuals within the community; the needs of areas with a concentration of low-income minority families and the needs of Rural Development borrowers who are delinquent in their housing loan payments; the availability of supporting services such as water, sewerage, health and educational facilities, transportation, recreational and community facilities, and the types of housing facilities and services presently available or planned to which the low-income families have or will have ready access.
( c ) Each TSA applicant should consider the alternatives available to provide needed housing facilities and services for the area. Consideration should also be given to the recommendations and services available from local, state, federal governmental entities, and from private agencies and individuals. ( 1 ) In no case should the TSA project deliberately conflict with or duplicate housing studies, plans, projects, or any other housing related activities in a rural area unless documentation shows these activities do not meet the needs of low-income families.
( 2 ) Each TSA project should be coordinated to the extent possible with any comprehensive or special purpose plans and projects affecting low-income housing in the area.
( 3 ) To the fullest extent possible, TSA projects should be coordinated with any housing-related activities currently being carried out in the area.
( d ) TSA applicants must coordinate their proposals with the appropriate County and District Offices to be fully familiar with the needs of those offices and of the low-income families currently served by the County Offices.
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. 1:89-cr-01018-MP-GRJ-4

CLARENCE T FOX, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1384, Motion for Certificate of Appealability

filed by Defendant Clarence T Fox. For the reasons stated in Doc. 1360, and incorporated into

the Court's order at Doc. 1371, the Court finds that Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right and the issues are not adequate enough to deserve

encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, no certificate of appealability is appropriate in

this case. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of August, 2013

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between the Board of Education of Greenburgh Central School District No. 7, Appellant, and Woodlands Supervisory Council, Respondent.

Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 12, 1979, dismissed (see *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment of the same court dated *600October 22, 1979, affirmed. No opinion. The respondent is awarded one bill of costs. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Brooke Credit Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael S. Lowry, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 6, 2007



/s/ Michael S. LowryMichael S. LowryChief Executive Officer
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case Nos.: 3:95cr3039/RV 

 3:11cv500/RV/EMT

VONSHAY STALLWORTH,

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated January 26, 2012 (doc. 451). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all timely

filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 438), is DENIED 

and DISMISSED, as this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive motion absent permission

from the Eleventh Circuit.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2012.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:95-cr-03039-RV-EMT Document 453 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2240 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2240

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow deductions and 
  credits relating to expenditures in connection with marijuana sales 
                conducted in compliance with State law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2013

 Mr. Blumenauer (for himself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Polis, Mr. Smith of 
    Washington, Mr. Farr, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Perlmutter, and Ms. Lee of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow deductions and 
  credits relating to expenditures in connection with marijuana sales 
                conducted in compliance with State law.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Tax Equity Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS AND CREDITS RELATING TO EXPENDITURES IN 
              CONNECTION WITH MARIJUANA SALES CONDUCTED IN COMPLIANCE 
              WITH STATE LAW.

    (a) In General.--Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, 
unless such trade or business consists of marijuana sales conducted in 
compliance with State law''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29179]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


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

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

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

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 4041 Home Road, Suite A, 
Bellingham, WA 98226, 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#204342500e4c41424851604448530e474f56"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="66050416480a07040e1726020e1548010910">[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[sol]xp[sol]cgov[sol]import[sol]operations--
support[sol]labs--scientific--svcs[sol]commercial--gaugers[sol].

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on 
August 06, 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.

    Dated: November 8, 2010.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-29179 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>
Pet. & Sum.

#### Fox *et al. vs.*Sayre.

[Mr. Depew and Mr. Richmond for plaintiff: Mr. M. C. Johnson fi , defendant.]

From the Circuit Court eor Fayette County.

*April*30.

Under the act of ’37, which gives an action by petition to an indorser who has taken up a note that has been discounted by a bank, against the drawer and prior indorsers— it is not necessary that the *plaintiff’s*indorsement should be *313copied in the petition. The averments, in the form prescribed by the act, showing that he is the proprietor of the note, and has paid,it ‘as indorser,’ are sufficient to entitle him to judg t.

*312Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The only question in this case, is whether, in a petition and summons according to the statute of *1837*— (Sess. *Acts,*42,) by one endorser of a protested, negotiable note, against the drawers and a prior endorser, it is necessary to copy the endorsement *from*the plaintiff who had paid the amount of the note as endorser; or whether it is sufficient, in the language of the statute, to aver that he, “as endorser,” had taken up the note?

The provisions of the statute are awkward, and not, in every respect, easily intelligible. But it seems to re*313-quire the transcription into the petition, of only such endorsement or endorsements as shall be necessary to show that the plaintiff is the “proprietor” of the note, and then an averment only that, “as endorser,” he had paid and taken it up. And we can perceive no reason for requiring more in such an informal proceeding as a petition.

The averment implies necessarily that the plaintiff had endorsed the note, and therefore had paid the amount of it after protest, and thereby entitled himself to an erasure of the endorsement from himself, and to an action against the drawer or drawers, and the prior endorser or endorsers. And such an averment is, in fact, as specific as any other prescribed for a *petition.*

In this case the endorsement by Sayre, the plaintiff in the petition, had been erased, and was, of course, not copied in the petition; but he averred at the end of the petition, as required by the statute, that he, *as*endorser, had taken up the note. And, according to either the letter or the spirit of the statute, we are inclined to think that his petition was substantially good.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 4:02cr26-SPM

OSCAR LEE LENTON,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

This cause comes before the Court upon Defendant Oscar Lee Lenton’s

motions for reduction of sentence under Title 18, United States Code, Section

3582. Docs. 142 and 145. Despite the title of his motions, Defendant has not

stated any grounds that would entitle him to a sentence reduction under Title 18,

United States Code, Section 3582. Nor has he presented any circumstances

that would warrant appointment of counsel. See United States v. Webb, 565

F.3d 789, 794-95 (11th Cir. 2009) (Defendant has no right to counsel for

sentence reduction under 3582, but the Court has discretion to appoint counsel

in the interests of justice.). 

The Court declines to recharacterize Defendant’s motions under Title 28,

United States Code, Section 2255, since it does not appear that such a motion
Page 2 of 2

would be available to Defendant.1 Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s motions for reduction of sentence under Title 18,

United States Code, Section 3582 (docs. 142 and 145) are denied.

2. Defendant’s motion for appointment of counsel (doc. 143) is

denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2009.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

1

 Defendant has already been sentenced and the opinion on his direct appeal

was issued on November 7, 2003. See docs. 63 and 91. Defendant filed a 2255

motion, which was denied and appealed without success. See docs. 95, 115, 118, and

140. 

CASE NO. 4:02cr26-SPM
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:94cr3012LAC

KIM BRADSHAW

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on June 15, 2005

Motion/Pleadings: REQUEST FOR JOINER OF THE MOVANT’S CO-DEFENDANT’S

PENDING SUA SPONTE MOTION WITH RECONSIDERATION IN LIGHT OF UNITED

STATES V REESE, 382 F. 3d 1308. and THE DECISION OF BOOKER, 543 U.S._____2005, 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582, and 3553(a) and Fed. R.Crim. P. 8(b) 

Filed by DEFENDANT, PRO SE on 6/7/05 Doc.# 729

RESPONSES:

BY GOVT on6/15/05 Doc.# 730

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

/s/ Mary Maloy-Wells

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy-Wells

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 16th day of 

June, 2005, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The defendant is not entitled to resentencing as this Court lacks

jurisdiction to consider this successive post-conviction motion and the Supreme

Court’s decision in United States v Booker does not apply retroactively to cases

on collateral review. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

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

Copies sent to:

Case 3:94-cr-03012-LC-MD Document 732 Filed 06/16/05 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.1113 Rule 7.

Any lot of tobacco which meets the specifications of two grades shall be placed in the higher grade. Any lot of tobacco on the marginal line between two grades shall be placed in the lower grade.