alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 52.808 Freedom from defects. ( a ) *General.* The factor of freedom from defects refers to the degree of freedom from harmless extraneous material, mutilated cherries, and cherries blemished by scab, hail injury, discoloration, scar tissue, or by other means. ( 1 ) *Cherry* means a whole cherry, whether or not pitted, or portions of such cherries which in the aggregate approximate the average size of the cherries.
( 2 ) *Harmless extraneous material* means any vegetable substance (including, but not being limited to, a leaf or a stem and any portions thereof) that is harmless.
( 3 ) *Mutilated cherry* means a cherry that is so pitter-torn or damaged by other means that the entire pit cavity is exposed and the appearance of the cherry is seriously affected.
( 4 ) *Minor blemished cherry* means any cherry blemished with discoloration (other than scald) having an aggregate area of a circle 9 ⁄ 32 inch (7 mm) or less in diameter which more than slightly affects the appearance of the cherry but does not extend into the fruit tissue.
( 5 ) *Blemished cherry* means any cherry blemished by skin discoloration (other than scald) which in the aggregate exceeds the area of a circle 9 ⁄ 32 inch (7 mm) in diameter. A cherry affected by skin discoloration extending into the fruit tissue or by scab, hail injury, scar tissue, or other abnormality, regardless of size, is considered a blemished cherry.
( b ) *(A) classification.* Frozen red tart pitted cherries that are practically free from defects may be given a score of 18 to 20 points. “Practically free from defects” means that the number of defects that may be present does not exceed the number specified for the applicable type of defect in Table I.
( c ) *(B) classification.* Frozen red tart pitted cherries that are reasonably free from defects may be given a score of 16 or 17 points. Frozen red tart pitted cherries that fall into this classification shall not be graded above U.S. Grade B, regardless of the total score for the product (this is a limiting rule). “Reasonably free from defects” means that the number of defects that may be present does not exceed the number specified for the applicable type of defect in Table I.
( d ) *(C) classification.* Frozen red tart pitted cherries that are fairly free from defects may be given a score of 14 or 15 points. Frozen red tart pitted cherries that fall into this classification shall not be graded above U.S. Grade C, regardless of the total score for the product (this is a limiting rule). “Fairly free from defects” means that the number of defects that may be present does not exceed the number specified for the applicable type of defect in Table I.
( e ) *(SStd.) classification.* Frozen red tart pitted cherries that fail to meet the requirements for Grade C may be given a score of 0 to 13 points and shall not be graded above Substandard, regardless of the total score for the product (this is a limiting rule).
PUBLIC LAW 107–234—OCT. 4, 2002 116 STAT. 1481

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4558:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–596, Pt. 1 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

July 22, considered and passed House.

Sept. 18, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–234

107th Congress

An Act

To extend the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF IRISH PEACE PROCESS CULTURAL AND

TRAINING PROGRAM.

Section 2 of the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training

Program Act of 1998 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(2)(A) by striking ‘‘3’’ and inserting

‘‘4’’;

(2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ‘‘3’’ and inserting ‘‘4’’;

(3) in subsection (d)(1) by striking ‘‘2005,’’ and inserting

‘‘2006,’’; and

(4) in subsection (d)(2) by striking ‘‘2005,’’ and inserting

‘‘2006,’’.

Approved October 4, 2002.

Oct. 4, 2002

[H.R. 4558]
#### Richard Abare, Respondent, *v.*William H. Moore, Appellant.

Third Department,

February 15, 1967.

*Halter, Sullivan db Rehfuss (John J. Cunningham*of counsel), for appellant.

*Van Ness db Russell (Robert M. Douglas*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Special Term, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216.

*148CPLR 3216, captioned “ Want of prosecution ” as pertinent provides that a motion may not be made until at least six months after joinder of issue and after service of a written demand requiring such note of issue to be filed within 45 days thereafter and upon the plaintiff’s failure to so comply “ the court may grant such motion [to dismiss] unless the plaintiff shows justifiable excuse for delay and a good and meritorious cause of action ”.

The defendant in the present action served such demand and upon failure to comply within the prescribed time, moved to dismiss, the affidavit in support thereof .showing compliance with the terms and conditions of the rule and, further, that issue was joined by the filing of an answer on the 17th day of May, 1963, more than three years preceding the date of the motion (June 13, 1966). The plaintiff filed no affidavit in opposition showing ‘ *‘*justifiable excuse for delay and a good and meritorious cause of action ’’but addressed a letter to the Clerk of the Court, dated June 23, 1966, stating that the note of issue had been filed on June 15,1966.

Special Term, in denying the motion, stated that from the oral argument it appeared that there was a “ justifiable excuse for delay ’ ’ but failed to enumerate what constituted such excuse.

There was noncompliance with the rule by the plaintiff in failing to file the note of issue within 45 days after written demand and on the motion by failing to file an affidavit giving facts and circumstances which would show a *‘ ‘*justifiable excuse for delay and a good and meritorious cause of action ’ ’. (Cf. *Sortino*v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25.)

The order should be reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion to dismiss the complaint' pursuant to CPLR 3216 should be granted on the merits.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in opinion *Per Curiam.*

Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion to dismiss complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 granted, on the merits, without costs.
§ 4280.15 Ultimate Recipient Projects eligible for Rural Economic Development Loan funding. An Intermediary may receive REDL funds only when it has a pre-approved Ultimate Recipient and Project that have an immediate need for the Zero-Interest Loan. REDL funds may only be used by the Intermediary to make a Zero-Interest Loan to the Ultimate Recipient to finance financially viable economic development or job creation Projects in a Rural Area. Funds may only be used to provide the following assistance: ( a ) Start-Up Venture costs, including, but not limited to financing fixed assets such as real estate, buildings (new or existing), equipment, or working capital;
( b ) Business expansion;
( c ) Business Incubators;
( d ) Technical Assistance;
( e ) Project feasibility studies;
( f ) Advanced Telecommunications services and computer networks for medical, educational, and job training services;
( g ) Other Projects eligible under § 4280.21; or
( h ) Community Facilities Projects.
( i ) A borrower is permitted to use up to 10 percent of the amount provided under this subpart to construct, improve, or acquire broadband infrastructure related to the project financed, subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 1980, subpart M.
[72 FR 29843, May 30, 2007, as amended at 85 FR 57085, Sept. 15, 2020]
<PAGE>
 
                                                            Exhibit 11.1

                               IKOS SYSTEMS, INC.
                STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (In thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                                     --------------------------
                                                                     December 30,  December 31,
                                                                        1995           1994
                                                                     -----------   ------------
<S>                                                                   <C>           <C>
Net income.......................................................      $1,375         $  448
                                                                       ======         ======

Number of shares used in computing per share amounts:
  Weighted average common stock outstanding......................       6,886          5,509
 
  Common equivalent shares attributable to
    stock options (treasury stock method)........................         633            274
                                                                       ------         ------
 
  Total weighed average common shares outstanding................       7,519          5,783
                                                                       ======         ======
 
Net income per share.............................................      $ 0.18         $ 0.08
                                                                       ======         ======
</TABLE>
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 The Furia Organization, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2004 (the "Report"), I,
Martin Cohen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Martin Cohen
-----------------------------
Martin Cohen
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
July  6, 2004

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 51.1529 Clean.

“Clean” means that the fruit is practically free from dirt and other foreign material.
#### Violet S. Yaron, Respondent, v Nissim Yaron, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 8, 1976, granting plaintiff wife a divorce, custody of the three children of the marriage without visitation rights to defendant husband, support of $250 a week ($100 to the wife and $50 to each child), ordering the return of certain jewelry and in case of default, $25,000, and awarding counsel fees in sum of $9,980, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, so as to reduce defendant’s obligation for support to $200 a week ($50 to the wife and $50 to each child), reduce the sum awarded as counsel fees to $5,000, and grant visitation rights to defendant and otherwise affirmed. The matter is remanded to Special Term for determination of appropriate terms of visitation. We find that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the causes of action for divorce and return of plaintiff’s jewelry. We are of the opinion that the support ordered by the trial court in the sum of $250 was excessive. On our review of the evidence it is questionable whether the money allegedly entrusted to defendant by his father in Iraq was, as the trial court found, actually the property of defendant so as to permit the trial court to consider it as a financial resource in determining the extent to which support should be ordered. The circumstances here should not preclude visitation by defendant with his children (Domestic Relations Law, § 240). We note that defendant has already spent six months in jail as punishment for contempt in failing to pay support as ordered by Justice Gomez on April 15, 1975. Considering all factors, including the financial claim of defendant, counsel fees of $10,000 in this case are excessive. Counsel fees in the amount of $5,000 are proper. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein, Sandler and Markewich, JJ. [84 Misc 2d 644.]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRITY BY REFERNCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3 months
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD START>                            OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          1,737
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   7,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                      207
<INVENTORY>                                       553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14,655
<PP&E>                                            908
<DEPRECIATION>                                    747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           8,927
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           1,200
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           27
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14,893
<SALES>                                        27,293
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27,793
<CGS>                                          26,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 81
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   577
<INCOME-TAX>                                       59
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      518
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .17
        

</TABLE>
#### § 51.774 Fairly firm.

*Fairly firm* means that the fruit may be slightly soft, but not bruised, and the skin is not spongy or puffy.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Before: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Baker, Benton, Coleman, 

 Koontz,* Willis, Elder, Bray and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

KENNETH LINWOOD AWKARD 

v. Record No. 2267-93-2 OPINION 

 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 

UPON A REHEARING EN BANC 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY 

Paul M. Peatross, Jr., Judge 

 Francis McQ. Lawrence (Ronald M. Huber; St. John, 

 Bowling & Lawrence, on brief), for appellant. 

 Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General 

 (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), 

 for appellee. 

 By opinion dated February 14, 1995,1 a panel of this Court 

reversed Kenneth Linwood Awkard's (appellant) felony sentence 

imposed upon him by the Circuit Court of Albemarle County (trial 

court) and remanded the case to the trial court for a 

re-sentencing pursuant to the misdemeanor provisions of Code 

§ 46.2-357, as amended. This Code section became effective after 

appellant was convicted but prior to the date of his sentencing 

hearing. The facts as stated in the panel majority and dissent 

are complete and need not be restated here. 

 

 *Justice Koontz participated in the hearing and decision of 

this case prior to his investiture as a Justice of the Supreme 

Court of Virginia. 

 1See Awkard v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 605, 454 S.E.2d 18 

(1995). 
- 2 - 

 Upon rehearing en banc, we hold that whether the felony or 

misdemeanor punishment should have been imposed in this case was 

a matter committed to the discretionary power of the trial court. 

 Because the sentence given was within the statutory limits 

prescribed by Code § 46.2-357, to which appellant pled guilty, we 

find no abuse of discretion. 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.
- 3 - 

Fitzpatrick, J., with whom Benton, Koontz and Elder, J.J., join, 

 dissenting. 

 I would reverse appellant's felony conviction and remand for 

re-sentencing for the reasons stated in the majority opinion of 

the panel decision. See Awkard v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 605, 

454 S.E.2d 18 (1995).
# L_2014044EN.01005101.xml

| 14.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 44/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 44/51

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 11 February 2014

appointing a Lithuanian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2014/82/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Lithuanian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | An alternate member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Donatas KAUBRYS, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

An alternate member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Donatas KAUBRYS,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| — | Mr Vytautas JONUTIS, Member of Plungė District Municipal Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Vytautas JONUTIS, Member of Plungė District Municipal Council.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 11 February 2014.

For the Council

The President

E. VENIZELOS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---
Case 3:20-cv-05898-TKW-HTC   Document 22   Filed 01/15/21   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:20-cv-05898-TKW-HTC   Document 22   Filed 01/15/21   Page 2 of 2
```

[108th Congress Public Law 398]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ398.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 2252]]

Public Law 108-398
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
19504 Linden Boulevard in St. Albans, New York, as the ``Archie Spigner 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 30, 2004 -  [H.R. 4632]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 19504 
Linden Boulevard in St. Albans, New York, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Archie Spigner Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Archie Spigner Post Office 
Building''.

    Approved October 30, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4632:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
            Sept. 13, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 10, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RONES SAGESSE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-238-AW-GRJ

WARDEN MILTON HICKS, et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I have considered the magistrate judge’s February 14, 2022 Report and 

Recommendation, to which there has been no objection. ECF No. 58. 

I conclude the magistrate judge is correct: the summary judgment motion 

should be denied. There is a dispute about the facts. Accepting Plaintiff’s version—

as I must at this stage—I cannot grant summary judgment for Defendants. 

The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 58) is adopted and incorporated 

into this order. The summary judgment motion (ECF No. 53) is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED on May 26, 2022.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00238-AW-GRJ Document 63 Filed 05/26/22 Page 1 of 1
#### Montefiore Hospital, Plaintiff, v. Melvin Lesser et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Associated Hospital Service of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Order of Appellate Term reversing order, of Civil Court which dismissed third-party complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and disbursements in any court, and order of Civil Court, entered April 27, 1967, reinstated, and the third-party complaint dismissed. (See *French Hosp.*v. *Stuart,*31 A D 2d 522.) The third-party plaintiffs fail to present a proper factual basis to support a claim that the third-party defendant is estopped from asserting the two-year period of limitation prescribed by the hospital service plan contract. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Nunez, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Chaleco Restaurant Corp., Petitioner, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Determination of the State Liquor Authority revoking petitioner’s restaurant license, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of dismissing charges 2 and 4, and as so modified the determination is otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Charges 2 and 4 are time-barred under section 118 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. *(Matter of Benjamin*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*13 N Y 2d 227; *Matter of Hacker*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*21 A D 2d 755; *Matter of Vilabar Cafe*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*25 A D 2d 662; *Matter of Ritor Rest. Corp.*v. *New York State Liq. Auth.,*27 A D 2d 710.) The findings on charges 1, 3 and 5 are supported by substantial evidence. We find no reason for disturbing the penalty of revocation. Concur—Steuer, J. P., Tilzer, Rabin, McNally and Staley, Jr., JJ.