alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3201.40 Laundry products. ( a ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) Products that are designed to clean, condition, or otherwise affect the quality of the laundered material. Such products include but are not limited to laundry detergents, bleach, stain removers, and fabric softeners.
( 2 ) Laundry products for which preferred procurement applies are: ( i ) *Pretreatment/spot removers.* These are laundry products specifically used to pretreat laundry to assist in the removal of spots and stains during laundering.
( ii ) *General purpose laundry products.* These are laundry products used for regular cleaning activities.
( iii ) *Dryer sheets.* These are small sheets that are added to laundry in clothes dryers to eliminate static cling, soften fabrics, or otherwise improve the characteristics of the fabric.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The minimum biobased content shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product. The applicable minimum biobased contents for the preferred procurement product are: ( 1 ) Pretreatment/spot removers—46 percent.
( 2 ) General purpose laundry products—34 percent.
( 3 ) Dryer sheets—90 percent.
( c ) *Preference compliance dates.* ( 1 ) No later than May 14, 2009, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for those qualifying biobased laundry products specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased laundry products.
( 2 ) No later than July 6, 2020, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for those qualifying biobased laundry products specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased laundry products.
[73 FR 27994, May 14, 2008, as amended at 84 FR 32020, July 5, 2019]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER JAMERSON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv3769-MCR-HTC

MARK S. INCH,

Respondent.

/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated May 7, 2021. ECF No. 12. 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 objections 

thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should 

be adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-03769-MCR-HTC Document 15 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv3769-MCR-HTC

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)The clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Florida is directed to enter the following judgment: “The 

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF Doc. 1, is DENIED in its entirety” 

(3)The clerk is directed to close the file for this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of June 2021.

s/M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-03769-MCR-HTC Document 15 Filed 06/10/21 Page 2 of 2
#### Donald Hoenig, Respondent, v Henry F. Westphal, Appellant.

Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, without costs. No issue of fact was considered by this court. Pursuant to CPLR 5713, this court certifies that the following question of law, decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen, which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals: "Was the order of this court, which granted the defendant’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories, correct as a matter of law?” Greenblott, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur.
§ 319.24 Notice of quarantine. ( a ) The fact has been determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, and notice is hereby given, that maize or Indian corn (Zea mays L.) and closely related plants are subject to certain injurious diseases, especially Peronospora maydis Raciborski, Sclerospora sacchari Miyake and other downy mildews; also the Physoderma diseases of maize, Physoderma zeae-maydis Shaw, and Physoderma maydis Miyake, new to and not heretofore widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout the United States, and that these diseases occur in southeastern Asia (including India, Siam, Indo-China and China), Malayan Archipelago, Australia, Oceania, Philippine Islands, Formosa, Japan, and adjacent islands.
( b ) The importation of corn plants (including any plant parts) that are for planting or capable of being planted is restricted in Subpart H—Plants for Planting of this part.
( c ) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the importation into the United States of raw or unmanufactured corn seed and all other portions of Indian corn or maize and related plants, including all species of teosinte (*Euchlaena*), jobs-tears (*Coix*), *Polytoca, Chionachne,* and *Sclerachne,* from southeastern Asia (including India, Indochina, and the People's Republic of China), Malayan Archipelago, Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, Philippine Islands, Manchuria, Japan, and adjacent islands is prohibited. However, this prohibition does not apply to importations of such items for experimental, therapeutic, or developmental purposes under the conditions specified in a controlled import permit issued in accordance with § 319.6.
( d ) As used in this subpart, unless the context otherwise requires, the term “United States” means the States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
( e ) Seed of Indian corn or maize (*Zea mays L.*) that is free from the cob and from all other parts of corn may be imported into the United States from New Zealand without further restriction.
[24 FR 10788, Dec. 29, 1959, as amended at 58 FR 44745, Aug. 25, 1993; 66 FR 21055, Apr. 27, 2001; 78 FR 25570, May 2, 2013; 83 FR 11855, Mar. 19, 2018; 84 FR 2429, Feb. 7, 2019]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 VS CASE NO. 3:98-CR-72-001/LAC

 CHARLES EDWARD WARD

FINANCIAL REFERRAL AND ORDER

Regarding refund of funds for: X Fine, Restitution, Filing Fee, Attorney Admission Fee,

 Copy Fee, Bond, Other (Specify) 

By: Charles Ward (Payee)

Address: 204 Hewitt St

Pensacola, FL 32503

Receipt Number 4-3119 

Date of Receipt 10/17/07 

Motion: N/A

Explanation: A review of the payment records for Mr. Ward indicates an overpayment of $30.00. On

October 16, 2007 the Clerk’s Office received a payment from the Treasury Offset Program to pay Mr.

Ward’s fine in full. On October 17, 2007 Mr. Ward sent in a payment of $30.00. Requesting

authorization to refund the $30.00 overpayment as well as any other payments received by Mr. Ward for

this case.

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, Clerk of Court

Prepared by: __s/Philip Detweiler_____________

 Philip Detweiler, Financial Specialist Date: November 1, 2007 

Referred by: Mary Maloy, Deputy Clerk

ORDER OF COURT

It is ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2007, that the Clerk refund the identified funds to the payee.

APPROVED XX 

DENIED_________________ s/L.A. Collier 

 LACEY A. COLLIER 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Adopted: 12/03/99

Case 3:98-cr-00072-LC Document 20 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 1
§ 301.52-5 Compliance agreements; and cancellation thereof. ( a ) Any person engaged in the business of growing, handling, or moving regulated articles may enter into a compliance agreement to facilitate the movement of such articles under this subpart. Compliance agreement forms may be obtained from the Deputy Administrator or an inspector.
( b ) Any compliance agreement may be cancelled by the inspector who is supervising its enforcement whenever the inspector finds, after notice and reasonable opportunity to present views has been accorded to the other party thereto, that such other party has failed to comply with the conditions of the agreement.
[32 FR 16385, Nov. 30, 1967, as amended at 70 FR 33268, June 7, 2005]
August 8, 2016

Mr. Brandon Baudier Implicted LLC
631 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans

, LA 70130

Re: FAA

– 2016

– 1090

Dear Mr. Baudier :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request

. We have determined that

y our request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption

.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,

/s/
Brenda Robeson Program A nalyst
#### § 29.1026 Group.

A division of a type covering closely related grades based on certain characteristics which are related to stalk position, body, or the general quality of the tobacco. Groups in Flue-cured, U.S. Types 11-14, and Foreign Type 92 are: Leaf (B), Smoking Leaf (H), Cutters (C), Lugs (X), Primings (P) Mixed (M), Nondescript (N), and Scrap (S).

[52 FR 28533, July 31, 1987]
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 August 4, 2005 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

Nos. 03-4123 & 04-2358 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. BYRON V. SUTTON, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division Nos. 02 CR 1131 & 03 CR 496-1 Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge

.
O R D E R Byron Sutton pleaded guilty to crack conspiracy and distribution charges, and in a prior opinion we rejected his arguments that the district court miscalculated the drug quantity and imposed an illegal restitution award. United States v. Sutton , 406 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2005). We nonetheless issued a limited remand because as we now know from United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), the district court sentenced Sutton in violation of the Sixth Amendment and, despite being limited to plain-error review given that Sutton failed to timely object to the sentencing procedures, we were unable to say “whether Sutton’s substantial rights were affected without consulting the sentencing judge to determine whether she would have given the same sentence had she known the guidelines were not UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53Nos. 03-4123 & 04-2358 Page 2

mandatory,” Sutton , 406 F.3d at 475. We retained jurisdiction during the limited remand. In response to our limited remand, the district judge informed us that she cannot represent that she “would have imposed the same sentence” had she known the sentencing guidelines were not binding. Both parties have filed memoranda commenting on the district court’s position, and although the government argues otherwise, we agree with Sutton that, taken in context, the court’s statement is an expression of intent to impose a lower sentence given the additional discretion afforded by Booker . Accordingly, we conclude that the concurrent 135-month terms imposed by the district court constitute plain error. Johnson v. United States , 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997). Sutton’s sentences are VACATED, and his cases are REMANDED to the district court for resentencing.
§ 29.3046 Oriented. A term applied to Type 31 untied tobacco which denotes the arrangement of leaves in a straight and orderly manner. Oriented includes: ( a ) Any lot of baled tobacco in which the leaves are packed parallel to the length of the bale with the butts to the outside and the tips of the leaves overlapping sufficiently to make a level, solid and uniform package;
( b ) Any lot of sheeted tobacco in which the leaves are arranged in a circular pattern with the butts to the outside.
[48 FR 40366, Sept. 7, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED MAY 31, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         993,610
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  509,657
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (29,749)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,588,969
<PP&E>                                       1,340,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                (931,283)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,241,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,238,551
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,882
<COMMON>                                        42,711
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,241,705
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,336,631
<CGS>                                        6,120,416
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,889,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (6,570)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (19,305)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                313,875
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            313,875
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   313,875
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
#### Collateral Factors Corp., Respondent, v Eugene Weiss, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 19, 1979, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to reduce counsel fees to $1,000 and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We deem the counsel fee awarded excessive to the extent indicated. Concur— Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Markewich and Carro, JJ.
PUBLIC LAW 108–327—OCT. 16, 2004 118 STAT. 1271

Public Law 108–327

108th Congress

An Act

To amend the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to reauthorize volunteer programs

and community partnerships for national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Act of 2004’’.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS UNDER FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT

OF 1956.

Section 7(f) of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C.

742f(f)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized

to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out

subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years

2004 through 2009.’’.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS UNDER NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE SYSTEM VOLUNTEER AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1998.

Section 4(a) of the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer

and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C.

742f note) is amended—

(1) in the heading by striking ‘‘PILOT’’;

(2) by striking ‘‘pilot project’’ each place it appears and

inserting ‘‘project’’;

(3) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘, but not more than

20 pilot projects nationwide’’;

(4) in paragraph (3)—

(A) by striking ‘‘pilot projects’’ and inserting ‘‘projects’’;

and

(B) by striking ‘‘after the date of the enactment of

this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘after the date of the enactment

of the National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Act of 2004,

and every 3 years thereafter’’; and

(5) in paragraph (4) by striking ‘‘each of fiscal years 1999

through 2002’’ and inserting ‘‘for each fiscal year through fiscal

year 2009’’.

SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AUTHORITY.

Section 7(d)(2)(A) of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16

U.S.C. 742f(d)(2)(A)) is amended to read as follows:

16 USC 742f–1.

National Wildlife

Refuge Volunteer

Act of 2004.

16 USC 742a

note.

Oct. 16, 2004

[H.R. 2408]

118 STAT. 1272 PUBLIC LAW 108–327—OCT. 16, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2408:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–385 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–315 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Mar. 23, considered and passed House.

Sept. 30, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title

31, United States Code, the Secretary of the Interior may

negotiate and enter into a cooperative agreement with a

partner organization, academic institution, State or local

government agency, or other person to implement one or

more projects or programs for a refuge or complex of geographically related refuges in accordance with the purposes

of this subsection and in compliance with the policies of

other relevant authorities, regulations, and policy guidance.’’.

Approved October 16, 2004.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00693-CR

Chad E. Malburg, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 07-1237-K277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Chad E. Malburg pled guilty to the charge of burglary of a building and was

sentenced to eighteen months in a state jail. Appellant’s appointed attorney has filed a brief

concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at 743-44;

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684,

684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the right to

examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 1

his case by the court of criminal appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.

P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date

this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The

petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal

appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition

for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure.

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 

2

We have considered the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We have reviewed the evidence presented to the trial court and the

procedures that were observed and find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: April 1, 2009

Do Not Publish
#### §§ 25.608-25.619 [Reserved]
§ 30.39 Class 4; cigar-filler types and groups. ( a ) *Type 41.* That type of cigar-leaf tobacco commonly known as Pennsylvania Seedleaf or Pennsylvania Broadleaf, produced principally in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and adjoining counties and including other areas of Pennsylvania and Maryland in which the seedleaf variety is grown. Groups applicable to type 41: C—Stripper. X—Straight Stripped. Y—Farm Filler. N—Nondescript, as defined.
( b ) *Type 42.* That type of cigar-leaf tobacco commonly known as Gebhardt, Ohio Seedleaf, or Ohio Broadleaf, produced principally in the Miami Valley Section of Ohio and extending into Indiana.
( c ) *Type 43.* That type of cigar-leaf tobacco commonly known as Zimmer, Spanish, or Zimmer Spanish, produced principally in the Miami Valley Section of Ohio and extending into Indiana.
( d ) *Type 44.* That type of cigar-leaf tobacco commonly known as Dutch, Shoestring Dutch, or Little Dutch, produced principally in the Miami Valley Section of Ohio. Groups applicable to types 42, 43, and 44: X—Straight Stripped. N—Nondescript, as defined.
( e ) *Type 46.* That type of cigar-leaf tobacco commonly known as Puerto Rican Filler, produced principally in the inland and semicoastal areas of Puerto Rico.
Groups applicable to type 46: C—Strippers. X—Grinders. N—Nondescript, as defined. S—Scrap, as defined.