alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.

§ 57.900 Requirements for importation of restricted eggs into the United States. ( a ) Restricted eggs may be imported into the United States from any foreign country only in accordance with these regulations. The importation of any egg in violation of the regulations of this part is prohibited. The importation of any egg in violation of the regulations of this part is prohibited.
( b ) All such imported articles shall upon entry into the United States be deemed and treated as domestic articles and be subject to the other provisions of the Act, these regulations, and other Federal or State requirements.
[63 FR 69968, 69971, Dec. 17, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 57168, Sept. 24, 2004]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Mena, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 721]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J., on motions; Charles H. Solomon, J., at hearing; Richard D. Carruthers, J, at jury trial and sentence), rendered December 8, 2003, convicting defendant of two counts of kidnapping in the first degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was a lengthy chain of circumstantial proof connecting defendant with the kidnapping, including, among other things, testimony that defendant, who was present during the abduction, handed the abductors the keys to his car, did not call the police, and was in *350telephone contact with the abductors during the period the victim was confined, while ransom demands were being made. It was rational for the jury to infer from the evidence *(see People v Bierenbaum,*301 AD2d 119 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 626 [2003], *cert denied*540 US 821 [2003]) that defendant was in collusion with the victim’s abductors. We note that at trial defendant failed to raise any claim with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence bearing on the additional mens rea requirement of Penal Law § 135.25 (2). Nor does he raise such a claim on appeal, or argue that his conviction of that offense was against the weight of the evidence.

Further, the motion court properly denied defendant’s speedy trial motion. The People satisfied their burden of proving that the November 13, 2002 and January 15, 2003 adjournments were consensual through an affirmation from defendant’s former attorney and the transcripts of the respective court appearances *(see*CPL 30.30 [4] [b]). Additionally, although the motion court found otherwise, we have the authority to rule that the March 5, 2003 adjournment should have been excluded from statutory speedy trial calculation *(see People v Salgado,*27 AD3d 71 [2006]). The transcript of this court proceeding clearly establishes that this adjournment was consented to by defense counsel.

Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because the prosecutor made improper comments during summation is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Defendant either failed to object with specificity, or failed to request further curative instructions after an objection was sustained. Were we to review defendant’s claims, we would find that the People’s remarks in summation did not shift the burden of proof. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
Docket No. FAA-2015-0682
#### GOODWIN, Appellant, v. OCHS, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Richard Goodwin against Wilhelmina Ochs.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
52.216-19 Order Limitations.

As prescribed in 16.506(b), insert a clause substantially the same as follows:

Order Limitations (Oct 1995)

(a) Minimum order. When the Government requires supplies or services covered by this contract in

an amount of less than _____________ [insert dollar figure or quantity], the Government is not

obligated to purchase, nor is the Contractor obligated to furnish, those supplies or services under

the contract.

(b) Maximum order. The Contractor is not obligated to honor-

(1) Any order for a single item in excess of _____________ [insert dollar figure or quantity];

(2) Any order for a combination of items in excess of ______________ [insert dollar figure or quantity];

or

(3) A series of orders from the same ordering office within _____________ days that together call for

quantities exceeding the limitation in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.

(c) If this is a requirements contract (i.e., includes the Requirements clause at subsection 52.216-21

of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)), the Government is not required to order a part of any

one requirement from the Contractor if that requirement exceeds the maximum-order limitations in

paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the Contractor shall honor any order

exceeding the maximum order limitations in paragraph (b), unless that order (or orders) is returned

to the ordering office within _____ days after issuance, with written notice stating the Contractor’s

intent not to ship the item (or items) called for and the reasons. Upon receiving this notice, the

Government may acquire the supplies or services from another source.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.216 [Reserved]
Case No: 3:03cv566/MCR/MD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CLARK BARTHOLOMERE WILSON,

 Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:03cv566/MCR/MD

JAMES V. CROSBY, 

 Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________

ORDER

This cause is before the court upon petitioner’s notice of appeal and motion

for certificate of appealability (docs. 40 & 41). Unless a certificate of appealability is

issued, the petitioner may not take an appeal from the final order denying § 2254

relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b)(1). Such a certificate may

issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2).

After review of the file, the court concludes that because the petitioner has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and for the

reasons set forth in this court’s September 19, 2006 Order (doc. 38) adopting and

incorporating the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed on July 20,

2006 (doc. 34), a certificate of appealability is DENIED and no certificate shall issue.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2006.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-00566-MCR-MD Document 45 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 1
================================================================================

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 Shepard Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 results of operations of
         the Company.


Date:  November 15, 2005


/s/ Michael Eyre
----------------------------------
Michael Eyre, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Citizenship EducationColonial History (United States)Elementary Secondary EducationHistory InstructionInstructional MaterialsInternetPresidents of the United StatesRevolutionary War (United States)Social StudiesUnited States History

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MICHAEL A. HAGAN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-1100 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________ ) Opinion filed March 16, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; John K. Stargel, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Terrence E. Kehoe, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. SILBERMAN, Judge. Michael A. Hagan seeks review of his judgment and sentences fo r tampering with evidence and second-degree murder. We affirm Ha gan's convictions without comment. As for Hagan's challenge to his sentences, we reverse for the sole purpose of amending the sentences to reflect the relief granted pursuant to his motion to correct sentencing error.- 2 - At the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally pronounced s entences of life in prison with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum for se cond-degree murder and five years in prison for tampering with evidence. The court im posed the life sentence consecutive to the five-year sentence. However, the written se ntence reverses the designation and imposes the five-year sentence consecutive to t he life sentence. After the notice of appeal was filed, Hagan filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) in which he argu ed that the written sentence fails to comport with th e court's oral pronouncement. The trial court granted

relief on this basis and ordered that the written sentence be c orrected to designate the life sentence as consecutive to the five-year sentence. Despit e these directions, an amended sentence has not yet been entered. Accordingly, we rev erse and remand for the entry of an amended sentence reflecting the relief granted. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

LaROSE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
# 32.008 Notification of overpayment.

If the contractor notifies the *contracting officer* of a duplicate payment or that the Government has otherwise overpaid, the *contracting officer**shall* follow the procedures at 32.604.

**Parent topic:**Part 32 - Contract Financing
Amended to the Cash Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.10 
 AMENDMENT TO THE 
 NEWELL RUBBERMAID INC. 
 MANAGEMENT CASH BONUS PLAN 
 The Newell Rubbermaid Inc. Management Cash Bonus Plan (the
“Plan”), is amended, effective as of February 11, 2009, with respect to bonuses paid for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2009, as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 Section 6(c) of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 


 (c) Maximum Bonus Payment. The target and maximum annual bonus award payable to a Participant for a Plan Year is a percentage of his Salary, based on the Participant’s participation category
and the level of achievement of the performance goals, as set forth below: 
  

					
	 	  	 Bonus as a Percentage of
 Salary if Targets Achieved at
	  	Maximum Bonus as a
	 Participation Category
	  	 100% Level
	  	 Percentage of Salary

	A/A/A	  	115.0%	  	230.0%
	A/A	  	75.0%	  	150.0%
	A/B	  	65.0%	  	130.0%
	A/C	  	55.0%	  	110.0%
	A	  	45.0%	  	90.0%
	B/C	  	35.0%	  	70.0%
	B	  	33.5%	  	67.0%
	C	  	16.75%	  	33.5%
	D	  	8.375%	  	16.75%

 Performance below the target levels will result in a lower or no bonus award. 
 In no event, however, shall any Participant be paid a bonus award for any Plan Year that exceeds $2,900,000. 
 This Amendment has been executed by the Corporation, by its duly authorized officer, as of
this 11th day of February, 2009. 
  

			
	 NEWELL RUBBERMAID INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Jim Sweet

		
	 Title:
	 	 Executive Vice President – Human
Resources and Corporate Communications
52.215-19 Notification of Ownership Changes.       As prescribed in 15.408(k), insert the following clause:          Notification of Ownership Changes (Oct 1997)                                       (a) 						            The Contractor shall make the following notifications in writing:                                                         (1) 								                When the Contractor becomes aware that a change in its ownership has occurred, or is certain to occur, that could result in changes in the valuation of its capitalized assets in the accounting records, the Contractor shall notify the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) within 30 days.                                                            (2) 								                The Contractor shall also notify the ACO within 30 days whenever changes to asset valuations or any other cost changes have occurred or are certain to occur as a result of a change in ownership.                                                                             (b) 						            The Contractor shall-                                                         (1) 								                Maintain current, accurate, and complete inventory records of assets and their costs;                                                            (2) 								                Provide the ACO or designated representative ready access to the records upon request;                                                            (3) 								                Ensure that all individual and grouped assets, their capitalized values, accumulated depreciation or amortization, and remaining useful lives are identified accurately before and after each of the Contractor’s ownership changes; and                                                            (4) 								                Retain and continue to maintain depreciation and amortization schedules based on the asset records maintained before each Contractor ownership change.                                                                             (c) 						            The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause in all subcontracts under this contract that meet the applicability requirement of FAR 15.408(k).                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.215 [Reserved]
# L_2013250EN.01002801.xml

| 20.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 250/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 250/28

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 899/2013

of 9 September 2013

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aceite de Lucena (PDO))

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) | Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite de Lucena’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite de Lucena’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).

| (3) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Aceite de Lucena’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Aceite de Lucena’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

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, 9 September 2013.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

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

1

(2)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ C 352, 16.11.2012, p. 13.

3

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.5.   Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oils, etc.)

SPAIN

Aceite de Lucena (PDO)

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SHAUN GHAISARZADEH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-231-TKW/MJF

W. SUMMERS, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. 9). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration 

of the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed due to 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This action is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00231-TKW-MJF Document 10 Filed 08/09/21 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. CASE NO. 1:98cr5-MP-GRJ

BRODDRICK DESHON MONGO,

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated November 9, 2011. (Doc. 55). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections.1

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted

in part and rejected in part.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding defendant’s

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 39) is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 39) is DENIED and a

certificate of appealability is DENIED, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing

Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

3. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding defendant’s

motion for correction of sentence (doc. 29) is rejected.

No objections have been filed.

1

Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 56 Filed 12/23/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

4. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, for all further proceedings with the

suggestion that defendant be allowed to refile or amend his sentence calculation claim

(doc. 29) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition.

DONE and ORDERED on this 23rd day of December, 2011.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 1:98cr5-MP-GRJ

Case 1:98-cr-00005-MP-GRJ Document 56 Filed 12/23/11 Page 2 of 2
###### 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.

#### § 57.801 Nest run or washed ungraded eggs.

Nest run or washed ungraded eggs are exempt from the labeling provisions in § 57.800. However, when such eggs are packed and sold to consumers, they may not exceed the tolerance for restricted eggs permitted in the official standards for U.S. Consumer Grade B shell eggs.

[60 FR 49171, Sept. 21, 1995. Redesignated at 63 FR 69970, Dec. 17, 1998]
###### 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.

#### § 57.134 Accessibility of product.

Each product for which inspection service is required shall be so placed as to disclose fully its class, quality, quantity, and condition as the circumstances may warrant.

[63 FR 69968, Dec. 17, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 57167, Sept. 24, 2004]
# L_2017327EN.01008301.xml

| 9.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 327/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 327/83

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 347 of 20 December 2013
  )

On page 603, footnote 3, fourth indent:

for:

| ‘— | Regulation (EC) No 183/2005: Article 5(1) and Annex I, part A (I-4 e, g; II-2 a, b, e), Article 5(5) and Annex III (1, 2), Article 5(6), and’, |
| --- | --- |

‘—

Regulation (EC) No 183/2005: Article 5(1) and Annex I, part A (I-4 e, g; II-2 a, b, e), Article 5(5) and Annex III (1, 2), Article 5(6), and’,

read:

| ‘— | Regulation (EC) No 183/2005: Article 5(1) and Annex I, part A (I-4 e, g; II-2 a, b, e), Article 5(5) and Annex III (under the heading ‘FEEDING’, point 1 entitled ‘Storage’, first and last sentences, and point 2 entitled ‘Distribution’, third sentence), Article 5(6), and’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

Regulation (EC) No 183/2005: Article 5(1) and Annex I, part A (I-4 e, g; II-2 a, b, e), Article 5(5) and Annex III (under the heading ‘FEEDING’, point 1 entitled ‘Storage’, first and last sentences, and point 2 entitled ‘Distribution’, third sentence), Article 5(6), and’.

---