alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 58.727 Adding optional ingredients.

As each batch is added to the cooker, the predetermined amounts of salt, emulsifiers, color, or other allowable optional ingredients shall be added. However, a special blending vat may be used to mix the ground cheese and other ingredients before they enter the cooker to provide composition control.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Bushey, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County, rendered July 5, 1979, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the first degree. Defendant was indicted for commission of the crimes of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), and sexual abuse in the first degree. As part of a plea bargain made between the defendant’s attorney and the District Attorney, the District Attorney agreed not to prosecute the latter two counts of the indictment or certain other potential charges. He also agreed not to make any recommendation as to sentence. However, at sentencing the prosecutor asked the court to give defendant the maximum permissible sentence. Defense counsel immediately called the broken promise to the prosecutor’s and the court’s attention. The prosecutor thereupon apologized, but the court nevertheless proceeded to sentence the defendant to the maximum allowable sentence. This was error. In such circumstances, the sentence should be vacated, and the matter remitted for resentencing before a different Judge so that the promise may be fulfilled *(Santobello v New York,*404 US 257; *People v Young,*71 AD2d 582; cf. *People v Chadwick,*33 AD2d 687). Judgment modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence; matter remitted to the County Court of Franklin County for resentencing before a different Judge, and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, *P.J.,*Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:01cr22-RH /WCS

4:05cv144-RH/WCS

MICHAEL ANTHONY JAMES,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING §2255 MOTION

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

recommendation (document 34), to which no objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. Defendant’s motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§2255 (document 33) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall enter

judgment and close the file.

SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:01-cr-00022-RH-WCS Document 35 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 1
#### § 56.62 How to file an appeal.

Any request for an appeal grading or review of a grader's decision may be made orally or in writing. If made orally, written confirmation may be required. The applicant shall clearly state the reasons for requesting the appeal service and a description of the product, or the decision which is questioned. If such appeal request is based on the results stated on an official certificate, the original and all available copies of the certificate shall be returned to the appeal grader assigned to make the appeal grading.
#### § 636.21 Environmental services credits for conservation improvements.

USDA recognizes that environmental benefits will be achieved by implementing conservation activities funded through WHIP, and that environmental credits may be gained as a result of implementing activities compatible with the purposes of a WHIP cost-share agreement. NRCS asserts no direct or indirect interest on any such credits. However, NRCS retains the authority to ensure that program purposes are met and the requirements for WHIP funded improvements are met and maintained consistent with §§ 636.8 and 636.9. Where activities required under an environmental credit agreement may affect land covered under a WHIP cost-share agreement, participants are highly encouraged to request a compatibility assessment from NRCS prior to entering into such agreements. The WHIP cost-share agreement may be modified, in accordance with policies outlined in § 636.10, provided the modification meets WHIP purposes and is in compliance with this part.
§ 610.25 Subcommittees and Local Working Groups. ( a ) *Subcommittees.* In some situations, specialized subcommittees, made up of State Technical Committee members, may be needed to analyze and examine specific issues. The State Conservationist may assemble certain members, including members of Local Working Groups and other knowledgeable individuals, to discuss, examine, and focus on a particular technical or programmatic topic. The subcommittee may seek public participation, but it is not required to do so. Nevertheless, recommendations resulting from these subcommittee sessions, other than sessions of Local Working Groups, will be made only in a general session of the State Technical Committee where the public is notified and invited to attend. Decisions resulting from recommendations of Local Working Groups will be communicated to NRCS in accordance with the standard operating procedures described in § 610.23(b).
( b ) *Local Working Groups.* ( 1 ) Local Working Groups will be composed of conservation district officials, agricultural producers representing the variety of crops and livestock or poultry raised within the local area, nonindustrial private forest land owners, and other professionals representing relevant agricultural and conservation interests and a variety of disciplines in the soil, water, plant, wetland, and wildlife sciences who are familiar with private land agricultural and natural resource issues in the local community;
( 2 ) Local Working Groups will provide recommendations on local natural resource priorities and criteria for conservation activities and programs; and
( 3 ) Local Working Groups will follow the standard operating procedures described in § 610.23(b).
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51263 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. S T EP HEN MCC OR D , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 5 : 0 8
- CR- 1 9 4
- ALL
B ef ore R E AV L E Y , JO L L Y , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * S t eph en M cC ord ap pea l s f ol l ow i n g h i s c on di t i on algu i l t y- pl ea conv i ct i on of possess i on of

f i rearm s by a convic t ed fel on . M cC ord argu es that the d i st ri ct c our ter r ed bydenyi ng hi s m ot i on to suppre ss . I n part i c ul ar , he c ont ends t hat t h e searc h of

hi s r esi den ce w as not authori zed as a cond i t i o n of h i s probati on b eca u se th i s con d i ti on w a s u n con sti tu ti on a lan d h e d i d n ot vo l u n taril y a gr ee to United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 6, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 51263

2 it . Additio nally , h ea s s e rt sth atth es e archwa sn o ts u p p o rt e db yre a s o nab l es us pic io n. A tt h e t i me t h e s e a r c h w a s c o n d u c t e d , t h e r e w a s r e c e n te v i d e n c e f r o m a c onf i dent i ali nf

or m ant , w ho h ad pr evi ous l y pr ovi ded r el i abl e i nf or m at i on, t hat M cC ord w as m an u fact u ri n g m et h am ph et am i n e at h i s r esi den ce, an d M cC ord hi m s e l f a dm i t t e d t hathe w as c o o ki ng m e t ham phet am i ne . Bec aus e w e f i nd u n d er th e totali ty of t h e circu m stan ces th a t reas on a b l e su sp i ci on ex i sted to s upp o r tt he s e ar c h o f M c Cor d’ s r e s i de nc e , w e ne e d no tr e ac h t he i s s ue o f t he v a lid ity o f

t h e p r o b a tio n a r y co n d itio n a llo w in gs u s p ic io n le s s s e a r c h e s . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. Kn ig h ts , 5 3 4 U .S . 1 1 2 , 1 1 8 -2 1 (2 0 0 1 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mart i n ez , 486 F. 3d 855, 859 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) ; Un itedS ta tes v. B o ru ff , 9 0 9 F
. 2 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 7 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . A F F IR M E D
.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2683 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-cyanopyridine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-cyanopyridine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-CYANOPYRIDINE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.29.32 2-cyanopyridine, 99% (CAS 

No. 100–70–9) (provided for 

in subheading 2933.39.91) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 2683 IS 

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WALTER LANDAVERDE PEREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72389

Agency No. A076

- 219

- 621

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 10, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Walter Landaverde Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his a ppeal

from an immigration judge’ s decision denying his application for withholding of

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# F ILED

JUL 17 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 72389

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th

Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

In denying his withholding of removal claim, the BIA fo und that Perez

failed to establish that Salvadoran returnees with perceived wealth was a

cognizable social group. The BIA further found that, even if cognizable, Perez

failed to show a nexus between the harm he feared and a protected ground. In his

openin g brief, Perez contends for the first time that he established eligibility for

withholding of removal based on a particular social group of returning Salvadorans

accompanied by his or her U.S. citizen children. We lack jurisdiction to consider

this. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks

jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Apart from this

argument, Perez does not challenge the BIA’s grounds for denying withholding of

removal. Thus, we deny the p etition as to Perez’s withholding of removal claim.

Substanti al evidence supports the agency’s denial of Perez’s CAT claim

because he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador

.3 14

- 72389

See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
160 So.2d 226

#### Robert G. CHANDLER v. J. P. CRAIN.

No. 47095.

Feb. 7, 1964.

In re: Robert G. Chandler applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of *636Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 159 So.2d 312.

Writ refused. No error of law.
§ 70.34 Rejection of application. ( a ) Any application for grading service may be rejected by the Administrator: ( 1 ) Whenever the applicant fails to meet the requirements of the regulations prescribing the conditions under which the service is made available;
( 2 ) Whenever the product is owned by or located on the premises of a person currently denied the benefits of the Act;
( 3 ) Where any individual holding office or a responsible position with or having a substantial financial interest or share in the applicant, is currently denied the benefits of the Act, or was responsible in whole or in part for the current denial of the benefits of the Act to any person;
( 4 ) Where the Administrator determines that the application is an attempt on the part of a person currently denied the benefits of the Act to obtain grading service;
( 5 ) Whenever the applicant, after an initial survey has been made in accordance with § 70.34, fails to bring the grading facilities and equipment into compliance with the regulations within a reasonable period of time; or
( 6 ) Notwithstanding any prior approval whenever, before inauguration of service, the applicant fails to fulfill commitments concerning the inauguration of the service.
( 7 ) When it appears that to perform the services specified in this part would not be to the best interests of the public welfare or of the Government;
( 8 ) When it appears to the Administrator that prior commitments of the Department necessitate rejection of the application.
( b ) Each such applicant shall be promptly notified by registered mail of the reasons for the rejection. A written petition for reconsideration of such rejection may be filed by the applicant with the Administrator if postmarked or delivered within 10 days after receipt of notice of the rejection. Such petition shall state specifically the errors alleged to have been made by the Administrator in rejecting the application. Within 20 days following the receipt of such a petition for reconsideration, the Administrator shall approve the application or notify the applicant by registered mail of the reasons for the rejection thereof.
[71 FR 42013, July 24, 2006. Redesignated as 84 FR 49643, Sept. 23, 2019]
§ 60.300 Labeling. ( a ) Country of origin declarations and method of production (wild and/or farm-raised) designations can either be in the form of a placard, sign, label, sticker, band, twist tie, pin tag, or other format that provides country of origin and method of production information. The country of origin declaration and method of production (wild and/or farm-raised) designation may be combined or made separately. Except as provided in § 60.200(g) and 60.200(h) of this regulation, the declaration of the country(ies) of origin of a product shall be listed according to applicable Federal legal requirements. Country of origin declarations may be in the form of a check box provided it is in conformance with other Federal legal requirements. Various forms of the production designation are acceptable, including “wild caught”, “wild”, “farm-raised”, “farmed”, or a combination of these terms for blended products that contain both wild and farm-raised fish or shellfish, provided it can be readily understood by the consumer and is in conformance with other Federal labeling laws. Designations such as “ocean caught”, “caught at sea”, “line caught”, “cultivated”, or “cultured” are not acceptable substitutes. Alternatively, method of production (wild and/or farm-raised) designations may be in the form of a check box.
( b ) The declaration of the country(ies) of origin and method(s) of production (wild and/or farm-raised) (e.g., placard, sign, label, sticker, band, twist tie, pin tag, or other display) must be placed in a conspicuous location, so as to render it likely to be read and understood by a customer under normal conditions of purchase.
( c ) The declaration of the country(ies) of origin and the method(s) of production (wild and/or farm-raised) may be typed, printed, or handwritten provided it is in conformance with other Federal labeling laws and does not obscure other labeling information required by other Federal regulations.
( d ) A bulk container (e.g., display case, shipper, bin, carton, and barrel), used at the retail level to present product to consumers, may contain a covered commodity from more than one country of origin and/or more than one method of production (wild and farm-raised) provided all possible origins and/or methods of production are listed.
( e ) In general, country abbreviations are not acceptable. Only those abbreviations approved for use under CBP rules, regulations, and policies, such as “U.K.” for “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, “Luxemb” for Luxembourg, and “U.S. or USA” for the “United States” are acceptable. The adjectival form of the name of a country may be used as proper notification of the country(ies) of origin of imported commodities provided the adjectival form of the name does not appear with other words so as to refer to a kind or species of product. Symbols or flags alone may not be used to denote country of origin.
( f ) State or regional label designations are not acceptable in lieu of country of origin labeling.
47.305-9 Commodity description and freight classification.       (a) 						            Generally, the freight rate for supplies is based on the rating applicable to the freight classification description published in the National Motor Freight Classification (NMFC) (for carriers) and the Uniform Freight Classification (UFC) (for rail) filed with Federal and State regulatory bodies. Therefore, the contracting officer shall show in the solicitation a complete description of the commodity to be acquired and of packing requirements to determine proper transportation charges for the evaluation of offers. If supplies cannot be properly classified through reference to freight classification tariffs or if doubt exists, the contracting officer shall obtain the applicable freight classification from the transportation office. In some situations prospective contractors have established an official freight classification description that can be applied.                                          (b)                                                         (1) 								                When the supplies being acquired are new to the supply system, nonstandard, or modifications of previously shipped items, and different freight classifications may apply, the contracting officer shall insert in solicitations the provision at 52.247-53, Freight Classification Description.                                                            (2) 								                The contracting officer shall alert the transportation officer to the possibility of negotiations for appropriate freight classification ratings and reasonable transportation rates.                                                                             (c) 						            The solicitation shall contain adequate descriptions of explosives and other dangerous supplies according to-                                                         (1) 								                The regular freight classification; and                                                            (2) 								                The hazardous material description and hazard class as shown in 49 CFR172.101.                                                                             (d) 						            The contracting officer	shall furnish the freight classification information developed in 47.305-9(a), (b), and (c) of this section	to the contract administration office.    **Parent topic:** 47.305 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and transportation factors.
§ 520.5 Categorical exclusions. For the following categories of actions, the preparation of an EA or EIS is not required: ( a ) *Department of Agriculture categorical exclusions ( 7 CFR 1b.3 ).* ( 1 ) Policy development, planning and implementation which are related to routine activities such as personnel, organizational changes or similar administrative functions;
( 2 ) Activities which deal solely with the functions of programs, such as program budget proposals, disbursement, transfer or reprogramming of funds;
( 3 ) Inventories, research activities and studies, such as resource inventories and routine data collection when such actions are clearly limited in context and intensity;
( 4 ) Educational and information programs and activities;
( 5 ) Activities which are advisory and consultative to other agencies, public and private entities, and
( 6 ) Activities related to trade representation and market development activities overseas.
( b ) *ARS categorical exclusions.* ARS actions which, based on previous experience, have been found to have limited scope and intensity and produce little or no individual or cumulative impacts to the human environment. Some examples are: ( 1 ) Repair, replacement of structural components or equipment, or other routine maintenance of facilities controlled in whole or in part by ARS;
( 2 ) Research programs or projects of limited size and magnitude or with only short-term effects on the environment. Examples are: ( i ) Research operations conducted within any laboratory, greenhouse or other contained facility where research practices and safeguards prevent environment impacts such as the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
( ii ) Inventories, studies or other such activities that have limited context and minimal intensity in terms of changes in the environment;
( iii ) Testing outside of the laboratory, such as in small isolated field plots, which does not involve the use of control agents requiring containment or a special license or a permit from a regulatory agency.
( c ) *Exceptions to categorical exclusions.* An environmental assessment shall be prepared for an activity which is normally within the purview of categorical exclusion if there are extraordinary circumstances which may cause such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
#### In the Matter of Eugene Rodriguez, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

April 4, 1967.

*287
      *John G. Bonomi*of counsel for petitioner.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to practice in the First Judicial Department on March 14, 1955. After trial in the Supreme Court, County of Bronx, he was, on January 13, 1967, convicted of the crimes of attempted grand larceny in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the second degree and perjury in the first degree all of which crimes are felonies under the law of this State. (Penal Law, §§ 1294, 1296 and 1620-a.)

In consequence of such conviction, and pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor at law of the State of New York. The conviction *ipso facto*requires that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys *(Matter of Ginsberg,*1 N Y 2d 144).

The petition to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys should be granted.

Steiter, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McNally and MoGtvern, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law of the State of New York.