alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/2/97 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. PABLO LUIS GOMEZ ANGARRA,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-6167 (D.C. No. CIV-95-441-A) (W.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , LOGAN and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 Defendant received some sentencing relief pursuant to his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. I R. doc. 47. We affirmed the denial of a second § 2255 motion. United States v. Gomez , No. 96-6225 (10th Cir. filed March 1, 1996). - 2 - Defendant Pablo Louis Gomez Angarra appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction in sentence. In this third effort to obtain a lower sentence, 1 defendant seeks the benefit of the “safety valve” provision of USSG § 5C1.2(1)-(5) providing for sentences below the mandatory statutory minimum in certain circumstances. Defendant is now serving the mandatory minimum term but raises various arguments why he qualifies for further relief. The government erroneously conceded that § 5C1.2, which became effective approximately two years after defendant’s original sentencing, may be applied retroactively. The district court did not discuss retroactivity, but concluded that defendant did not meet the § 5C1.2(5) criteria of truthful disclosure.A defendant may seek modification of a term of imprisonment when the Sentencing Commission later lowers the applicable sentencing range. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). A reduction in sentence, however, must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. § 3582(c)(2). The policy statement at§ 1B1.10(c) does not include Amendment 509, which added § 5C1.2, among the amendments to be applied retroactively. Therefore, we have held that § 5C1.2 may not be applied retroactively to a sentence entered before its effective date. United States v. Torres , 99 F.3d 360, 362-63 (10th Cir. 1996). Torres controls the determination of this appeal.- 3 -

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court James K. Logan Circuit Judge
# Documents in Support of a Significant New Use Rule for Premanufacture Notice (PMN) P-14-0875

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0220

# Table of Contents

1. Sanitized SAT Report for P-14-0875 2. Sanitized Engineering Report for P-14-0875 3. Sanitized Exposure Report for P-14-0875

# Sanitized SAT Report for P-14-0875POTW removal (%) = 0-25 via sorption and biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk Sorption to soils/sediments = low PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = moderate

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is good all routes, based on analogs. There are concerns for irritation to the eye, skin, lung, and mucous membranes, based on and concern for dermal sensitization based on submitted test data. Also concern for systemic developmental toxicity based on preliminary results of an OECD 422 study in rats with a N OAEL o f 30 mg/kg for systemic effects and 100 mg/kg for developmental toxicity.

Test Data: (-) ip mouse micronucleus assay; rat dermal LD0 = 2000 mg/kg; rat oral LD50 >300 and <2000 mg/kg; (-) in an in vitro Membrane Barrier Test for corrosion; (+) for skin sensitization in a mouse local lymph node assay as low as 2.5% ai; moderate skin irritation in rabbits

Ecotox :

Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 24 N AD N AD = not adequate daphnid 48-h LC50 2.9 N AD N AD = not adequate green algal 96-h EC50 2.3 N AD N AD = not adequate fish

_ chronic value 1.3 0.437 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.25 4.1

algal

_ chronic value 0.77

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for ; SAR chemical class = log Kow = 2.27 (EPI), 1.40 (M); S > 10 g/L (P); solid with mp = -9 C (M); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; DW hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC <2.0 mg/L;

For detail data review of acuted studies on p lease refer to attachment in PMN Gold below.

Ecotoxicity Test Data Results for

# Sanitized Engineering Report for P-14-0875

# Sanitized Exposure Report for P-14-0875
# 8.005 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 52.208-9, Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply and Services, in *solicitations* and contracts that require a contractor to provide *supplies* or services for Government use that are on the *Procurement* List maintained by the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. The *contracting officer**shall* identify in the contract schedule the *supplies* or services that *shall* be purchased from a mandatory source and the specific source.

**Parent topic:**Part 8 - Required Sources of Supplies and Services
# 9.108-4 Waiver.

Any *agency head**may* waive the prohibition in subsection 9.108-2 and the requirement of subsection 9.108-3 for a specific contract if the *agency head* determines *in writing* that the waiver is required in the interest of national security, documents the determination, and reports it to the Congress.

**Parent topic:**9.108 Prohibition on contracting with inverted domestic corporations.
#### § 29.2441 Scrap (S Group).

A byproduct of unstemmed and stemmed tobacco. Scrap accumulates from handling tobacco in farm buildings, warehouses, packing and conditioning plants, and stemmeries.

| U.S. grade | Grade name and specifications |
| --- | --- |
| S | Scrap. Tangled, whole, or broken unstemmed leaves, or the web portions of tobacco leaves reduced to scrap by any process. |
| ***Archives*                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| - Abstracts of Funded Research   2000   1999   1998   1997   1996
-            Annual Reports   2000   1999   1998   1997 1996                                                                                                          |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| NRI         PublicationsNRI Home

Send comments or questions         to: nricgp@reeusda.govupdate info:         July 30, 2002        by Jason HitchcockCSREES Home Page | CSREES         Search | About         CRGAM |CSREES Webmaster |
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rufus Copeland, Appellant, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: See *People ex rel. Dutcher v New York State Bd. of Parole*(71 AD2d 963, app dsmd 48 NY2d 799) and *People ex rel. Spinks v Dillon*(68 AD2d 368, app dsmd 48 NY2d 1025). Section 259-o of the Executive Law does not provide for final revocation hearings. Relator was serving a sentence in a foreign State for a crime committed there, and there was no way before the end of that commitment that he could have been returned to New York for a final revocation hearing. Relator was not in a “compact institution” and section 259-n (subd 1, par [d]) of the Executive Law has no application in this situation *(see People ex rel. Gonzales v Dalsheim,*76 AD2d 952). (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court— habeas corpus.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
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 June 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 |  | July 26, 2007
|                           |  |                                      
|/s/ Mark H. Collin         |  |                                       |  |              
|Mark H. Collin             |  | Chief Financial Officer               |  | July 26, 2007
|                           |  |                                      
|/s/ Laurence M. Brock      |  |                                       |  |              
|Laurence M. Brock          |  | Chief Accounting Officer              |  | July 26, 2007
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 1 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 2 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 3 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 4 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 5 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 6 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 7 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 8 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 9 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 10 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 11 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 12 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 13 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 14 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 15 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 16 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 17 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 18 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 19 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 20 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 21 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 22 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 23 of 24
Case 4:20-mc-00005-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 24 of 24
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL DUBOIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cv107-SPM

CHRISTA CALAMAS, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER CANCELLING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL

In light of the parties’ pending settlement, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the pretrial conference and trial are

cancelled.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00107-SPM-AK Document 197 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK

EDGAR ARNOLD GARCIA,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 135, Motion for Relief from Judgment, filed by

Defendant Edgar Garcia. In his motion, Defendant Garcia petitions the Court to reopen his

Motion to Vacate under § 2255, Doc. 83. Although Defendant goes to great lengths to fit his

motion within the language of Rule 60(b), it is clear that Defendant is again attempting to bring a

substantive claim that was presented in a prior application, thus rendering the instant motion an

unauthorized second or successive habeas corpus application. See Harris v. United States, 367

F.3d 74, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2004)(dismissing petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion alleging “excusable

neglect” as successive habeas corpus application where it sought relief from judgment because

habeas counsel had failed to raise a Sixth Amendment claim); Rodwell v. Pepe, 324 F.3d 66, 69

(1st Cir. 2003)(dismissing petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion alleging “newly discovered

evidence”); Dunlap v. Litscher, 301 F.3d 873, 876 (7th Cir. 2002)(dismissing petitioner’s Rule

60(b) motion raising other “reason justifying relief”). Because Defendant’s motion is an

unauthorized second or successive habeas petition, the Court is without jurisdiction to hear it. 

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641 (2005). Accordingly, Defendant Garcia’s

Motion for Relief from Judgment, Doc. 135, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK Document 136 Filed 03/11/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK Document 136 Filed 03/11/08 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

PAIGE KINNEY,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv269-MW/MJF

STRONG,

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Recommendation, ECF No. 18, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s 

objections, ECF No. 19.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 18, is accepted and adopted, over 

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

stating, “Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.” The 

Case 4:20-cv-00269-MW-MJF Document 20 Filed 03/30/21 Page 1 of 2
2

Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on March 30, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00269-MW-MJF Document 20 Filed 03/30/21 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register: August 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 163)]
[Notices]               
[Page 51978]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24au10-31]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

[Document Number: AMS-FV-08-0067, FV-08-327]

 
United States Standards for Grades of Pineapple Juice

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Standards for Grades of Pineapple Juice are 
corrected to include text inadvertently omitted from Tables I and II. 
The corrections restore text for limiting rules that were inadvertently 
omitted when the standards were last revised in 1987.

DATES: Effective Date: August 24, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lydia E. Berry, Processed Products 
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 0709, South Building; STOP 0247, 
Washington, DC 20250-0247; Telephone (202) 720-4693, fax (202) 690-
1087; or e-mail lydia.berry@ams.usda.gov. Corrected copies of the U.S. 
Standards for Grades of Pineapple Juice are located on the Internet at: 
http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.ams.usda.gov/processedinspection.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    A final rule was published in the Federal Register, 52 FR 40 6129, 
revising the United States Standards for Grades of Pineapple Juice. 
During this revision, text was omitted from Tables I and II which 
summarize the quality factors for each product. When the standards were 
revised, the text was simplified; however, references to limiting rules 
were inadvertently not included in the text of that revision.
    The United States Standards for Grades of Pineapple Juices as well 
as certain other fruit and vegetable standards no longer appear in the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Such U.S. standards were removed 
from the CFR in 1996 and are now subject to the procedures that appear 
in part 36, title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).
    These corrections restore the text for limiting rules to Tables I 
and II in the standards. The language of the limiting rules state that 
the product shall not be graded above ``U.S. Grade B'' if any of the 
quality factors--color, defects, or flavor score within the range for 
``U.S. Grade B;'' and the product shall not be graded above 
``Substandard'' if any of the quality factors--color, defects, or 
flavor score within the range for ``Substandard.''

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

    Dated: August 17, 2010.
Rayne Pegg,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. C1-2010-21030 Filed 8-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 4:02CR36-SPM/AK

JASEN ALLEN BADIA, 

Defendant. 

________________________

ORDER REQUIRING FILING OF TRANSCRIPT

On October 16, 2007, this § 2255 matter came before the Court for an evidentiary

hearing. To facilitate the Court’s ruling, a transcript of these proceedings is necessary. Counsel

for Defendant has also requested the right to file supplemental argument after he reviews the

transcript, and the Court will therefore set a scheduling order to that effect. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

That, no later than November 19, 2007, the court reporter, Christine Bordenave, shall file

the transcript of the proceedings conducted on this date before the undersigned and provide

copies to counsel of record for both parties;

That all costs of the transcript and copies shall be paid by the Clerk of Court;

That no later than December 3, 2007, Defendant may file a supplemental brief, if

appropriate and necessary;

That no later than December 17, 2007, the Government may file a supplemental

response, if appropriate and necessary.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2007.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:02-cr-00036-SPM-AK Document 124 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

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

     This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section
1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of
the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other
purpose.

     The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Orion HealthCorp,
Inc. (the "small business issuer"), hereby certifies as follows:

     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the small business issuer (the
"Report"), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the small
business issuer.

Dated this 10th day of May, 2006.

/s/ Terrence L. Bauer
------------------------------------------
Terrence L. Bauer, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the small business issuer and
will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 322.28 General requirements; restricted articles. ( a ) The following articles from any region are restricted articles: ( 1 ) Dead bees of any genus;
( 2 ) Beeswax for beekeeping; and
( 3 ) Honey for bee feed.
( b ) Restricted articles may only be imported into or transit the United States in accordance with this part.
#### In the Matter of Edward H. Cecere, Petitioner, v Edward V. Regan et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the State Comptroller. The petitioner was employed by the Family Court in Niagara County as a court stenographer when he fell, on June 17, 1976 while in the course of his employment, and injured his left ear. Prior to that time he had been totally deaf in his right ear, and based upon a loss of hearing in his left ear immediately following the June 17, 1976 accident, he applied for accidental and/or ordinary disability retirement. Following a hearing, the Comptroller denied the retirement benefits upon a finding that: "The credible medical evidence produced in this proceeding supports the determination of the State Comptroller that the applicant is not permanently incapacitated for the performance of his duties as a Court Stenographer or for similar duties, and also supports a conclusion that such hearing loss as does exist is not the result of the accident of June 17, 1976.” The record contains substantial medical testimony supporting the conclusion of the Comptroller that the petitioner is not permanently incapacitated from his duties and, therefore, is disqualified from benefits. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to review the question of whether or not there is any causal connection between the accident of June 17, 1976 and the petitioner’s hearing loss, and we do not consider that finding. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.