alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

#### §§ 4290.3016-4290.3019 [Reserved]
# 37.604 Quality assurance surveillance plans.

Requirements for quality assurance and quality assurance surveillance plans are in subpart  46.4. The Government *may* either prepare the quality assurance surveillance plan or require the *offerors* to submit a proposed quality assurance surveillance plan for the Government’s consideration in development of the Government’s plan.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 37.6 - Performance-Based Acquisition
#### § 51.306 Tolerances.

In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and handling in each of the grades in 51.300, 51.301, 51.302, 51.303, and 51.304 the following tolerances are provided as specified:

(a) *Defects:*

(1) U.S. Extra Fancy, U.S. Fancy, U.S. No. 1, and U.S. No. 1 Hail grades: 10 percent of the apples in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of the grade, but not more than one-half of this amount, or 5 percent, shall be allowed for apples which are seriously damaged, including therein not more than 1 percent for apples affected by decay or internal breakdown.

(2) *U.S. Utility grade:* 10 percent of the apples in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of the grade, but not more than one-half of this amount, or 5 percent, shall be allowed for apples which are seriously damaged by insects, and including in the total tolerance not more than 1 percent for apples affected by decay or internal breakdown.

(b) When applying the foregoing tolerances to Combination grades, no part of any tolerance shall be allowed to reduce, for the lot as a whole, the 50 percent of apples of the higher grade required in the combination, but individual containers shall have not less than 40 percent of the higher grade.

(c) *Size:* When size is designated by the numerical count for a container, not more than 10 percent of packages in the lot may fail to be fairly uniform.[1] When size is designated by minimum or maximum diameter, not more than 5 percent of the apples in any lot may be smaller than the designated minimum, and not more than 10 percent may be larger than the designated maximum. For Red Delicious or Golden Delicious varieties only, a combination of minimum diameter and/or weight may be used. When this designation is used, an individual apple will be considered to have met the minimum size requirement even if the apple is smaller than the minimum diameter, provided it is equal to or greater than the weight provided in table II of this section. However, not more than 5 percent of the apples in any lot may fail to meet either the minimum diameter or minimum weight when so designated. In addition, when Red Delicious or Golden Delicious apples are designated with diameter/weight combinations, they may only be designated according to the following table:

| Red delicious | Golden delicious |
| --- | --- |
| 21/8 inches or 65 grams | 63 grams |
| 21/4 inches or 75 grams | 70 grams |
| 23/8 inches or 84 grams | 82 grams |
| 21/2 inches or 100 grams | 95 grams |
| 25/8 inches or 115 grams | 109 grams |
| 23/4 inches or 139 grams | 134 grams |

Table II

###### Footnotes -
  51.306

[1] “Fairly uniform” means the size of the fruit within the container does not vary more than
12 inch diameter from the smallest to largest fruit.
#### § 51.1533 Well colored.

“Well colored,” as applied to Italian type prunes, means that 95 percent of the surface of the prune is purple color.
#### § 51.1157 Well formed.

*Well formed* means that the fruit has the shape characteristic of the variety.
§ 51.2294 Very serious damage. *Very serious damage* means any defect, other than color, which very seriously affects the appearance, or the edible or shipping quality of the individual portion of kernel or of the lot as a whole. Any one of the following defects or any combination of defects the seriousness of which exceeds the maximum allowed for any one defect shall be considered as very serious damage: ( a ) Shriveling when more than 50 percent of the portion of kernel is severely shriveled;
( b ) Mold when plainly visible on more than one-fourth of the surface of the portion of kernel in the aggregate;
( c ) Discoloration of the meat when more than one-half the volume of the portion of kernel is severely discolored;
( d ) Insect injury;
( e ) Rancidity or decay; and,
( f ) Shell, or any foreign material.
#### Mil-Pine Plaza, Inc., Respondent, v Mister Donut of America, Inc., Appellant.

Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation. (Appeal from order of Niagara Supreme Court — strike note of issue.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
#### In Re: William Eugene WEBB, Petitioner.

No. 07-6669.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 23, 2007.

Decided: Aug. 29, 2007.

*218William Eugene Webb, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Eugene Webb petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court has recently denied the petition. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Webb’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

**JUDGMENT**

No. 04-17-00676-CV

**REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 404 FULLER ST.,**

**KERRVILLE, KERR COUNTY, TEXAS**,

Appellant

v.

The **STATE** of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16620A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

	In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.  It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant Peggy Butler in relation to this appeal because she qualifies as indigent under TEX. R. APP. P. 29.

	SIGNED December 19, 2018.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

# image1.png

# image2.jpeg
Exhibit 3.6





STATE OF DELAWARE


CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION


OF


KALEX CORP.





The undersigned, being the President of KALEX CORP., a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify under the seal of the said corporation as follows:





1.           The name of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") is KALEX Corp.





2.           That a Certificate of Amendment was filed by the Secretary of State of Delaware on December 1, 2010 and that said Certificate requires correction as permitted by Section 103 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





3.           The inaccuracy or defect of said Certificate is:





The inadvertent omission of language providing the board of directors of the Corporation the power to designate and fix the powers, preferences and rights and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of any number of series of preferred stock of the Corporation, a power that was previously set forth in Article Fourth of the Certificate of Incorporation, as amended.





4.           Article FIRST of the Certificate is corrected to read as follows:





“FIRST:  That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of KALEX CORP. resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of said corporation thereof.   The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:





RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing the Article thereof numbered “FOURTH:” so that, as amended said Article shall be read as follows:





‘FOURTH:  The total number of authorized shares which the Corporation is authorized to issue is 800,000,000 shares of common stock, having a par value of $0.00001 per share, and 2,000 shares of preferred stock, having a par value of $0.00001 per share.  The board of directors of the Corporation may, by resolution or resolutions, designate and fix the powers, preferences and rights and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of any number of series of preferred stock of the Corporation.’”




1





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed and this Certificate of Correction to be signed by its President, this 15th day of March, 2011.


KALEX CORP.By:
/s/ Arnold SockArnold F. Sock, President
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, Huff and Senior Judge Clements

LANTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND

CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY

MEMORANDUM OPINION *

v. Record No. 1059

- 11

- 3 PER CURIAM

SEPTEMBER 27, 2011

MICHAEL ADAMS

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Robert M. Himmel; Lucas & Kite, PLC, on brief)

, for appellant s

.

(Michael L. Ritchie; Ritchie Law Firm, P.L.C., on brief)

, for

appellee.

Lantz Construction Company and its insurer, Cincinnati Insuran ce Company

, appeal a

decision of the Workers ’ Compensation Commission granting temporary total disability benefits

to Michael Adams. We have reviewe d the record and the commission’ s opinion and find that

this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affi rm for the reasons stated by the majority of the

commission in its final opinion. See Adams v. Lantz Constr

. Co.

, VWC File No. JCN

VA000

- 0013

- 5200 ( Apr

. 27, 2011 ). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm

because the facts and legal contention s are adequately presented in the materials before the Court

and argument would not aid the decisional process. See C ode § 17.1

- 403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirme d.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1

- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 27 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
EINSTEIN (BOSS MAN), a/k/a ACCOUNTABILITY BURNS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. TULSA COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-5054 (D.C. No. 74-CV-153-E) (N.D. Okla.)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, EBEL , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. **See** Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Th e cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Einstein (Boss Man) a/k/a Accountability Burns appe als the district court order denying his motions for new trial, retrial an d change of venue, and his1 Mr. Einstein’s motion for default judgment is deni ed. -2- motion to reinstate the case. The district court d enied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and plaintiff now seeks l eave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. In ruling on plaintiff’s motions, the district court reviewed docket entries 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, and concluded that the moti ons raised new claims and therefore should have been pursued as new original actions. The record on appeal consists of material from a case originally filed in 1974 and copies of media articles, many of which are annotated by plai ntiff. The record does not, however, contain the docket entries ruled on by the district court. We therefore have nothing to review. The motion for leave to pr oceed in forma pauperis is denied and the appeal is DISMISSED
. 1 ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

 Case No. 3:19md2885 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Kelley, 7:20cv153 

 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones 

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 3 

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions: 

1. Asobo, Nicholas (11/19/2021) 

2. Coventry, Kathleen (11/19/2021) 

3. Delgado, Blanca (11/12/2021) 

4. Fauntleroy, Ronnie (11/18/2021) 

5. Kelley, Michael (10/27/2021) 

6. Kieper, Ronald (12/19/2019) 

SO ORDERED this 19th day of March, 2022. 

 M. CASEY RODGERS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ Document 126 Filed 03/19/22 Page 1 of 1
Federal Acquisition Regulation

Part 27 - Patents, Data, and Copyrights

Part 28 - Bonds and Insurance

Part 29 - Taxes

Part 30 - Cost Accounting Standards Administration

Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures

Part 32 - Contract Financing

Part 33 Protests, Disputes, and Appeals

Parent topic: Subchapter E - General Contracting Requirements
2005-2366.

#### State v. Artiaga.

Lucas App. No. L-04-1376, 2005-Ohio-6000. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 1512, 2006-Ohio-1329, 844 N.E.2d 856. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
# L_2021209EN.01009101.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 209/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 209/91

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/949

of 7 June 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Balatoni hal’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Balatoni hal’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Balatoni hal’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Balatoni hal’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Balatoni hal’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Balatoni hal’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. – Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 June 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 63, 23.2.2021, p. 27.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
(September 8, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Gordon Haskell, Respondent, v Frank X. Gargiulo et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Appellant. Respondents, and Barry Hurowitz,

In a proceeding, *inter alia,*to invalidate petitions designating Barry Hurowitz as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 9, 1980, for the public office of Civil Court Judge for the 1st Municipal District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 21, 1980 which granted the application. By order dated September 4, 1980 this court reversed the judgment, on the law, dismissed the proceeding and directed the board of elections to place the name of Barry Hurowitz on the appropriate ballot (78 AD2d 528). On September 5, 1980 the Court of Appeals reversed the order of this court and remitted the case to this court for further proceedings (51 NY2d 747). Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. On the basis of the facts found by Special Term, and in light of the decision by the Court of Appeals in this matter, we find no ground for reversal, and therefore, affirm. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Mangano and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
17.109 Contract clauses.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.217-2, Cancellation Under Multi-year

Contracts, in solicitations and contracts when a multi-year contract is contemplated.

(b) Economic price adjustment clauses. Economic price adjustment clauses are adaptable to multiyear contracting needs. When the period of production is likely to warrant a labor and material costs

contingency in the contract price, the contracting officer should normally use an economic price

adjustment clause (see 16.203). When contracting for services, the contracting officer-

(1) Shall add the clause at 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor

Standards- Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts), when the contract includes the

clause at 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards;

(2) May modify the clause at 52.222-43 in overseas contracts when laws, regulations, or

international agreements require contractors to pay higher wage rates; or

(3) May use an economic price adjustment clause authorized by 16.203, when potential fluctuations

require coverage and are not included in cost contingencies provided for by the clause at 52.222-43.

Parent topic: Subpart 17.1 - Multi-year Contracting
#### Fladell, Winston, Pennette, Inc., Appellant, v. Harris Breitner Advertising Corporation et al., Respondents.

Order entered September 7, 1966, denying plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the respondents. We do not pass upon the question of authority. Concur—-.Stevens, J. P., Eager, Tilzer, Rabin and MeGivem, JJ.
#### § 51.1304 U.S. No. 2.

“U.S. No. 2” consists of pears of one variety which are mature, but not overripe, carefully hand-picked, clean, not seriously misshapen, free from decay, internal breakdown, scald, freezing injury, worm holes, black end, and from damage caused by hard end, or broken skins. The pears shall also be free from serious damage caused by bruises, russeting, limbrubs, hail, scars, cork spot, drought spot, sunburn, sprayburn, stings or other insect injury, disease, or mechanical or other means. (See §§ 51.1306 and 51.1309.)
# L_2013298DE.01005001.xml

| 8.11.2013 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 298/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2013

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 298/50

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1034/2013 der Kommission vom 24. Oktober 2013 zur Genehmigung von Phosphin freisetzendem Aluminiumphosphid als Wirkstoff zur Verwendung in Biozidprodukten der Produktart 20

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 283 vom 25. Oktober 2013
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 283 vom 25. Oktober 2013

Auf Seite 30, Anhang, in der Tabelle, Spalte „Produktart“, wird die Zahl „20“ eingefügt.

---
#### The Promenade et al., Respondents, v Schindler Elevator Corporation et al., Defendants. The Glick Organization et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v A-Wachsberger Roofing & Sheet Metal Work Inc. et al., Third-Party Defendants, and De-Con Mechanical Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Submitted May 21, 2007;

decided June 28, 2007

Reported below, 39 AD3d 221.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
§ 51.1313 Mature. ( a ) *Mature* means that the pear has reached the stage of maturity which will insure the proper completion of the ripening process.
( b ) Before a mature pear becomes overripe it will show varying degrees of firmness depending upon the stage of the ripening process. Therefore, a statement of firmness should be given in order to indicate the stage of the ripening process. A description of the ground color should also be given. ( 1 ) The following terms should be used for describing the ground color: *Green, Light Green, Yellowish Green,* and *Yellow.*
( 2 ) The following terms should be used for describing the firmness of pears: ( i ) *Hard* means that the flesh of the pear is solid and does not yield appreciably even to considerable pressure.
( ii ) *Firm* means that the flesh of the pear is fairly solid but yields somewhat to moderate pressure.
( iii ) *Firm ripe* means that the flesh of the pear yields readily to moderate pressure.
( iv ) *Ripe* means that the pear is at the stage where it is in its most desirable condition for eating.