alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 52.24 Where to file for an appeal inspection and information required. ( a ) Application for an appeal inspection may be filed with: ( 1 ) The supervisor in the office that issued the inspection certificate on which the appeal covering the processed product is requested; or
( 2 ) The inspector in charge of the office of inspection at or nearest the place where the processed product is located.
( b ) The application for appeal inspection shall state the location of the lot of processed products and the reasons for the appeal; and date and serial number of the certificate covering inspection of the processed product on which the appeal is requested, and such application may be accompanied by a copy of the previous inspection certificate and any other information that may facilitate inspection. Such application may be made orally (in person or by telephone), in writing, or by telegraph. If made orally, written confirmation shall be made promptly.
[22 FR 3535, May 22, 1957. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977 and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, and amended at 51 FR 20439, June 5, 1986]
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Annual  Report of  Transnational  Industries,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A-1  for the period ended  January 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Jonathan A. Shaw,  President  and 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.


/s/ Jonathan A. Shaw
--------------------
Jonathan A. Shaw
President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 30, 2003

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Transnational Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Transnational
Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### § 54.9 Withdrawal of application or request for service.

An application or a request for service may be withdrawn by the applicant at any time before the application is approved or prior to performance of service. In accordance with §§ 54.27 and 54.28, any expenses already incurred by AMS in connection with the review of an application or fulfilling a request for service are the responsibility of the applicant.

[84 FR 48556, Sept. 16, 2019]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RHONDA FLEMING,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 4:20-cv-545-WS/MJF

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Frank on July 20, 26, & August 5, 2021

Motion/Pleadings: Motions for Notice of Interested Party

Filed by Nonparties on July 19, 23, & August 5, 2021 Docs. # 48, 49, 50, 51

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS,

CLERK OF COURT

s/ Jeremy Wright, Deputy Clerk

Upon consideration, the “Motion[s] for Notice of Interested Party” (Docs. 48, 

49, 50, 51) are DENIED without prejudice for lack of a demonstration of good 

cause.

SO ORDERED this 5th day of August, 2021.

/s/ Michael J. Frank

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00545-WS-MJF Document 52 Filed 08/05/21 Page 1 of 1
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE

TO THE 76TH DISTRICT COURT OF MORRIS COUN TY, GREETINGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 9th day of April, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined;
and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Rashad Lee, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 14

- 00112

- CR

Trial Court No. 10,947CR

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error related to the judgment of
conviction entered in this matter

. Because we lack jurisdiction to hear appellant’s point of error concerning the trial court’s Order to Withdraw Funds, we dismiss his second point of error for want of jurisdiction. We note that the appellant, Rashad Lee, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said C ourt in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 14th day of October , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
#### § 51.1531 Sunscald.

“Sunscald” means injury caused by the sun in which softening or collapse of the flesh is apparent.
22.1407 Actions because of noncompliance.

The contracting officer shall take necessary action, as soon as possible upon notification by the

appropriate agency official, to implement any sanctions imposed on a contractor by the Department

of Labor for violations of the clause at 52.222-36, Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities.

These sanctions (see 41 CFR60-741.66) may include-

(a) Withholding from payments otherwise due;

(b) Termination or suspension of the contract; or

(c) Debarment of the contractor.

Parent topic: Subpart 22.14 - Employment of Workers with Disabilities
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1114

Filed April 22, 2015

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CHRISTOPHER R. MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A. Greve, 

Judge.

A defendant appeals the district court’s dismissal of his motion to correct

an illegal sentence and application for appointment of counsel. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, 

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney

General, Michael Walton, County Attorney, and Jerald Feuerbach, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellee.

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

VAITHESWARAN, P.J.

Christopher Martin pled guilty to second-degree theft and second-degree 

robbery. The district court imposed sentence, ordering his Iowa sentences to be 

served consecutively and also ordering them to run concurrently with a sentence 

imposed on a separate crime in Illinois. The court later clarified Martin should 

receive credit for time served in Illinois. 

Five years later, Martin filed a motion to correct illegal sentence. He 

asserted (1) the district court lacked “authority or jurisdiction of the case” 

because of a statute of limitations violation and (2) he understood his plea 

agreement would allow “all of his Illinois and Iowa prison time” to run 

concurrently. Martin simultaneously filed an application for appointment of 

counsel. The district court summarily denied the motions, reasoning the issues 

raised in the motion to correct illegal sentence were “previously dealt with.”

On appeal, Martin asserts the district court “erroneously denied [him] the 

right to counsel on his motion for correction of an illegal sentence.” He cites the 

United States and Iowa Constitutions as well as Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 

2.28(1). 

To be an “illegal” sentence, “the sentence must be one not authorized by 

statute.” Tindell v. State, 629 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Iowa 2001). Martin’s motion 

was not truly a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The motion raised a statute 

of limitations concern and a concern about his understanding of and reliance on 

the plea agreement. Neither implicates the legality of the sentence. See State v. 

Wilson, 294 N.W.2d 824, 825 (Iowa 1980) (suggesting rule on correction of illegal 

sentences “is directed to excision of sentences insofar as they were beyond the 
3

jurisdiction of the court and therefore void”). Because the issues Martin raised 

could not be described as a challenge to the legality of the sentence, we need 

not address the question of whether a right to counsel attaches to a motion to 

correct an illegal sentence. See State v. Trueblood, No. 13-0687, 2014 WL 

636167, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2014).

We affirm the district court’s summary dismissal of Martin’s motion to 

correct illegal sentence.

AFFIRMED.
§ 51.2556 Grades. ( a ) “U.S. Fancy,” “U.S. Extra No. 1,” and “U.S. No. 1” consist of pistachio kernels which meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Well dried, or very well dried when specified in connection with the grade.
( 2 ) Free from: ( i ) Foreign material, including in-shell nuts, shells, or shell fragments.
( 3 ) Free from damage by: ( i ) Immature kernels;
( ii ) Kernel spotting; and
( iii ) Other defects.
( 4 ) Free from serious damage by: ( i ) Mold;
( ii ) Minor insect or vertebrate injury;
( iii ) Insect damage;
( iv ) Rancidity;
( v ) Decay; and,
( vi ) Other defects.
( 5 ) Unless otherwise specified, kernels shall meet the size classification of Jumbo Whole Kernels (See § 51.2559).
( b ) [Reserved]
[68 FR 50685, Aug. 22, 2003]
#### § 58.29 Appeal inspection or grading certificate or report.

Immediately after an appeal inspection or grading has been completed, an appeal inspection or grading certificate or report shall be issued showing the results of the inspection or grading. Such certificate or report shall thereupon supersede the previous certificate or report and will be effective retroactive to the date of the previous certificate or report. Each appeal certificate or report shall clearly set forth the number and the date of the previous certificate or report which it supersedes. The provisions of §§ 58.18 through 58.21 shall, whenever applicable, also apply to appeal certificates or reports except that copies shall be furnished each interested party of record.
# EPA REGISTRATION

NO. 70506-226123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*155*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*156157158159160161162163164165166167168169______________________________________________________________

Page 170 is not included in this copy.

Pages through are not included in this copy.

_________________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of

information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

__ __ Identity of product impurities.

__ __ Description of the product manufacturing process.

__ __ Description of quality control procedures.

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

__X __ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

__ __ FIFRA registration data.

__ __ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _

.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

__ __ Internal deliberative information.

__ __ Privileged attorney-client communication.

__ __ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.
Case 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK Document 213 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK Document 213 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK Document 213 Filed 05/21/10 Page 3 of 3
#### Michael Orwat et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Stephen Smetansky, Respondent, and Edward Kawecki, Appellant.

Judgment insofar as it granted an award in favor of plaintiffs against the defendant Edward Kawecki and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and complaint dismissed, and otherwise judgment affirmed, without costs, of these appeals to any party. Memorandum: The evidence is clear that each of the plaintiffs was aware of and understood the dangers inherent in unloading a truck parked in a public highway at 7:30 p.m. Although the defendant Edward Kawecki may have been negligent in parking the truck in the highway the contributory negligence of the plaintiffs precludes recovery by them. *(Mignery*v. *Gabriel,*2 A D 2d 218, affd. 3 N Y 2d 1001.) (Appeal from part of judgment of Erie Trial Term dismissing complaint as to defendant Smetansky; appeal by defendant Kawecki from same judgment in favor of plaintiffs in an automobile negligence action; appeal from order denying motion for a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecehio, JJ.
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*April 10, 2006*

[Cite as *04/10/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-1768.]

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2005-1534.

#### State v. Hinton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 84582, 2005-Ohio-3427. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that costs are assessed pursuant to S.Ct.Prae.R. XI(5); and that a mandate be sent to the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County to carry this judgment into execution; and that a copy of this entry be certified to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County for entry.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 5:03-cr-05-MCR-GRJ

HERBERT D. BROWN,

____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 118, Defendant’s “Motion for

Recharacterization of Movants’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Grounds and Supporting Facts.” 

Defendant previously was ordered to amend his motion on the Court’s form. (Doc.

114.) Defendant amended on the Court’s forms as instructed but rather than offer any

supporting facts for each ground of his amended motion, merely referred to “See:

Attachment Memorandum and Supporting Facts” and further failed to file the

“Attachment Memorandum and Supporting Facts” with his amended motion. (Doc.

116.) The Court ordered Defendant to file a second amended motion and attach

thereto any memorandum he wished to include. (Doc. 117.) In this instant motion, it is

unclear what exactly Defendant is requesting the Court do for him, but to the extent he

wants the Court to reorganize the docket so that he can avoid the Court’s previous

directive, his motion is due to be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion, Doc. 118, is DENIED.

2. Defendant is still required to comply with the Court’s previous Order of July 3,

2012 (Doc. 117), which gave him until on or before August 2, 2012 to file a

second amended motion to vacate which includes all grounds for relief and, if he

wishes to include an “Attachment Memorandum and Supporting Facts” he must

attach this to the Second Amended Motion. Defendant is further advised that he
Page 2 of 2

may wish to include his argument as to why his motion is not time-barred (as

previously set forth in his motion for leave to file, Doc. 111) in any memorandum

attached to the Second Amended Motion.

3. Failure to comply with this Order within the allotted time will result in a

recommendation to the District Judge that this case be dismissed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23 day of July 2012.

rd

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 5:03-cr-05-MCR-GRJ
# 45.106 Transferring accountability.

*Government property**shall* be transferred from one contract to another only when firm requirements exist under the gaining contract (see 45.102). Such transfers *shall* be documented by modifications to both gaining and losing contracts. Once transferred, all *property**shall* be considered *Government-furnished property* to the gaining contract. The *warranties* of suitability of use and timely delivery of *Government-furnished property* do not apply to *property* acquired or fabricated by the contractor as *contractor-acquired property* that is subsequently transferred to another contract with the same contractor.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 45.1 - General
32.806 Contract clauses.       (a)                                                         (1) 								                The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.232-23, Assignment of Claims, in solicitations and contracts expected to exceed the micro-purchase threshold, unless the contract will prohibit the assignment of claims (see 32.803(b)). The use of the clause is not required for purchase orders. However, the clause may be used in purchase orders expected to exceed the micro-purchase threshold, that are accepted in writing by the contractor, if such use is consistent with agency policies and regulations.                                                            (2) 								                If a no-setoff commitment has been authorized (see 32.803(d)), the contracting officer shall use the clause with its AlternateI.                                                                             (b) 						            The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.232-24, Prohibition of Assignment of Claims, in solicitations and contracts for which a determination has been made under agency regulations that the prohibition of assignment of claims is in the Government’s interest.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 32.8 - Assignment of Claims
Exhibit 32
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  February 9, 2009
    /s/ Kevin CummingsKevin CummingsPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Date:  February 9, 2009
    /s/ Thomas F. Splaine, Jr.Thomas F. Splaine, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michael W.Hessong, certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Heelys, Inc.;

2.                Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          [Paragraph omitted inaccordance with Exchange Act Rule 13(a)-14(a)];

(c)           Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

(a)           All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)          Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 15,2007

| By:    |   | /s/ MICHAEL W. HESSONG  |   |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   | Michael W. Hessong      |   |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

 

----
#### § 621.45 Flood insurance studies.

As requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and within the limits of available resources, NRCS carries out flood insurance studies of various types under the National Flood Insurance Program (Pub. L. 90-448, 82 Statute, 574 (42 U.S.C. 4012)), as amended. In this activity, NRCS performs detailed technical studies to determine the extent and frequency of flooding. The flood insurance program is administered by FEMA. NRCS is reimbursed by that agency for actual costs incurred in carrying out the studies. Local entities desiring flood insurance coverage should contact the responsible State agency or FEMA and apply in accordance with procedures of that agency.
Amendment No. 5 to ADPI 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 5 
 TO 
 AMERICAN DENTAL PARTNERS, INC. 
 1997 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
 The American Dental Partners, Inc. 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended pursuant to the following provisions:

  

	 	1.	Definitions 

 All capitalized terms used in this
amendment which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings given such terms in the Plan. 
  

	 	2.	Shares Subject to Plan 

 The maximum aggregate
number of shares reserved and available for issuance under the Plan, as provided in Section 3 of the Plan, is increased by 150,000 shares to a total of 550,000 shares. 
  

	 	3.	Term and Termination of Plan 

 Pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15 of the Plan, the Plan has been extended for additional Option Periods, and shall terminate automatically following the end of the Option Period ending on December 31, 2010. 
  

	 	4.	Effective Date; Construction 

 The effective date of
this amendment is July 26, 2007, and this amendment shall be deemed to be a part of the Plan as of such date. In the event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of the Plan and this amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall
control. Except as modified by this amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect without change.