alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.510 Applicant eligibility. To be eligible to receive a grant, the applicant must: ( a ) Be an organization as defined in § 1944.506(e).
( b ) Have the financial, legal, administrative, and operational capacity to assume and carry out the responsibilities imposed by the grant agreement. To meet this requirement of actual capacity, it must either: ( 1 ) Have necessary background and experience with proven ability to perform responsibly in the field of low-income rural housing development and counseling, or other business management or administrative experience which indicates an ability to provide responsible technical and supervisory assistance; or
( 2 ) Be assisted by an organization which has such background experience and ability and which agrees in writing that it will provide, without charge, the assistance the applicant will need to carry out its responsibilities.
( c ) Legally obligate itself to administer TSA funds, provide an adequate accounting of the expenditure of such funds, and comply with the grant agreement and Rural Development regulations;
( d ) Demonstrate an understanding of the needs of low-income rural families;
( e ) Have the ability and willingness to work within established guidelines; and
( f ) If the applicant is engaged in or plans to become engaged in any other activities, it must be able to provide sufficient evidence and documentation that it has adequate resources, including financial resources, to carry on any other programs or activities to which it is committed without jeopardizing the success and effectiveness of its TSA project.
98-1452.

#### State v. Jacks.

Licking App. No. 97CA3. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
Case 5:19-cr-00068-TKW-MAL Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:19-cr-00068-TKW-MAL Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 6
Case 5:19-cr-00068-TKW-MAL Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 3 of 6
Case 5:19-cr-00068-TKW-MAL Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 4 of 6
Case 5:19-cr-00068-TKW-MAL Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 5 of 6
Case 5:19-cr-00068-TKW-MAL Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 6 of 6
§ 301.55-7 Assembly and inspection of regulated articles. ( a ) Any person (other than a person authorized to issue limited permits under § 301.555(c)) who desires a certificate or limited permit to move a regulated article interstate must request an inspector[1] to examine the articles as far in advance of the desired interstate movement as possible, but no less than 48 hours before the desired interstate movement.
( b ) The regulated article must be assembled at the place and in the manner the inspector designates as necessary to comply with this subpart.
[74 FR 27073, June 8, 2009, as amended at 87 FR 80008, Dec. 29, 2022] Footnotes -
301.55-7
[1] See footnote 1 in § 301.55-5.
§ 29.9407 Records and reports. ( a ) Each warehouse, on a designated market, shall provide the Secretary with any information that is requested on forms provided said warehouse by the Secretary.
( b ) Each warehouse shall keep records for a period of two years from the opening of the marketing season in which the tobacco is sold, and make available to the Secretary such records as are necessary for the Secretary to verify the information required by paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Failure to comply with the requirements of this section including but not limited to failure to provide information which is accurate, shall result in suspension of tobacco inspection services for a minimum of the equivalent of one sales day or until such time as the warehouse comes into compliance.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0581-0056) (44 U.S.C. 3506)
[46 FR 56156, Nov. 16, 1981, as amended at 47 FR 745, Jan. 7, 1982]
|  | Crossing Barriers in   Emergency Care of   Alcohol-Impaired Patients 

National Conference  Thursday, June 5, 2003Fairmont Hotel  Washington, D.C. sponsored by            
Enter
DOT HS 809 754         July 2004 |  |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Randolph Gress, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Innophos, Inc.
at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
Innophos Investments Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Innophos Investments Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: November 14, 2006



/s/ RANDOLPH GRESSRandolph GressChief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



60
§ 3.70 Scope. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart specify USDA procedures for the collection of a Federal employee's pay by salary offset to satisfy certain valid and past due debts owed the government.
( b ) This subpart applies to: ( 1 ) Current USDA employees and employees of other agencies who owe debts to USDA; and
( 2 ) Current USDA employees who owe debts to other agencies.
( c ) This subpart does not apply to debts owed by FSA county executive directors or non-Federal county office employees. For debts owed by FSA county executive directors or non-Federal county office employees to CCC or FSA, the salaries of these employees are subject to administrative offset not to exceed 15 percent of the employee's disposable pay. CCC and FSA will follow the notification requirements and procedures for collection by administrative offset as specified in 31 CFR part 285 and 31 U.S.C. 3716.
( d ) This subpart does not apply to debts or claims arising under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1-8023); the tariff laws of the United States; or to any case where collection of a debt by salary offset is explicitly provided for or prohibited by another law (for example travel advances in 5 U.S.C. 5705 or employee training expense in 5 U.S.C. 4108).
( e ) This subpart identifies the types of salary offset available to USDA, as well as certain rights provided to the employee, which include a written notice before deductions begin and the opportunity to petition for a hearing and to receive a written decision if a hearing is granted. The rights provided by this section do not extend to: ( 1 ) Any adjustment to pay arising out of an employee's election of coverage or a change in coverage under a Federal benefits program requiring periodic deductions from pay, if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over four pay periods or less;
( 2 ) A routine intra-agency adjustment of pay that is made to correct an overpayment of pay attributable to clerical or administrative errors or delays in processing pay documents, if the overpayment occurred within the four pay periods preceding the adjustment and, at the time of such adjustment, or as soon thereafter as practical, the individual is provided written notice of the nature and the amount of the adjustment and point of contact for contesting such adjustment; or
( 3 ) Any adjustment to collect a debt amounting to $50 or less, if, at the time of such adjustment, or as soon thereafter as practical, the individual is provided written notice of the nature and the amount of the adjustment and a point of contact for contesting such adjustment.
( f ) These regulations do not preclude an employee from: ( 1 ) Requesting waiver of an erroneous overpayment under 5 U.S.C. 5584, 10 U.S.C. 2774, or 32 U.S.C. 716;
( 2 ) Requesting waiver of any other type of debt, if waiver is available by law; or
( 3 ) Questioning the amount or validity of a debt, in the manner prescribed by this part.
( g ) Nothing in these regulations precludes the compromise, suspension or termination of collection actions where appropriate under USDA regulations contained elsewhere.
#### § 1280.230 Separability.

If any provision of the subpart is declared invalid or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this subpart, or the applicability thereof to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
#### § 29.2628 Rule 12.

The use of any grade may be restricted by the Director during any marketing season, when it is found that the grade is not needed or appears in insufficient volume to justify its use.
EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements and related Prospectuses of our report dated February 4, 1998, except
for Note 10 for which the date is February 13, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and the financial statements schedules of UNUM
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for the years
ended December 31, 1997, 1996, and 1995, which report is included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K:

        Form S-8 No. 33-31270 pertaining to the UNUM Employees 401(k) Plan
        (formerly the UNUM Employees Retirement Savings Plan and Trust)

        Form S-8 No. 33-19090 pertaining to the 1987 Executive Stock Option Plan

        Form S-8 No. 33-38225 pertaining to the 1990 Long-Term Stock Incentive
        Plan

        Form S-8 No. 33-52741 pertaining to the 1990 Long-Term Stock Incentive
        Plan (additional shares)

        Form S-3 No. 33-36873 pertaining to the 1990 Debt Securities

        Form S-3 No. 33-69132 pertaining to the 1993 Debt Securities, Preferred
        Stock, Common Stock and Warrants

        Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to Registration Statement on
        Form S-4 No. 33-55870 pertaining to the issuance of UNUM Corporation
        shares upon the exercise of stock options granted under the Colonial
        Plans as defined therein

        Form S-3 No. 333-08187 pertaining to the 1996 Debt Securities, Preferred
        Stock, Common Stock and Warrants

        Form S-8 No. 333-41917 pertaining to the 1998 Goals Stock Option Plan

        Form S-8 No. 333-41897 pertaining to the 1996 Long-Term Stock Incentive
        Plan




/s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Portland, Maine
March 10, 1998
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-64,101-08

EX P ARTE RODGY

LEE NESBY, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 9322G IN THE 33 DISTRICT COURT R D F ROM BURNET COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Tex as C o d e o f Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag gravated sexual assault and se ntence d to ninety -nine year s’ imprisonment. In his p r e s e nt a

p plication, Applicant raises four grounds. This application, howeve r, prese nts
a more serious question. This Court’s rec ords ref lect that Applicant has filed six prior applications perta ining to this conviction. It is obvious f rom the rec ord that Applicant continues to raise issues that have been presented and rejected in previous appli ca t i o ns or that s hould have been presented2

in previous ap p l ications. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be li ghtly or easily abused. Sanders

v. U.S. , 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr , 511 S.W .2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Be cause of his repe titive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claims are barr ed from revie w under Article 11.07, § 4, and ar e wa ived and a

bandoned by

his abuse of the writ. This application is dismiss ed. There fore , we instruct the Honora ble Abel Acosta, Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appea ls,
n o t to acc ept or file the instant application for a writ of habea s corpus, or any future appli ca t i o n perta ining to this conviction unless Applicant is able to show in such an application that any claims prese nted have not been raised previously and that they could not have been prese nted in a previous application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Bilton , 602 S.W .2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: Oc tober7, 2015 Do not publish
TS- CDBA22

Attachment # 8

Pt. 2, Sec. B, End

Worker /Occupational Exposure and Environmental Release Information on the New

Chemical Substance at Industrial Sites Controlled by Others
#### George Rudman, Appellant-Respondent, v. New York City Transit Authority, Respondent-Appellant.

Order, entered April 9, 1965, setting aside a jury verdict in the sum of $200,000, directing a new trial, and denying defendant’s motion for dismissal of the complaint or for a direction of a verdict, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the complaint, and the complaint is dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the defendant-respondent-appellant. The evidence is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff on the doctrine of last clear chance. Proof was lacking that the defendant had actual knowledge of plaintiff’s peril in time to avoid striking him. If we did not dismiss the complaint, we would affirm the order granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the *910weight of the evidence, grossly excessive, and on the further ground that the charge of the trial court on the doctrine of last clear chance was erroneous and prejudicial in that it enabled the jury to find liability in the absence of actual knowledge of plaintiff’s plight on the part of the motorman. *(Hernandez*v. *Brooklyn & Queens Tr. Corp.,*284 N. Y. 535; *Woloszynowski*v. *New York Cent. R. R. Co.,*254 N. Y. 206, 208; *Panarese*v. *Union Ry. Co.,*261 N. Y. 233.) Concur—Stevens, J. P., Eager, Tilzer, McNally and Witmer, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Baker, 7:20cv39

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 11

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Myers, Bryan (2019-12-13)

2. Merkley, LTC John (2020-02-26)

SO ORDERED, on this 14th day of June, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 169 Filed 06/14/21 Page 1 of 1
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2371 

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the good time 

credit toward service of sentences of imprisonment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2013 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to 

the good time credit toward service of sentences of imprisonment. 

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 ‘‘Prisoner Incentive Act 

5 of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GOOD TIME CREDIT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3624(b)(1) of title 18, 

8 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘, beyond the 

9 time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of 

10 the prisoner’s term of imprisonment, beginning at the end 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2371 IH

1 of the first year of the term,’’ and inserting ‘‘of up to 54 

2 days for each year of the prisoner’s sentence imposed by 

3 the court,’’. 

4 (b) RESTORATION OF CREDIT.—Section 3624(b)(1) 

5 is amended by striking the sentence beginning ‘‘Credit 

6 that has not been earned’’ and inserting ‘‘The Bureau may 

7 subsequently restore any or all credit previously denied, 

8 based on the prisoner’s maintaining good behavior as de9 termined by the Bureau.’’. 

10 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this 

11 section apply with respect to each prison sentence that has 

12 not been completed before the date of the enactment of 

13 this Act, except any sentence imposed before November 

14 1, 1987. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J

. S ., a child, * From the 91st District Court

of Eastland County,

Trial Court No. CV2146081

.

No. 11

- 2 3

- 00 010

- C V * June 15 , 20 2 3

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey

, C. J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that th ere is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the

order of the tr ia l court is in all things affirmed.
#### § 29.3126 Rule 23.

Tobacco shall be designated as No Grade, using the grademark, “No-G,” when it is dirty, offtype, semicured, needs to be reworked, damaged 20 percent or more, contains foreign matter, or has an odor foreign to the type.

[47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2306 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2306

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to treat infant 
         formula as adulterated if its use-by-date has passed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2013

   Ms. Meng introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to treat infant 
         formula as adulterated if its use-by-date has passed.

    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 ``Infant Formula Protection Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. EXPIRED INFANT FORMULA.

    (a) Adulteration.--Section 412 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350a) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``, or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) such infant formula's use-by date, as specified in 
        the formula's labeling in accordance with section 107.20 of 
        title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor 
        regulations) has passed.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
beginning on the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1710.402 Scope.

This subpart adapts and modifies, but does not supplant, the requirements for all borrowers set forth elsewhere where the purpose of the loan is to finance an approved EE program. In the event there is overlap or conflict between this subpart and the provisions of this part 1710 or other parts of the Code of Federal Regulations, the provisions of this subpart will apply for loans made or guaranteed pursuant to this subpart.
#### Margaret Hyatt, Respondent v. Pepsi-Cola Albany Bottling Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeals by defendants from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered upon a verdict in favor of plaintiff in an action for damages for breach of implied warranty of fitness for use. This action was brought by respondent to recover for personal injuries which she sustained when she “ observed a whole dead mouse ” in a bottle of Pepsi-Cola which she was drinking. The sole issues raised on this appeal relate to excessiveness of the verdict and the imposition of interest from the date of the incident. The verdict of $20,000 for the personal injuries for respondent was liberal but not so large as to be shocking and thus legally excessive. Respondent suffered an intestinal disorder for over a year, involving vomiting, nausea, stomach cramps, weakness, dizziness, nervousness and headaches. Lack of appetite resulted in a weight loss of almost 100 pounds and required constant medication. A rash appeared on her arms, face and neck, and some loss of hair occurred. She was hospitalized for a period of two weeks and required medical treatment for over a year. The issue of damages is factual and thus is essentially a jury determination. It is only where it can be said that a verdict is clearly excessive that interference with it is warranted. On the record, the jury’s determination must be upheld. Respondent concedes that the interest upon the verdict was improperly computed. Since this is a breach of warranty *575action, respondent was entitled to interest only from the date of the verdict and not from the date of the injury *(Gillespie*v. *Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.,*21 N Y 2d 823). The interest should be reduced to $39.96. Judgment modified, on the law, so as to reduce the interest to $39.96, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to respondent. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum *Per Curiam.*
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THECHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFGLOBAL PARTNERS LPPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2009 of Global Partners LP (the “Partnership”)and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Eric Slifka, President and Chief Executive Officer of Global GP LLC, thegeneral partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
| Dated:  November 6, 2009 | By:    |  /s/  Eric Slifka                 |
|------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                               |   | Eric  Slifka                           |
|                               |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                               |   | of  Global GP LLC, general partner     |
|                               |   | of Global Partners LP                  |

 

----