alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 51.2280 Tolerances for grade defects.

(a) All percentages shall be claculated on the basis of weight.

(b) In order to allow for variations, other than for color and size, incident to proper grading and handling, tolerances shall be permitted for the respective grades as indicated in Table I:

Table I

[Percent]

| Grade | Tolerances for grade defects | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Total defects | Serious damage | Very serious damage | Shell and foreign material |
| U. S. No. 1 | 5 | 2 (included in 5 percent total defects) | 1 (included in 2 percent serious damage) | 0.05 (included in 1 percent very serious damage). |
| U.S. Commercial | 8 | 4 (included in 8 percent total defects) | 2 (included in 4 percent serious damage) | 0.05 (included in 2 percent very serious damage). |
Exhibit 32(i)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350

    In connection with the Form 10-K of National Bankshares, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2005, I, James G. Rakes, Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of National Bankshares, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief that:

(1)      such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, fully complies
         with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securties Act of
         1934; and

(2)      the information contained in such Form 10-K for the year ended December
         31, 2005, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial
         condition and results of operations of National Bankshares, Inc.


 /s/ JAMES G. RAKES
-----------------------------
James G. Rakes
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer**


**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 Chatsworth Acquisitions III, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Deborah A. Salerno, 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Deborah A. SalernoDeborah
                A. Salerno
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              June
                26, 2008
**From:** Mahinske, Jane

**Sent:** Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:59 AM **To:** 'Andrea Stacy (E - ma il)'; 'Ann Acheson (E - ma il)'; 'Ann Mebane (E - ma il)'; 'Bruce

Polkowsky (E - ma il)'; 'Chuck Sams (E - ma il)'; 'Dean Gillam (E - ma il)'; 'Don Shepherd (E - ma il)'; 'Holly Salazer (E - ma il)'; 'Sandra Silva (E - ma il)'; 'Tim Allen (E - ma il)' **Cc:** Ramamurthy, Krishnan; Reiley, Robert A; Wh ite, Joseph; Husted, Daniel;

Hochhauser, Martin; Spicer, Rebecca; Campfield, Kristen; 'Ellen W entworth (E - ma il)' **Subject:** BART Analyses - Penns yl vania - Conference Call 

### Good morning FLMs, I have tentatively scheduled the conference call to discuss Pennsylvania's BART analyses review memos for Friday, October 19, 2007, from 1:30 - 3:30 EDT (Eastern). If anyone has a strong objection or conflict to this date and time, please let me know ASAP. Otherwise, please mark your calendars and I will email the conference line information to everyone a day or two before the 19th. Thank you, Jane Mahinske PA DEP, Air Quality 7 17 - 783 - 8949
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 Annual Report of Epolin, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended February 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, 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.


Dated:  May 21, 2009                   By: /s/ Greg Amato
        ------------                       -------------------------------------
                                           Greg Amato,
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated:  May 21, 2009                   By: /s/ James Ivchenko
        ------------                       -------------------------------------
                                           James Ivchenko,
                                           President
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)
Case 1:95-cr-01037-MP   Document 24   Filed 06/28/07   Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RANDALL TOWNSEND,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-424-AW-MAF

CHARLES LANE, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the magistrate judge’s August 17, 2021 report and 

recommendation (ECF No. 29), I conclude that the case should be dismissed. The 

complaint is a shotgun complaint, and Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to 

cure it. He has also failed to comply with court orders. But based on the shotgun 

complaint issue alone, the case will be dismissed with prejudice. 

I note that the magistrate judge entered a later report and recommendation

(ECF No. 31), addressing Lane’s subsequent filing. I need not address that report 

and recommendation because I deny all pending motions as moot, based on the 

dismissal. 

It is now ORDERED:

1. The report and recommendation (ECF No. 29) is adopted and 

incorporated into this order.

Case 4:20-cv-00424-AW-MAF Document 38 Filed 02/04/22 Page 1 of 2
2

2. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “Plaintiff’s complaint is 

dismissed with prejudice as a shotgun complaint.”

3. The clerk will close the file.

SO ORDERED on February 4, 2022. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00424-AW-MAF Document 38 Filed 02/04/22 Page 2 of 2
157 So.2d 737

#### James TOLBERT v. Roy THOMAS.

No. 47012

*Nov. 26, 1963.*

In re: Roy Thomas applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

The application is denied. Since this case grew out of the enforcement of a judgment which would be appealable to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, that Court has general supervisory jurisdiction of the matter under the provisions of Sec. 29 of Art. 7 of the Constitution as amended, LSA, and application should first be made to that Court and all remedies exhausted there before invoking our supervisory jurisdiction. See our per curiam in Moity v. Mahfouz, 242 La. 625, 137 So.2d 514.
47.104-2 Fixed-price contracts.       (a)                   *F.o.b. destination.*                   49 U.S.C. 10721 and 1 3712 rates do not apply to shipments under fixed-price f.o.b. destination contracts (delivered price).                                          (b)                   *F.o.b. origin.* If it is advantageous to the Government, the contracting officer may occasionally require the contractor to prepay the freight charges to a specific destination. In such cases, the contractor shall use a commercial bill of lading and be reimbursed for the direct and actual transportation cost as a separate item in the invoice. The clause at 52.247-1, Commercial Bill of Lading Notations, will ensure that the Government in this type of arrangement obtains the benefit of 49 U.S.C. 10721 and 1 3712 rates.    **Parent topic:** 47.104 Government rate tenders under sections 10721 and 13712 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 10721 and 13712).
#### § 3431.17 VMLRP service agreement offer.

The Secretary will make an offer to successful applicants to enter into an agreement with the Secretary to provide veterinary services under the VMLRP. As part of the offer, successful VMLRP applicants will be provided a specific period of time, as defined in the RFA, to secure an offer of employment or establish and/or maintain a veterinary practice in a veterinary shortage situation.
#### §§ 4279.291-4279.299 [Reserved]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenny LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-31173

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 31, 2007.

*292John Francis Murphy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roma A. Kent, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenny Lucas appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a 27-month term of imprisonment. Lucas specifically argues that the district court erred in considering public safety dangers that might arise if Lucas were to use cocaine while at his job as a dumptruek driver in deciding to revoke Lucas’s supervised release. While the district court cited such concerns at Lucas’s revocation hearing, the court expressly based its revocation of Lucas’s supervised release upon Lucas’s admitted, repeated possession and use of cocaine. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Lucas’s supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment. *See United States v. Spraglin,*418 F.3d 479, 480 (5th Cir.2005). Lucas’s 27-month sentence did not exceed the three-year statutory maximum. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). His revocation sentence was therefore neither “unreasonable” nor “plainly unreasonable.” *See United States v. Hinson,*429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied,*547 U.S. 1083, 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006). Finally, Lucas argues that the district court erred in citing Lucas’s need for rehabilitation as a basis for its judgment. Lucas properly concedes that this argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in *United States v. Giddings,*37 F.3d 1091, 1097 (5th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

STANLEY M. STROTHER,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cv19-SPM/AK

JAMES CROSBY,

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation dated May 5, 2005 (doc. 16). Petitioner has

been furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. Having considered the report and

recommendation, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be

adopted.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 16) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 4:03-cv-00019-SPM-AK Document 17 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:03cv19-SPM/AK

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 7) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00019-SPM-AK Document 17 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Consolidated Capital Properties VI 1998 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is 
qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000755908
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES VI
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998   
<CASH>                                           1,938
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                           9,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,895   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,314   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,358     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0     
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,699    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,314    
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,341    
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,123    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 328    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (110)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.61)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Thomas A. Dane, Deceased. Marguerite L. Dane-Fisher, Petitioner; Thomas M. Dane, Appellant. Lynne M. Lonsdale, Respondent.

Submitted July 23, 2007;

decided October 23, 2007

Reported below, 41 AD3d 1323, 32 AD3d 1233.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the June 8, 2007 order of the Appellate Division, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the September 22, 2006 order of the Appellate Division, dismissed for failure to demonstrate timeliness as required by section 500.22 (b) (2) of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.22 [b] [2]). Motion for a stay dismissed as academic. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Pigott taking no part.
§ 51.3201 Application of tolerances. Individual samples are subject to the following limitations: ( a ) Samples which contain more than 20 pounds shall have not more than one and one half times a specified tolerance of 10 percent or more, and not more than double a specified tolerance of less than 10 percent, except that at least one defective and one off-size onion may be permitted in any sample: *Provided,* that en-route or at destination when onions in containers of 50 pounds or more are packed to a minimum size of 3 inches or larger not more than three onions or more than 4 percent (whichever is the larger amount) may be affected by decay or wet sunscald: *And provided further,* that the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade; and,
( b ) Samples which contain 20 pounds or less shall have not more than double the tolerance specified, except that at least one defective and one off-size onion may be permitted in any sample: *Provided,* that the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade.
§ 51.1857 U.S. No. 2. “U.S. No. 2” consists of tomatoes which meet the following requirements: ( a ) Basic requirements: ( 1 ) Similar varietal characteristics;
( 2 ) Mature;
( 3 ) Not overripe or soft;
( 4 ) Clean;
( 5 ) Well developed;
( 6 ) Reasonably well formed; and,
( 7 ) Not more than slightly rough.
( b ) Free from: ( 1 ) Decay;
( 2 ) Freezing injury; and,
( 3 ) Sunscald.
( c ) Not seriously damaged by any other cause.
( d ) For tolerances see § 51.1861.
<PAGE>

                      REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON

                          FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE


To the Board of Directors
of United Asset Management Corporation


Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report
dated February 7, 1996 appearing on page 56 of the 1995 Annual Report to
Shareholders of United Asset Management Corporation (which report and
consolidated financial statements are incorporated by reference in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K) also included an audit of the Financial Statement Schedule
listed in Item 14(a) of this Form 10-K.  In our opinion, this Financial
Statement Schedule presents fairly, in all material respects, the information
set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated
financial statements.



/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP

PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
February 7, 1996


                                      F-1
§ 51.2754 U.S. No. 2 Virginia. “U.S. No. 2 Virginia” consists of shelled Virginia type peanut kernels of similar varietal characteristics which may be split or broken, but which are free from foreign material, damage and minor defects, and which will not pass through a screen having 17 ⁄ 64 inch round openings. ( a ) In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and handling, the following tolerances, by weight, shall be permitted: ( 1 ) 2 percent for other varieties of peanuts;
( 2 ) 2.5 percent for damaged or unshelled peanuts and minor defects;
( 3 ) 0.2 percent for foreign material; and,
( 4 ) 6 percent for sound peanuts and portions of peanuts which will pass through the prescribed screen.
Case 3:20-cr-00083-MCR Document 40 Filed 07/28/21 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00083-MCR Document 40 Filed 07/28/21 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00083-MCR Document 40 Filed 07/28/21 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00083-MCR Document 40 Filed 07/28/21 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00083-MCR Document 40 Filed 07/28/21 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00083-MCR Document 40 Filed 07/28/21 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00083-MCR Document 40 Filed 07/28/21 Page 7 of 7
#### Cassius F. Styles, Appellant, v. Kelley J. Gibson et al., Respondents.

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from an order of Special Term which dismissed plaintiff’s separate defense that defendant’s counterclaim was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The litigation arose out of an automobile accident which occurred on October 15, 1961. The summons was served on September 29, 1964, the complaint was delivered on February 17, 1965 and the answer and counterclaim mailed on February 19, 1965. CPLR 203 (subd. [e]) is controlling (see CPLR 218, 10003) and provides in pertinent part, “A defense or counterclaim is not barred if it was not barred at the time the claims asserted in the complaint were interposed” (see, 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. *785Prac., par. 203.24; McLaughlin, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of New York, vol. 7B, CPLR, p. 82). Order affirmed, with costs. G-ibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Aulisi, J.
VI 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2501 

For the relief of Manuel Bartsch. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 4, 2006 

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Manuel Bartsch. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MANUEL 

4 BARTSCH. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Manuel Bartsch shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1159) 

12 or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
2 

•S 2501 IS

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Manuel Bartsch 

2 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci3 fied in subsection (c), he shall be considered to have en4 tered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, 

5 be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of 

6 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as 

7 of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Manuel Bartsch, the Secretary of State shall in16 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current 

17 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi18 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun19 try of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immi20 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(a)) or, if ap21 plicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are 

22 made available to natives of the country of the alien’s birth 

23 under section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(e)). 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
3 

•S 2501 IS

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Manuel Bartsch shall not, 

2 by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privi3 lege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS