alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 205.600 Evaluation criteria for allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and ingredients. The following criteria will be utilized in the evaluation of substances or ingredients for the organic production and handling sections of the National List: ( a ) Synthetic and nonsynthetic substances considered for inclusion on or deletion from the National List of allowed and prohibited substances will be evaluated using the criteria specified in the Act (7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518).
( b ) In addition to the criteria set forth in the Act, any synthetic substance used as a processing aid or adjuvant will be evaluated against the following criteria: ( 1 ) The substance cannot be produced from a natural source and there are no organic substitutes;
( 2 ) The substance's manufacture, use, and disposal do not have adverse effects on the environment and are done in a manner compatible with organic handling;
( 3 ) The nutritional quality of the food is maintained when the substance is used, and the substance, itself, or its breakdown products do not have an adverse effect on human health as defined by applicable Federal regulations;
( 4 ) The substance's primary use is not as a preservative or to recreate or improve flavors, colors, textures, or nutritive value lost during processing, except where the replacement of nutrients is required by law;
( 5 ) The substance is listed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when used in accordance with FDA's good manufacturing practices (GMP) and contains no residues of heavy metals or other contaminants in excess of tolerances set by FDA; and
( 6 ) The substance is essential for the handling of organically produced agricultural products.
( c ) Nonsynthetics used in organic processing will be evaluated using the criteria specified in the Act (7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50777

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

CLOVIS JOSEPH SCHEXNAYDER,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:17-CR-106-1

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clovis Joseph Schexnayder pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex 

offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), and received a sentence of, inter 

alia, 46-months’ imprisonment. In his sole issue on appeal, he challenges the 

imposition of a six-level enhancement pursuant to Sentencing Guideline

§ 2A3.5(b)(1)(A) (applies if “defendant committed . . . a sex offense against 

someone other than a minor”), based on the district court’s finding he had 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 7, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50777 Document: 00514987857 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2019
No. 18-50777

2

committed a sex offense during the time he had failed to register. In that 

regard, Schexnayder asserts the court erred in its finding his involvement in 

that offense based on a preponderance of the evidence, rather than the 

reasonable-doubt, standard.

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the 

district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly 

calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 48–51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved 

objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. DelgadoMartinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues 

preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; 

its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). As discussed, only procedural 

error is claimed. 

“The sentencing judge is entitled to find by a preponderance of the 

evidence all the facts relevant to the determination of a Guidelines sentencing 

range.” United States v. Lewis, 476 F.3d 369, 389 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation 

omitted). This standard applies even if the issue involves defendant’s 

commission of another offense. See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 156–

57 (1997) (per curiam). Schexnayder concedes our court has rejected his 

contention in binding precedent (see Lewis), and raises the issue only in order 

to preserve it for possible further review. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-50777 Document: 00514987857 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20-cr-34-TKW

RICHARD L. SAUNDERS, IV

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the indictment. After 

cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects 

mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and 

the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of 

the essential elements thereof. I therefore recommend the plea of guilty be accepted 

and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: October 29, 2020

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00034-TKW Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:20-cr-34-TKW

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four (24) hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use 

only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 

3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00034-TKW Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMELL M. COOPER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv191-TKW-MAF 

JOHN DOE WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

/

OR D E R

This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 13). No objections to the Report and Recommendation 

were filed. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the case file, I 

agree with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case is due to be dismissed 

for failure to comply with a court order and for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

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

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the file.

Case 4:20-cv-00191-TKW-MAF Document 15 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00191-TKW-MAF Document 15 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Henry Heitman, Appellant, v Town of Cortlandt, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the Town of Cortlandt to accept an offer of dedication for a certain road in a subdivision, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 4, 1979, which dismissed the petition. Matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing to determine whether the Town of Cortlandt exercised *de facto*jurisdiction over the road in question. In lieu of a hearing, within 20 days after service upon the respondent of a copy of the order to be made herein, together with a notice of entry thereof, the parties may enter into a stipulation that the town in fact performed certain public functions with regard to said road. Appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Although the record is barren as to whether the Town of Cortlandt exercised *de facto*jurisdiction ovér the road in question, at oral argument counsel for both parties agreed that the town had performed such public services as garbage pickup and snow removal on the road. Accordingly, in order for this court to rule on the legal effect that such actions have on the towns refusal to accept the offer of dedication, a further record must be made. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01026-MP-AK

CHARLES L DAVIS,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 3426, Mr. Davis' motion for reconsideration. In

the motion, Mr. Davis moves the Court to reconsider the denial of his motions for downward

departure and/or variance from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines computation pursuant to United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and further requests that in reconsidering

the denial of these motions the Court craft a sentence for Mr. Davis proportionate to the terms of

imprisonment received by other co-defendants. Having reviewed the motion, the Court

determines that the matters raised now are essentially the same that were raised, considered, and

denied, at time of the sentencing. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of December, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01026-MP-AK Document 3450 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 1
98-1645.

#### Adams v. Money.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Randolph Gress, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Innophos, Inc. (the registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) for the registrant and have:

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

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants
other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

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

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                    |  |     |  |                                                                                  
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 11, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ RANDOLPH GRESS                                                               
|                    |  |     |  | Randolph Gress Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 32.01**

**Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350**

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Financial Officer  of Enable IPC Corporation (the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-QSB of the Company  for  the  quarter ended  September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934   and  that  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 13, 2006 

/s/ Anne Rhee, CMA 

Anne Rhee, CMA

Chief Financial Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge, **

District of Montana, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUDY HARRIS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

FRANK P. ALVARADO,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-16860

D.C. No. 1:03-cv-5690-OWW-DLB P

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Oliver W. Wagner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 5, 2010

San Francisco, California

Before: KLEINFELD and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,

** 

 District Judge.

Plaintiff Rudy Harris appeals from the district court’s grant of summary

judgment for Defendant Frank Alvarado, the only remaining defendant in this 42

U.S.C. § 1983 case. We review de novo, Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082

FILED

OCT 28 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

(9th Cir. 2003), and affirm for a different reason, see id. at 1076-77 (noting that we

may affirm on any ground supported by the record).

Even if we assume that Plaintiff can establish that Defendant fired him to

accomplish "ethnic balancing" and that doing so was unconstitutional, Defendant is

still entitled to qualified immunity. California Code of Regulations title 15, section

3041.1(a), instructs inmate work supervisors to take into account "ethnic balance,"

in addition to several other criteria, when assigning inmates to paid positions. 

Thus, Defendant was following an official regulation duly promulgated by

California’s Corrections Standards Authority. 

At the time of Plaintiff’s termination, we reviewed race-based prison

regulations only to see that they were "reasonably related to legitimate penological

interests," Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 873 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal

quotation marks omitted), rather than using strict scrutiny as the Supreme Court

later instructed in Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 504-05 (2005). To date, no

court has questioned the legality of California’s inmate hiring regulation or another

like it. In these circumstances, any right that Plaintiff had was not "clearly

established," Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009), so Defendant is

entitled to qualified immunity. Cf. Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200,

1209-10 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that a duly enacted city ordinance that explicitly
3

sanctions the conduct in question absolves an officer from knowing that his

conduct was unlawful, except when the ordinance so patently violates the

Constitution that a reasonable officer could not believe that it was permissible to

enforce it).

AFFIRMED.
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 Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Chunfeng Tao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(2)T he information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.








Date:  November 1, 2011





_/s/ Chunfeng Tao______________


Chunfeng Tao


Chief Executive Officer & Chairman
#### The People *ex rel.*Frank A. Johnson *et al. v.*Theodore H. Schintz.

*Opinion filed October 19, 1899.*

Attorneys at *law—an attorney guilty of larceny will be disbarred.*The name of an attorney who is shown to have been guilty of larceny will be stricken from the rolls upon information filed by the Attorney General.

Information for disbarment.

E. C. Akin, Attorney General, (Frank Asbury Johnson, of counsel,) for the relators.

Per Curiam:

This is an information by the Attorney General in the name of the Peoplé at the relation of five members of the bar of Cook county in this State, charging Theodore H. Schintz, the respondent herein, a practicing attorney in the city of Chicago, with fraudulent, dishonest, scandalous and unprofessional conduct, calculated to bring the courts of justice into disrepute and contempt and to tarnish the good name of the legal profession, and asking that an order be entered, striking his name- from the roll of attorneys of this court, and debarring him from the right to practice law. Rule to show "cause was entered. Answer was filed to the information. Commissioner was appointed to take testimony, which has been *575taken and returned into court. It sustains the charges against the respondent. Under a stipulation between the parties, the evidence taken in *Schintz*v. *People,*178 Ill. 320, has been introduced in this proceeding, and is a part of the record here. The facts are sufficiently stated in that case, and need not be repeated here. The proof shows that respondent has been guilty of larceny.

Let the rule be made absolute, and let an order be entered, striking the name of Theodore H. Schintz, the respondent herein, from the roll of attorneys of this court in accordance with the prayer of the information filed by the Attorney General.

*EuU made*a6soMe,
Second Department,

November, 1966**

(November 3, 1966)

#### In the Matter of Fred A. Torre, Petitioner, v. James C. Crane, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, et al., Respondents.

**

 Not published with other decisions of November, 1966, 26 A D 2d 933.— [Rep.

—Application by petitioner pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Justice appointing respondent Sullivan as Special Prosecutor or Special District Attorney to prosecute indictment 108/1964 (Richmond County), and for other related relief. Cross motion by respondents to dismiss the petition. Application denied and petition dismissed, without costs. Hill, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamn, JJ., concur.
# CI2021406EN.01000101.xml

| 8.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 406/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 406/1

---

Statement by the Commission

Regulation (EU) 2021/1755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2021 establishing the Brexit Adjustment Reserve (1) — Adoption of the legislative act

Further measures to protect the EU budget and Next Generation EU resources (NGEU) against fraud and irregularities by requiring an obligatory use of a single data-mining tool provided by the Commission

(2021/C 406 I/01)

In the Inter-institutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, as well as on new own resources, including a roadmap for the introduction of new own resources, points 30 to 33 require the Commission to make available an integrated and interoperable information and monitoring system including a single data-mining and risk-scoring tool to access and analyse the required data with a view to a generalised application by Member States. In addition, the three institutions agreed to sincerely cooperate, in the course of the legislative procedure relating to the relevant basic acts, to ensure the follow up to the European Council conclusions of July 2020 regarding this element.

The Commission considers that the agreement reached by the co-legislators under Article 13(1)(f) (responsibilities of Member States) on the use of a single data-mining tool and the collection and analysis of data on the beneficial owners of the recipients of funding is not sufficient to enhance the protection of the Union budget against fraud and irregularities and to ensure efficient checks on conflicts of interests, irregularities, issues of double funding, and criminal misuse of the funds. Therefore, the approach agreed by the co-legislators in the Brexit Adjustment Reserve Regulation does not appropriately reflect the desired ambition and spirit of the Inter-institutional Agreement.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/1755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2021 establishing the Brexit Adjustment Reserve (OJ L 357, 8.10.2021, p. 1).

---