alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 51.3212 Metric conversion table.

| Inches | Millimeters (mm) |
| --- | --- |
| 1/8 | 3.2 |
| 1/4 | 6.4 |
| 3/8 | 9.5 |
| 1/2 | 12.7 |
| 5/8 | 15.9 |
| 3/4 | 19.1 |
| 7/8 | 22.2 |
| 1 | 25.4 |
| 11/4 | 31.8 |
| 11/2 | 38.1 |
| 13/4 | 44.5 |
| 2 | 50.8 |
| 21/2 | 63.5 |
| 23/4 | 69.9 |
| 3 | 76.2 |
| 31/2 | 88.9 |
| 4 | 101.6 |
#### § 58.412 Coolers or curing rooms.

Coolers or curing rooms where cheese is held for curing or storage shall be clean and maintained at the proper uniform temperature and humidity to adequately protect the cheese, and minimize the undesirable growth of mold. Proper circulation of air shall be maintained at all times. The shelves shall be kept clean and dry. This does not preclude the maintenance of suitable conditions for the curing of mold and surface ripened varieties.
###### 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.

#### § 57.370 Cost of appeals.

The costs of an appeal inspection shall be borne by the appellant on a fee basis at rates set forth in 7 CFR 56.46, plus any travel and additional expenses. If the appeal inspection or review of an inspector's decision discloses that a material error was made in the original determination, no fee or expense will be charged.

[69 FR 57157, Sept. 24, 2004]
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Frank Hartl, Deceased. Frank Hartl, Sr., Appellant; Winston C. Becannon, as Executor of Frank Hartl, Deceased, Respondent.

Order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County, dated September 21, 1966, affirmed, without costs. The proper practice for obtaining the relief desired herein is by petition to vacate the probate decree. In our opinion, it is unnecessary to show a reasonable probability of success in the will contest as a prerequisite to withdrawal of a waiver of citation and consent to probate on the ground that it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation *(Matter of Teller,*277 App. Div. 937, amd. 277 App. Div. 1016). The contestant’s allegations are sufficient to entitle him to a hearing on the issue of the withdrawal of the waiver *(Matter of Baldwin,*3 A D 2d 635; *Matter of Teller, supra).*Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ. concur.
Page
                Twenty Seven





**Exhibit
      3(ii)**




**ARTICLES
      OF AMENDMENT**


**to
      the**


**ARTICLES
      OF INCORPORATION**


**OF**


**HIGHLANDS
      BANKSHARES, INC.**





In
      accordance with Section 31-1-31 of the Code of West Virginia, HIGHLANDS
      BANKSHARES, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
      State of West Virginia (“Corporation”), hereby adopts the following Articles of
      Amendment to its Articles of Incorporation:


FIRST:
      The name of the Corporation is HIGHLANDS BANKSHARES, Inc.





SECOND:
      The following amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was adopted by the
      stockholders of the Corporation on the 11th day of
      April,
      2000, in the manner prescribed by Section 31-1-107 of the Code of West Virginia,
      to amend the Articles of Incorporation, by deleting Article VII and substituting
      in lieu therefore the following:





“VII.
      The
      amount of the total authorized capital stock of said corporation shall be
      Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000), which shall be divided into Three Million
      (3,000,000) shares of the par value of Five Dollars ($5.00) each.”





THIRD:
      The number of shares of the Corporation outstanding at the time of such
      adoption, and the number of shares entitled to vote, was 501,898.





FOURTH:
      The Corporation has only one class of stock of the Corporation, that being
      common stock and all shares of which were entitled to vote.





FIFTH:
      The number of shares voted for such amendment was 286,028; and the number of
      shares voted against such amendment was 6,784.





NOW,
      THEREFORE, THESE ARTICLES OF AMENDEMNT are now signed by Leslie A. Barr,
      President, and Clarence E. Porter, Secretary/Treasurer, of Highlands Bankshares,
      Inc. a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of West
      Virginia, under the seal of the corporation hereto affixed and attested by
      Clarence E. Porter, its Secretary/Treasurer.  DATE: May 30,
      2000.





HIGHLANDS
                BANKSHARES, INC.By:
            /s/
                Leslie A. BarrLESLIE
                A. BARR, PresidentBy:
            /s/
                Clarence E. PorterCLARENCE
                E. PORTER, Secretary/Treasurer





ATTEST:/s/
                Clarence E. PorterCLARENCE
                E. PORTER,
                Secretary/Treasurer
161 So.2d 281

#### Kerlin REDDING v. S. H. CADE et al.

No. 47116.

March 16, 1964.

In re: Kerlin Redding applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Natchitoches. 158 So.2d 880.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
Page 1 of 2

1

Defendant’s motion makes reference to “Amendment 12 [§] 4A1.2(a)(2) effective

November 1, 2007.” Doc. 90 at 1. However, Amendment 12 modified § 2B2.1(b)(2) and had an

effective date of June 15, 1988. That amendment is not applicable to the facts of Defendant’s

case, and it is clear Defendant intended to cite Amendment 709. The Court treats Defendant’s

motion accordingly.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:96-cr-00025-MP

GEORGE WASHINGTON PARKER, JR,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 90, Motion to Reduce Sentence, filed by George

Washington Parker, Jr. Defendant brought this motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),

which permits the Court to modify a sentence “in the case of a defendant who has been

sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been

lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . .” In the instant case, Defendant claims that he is

entitled to relief based on Amendment 709 to § 4A1.2(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing

Guidelines (“Guidelines”), which directs the Court in its computation of prior sentences when

determining a defendant’s criminal history.1

 Amendment 709 had an effective date of November

1, 2007. Therefore, the Amendment could only affect Defendant’s sentence if it were applied

retroactively. 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), such retroactive application is proper only if (1) the

defendant’s sentencing range has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission; (2)

Case 1:96-cr-00025-MP-GRJ Document 93 Filed 08/20/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:96-cr-00025-MP

the reduction is consistent with the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent they are

applicable; and (3) such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the

Sentencing Commission. With regard to the last question–whether retroactive application of an

amendment to the Guidelines is consistent with applicable policy statements–the Commission

makes its policy statements regarding retroactivity of amendments by periodically amending

Guidelines § 1B1.10. That section contains the Commission’s policy statement on retroactivity

and, in § 1B1.10(c), the Commission expressly lists the Amendments that it intends to have

retroactive effect. Amendment 709 is not on that list, so it is not a basis for relief under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant’s motion at Doc. 90 to reduce his sentence is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of August, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:96-cr-00025-MP-GRJ Document 93 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 2
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2597 

To facilitate homeownership in high-cost areas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7, 2006 

Mrs. CLINTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To facilitate homeownership in high-cost areas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Housing Fair5 ness Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FHA SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING MAXIMUM MORT7 GAGE LIMIT. 

8 Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the National Housing Act 

9 (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(2)(A)) is amended— 

10 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘95 percent’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘100 percent’’; 

12 (2) in clause (ii)— 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 2597 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘87 percent ’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘100 percent’’ ; and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘for Fiscal Year’’ and in4 serting a comma; and 

5 (3) by moving subparagraph (A), including 

6 clauses (i) and (ii) of such subparagraph, 2 ems to 

7 the right. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY: 

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Postal Service notice of filing of a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3).

# DATES:

December 1, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that on November 17, 2010, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Parcel Return Service Contract 2 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Contract and Supporting Data. Documents are available at                     *http://www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2011-6 and CP2011-33.                

Neva R. Watson,

Attorney, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 2010-30185 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv209-MW/GRJ

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Order to Show Cause and Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4, and has also 

reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 ECF 

No. 6.

Plaintiff filed 33 cases over a four-day period, from August 17 through August 

20, 2020. These cases were assigned to three U. S. District Judges in the Northern 

District of Florida. The cases are frivolous. Understandably, the Magistrate Judge 

found this extraordinary volume of frivolous cases merits the imposition of 

1 Plaintiff filed a document in Case No. 1:20cv181-MW/GRJ, ECF No. 6, which this Court has 

construed as an omnibus response to the Order to Show Cause and as objections to the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones, ECF No. 4.

Case 1:20-cv-00209-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2
2

restrictions on future filings in order to preserve scarce judicial resources and protect 

the efficient administration of justice. While a close call, this Court will not restrict 

future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the process. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted in part, over 

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

“This case is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and/or for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

No restrictions are imposed on future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the 

judicial process.” The Clerk shall also close the file. 

SO ORDERED on September 23, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00209-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2
46.504 Certificate of conformance.       A certificate of conformance (see 46.315) may be used in certain instances instead of source inspection (whether the contract calls for acceptance at source or destination) at the discretion of the contracting officer if the following conditions apply:                                       (a) 						            Acceptance on the basis of a contractor’s certificate of conformance is in the Government’s interest.                                          (b)                                                         (1) 								                Small losses would be incurred in the event of a defect; or                                                            (2) 								                Because of the contractor’s reputation or past performance, it is likely that the supplies or services furnished will be acceptable and any defective work would be replaced, corrected, or repaired without contest. In no case shall the Government’s right to inspect supplies under the inspection provisions of the contract be prejudiced.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 46.5 - Acceptance
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            6001 - INDX 2006-AR27 DB



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Agency CooperationBehavior DisordersEducation Work RelationshipEducational StrategiesEmotional DisturbancesEmploymentInterpersonal CompetenceOutcomes of EducationSecondary EducationStudent CharacteristicsTransitional ProgramsVocational Education

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
#### Pearce v. The State.

(Three cases.)

Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. N. D. Denson.

*672•Gordon Macdonáld and N. D. Brainard, Jr., for appellant.

William C. Fitts, Attorney-General, for the State,

The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for obtaining money under false pretenses. This case is affirmed on the authority of *Pearce v. The State,*115 Ala. 115.

Opinion by

Haralson, J.
§ 54.15 Instrument grading. ( a ) Applicants may use USDA-approved technologies to augment the official USDA grading process for approved species presented for official grading. This voluntary program may be utilized by a plant at its discretion but must comply with QAD procedures to be recognized and relied upon by the official grader in conducting official duties.
( b ) Applicants have the option to augment quality and yield grading services through the use of vision-based instrument technology. Instrument grading may be used as an option for determining degrees of marbling and yield factors for meat carcasses. AMS approves the grading instrument itself and its use within individual applicant facilities. Applicants may contact grading supervision to initiate the process for in-plant approval. The process for instrument grading approval at an applicant's facility is dictated through internal procedures. Final determination of quality and yield grades is made by the official grader.
[84 FR 48557, Sept. 16, 2019]
§ 58.737 Pasteurized process cheese food. Shall conform to the provisions of the Definitions and Standards of Identity for Pasteurized Process Cheese Food and Related Products, Food and Drug Administration. The average age of the cheese in the blend shall be such that the desired flavor, body and texture will be achieved in the finished product. The quality of pasteurized process cheese food shall be determined on the basis of flavor, body and texture, color, and finish and appearance. ( a ) *Flavor.* Has a pleasing and desirable mild cheese taste and odor characteristic of the variety or varieties of cheese ingredients used. If additional optional ingredients are used they shall be incorporated in accordance with good commercial practices and the flavor imparted shall be pleasing and desirable. May have a slight cooked or very slight acid or emulsifier flavors; is free from any undesirable tastes and odors.
( b ) *Body and texture.* Shall have a reasonably medium-firm smooth and velvety body and free from uncooked cheese particles. Is resilient and not tough, brittle, short or sticky. It shall be free from pin holes or openings except those caused by trapped steam. The product shall slice freely with only a slight amount of sticking and shall not break when cut into approximately 1 ⁄ 8 inch slices. If in sliced form, the slices shall separate readily.
( c ) *Color.* May be colored or uncolored but shall be uniform throughout. If colored it shall be bright and not be dull or faded. To promote uniformity and a common reference to describe color use the color designations as depicted by the National Cheese Institute standard color guide for cheese.
( d ) *Finish and appearance.* The wrapper may be slightly wrinkled but shall envelop the cheese, adhere closely to the surface, and be completely sealed and not broken or soiled.
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




Description of 2009 Palo Verde Specific Compensation Opportunity for 

Randall K. Edington



Consistent with the letter agreement between the Company and Mr. Edington, dated December 20, 2006,
the Company adopted the 2009 Palo Verde Specific Compensation Opportunity. Mr. Edington has the
opportunity to receive up to $125,000 upon the achievement of performance measures tied to Palo
Verde performance improvements as documented by INPO and Nuclear Regulatory Commission findings,
and operational performance.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NOS . 4:97cr9-RH 

 4:97cv39-RH/WCS

ANTHONY WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING RULE 60(b) MOTION

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 94) and the objections thereto (document 95). I have

reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. Defendant’s motion for relief from his conviction and sentence

(document 92) is DENIED as an unauthorized second or successive motion under

28 U.S.C. § 2255.

SO ORDERED this 12th day of May, 2007.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:97-cr-00009-RH-GRJ Document 96 Filed 05/14/07 Page 1 of 1
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2449 

To authorize the President to extend the term of the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and 

the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of 

Nuclear Energy for a period not to exceed March 19, 2016. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2013 

Mr. ROYCE (for himself, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. 

POE of Texas, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, and Mr. COLLINS of Georgia) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the President to extend the term of the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the 

United States of America and the Government of the 

Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy for a period not to exceed March 19, 2016. 

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


ebenthall on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2449 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE UNITED STATES2 REPUBLIC OF KOREA NUCLEAR COOPERA3 TION AGREEMENT. 

4 The President is authorized to extend the term of the 

5 Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of 

6 the United States of America and the Government of the 

7 Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear En8 ergy for a period not to exceed March 19, 2016, notwith9 standing any other provision of law. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS