alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|  | (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. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                 |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Richard              Rappaport              |   |   |   |
| Richard              Rappaport                       |   |   |        |
| President              (Principal Executive Officer) |   |   |   |
|                                                               |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Anthony              C. Pintsopoulos                      |   |   |   |
| Anthony              C. Pintsopoulos                               |   |   |        |
| Chief              Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |   |   |   |

----
Brent Rouse Indiana Aerial Solutions LLC 5112 East Range Road Shelbyville, IN 46176

June 23, 2015
US Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590
Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing to you today to check onthe status ofa Section 333 Exemption request made by myselfonbehalfoflndiana Aerial Solutions LLC. According to regulations.gov it has been assigned a docket ID ofFAA-2015-0357. In reviewing the status ofapproved exemptions, it appears that applications submitted after mine are being approved. I am curious ifyou require additional information from me so that a decision can be made. I would greatly appreciate any update you canprovide. I canbe reached viathe mailing address listed above or can be reached at 317-512-1225. Sincerely,



# ~-"~~ Brent Rouse Owner
#### § 319.56-12 Importation of frozen fruits and vegetables.

Frozen fruits and vegetables may be imported into the United States in accordance with § 319.56-3. Such fruits and vegetables must be held in accordance with the requirements for importing frozen fruits and vegetables in part 305 of this chapter..

[72 FR 39501, July 18, 2007, as amended at 75 FR 4252, Jan. 26, 2010]
2006-0357.

#### Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Woods.

This matter is pending before the court upon Brian J. Woods’s objections to an order by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law requiring him to appear for a deposition before the Cleveland Bar Association’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee. The Cleveland Bar Association filed a motion for order to show cause why Woods should not be held in contempt for failing to appear at the deposition as ordered by the board.

It appearing to the court from the evidence presented that Woods has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the court orders the Cleveland Bar Association to show cause, through the production of evidence, within 20 days of the date of this order, why the complaint it has filed against him with the Board of the Unauthorized Practice of Law should not be dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., dissents.
§ 3201.111 Intermediates—Textile Processing Materials. ( a ) *Definition.* Intermediates—Textile Processing Materials are used to treat or finish textiles for the purposes of altering textile characteristics such as color, fading, wrinkle resistance, texture, or moisture management.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 22 percent, which 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.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 10, 2019, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased Intermediates—Textile Processing Materials. 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 Intermediates—Textile Processing Materials.
[83 FR 31848, July 10, 2018]
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





Each
of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Sino Gas
International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)
 The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q (“Report”) for the fiscal
period ended June 30, 2010 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:
August 16, 2010





/s/ Yuchuan LiuYuchuan
      LiuChief
      Executive Officer/s/ Yugang ZhangYugang
      ZhangChief
      Financial Officer
#### [The State ex rel.] Risien, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio; Cleveland Browns, Inc., Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Risien v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 332.]

(No. 96-2155

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 7, 1998.)

*Comrich, Katz & Comrich Co., L.P.A., Neil M. Comrich*and *Robert S. Gurwin,*for appellant.

*Dinn, Hochman & Potter, P.L.L., Irwin J. Dinn*and *Thomas A. Bami,*for appellee.

*Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, Robert S. Corker*and *Eric K Combs;*and *Harold G. Levison,*urging affirmance for *amici curiae,*Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. and National Football League Management Council.

*333The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41325

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EZEQUIEL ZAPATA-REYES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-00-CR-315-1

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

August 21, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ezequiel Zapata-Reyes (“Zapata”) appeals the 41-month

sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of

being found in the United States after deportation, a violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, he contends

that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) was an element of the offense

that should have been charged in the indictment.

Zapata acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the

Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
No. 00-41325

-2-

523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for

Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Zapata

has failed to demonstrate error, plain or otherwise. Dabeit, 231

F.3d at 983-84. The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
#### § 29.1166 Primings (P Group).

This group consists of round-tipped leaves from the lowest portion of the stalk. Leaves of the P group ripen prematurely as a result of starvation and show a material amount of injury characteristic of leaves grown close to the ground.

*Grades, Grade Names, Minimum Specifications, and Tolerances*

P2L—Fine Quality Lemon Primings

Prematurely ripe, open leaf structure, thin, oily, moderate color intensity. Uniformity, 75 percent; injury tolerance 25 percent, of which not over 10 percent may be waste.

P3L—Good Quality Lemon Primings

Prematurely ripe, open leaf structure, thin, lean in oil, weak color intensity. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance 40 percent, of which not over 20 percent may be waste.

P4L—Fair Quality Lemon Primings

Prematurely ripe, open leaf structure, thin, lean in oil, pale color intensity. Uniformity, 70 percent; tolerance, 30 percent waste.

P5L—Low Quality Lemon Primings

Prematurely ripe, open leaf structure, thin, lean in oil, pale color intensity. Uniformity, 70 percent; tolerance, 40 percent waste.

P2F—Fine Quality Orange Primings

Prematurely ripe, open leaf structure, medium body, oily, moderate color intensity. Uniformity, 75 percent; injury tolerance 25 percent, of which not over 10 percent may be waste.

P3F—Good Quality Orange Primings

Prematurely ripe, open leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil, weak color intensity. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance 40 percent, of which not over 20 percent may be waste.

P4F—Fair Quality Orange Primings

Prematurely ripe, open leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil, pale color intensity. Uniformity, 70 percent; tolerance, 30 percent waste.

P5F—Low Quality Orange Primings

Prematurely ripe, open leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil, pale color intensity. Uniformity, 70 percent; tolerance, 40 percent waste.

P4G—Fair Quality Green Primings

Immature, firm leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil. Uniformity, 70 percent; tolerance, 30 percent waste.

P5G—Low Quality Green Primings

Immature, firm leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil. Uniformity, 70 percent; tolerance, 40 percent waste.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984]
###### 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.

#### § 292.4 [Reserved]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2218 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain sawing machines. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2006 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 

sawing machines. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SAWING MACHINES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.84.91 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain manufacturing equipment) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•S 2218 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DILLON MCDOUGLAS BARR, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5455-MCR-HTC

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE FOOD AND

NUTIRITION SERVICES,

 Defendants.

__________________________________/

O R D E R

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

and Recommendation dated September 10, 2020. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was provided 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and 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 any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections 

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

adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05455-MCR-HTC Document 7 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5455-MCR-HTC

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with a Court order, and for 

failure to timely serve the Defendant under Rule 4(m).

2. The clerk is directed to close this file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of November 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05455-MCR-HTC Document 7 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 2
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

WILLIE LOUIS POPE Case No: 3:97CR6-03

USM No: 17102-056

Date of Previous Judgment: February 27, 1998 Darren J. Johnson, Assistant Federal Public Defender

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of : the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 9 the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

9 DENIED. : GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of 300 months is reduced to 242 months .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 38 Amended Offense Level: 36

Criminal History Category: III Criminal History Category: III

Previous Guideline Range: 292 to 365 months Amended Guideline Range: 235 to 293 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

: The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

9 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

9 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

All statutory sentencing factors were fully considered.

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated February 27, 1998 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: August 12, 2009 /s/ Roger Vinson

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Roger Vinson, Senior U.S. District Judge 

(if different from order date) Printed name and title
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Michael Horan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB (the “Annual Report”) of Dynatem, Inc. (the “Company”); 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Annual Report;

 

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and otherfinancial I, Michael Horan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that: 

 

3. Information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this AnnualReport; 

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officers and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Annual Report is being prepared;

 

(b) Omitted; 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Annual Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) Disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors: 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Dated: August 27, 2004
#### § 29.3646 Wrappers (A Group).

This group consists of leaves from the Heavy Leaf and the Thin Leaf groups. Cured leaves of the A group are very elastic, have small- to medium-sized and blending fibers, and show a low percentage of injury affecting wrapper yield.

| Grades | Grade names, minimum specifications, and tolerances |
| --- | --- |
| A1F | Choice Quality Medium-brown Wrappers. |
| | Ripe, medium body, open leaf structure, smooth, rich in oil, clear finish, deep color intensity elastic, spready, and 20 percent of leaves not lower than B2 or C2. |
| A2F | Fine Quality Medium-brown Wrappers |
| | Ripe, medium body, open leaf structure, smooth, rich in oil, clear finish, deep color intensity, elastic, spready and 30 percent of leaves not lower than B2 or C2. |
| A3F | Good Quality Medium-brown Wrappers. |
| | Ripe, medium body, open leaf structure, smooth, oily, clear finish, deep color intensity, elastic, normal width, and 40 percent of leaves not lower than B3 or C3. |
| A1R | Choice Quality Reddish-brown Wrappers. |
| | Ripe, medium body, open leaf structure, smooth, rich in oil, clear finish, deep color intensity, elastic, spready, and 20 percent of leaves not lower than B2 or C2. |
| A2R | Fine Quality Reddish-brown Wrappers. |
| | Ripe, medium body, open leaf structure, smooth, rich in oil, clear finish, deep color intensity, elastic, spready and 30 percent of leaves not lower than B2 or C2. |
| A3R | Good Quality Reddish-brown Wrappers. |
| | Ripe, medium body, open leaf structure, smooth, oily, clear finish, deep color intensity, elastic, normal width, and 40 percent of leaves not lower than B3 or C3. |

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965, as amended at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ex rel. A. EUGENE LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:02cv238-SPM

TOM ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff, having failed to respond to the Order to Shoe Cause (doc. 37), it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is dismissed without prejudice

for failure to serve process and failure to obey an order of the court. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of September, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-00238-SPM-AK Document 38 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 1
§ 319.40-8 Processing at facilities operating under compliance agreements. ( a ) Any person who operates a facility in which imported regulated articles are processed may enter into a compliance agreement to facilitate the importation of regulated articles under this subpart. The compliance agreement shall specify the requirements necessary to prevent spread of plant pests from the facility, requirements to ensure the processing method effectively destroys plant pests, and the requirements for the application of chemical materials in accordance with part 305 of this chapter. The compliance agreement shall also state that inspectors must be allowed access to the facility to monitor compliance with the requirements of the compliance agreement and of this subpart. Compliance agreement forms may be obtained from the Administrator or an inspector.
( b ) Any compliance agreement may be canceled by the inspector who is supervising its enforcement, orally or in writing, whenever the inspector finds that the person who entered into the compliance agreement has failed to comply with the conditions of the compliance agreement. If the cancellation is oral, the decision to cancel the compliance agreement and the reasons for cancellation of the compliance agreement shall be confirmed in writing, as promptly as circumstances permit. Any person whose compliance agreement has been canceled may appeal the decision in writing to the Administrator within 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 canceled. The Administrator shall grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for granting or denying the appeal, as promptly as circumstances permit. If there is a conflict as to any material fact and the person whose compliance agreement has been canceled requests a hearing, a hearing shall be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of practice concerning the hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0049) [60 FR 27674, May 25, 1995, as amended at 69 FR 52418, Aug. 26, 2004; 70 FR 33325, June 7, 2005]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr28-SPM

CLARENCE F. HOOKS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION OF MANDAMUS PETITION

This cause comes before the Court upon Defendant Hooks’ Motion for

Reconsideration (doc. 44) of the Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(doc. 43). To trigger review of the Government’s failure to file a substantial

assistance motion, a defendant must make a “substantial threshold showing” of

unconstitutional motive. United States v. McNeese, No. 08-10093, 2008 WL

4764804 (11th Cir. Nov. 3, 2008). Defendant has not made a substantial

threshold showing. Nor has Defendant demonstrated that his “right to issuance

of the writ is clear and indisputable,” In re BellSouth Corp., 334 F.3d 941, 953

(11th Cir. 2003), and that he has exhausted all other avenues of relief. Cash v. 

Case 4:03-cr-00028-MW-CAS Document 45 Filed 12/11/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:03cr28-SPM

Barnhart, 327 F.2d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: the Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 44) is

denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of December, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00028-MW-CAS Document 45 Filed 12/11/08 Page 2 of 2