alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 52.1845 Sizes of seedless raisins. The size designations and measurement requirements for the respective sizes are: ( a ) *Select* size raisins means that no more than 60 percent, by weight, of all the raisins will pass through round perforations 22 ⁄ 64-inch in diameter, but not more than 10 percent, by weight, of all the raisins may pass through round perforations 20 ⁄ 64-inch in diameter.
( b ) *Small* size raisins means that 95 percent, by weight, of all the raisins will pass through round perforations 24 ⁄ 64-inch in diameter, and not less than 70 percent, by weight, of all raisins will pass through round perforations 22 ⁄ 64-inch in diameter.
( c ) *Mixed* size raisins means a mixture that does not meet either the requirements for “select” size or for “small” size.
[41 FR 34751, Aug. 17, 1976. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 81 FR 40780, June 23, 2016]
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:97-cr-00032-MP

TONY SOWELL,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 88, Motion to Set Aside Judgment (pursuant to

rule 60 b) by Tony Sowell. Despite the title given to it by Mr. Sowell, this motion is actually a

motion collaterally attacking his conviction and sentence. Such a motion must be brought under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mr. Sowell has already had a § 2255 motion dismissed, however. 

Accordingly, the motion under Rule 60(b) is denied, and the motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, doc. 89, is also denied as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:97-cr-00032-MP Document 90 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[107th Congress Public Law 241]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ241.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 1496]]

Public Law 107-241
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the charter of the AMVETS organization. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 
                         2002 -  [H.R. 3214]>> 

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO AMVETS CHARTER.

    (a) Name of Organization.--(1) Sections 22701(a) and 22706 of title 
36, United States Code, are amended by striking ``AMVETS (American 
Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam)'' and inserting ``AMVETS 
(American Veterans)''.
    (2)(A) The heading of chapter 227 of such title is amended to read 
as follows:

              ``CHAPTER 227--AMVETS (AMERICAN VETERANS)''.

    (B) The item relating to such chapter in the table of chapters at 
the beginning of subtitle II of such title is amended to read as 
follows:

``227. AMVETS (AMERICAN VETERANS)...............................22701''.

    (b) Governing Body.--Section 22704(c)(1) of such title is amended by 
striking ``seven national vice commanders'' and all that follows through 
``a judge advocate,'' and inserting ``two national vice commanders, a 
finance officer, a judge advocate, a chaplain, six national district 
commanders,''.
    (c) Headquarters and Principal Place of Business.--Section 22708 of 
such title is amended--
            (1) by striking ``the District of Columbia'' in the first 
        sentence and inserting ``Maryland''; and
            (2) by striking ``the District of Columbia'' in the second 
        sentence and inserting ``Maryland''.

    Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3214 (S. 1972):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-569 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            July 15, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 2, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 52.12 Disposition of inspected sample.

Any sample of a processed product that has been used for inspection may be returned to the applicant, at his request and expense; otherwise it shall be destroyed, or disposed of to a charitable institution.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0601. DANIEL HARGROVE v. THE STATE.

In 2007, Daniel Hargrove was convicted of kidnapping with bodily injury,

family violence aggravated battery, and family violence aggravated assault (two

counts). ThisCourtreversed his conviction for kidnapping but affirmed hisremaining

convictions in 2009. Hargrove v. State, 299 Ga. App. 27 (681 SE2d 707) (2009). In

2012 and 2018, this Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Hargrove’s appealsfrom

the trial court’s denial of his motionsto vacate a void sentence. Case No. A12A2244

(decided August 8, 2012) and Case No. A18A1223 (decided March 9, 2018). On

January 13, 2020 Hargrove filed a motion for out-of-time appeal. Following a

hearing, the trial court dismissed the motion, and Hargrove filed this direct appeal.

We, however, lack jurisdiction.

“An out-of-time appeal is a judicial creation that serves as the remedy for a

frustrated right of appeal.” Richards v. State, 275 Ga. 190, 191 (563 SE2d 856)

(2002) (punctuation omitted); see also Kilgore v. State, 325 Ga. App. 874, 875 (1)

(756 SE2d 9) (2014). “Due to the very nature of an out-of-time appeal, it is not a

remedy available to a criminal defendant whose conviction has been reviewed by an

appellate court on direct appeal since that defendant is not entitled to a second direct

appeal from his judgment of conviction.” Richards, 275 Ga. at 191. Because

Hargrove has had a direct appeal, he is not entitled to an out-of-time appeal, and the

denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal is notsubject to appeal. See id.; accord

November 16, 2020
Brown v. State, 296 Ga. App. 224, 224 (674 SE2d 91) (2009). Accordingly, this

appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/16/2020
#### In the Matter of Gaetano Asaro, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Cooke, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 11, 1968 disqualifying claimant from benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Although there is conflicting testimony, there is proof showing that claimant accepted employment on condition that he would do outside sales work, which he thereafter refused to perform, and that he was then discharged. An employee, who without good cause refuses to work and thus provokes his discharge, is considered to have voluntarily left employment and is not entitled to unemployment benefits, the question of whether “good cause” exists being one of fact within the province of the board if supported by substantial evidence *(Matter of Simonetta*[Catherwood], 30 A D 2d 1008; *Matter of Soman*[Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 219, 221; *Matter of Day*[Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 851; *Matter of Caruso*[Catherwood], 16 A D 2d 1008) and, upon this record containing such evidence, we may not disturb the board’s finding. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.
SERVED: AUGUST 25, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

B & G INDUSTRIES, LLC 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-2442 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

- _ _:.' 

This proceeding (heretofore designated·as Case No. 2013NM910238) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Karl Bertagnole, President 

B & G Industries, LLC, Respondent 

PO Box 669 

Greybull, WY 82426 

TEL: 307-765-9911 

Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave., S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

F~: 425-227-1007 

ONE COPY 

Hon. J .E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

F~: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. F AA-20 15-2442 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430. 

-2-
#### Miriam Klein, Respondent, v Jessica Klein, Appellant.

Judgment and order (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 7, 1979, resettling judgment and order of the same court and Justice entered March 6, 1979, reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court, New York County, for trial of the issues of fact tendered by the motion papers herein, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 30, 1979, denying reargument of the prior motion, dismissed as nonappealable, without costs. Petitioner-judgment-creditor-respondent is the estranged former second wife of respondent-appellant’s father, who is the judgment debtor. Respondent-appellant’s mother was the debtor’s first wife. Petitioner seeks to obtain possession by this third-party proceeding (CPLR 5225, subd [b]) of certain personal property held by the daughter, but claimed by petitioner to be owned by the debtor. In a 1978 deposition, the daughter stated that the property belonged to her father, against whom his then wife had claims. Later, however, she stated that the property had become hers in satisfaction of certain claims against her father. It cannot be said that the two conflicting statements, taken together, constitute an admission against the daughter’s interest. The issue of which statement is true is a question of fact which may not be decided upon papers alone. (CPLR 409, subd [b].) A trial is necessary (CPLR 410), and we remand for that purpose. Concur—Fein, J. P., .Sandler, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.
39.105 Privacy.

Agencies shall ensure that contracts for information technology address protection of privacy in

accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C.552a) and part 24. In addition, each agency shall ensure

that contracts for the design, development, or operation of a system of records using commercial

information technology services or information technology support services include the following:

(a) Agency rules of conduct that the contractor and the contractor’s employees shall be required to

follow.

(b) A list of the anticipated threats and hazards that the contractor must guard against.

(c) A description of the safeguards that the contractor must specifically provide.

(d) Requirements for a program of Government inspection during performance of the contract that

will ensure the continued efficacy and efficiency of safeguards and the discovery and countering of

new threats and hazards.

Parent topic: Subpart 39.1 - General
###### Editorial Note on Part 57

#### Editorial Note:

1. At 63 FR 69969, Dec. 17, 1998, part 57 was added by duplicating portions of part 59. At 63 FR 72353, Dec. 31, 1998, part 59 was redesignated as part 590 of 9 CFR.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 57 appear at 63 FR 69971, Dec. 17, 1998.

#### § 57.132 Access to plants.

Access shall not be refused to any representative of the Secretary to any plant, place of business, or transport vehicle subject to inspection under the provisions of this part upon presentation of identification furnished by the Department.

[63 FR 69968, Dec. 17, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 57166, Sept. 24, 2004]
#### Seymour Stern, Respondent, v. William Hermann, Doing Business as William Hermann Plumbing and Heating Contractor, Appellant.

Order entered January 28, 1969, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and disbursements, to provide that the statement of readiness heretofore served and filed by plaintiff be vacated, and the action, if it appears on the Trial Term Calendar, be stricken therefrom. There has been a failure to comply with the provisions of subdivision 4 of rule IV of the New York County Supreme Court Rules (22 NYCRR 660.4 [d]). Also it is noted that the answer and a subsequent amended answer were served following the service and filing of the statement of readiness. The defendant shall appear for examination at Special Term, Part II, on a date to be fixed by notice duly served by plaintiff. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, McGivern and Steuer, JJ.
§ 51.4 Where inspection service is offered. Products will be inspected at appropriate points indicated in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section whenever inspectors are available. ( a ) *Shipping points.* Inspection service is available in all areas covered by cooperative agreements entered into on behalf of the Department with Cooperating Federal-State Inspection Agencies providing for this inspection work pursuant to authority contained in any Act of Congress, or may be provided in any other area which is not covered by a cooperative agreement if the Administrator determines that it is practicable to provide inspection service.
( b ) *Destination markets.* Inspection is available in all central markets in which an inspection office is located.
( c ) *Other destination points.* Inspection may be made at any point which may be conveniently reached from any terminal market in which an inspection office is located to the extent inspection personnel is available.
( d ) *Addresses of offices.* Any prospective applicant may obtain an up-to-date list of inspection offices by addressing an inquiry to Fresh Products Standardization and Inspection Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250.
July 23, 2015

Mr. Christopher Shwarz

Owner

P-51 Productions, LLC

427 Sandpiper Court

Edgewater, FL 32141

Dear Mr. Schwarz:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 21, 2015 exemption request on behalf of P-51 Productions, LLC into 

the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1752), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Stephen Vanek, Respondent, v Fifth Avenue Management Associates, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. A. Best Contracting Co., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 12, 1979, affirmed. Plaintiff-respondent shall recover of appellants one bill of $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Fein, Sandler and Markewich, JJ.

*560Birns, J. P., and Bloom, J.,

dissent in part in a memorandum by Bloom, J., as follows: We are all in agreement that absolute liability was imposed under section 240 of the Labor Law upon all "contractors and owners and their agents” to furnish scaffolds which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to persons employed by them *(Haimes v New York Tel Co.,*46 NY2d 132; *Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp.,*44 NY2d 290). There is, therefore, no question as to the liability of the owner, Fifth Avenue Management Associates. Similarly, we are all in accord that it was proper for the owner to seek recoupment from the contractor which, in fact, supplied the scaffold. "While the duty imposed * * * may not be delegated, the burden may be shifted to the party actually responsible for the accident” *(Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp., supra,*p 301). Inasmuch as the injuries flowed solely from the acts of the third-party defendant, it must bear the ultimate responsibility therefor *(Rogers v Dorchester Assoc., 32*NY2d 553). Our sole point of difference with the majority flows from the jury’s damage award of $150,000. As a result of the fall of the scaffold, plaintiff suffered a fractured left ankle with traumatic synovitis and an abrasion and laceration of the right axillary region. Abduction indicated some resulting limitation of the movement of the right shoulder. There was no limitation of the movement of the ankle. Plaintiff received emergency treatment at Elmhurst Medical Center and was confined to Valley Hospital at Ridgewood, New Jersey. His medical expert testified that, as a result of the ankle fracture, plaintiff was left with a slight limp. However, he conceded that, with proper exercises the movement of the shoulder would improve and that the slight limp would subside, at least in part. The accident occurred on May 12, 1976. Plaintiff returned to work full time on August 26, 1976, 15 weeks thereafter. His special damages consisted of hospital expenses of $632.50, physician’s services amounting to $850, medical supplies of $75, and lost earnings of $5,525, a total of $7,082.50. In these circumstances the award of $150,000 was inordinately high. A fair valuation of the injuries suffered would be $75,000. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages only unless, within 30 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered herein with notice of entry thereof, plaintiff shall file in the office of the clerk of the trial court, a stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict to the sum of $75,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. In the event that plaintiff shall so stipulate, I would affirm the judgment as so amended, without costs or disbursements.
(December 19, 1966)

#### In the Matter of Harrison B. Wright, an Attorney; Respondent. Bar Association on Nassau County, New York, Inc., Petitioner.

Proceeding to discipline respondent, an attorney, admitted to the Bar on March 8, 1911. On June 27, 1966 the issues were referred to a Justice of the Supreme Court for hearing and report. On October 19, 1966 the said Justice reported that he found respondent guilty of the following charges: (a) On June 20, 1956 respondent borrowed from a client $28,000 and executed a bond and mortgage, due July 1, 1957, on a home he was then purchasing; respondent failed to make any payments of principal or interest, permitted the Statute of Limitations to expire, and when the client instituted an action to foreclose the mortgage in June, 1965, pleaded the Statute of Limitations; (b) On June 28, 1963 another client of respondent sold property for $22,749.19, all of which (except $2,000) the client turned over to respondent, at the latter’s request; respondent paid off a mortgage of $2,027.50 and paid the client $8,500 over the course of 2% years; however, respondent failed to account for the difference of $10,221.69 after repeated demand therefor; respondent never had in his bank account sufficient to account for and pay over the amount owing to the client; (c) On April 1, 1954 there was admitted to probate a will in which respondent was named as a coexecutor; on May 19, 1955 respondent mailed to each of the seven residuary legatees $850 and agreed to pay the balance of the legacies within several weeks; up to the date of the Referee’s report (12% years after the will was admitted to probate), respondent had not yet filed a final account or made distribution of the assets despite repeated demands therefor; (d) In three other estates (wherein decedents died in 1929, 1941 and 1963 respectively) respondent failed to file transfer tax or estate tax proceedings, in each of which estates he was the attorney for the estate representative; (e) In October, 1963 a client turned over to respondent $6,123.72, the proceeds of a real estate transaction, which respondent failed to repay, although respondent claims a credit for $1,663.04 for legal fees and expenses; furthermore, on March 17, 1964 the same client turned over to respondent $10,700, which he repaid to her about December 10, 1964 only after a lawsuit was instituted to recover the said sum and complaint was made to the District Attorney of. Nassau County. The findings of the Referee are fully sustained by the evidence and warrant disbarment. The motion to confirm the report is granted and respondent is disbarred, effective as of the entry of the order hereon. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 75468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30260]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: 
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, Sec.  438(b), and Title 26, 
U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shawn Woodhead Werth,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-30260 Filed 12-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M