alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 319.77-5 Disposition of regulated articles denied entry.

Any regulated article that is denied entry into the United States because it does not meet the requirements of this subpart must be promptly safeguarded or removed from the United States. If the article is not promptly safeguarded or removed from the United States, it may be seized, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of in accordance with section 414 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7714).

[64 FR 45866, Aug. 23, 1999, as amended at 66 FR 21057, Apr. 27, 2001]
#### § 29.3118 Rule 15.

Any lot of tobacco containing over 20 percent of variegated leaves shall be described as “variegated” and designated by the color symbol “K.”

[51 FR 40407, Nov. 7, 1986]
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.1 Establishment of the Department.

The Department of Agriculture was created by the Act of May 15, 1862, and by the Act of February 9, 1889, it was made an executive department in the Federal Government under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Agriculture (7 U.S.C. 2201, 2202, 2204).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE 205.6 OF THE

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE :

:

:

:

: NO. 722

CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1 st day of December, 2021 , upon the recommendation of the Civil

Procedural Rules Committee ; the proposal having been submitted without publication

pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. 103(a) :

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania

that Rule 205.6 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is amended in the atta ched

form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. 103(b), and shall be

effective January 1, 2022

.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
##### 



Exhibit 10.3
  
   Position
 Departmental Responsibilities
 Salary Grade / Base Annual Salary
 Annual Incentive Plan Eligibility
 Long-Term Incentive Eligibility
  Employee Benefits
 Vacation
 Pre-employment Screening
  nick.fletcher@acbl.net
  
 By signing below, I agree too accept employment with ACL under the terms outlined herein. I
acknowledge and agree that my employment with ACL does not breach any agreements with any other
employer and I further agree to maintain the secrecy of, and not to use in any way, any
confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets belonging to any other employer in the
performance of my duties for ACL. I understand and agree that this letter is provided for
information purposes only and does not guarantee employment for any definite duration. I
understand that I shall have the right to terminate my employment with ACL at any time for any
reason by providing ACL with reasonable notice and the Company shall have the same right to
discontinue my employment at any time for any reason.
 /s/ Tamra L. Koshewa

Tamra L. Koshewa
    
    
    
    June 28, 2006

Date
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 283.3 Definitions. As used in this part, the terms as defined in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2011-2032 (“Act”), and in the regulations, standards, instructions or orders issued thereunder, shall apply with equal force and effect. In addition, and except as may be provided otherwise in this section: *Administrator* means the Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”).
*ALJ* means any Administrative Law Judge in USDA appointed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3105 or detailed to the USDA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3344 and assigned to the appeal.
*Appeal* means the appeal to the ALJ.
*Ex parte communication* means an oral or written communication not on the public record with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given, but it shall not include procedural matters.
*Filing.* A pleading or other document allowed or required to be filed in accordance with this part shall be considered filed when postmarked, if mailed, or when received, if hand delivered.
*FNS* means the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
*Hearing* means that part of the appeal which involves the submission of evidence before the ALJ for the record in the appeal.
*Hearing Clerk* means the Hearing Clerk, USDA, Washington, DC 20250.
*Judicial Officer* means an official of the USDA delegated authority by the Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to the Act of April 4, 1940 (7 U.S.C. 450c-459g) and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 (5 U.S.C. 1970 ed., Appendix, P. 550), as amended by Public Law 97-35, title I, sec. 125, 95 Stat. 357, 369 (1981) (7 U.S.C. 2201 note), to perform the adjudicating function involved (7 CFR 2.35(a)), or the Secretary of Agriculture if the authority so delegated is exercised by the Secretary.
*OC claim* means a claim made pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2025(c).
*Secretary* means the Secretary of the USDA.
*State agency* means: ( 1 ) The agency of State government, including the local offices thereof, which is responsible for the administration of the federally aided public assistance programs within the State, and in those States where such assistance programs are operated on a decentralized basis, it includes the counterpart local agencies which administer such assistance programs for the State agency; and
( 2 ) The Indian tribal organization of any Indian tribe determined by the Secretary to be capable of effectively administering a SNAP in accordance with the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2011-2032.
§ 319.73-2 Products prohibited importation. ( a ) To prevent the spread of the coffee berry borer *Hypothenemus hampei* (Ferrari) and the fungus *Hemileia vastatrix* (Berkely and Broome), which causes an injurious rust disease, the following articles are prohibited importation into Hawaii and Puerto Rico, except as provided in § 319.73-3 of this subpart: ( 1 ) Unroasted coffee;
( 2 ) Coffee leaves; and
( 3 ) Empty sacks previously used for unroasted coffee.
( b ) The importation of any coffee plants (including bare seeds, seeds in pulp, and any other plant parts) that are for planting or capable of being planted is restricted under Subpart H—Plants for Planting of this part.
[63 FR 65650, Nov. 30, 1998, as amended at 83 FR 11866, Mar. 19, 2018; 84 FR 2429, Feb. 7, 2019]
#### Sidney Dulman, Doing Business as Bakers Machinery Company, Respondent, v Potomac Baking Co., Inc., Appellant.

an action to recover damages for breach of contract, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered August 15, 1979, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Action remanded to Special Term to hear and report on the factual issues underlying jurisdiction, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim (see *Dutton Lbr. Corp. v Van Ness Lbr. Co.,*54 AD2d 723). Plaintiff Dulman, a New York resident, sells bakery machinery. The defendant is a Maryland corporation to which the plaintiff sold an oven and other bakery equipment in late 1977 and early 1978. Plaintiff claims that the amount of $77,400 remains unpaid on all the machinery which he sold to the defendant. To assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant, plaintiff relies on CPLR 302 (subd [a], par 1) which requires that a stated cause of action arise from the transaction of business within New York. However, there are issues of fact pertaining to the extent of business transacted within the State of New York regarding two alleged agreements, which preclude the resolution of the jurisdictional question without a hearing. The affidavits of the parties conflict most prominently with respect to a trip allegedly made by one of defendant’s principals to Bridgeport, Connecticut, to inspect equipment located there, and thence to Yonkers, where the sale of $79,400 worth of equipment was allegedly negotiated in plaintiff’s offices. In addition, defendant, in its papers, attempts to separate the sale of an oven from the sale of the other equipment (cf. 6 Williston, Contracts [3rd ed], § 863) in order to enable it to argue that there must be sufficient New York acts as to each cause of action and that such acts are lacking here. These and related matters should be examined at Special Term. Mollen P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO.: 1:88cr1026-MW/GRJ-6

JOSE ELIAS SEPULVEDA,

Petitioner/Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 3560, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s 

objections to the report and recommendation, ECF No. 3561. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Petitioner’s 

objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, 

“Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Void and Default Judgment Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), ECF No. 3556, is DISMISSED for lack of 

jurisdiction. In the alternative, the motion is DENIED as untimely. A Certificate of 

Appealability is DENIED.” The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on October 13, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01026-MW-GRJ Document 3562 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2
2

Case 1:88-cr-01026-MW-GRJ Document 3562 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                               BERNARD CHAUS, INC.
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                  In connection with the Annual Report of Bernard Chaus, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

o    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

o    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


September 8, 2003

                                  /s/ Josephine Chaus
                                  ------------------------------------
                                  Josephine Chaus
                                  Chairwoman of the Board and
                                  Chief Executive Officer
#### § 301.85-8 Inspection and disposal of regulated articles and pests.

Any properly identified inspector is authorized to stop and inspect, and to seize, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, or require disposal of regulated articles and golden nematodes as provided in sections 414, 421, and 434 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7714, 7731, and 7754) in accordance with instructions issued by the Deputy Administrator.

[37 FR 24330, Nov. 16, 1972, as amended at 66 FR 21052, Apr. 27, 2001]
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Neil I. Salmon, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (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, Inc. and will be retained by
Innophos, 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: August 3, 2010



/S/ NEIL I.
SALMONNeil I. Salmon
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2473 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2473

To amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to 
         prohibit the preemption of State identity theft laws.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 2013

Mr. Price of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Bentivolio, Mr. Bishop of Utah, 
  Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Pitts, Mr. 
    Westmoreland, and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
 the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and 
   Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to 
         prohibit the preemption of State identity theft laws.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.

    The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new section:
    ``Sec. 20.  Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt a law 
of any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia that prohibits, 
criminalizes, or creates a civil cause of action for identity theft or 
the release of an individual's personally identifiable information.''.

SEC. 2. RAILWAY LABOR ACT.

    Title I of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 16. CONFLICTS WITH STATE IDENTITY THEFT LAWS.

    ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt a law of any 
State, Territory, or the District of Columbia that prohibits, 
criminalizes, or creates a civil cause of action for identity theft or 
the release of an individual's personally identifiable information.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

	In connection with the Quarterly Report of Third-Order
Nanotechnologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harold R. Bennett,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (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 14, 2007

                                /s/ Harold R. Bennett
                                ------------------------------------
                                Harold R. Bennett, CEO
                                Third-Order Nanotechnologies, Inc.
§ 301.91-6 Compliance agreement 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 regulated articles under this subpart.[1] The compliance agreement shall be a written agreement between a person engaged in such a business and Plant Protection and Quarantine, wherein the person agrees to comply with the provisions of this subpart and any conditions imposed pursuant thereto.
( b ) Any compliance agreement may be cancelled orally or in writing by the inspector who is supervising its enforcement whenever the inspector finds that such person has failed to comply with the provisions of this subpart or any conditions imposed pursuant thereto. If the cancellation is oral, the decision and the reasons therefor shall be confirmed in writing, as promptly as circumstances permit. Any person whose compliance agreement has been cancelled may appeal the decision, in writing, to the Deputy Administrator within ten (10) days after receiving written notification of the cancellation. The appeal shall state all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the compliance agreement was wrongfully cancelled. The Deputy Administrator shall grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for such decision, as promptly as circumstances permit. If there is a conflict as to any material fact, a hearing shall be held to resolve such conflict. Rules of Practice concerning such a hearing will be adopted by the Deputy Administrator.
[49 FR 18992, May 4, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 67609, Dec. 30, 1994; 87 FR 80018, Dec. 29, 2022] Footnotes -
301.91-6
[1] Compliance agreement forms are available without charge from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Domestic and Emergency Operations, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1236, and from local offices of the Plant Protection and Quarantine. (Local offices are listed in telephone directories).
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHighly reusable space transportation: Approaches for reducing ETO launch costs to $100 - $200 per pound of payloadThe Commercial Space Transportation Study (CSTS) suggests that considerable market expansion in earth-to-orbit transportation would take place if current launch prices could be reduced to around $400 per pound of payload. If these low prices can be achieved, annual payload delivered to low earth orbit (LEO) is predicted to reach 6.7 million pounds. The primary market growth will occur in communications, government missions, and civil transportation. By establishing a cost target of $100-$200 per pound of payload for a new launch system, the Highly Reusable Space Transportation (HRST) program has clearly set its sights on removing the current restriction on market growth imposed by today's high launch costs. In particular, achieving the goal of $100-$200 per pound of payload will require significant coordinated efforts in (1) marketing strategy development, (2) business planning, (3) system operational strategy, (4) vehicle technical design, and (5) vehicle maintenance strategy.Document ID19960007723Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsOlds, John R.*(North Carolina State Univ. Raleigh, NC, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1995Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-199561NIPS-95-05542NAS 1.15:199561Accession Number96N14889Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960007723.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.544 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TRACE BECKFORD,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv202–WS/HTC

SEC’Y, STATE OF FLA.,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 5) docketed July 10, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that this case be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and

failure to comply with a court order. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the report

and recommendation. 

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 5) is adopted

Case 4:20-cv-00202-WS-HTC Document 6 Filed 08/12/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint and this action are hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to comply with a court order, and

failure to prosecute the case.

3. The clerk is directed to enter judgment, stating: "All claims are dismissed

without prejudice."

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of August , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00202-WS-HTC Document 6 Filed 08/12/20 Page 2 of 2
*Pursuant to 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41385 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT DWAYNE WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-22-ALL Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Robert Dwayne Walker appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Walker argues that the district court erred in increasing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) and that the enhancement violated the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). However, Walker knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, the Government seeks2

to enforce the waiver, Walker’s sentencing claim does not fall within any of the exceptions to the appeal waiver, and the plain language of the waiver bars this appeal. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED .