alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 380.1 Scope and applicability of rules of practice. ( a ) The Uniform Rules of Practice for the Department of Agriculture promulgated in subpart H of part 1, subtitle A, title 7 CFR are the Rules of Practice applicable to adjudicatory administrative proceedings under the following statutory provisions: ( 1 ) The Plant Protection Act, section 424 (7 U.S.C. 7734),
( 2 ) Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1973, as amended, section 11(a), 16 U.S.C. 1540(a), and
( 3 ) Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, as amended, section 4(a) and (b), (16 U.S.C. 3373 (a) and (b)).
( b ) In addition, the Supplemental Rules of Practice set forth in subpart B of this part are applicable to such proceedings.
[66 FR 21061, Apr. 27, 2001]
#### § 331.2 Purpose and scope.

This part implements the provisions of the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002 setting forth the requirements for possession, use, and transfer of select agents and toxins. The biological agents and toxins listed in this part have the potential to pose a severe threat to plant health or plant products.
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 Unitil Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned Robert G. Schoenberger, Chief Executive Officer and President, Mark H. Collin, Chief Financial
Officer and Laurence M. Brock, Chief Accounting Officer, certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, 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) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                  |  |                                       |  |                 
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|Signature                                         |  | Capacity                              |  | Date            
|                                                  |  |                                      
|/s/ Robert G. Schoenberger Robert G. Schoenberger |  | Chief Executive Officer and President |  | October 26, 2007
|                                                  |  |                                      
|/s/ Mark H. Collin Mark H. Collin                 |  | Chief Financial Officer               |  | October 26, 2007
|                                                  |  |                                      
|/s/ Laurence M. Brock Laurence M. Brock           |  | Chief Accounting Officer              |  | October 26, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Evan Zeldes, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 26,1979, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, forgery in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree (two counts), and unauthorized use of a vehicle, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. As the People commendably concede, the numerous errors contained in the court’s charge to the jury served to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Additionally, we note that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence some 10 allegedly stolen credit cards found in the car in which defendant was riding as well as testimony concerning their ownership. Those cards were not the subject of any of the counts contained in the indictment and the probative value of this evidence was outweighed by its potential for confusion and prejudice. Under the posture of the evidence at this trial, the trial court also erred in failing to submit to the jury the question whether the witness Ogbotiti was an accomplice, and in failing to provide the jury with instructions concerning corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony, pursuant to CPL 60.22, had it been determined that he was an accomplice. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v. Case No. 3:20cr41-MCR

CEDRIC DESHAWN MCPHERSON

/

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: January 26, 2021.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00041-MCR Document 22 Filed 01/26/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr41-MCR

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-00041-MCR Document 22 Filed 01/26/21 Page 2 of 2
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 March 31, 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: May 11, 2006 |  |                                                                   
|                   |  | /s/ RANDOLPH GRESS                                                
|                   |  | Randolph Gress                                                    
|                   |  | Chief 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.
#### § 3565.256 Architectural services.

Architectural services must be provided for the project in accordance with 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A or successor regulation, including plan certifications.
#### § 3565.107 [Reserved]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20

- 0 293 Filed May 13, 2020

IN THE INTEREST OF G.C. , Minor Child, E.C ., Mother, Appellant, S.C. , Father, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker , District Associate Judge.
Parents separately appeal a permanency order transferring guardianship and custody of their child to a suitable other

. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Julie A. Forsyth of Forsythe Law Office, PLLC, Winterset, for appellant
mother. Bryan J. Tingle, Des Moines , for appellant father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Tara M. Elcock of Elcock Law Firm, PLC, Indianola, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J. , and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.2

MULLINS, Judge

. Parents separately appeal a perman ency order transferring guardianship and custody of their child, born in 2004, to a suitable other pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(d)(1) (2018) . Both parents argue the court should have instead directed the State to institute termination proceedi ngs under section 232.104(2)(c). In other words, the parents wish for their parental rights to be terminated. The child objects to termination, and the State and guardian ad litem believe termination would not be in the best interests of the child.
Fol lowing a permanency hearing, the court is required to take one of various
actions. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2). Those actions include, among others, transferring guardianship and custody of the child to suitable others or directing the State or child’s at torney to initiate termination proceedings. Id. § 232.104(2)(c), (d)(1), (3). An order for the former requires a judicial determination that such an arrangement would be the best permanency plan for the child. See id. § 232.104(3). Determining the best permanency plan for a child is a best

- interests assessment. Likewise, clear and convincing evidence must show that termination would be contrary to the child’s best interests, services were offered to alleviate the need f or removal, and the child cannot be returned to the parental home. Id. § 232.104(4). Upon our de novo review, see In re K.C. , 660 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa 2003), we agree with the juvenile court that transfer of guardianship to suitable others is the best pe rmanency option, termination would be contrary to the child’s best interests, services were offered to alleviate the need for removal, and the child3

cannot be returned to the parental home. We affirm without further opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21. 26(1)(d) and (e). AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3400

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3400 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3400.10 Establishment and operation of peer review groups.

Subject to § 3400.5, the Director will adopt procedures for the conduct of peer reviews and the formulation of recommendations under § 3400.14.
§ 3565.103 Approval requirements. The Agency will establish and maintain a “list of approved lenders”. To be an approved lender, eligible lenders must meet the following requirements and maintain them on a continuing basis at a level consistent with the nature and size of their portfolio of guaranteed loans. ( a ) *Commitment.* A lender must have a commitment for a guaranteed loan or an agreement to purchase a guaranteed loan.
( b ) *Audited statement.* A lender must provide the Agency with an annual audited financial statement conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
( c ) *Previous participation.* A lender may not be delinquent on a federal debt or have an outstanding finding of deficiency in a federal housing program.
( d ) *Ongoing requirements.* A lender must meet the following requirements at initial application and on a continuing basis thereafter: ( 1 ) Overall financial strength, including capital, liquidity, and loan loss reserves, to have an acceptable level of financial soundness as determined by a lender rating service (such as Sheshunoff, Inc.); or to be an approved Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or HUD Federal Housing Administration multifamily lender; or, if a state housing finance agency, to have a top tier rating by a rating agency (such as Standard and Poor's Corporation);
( 2 ) Bonding and insurance to cover business related losses, including directors and officers insurance, business income loss insurance, and bonding to secure cash management operations;
( 3 ) A minimum of two years experience in originating and servicing multifamily loans;
( 4 ) A positive record of past performance when participating in RHS or other federal loan programs;
( 5 ) Adequate staffing and training to perform the program obligations; the head underwriter must have 3 years of experience and all staff must receive annual multifamily training;
( 6 ) Demonstrated overall financial stability of the business over the past five years;
( 7 ) Evidence of reasonable and prudent business practices for management of the program; and
( 8 ) No negative information on Dunn & Bradstreet or similar type report.
[63 FR 39458, July 22, 1998, as amended at 64 FR 32372, June 16, 1999; 70 FR 2931, Jan. 19, 2005; 76 FR 4, Jan. 3, 2011]
# L_2021131EN.01000301.xml

| 16.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 131/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 131/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/615

of 7 April 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Taşköprü Sarımsağı’ (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Turkey’s application to register the name ‘Taşköprü Sarımsağı’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Turkey’s application to register the name ‘Taşköprü Sarımsağı’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Taşköprü Sarımsağı’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Taşköprü Sarımsağı’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Taşköprü Sarımsağı’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6 – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 April 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 436, 17.12.2020, p. 25.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
F1LED IN ' tl e COURT OF CRIMINAL APH^LS

NOV 20 'ZU'it)

^Qj^ii^ooigBrC^

7 d&Hl

\\~H^' if

oq-m-QQQ87-cR.

CoiffiA 0FCKLMTM1 :R??h/U3

A^<TTil T-x/A^ RECEIVED IN

^ACDb?GD\lofs\ -NOtiajltiv..

TVte&lKTgQF )gXA5. AcostaTCIerk From AypeoA K\P. M-^-QQOSB -£V

Abrt Acosta, Clerk _JfeLfcLL^^jiQ^_^M&MlK

70Tflg HoxirRf&lb 3bfc6sOF T^COcfKT OF 6RjMiMftL^5*L5

-fer^^jr^vooo^Ll V^fvejLoXa Support f£-\Vvif> cnoViftO ,

W :o11ql^ahq^

X.

3i£^&!btx^^

JL

The prc^rtfc oWdtW-,-§pcJik\Qg^^

k^Wvao 6 (SO)rW^ '——^
^jp^oL

V\Q\\Lkj5.

rarytaejOcVW

|T)\^o ffjtvmn |Vi^\<\ Ci^ )AQ.Cft ~<*f- 0QO88<gJlQ3i^mQg2iOg

E"fe£Aifte, on ftvAOf>Vffi.3Q/S^^

T^ftS79^taad-^^<yJb^rAa\iV2l FH2M1 ttonfcujlltJtriwD

•Wnexe, ^a \rrvn6VV '\Vs(g£dWx>r \ockAol^o A A\odWcWA &&C£Sf>Ao

Lph,vLvVyryo| Vru^vo w>as &e5^txrfczr te,£0|S"aural on <kj^ayhjrirL__

Jn\< JrKo. officio!l^otot'W (LoocVOF£RlMXKifr.Lft2gEAL^>_QF

TEXAS T> D.?£))L\3 SSOR. r^vUSVfrtiflrL,f^ri.TEXftS 'l8HLJ£kr .
oq-iM-OOOfrT-CJil

\t&^l^e^x^r^^

60SViCrl-(\^-VoUfrOaQ T^\V[Vgfo<\

Saxhorn i)n;f

T&^r^iqi^an i

Uxi<L,Wk{ J<xpcS 15861

mxifc.

1>j4fpnejr;.firQbc
#### §§ 3570.285-3570.299 [Reserved]
Exhibit 10.9


 


Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation
Arrangements


 


                Each director of IAC who is not an employee of IAC or
any of its businesses receives an annual retainer of $30,000.  The chairpersons of the Audit and
Compensation/Benefits Committees and every member of the Audit Committee
(including the Chairperson) each receive an additional annual retainer of
$10,000 and every member of the Compensation/Benefits Committee (including the
Chairperson) receives an additional annual retainer of $5,000.


                IAC also pays each of these directors $1,000 for each
IAC Board and Board Committee meeting attended, plus reimbursement for all
reasonable expenses incurred by a director as a result of attendance at any of
these meetings.  In addition, directors
who are not employees of IAC or any of its businesses receive a grant of 7,500
restricted stock units (or such lesser number of restricted stock units with a
dollar value of $250,000) upon their initial election to office and annually
thereafter on the date of IAC’s annual meeting of stockholders at which the
director is re-elected.  These restricted
stock units vest in three equal annual installments commencing on the first
anniversary of the grant date.


                Under IAC’s Deferred Compensation Plan for
Non-Employee Directors, non-employee directors may defer all or a portion of
their annual retainer and meeting fees. 
Eligible directors who defer their directors’ fees can elect to have
such deferred fees applied to the purchase of share units, representing the
number of shares of IAC Common Stock that could have been purchased on the
relevant date, or credited to a cash fund. 
If any dividends are paid on IAC Common Stock, dividend equivalents will
be credited on the share units.  The cash
fund will be credited with deemed interest at an annual rate equal to the
weighted average prime lending rate of JPMorgan Chase Bank.


                Upon termination, a director will receive
(1) with respect to share units, such number of shares of IAC Common Stock
as the share units represent and (2) with respect to the cash fund, a cash
payment.  Payments upon termination will
be made in either one lump sum or up to five installments, as previously
elected by the eligible director at the time of the related deferral election.
Case 5:02-cv-00136-MP Document 5 Filed 05/21/02 Page 1 of 1
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11547 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

–

Appellee ,

v.
DUSTIN RAY LEONARD , Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:18

- CR

- 55

- 1

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dustin Ray Leonard has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Leonard h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 July 5, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11547 Document: 00515022594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2019No. 18

- 11547

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw
is GRAN TED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-11547 Document: 00515022594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2019
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. 4:02-cr-36-SPM-AK

JASEN ALLEN BADIA,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on the Government’s motion for extension of time to file

a response to Defendant’s § 2255 motion to vacate. Doc. 93. For good cause shown, the Court

finds the motion is well taken, and it is GRANTED. The Government shall file its response to

the motion to vacate no later than August 11, 2005.

2. That if review of the PSR is necessary, the Probation Office shall allow counsel for

the Government to review the PSR upon request.

3. That Defendant shall have until September 12, 2005, to file a response, if desired.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14 th day of July, 2005.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:02-cr-00036-SPM-AK Document 94 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Zoo Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q/A”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  May 16, 2011





/s/ Mark SeremetMark SeremetPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





Date:  May 16, 2011





/s/ David FremedDavid FremedChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)