alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 52.1855 Grades of Sultana raisins.

(a) “U.S. Grade A” is the quality of Sultana Raisins that have similar varietal characteristics; that have a good typical color; that have a good characteristic flavor; that show development characteristics of raisins prepared from well-matured grapes; with not less than 80 percent, by weight, of raisins that are well-matured or reasonably well-matured; and that contain not more than 18 percent, by weight, of moisture, and that meet the additional requirements outlined in table 1 to this section.

(b) “U.S. Grade B” is the quality of Sultana Raisins that have similar varietal characteristics; that have a reasonably good typical color; that have a good characteristic flavor; that show development characteristics of raisins prepared from reasonably well-matured grapes; with not less than 70 percent, by weight, of raisins that are well-matured or reasonably well-matured; and that contain not more than 18 percent, by weight, of moisture, and that meet the additional requirements as outlined in table 1 to this section.

(c) “U.S. Grade C” is the quality of Sultana Raisins that have similar varietal characteristics; that have a fairly good typical color; that have a fairly good flavor; that show development characteristics of raisins prepared from fairly well-matured grapes; that contain not more than 18 percent, by weight, of moisture; and that meet the additional requirements as outlined in table 1 to this section.

(d) “Substandard” is the quality of Sultana Raisins that fail to meet the requirements of U.S. Grade C.

| Defects | U.S. Grade A | U.S. Grade B | U.S. Grade C |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Maximum count (per 32 ounces) |
| Pieces of stem | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| | Maximum count (per 16 ounces) |
| Capstems | 10 | 15 | 20 |
| | Maximum (percent by weight) |
| Sugared | 5 | 10 | 15 |
| Discolored, damaged, or moldy | 4 | 6 | 9 |
| Provided these limits are not exceeded: | | | |
| Damaged | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Moldy | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Substandard development and undeveloped | 2 | 5 | 8 |

Table 1 to § 52.1855—Allowances for Defects in Sultana Raisins

| | Appearance or edibility of product |
| --- | --- |
| Slightly discolored or damaged by fermentation or any other defect not described above | May not be affected | May not be more than slightly affected | May not be more than materially affected. |

| Grit, sand, or silt | None of any consequence may be present that affects the appearance or edibility of the product | Not more than a trace may be present that affects the appearance or edibility of the product. |
| --- | --- | --- |

[41 FR 34751, Aug. 17, 1976. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 88 FR 71461, Oct. 17, 2023]
Page Thirty-Four





Exhibit 32.2





Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the Principal
financial officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

















/s/ Alan BrillAlan BrillInterim Principal Financial OfficerNovember 13, 2009
#### § 652.33 Notice of proposed decertification.

The State Conservationist will send by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the technical service provider proposed for decertification a written Notice of Proposed Decertification, which will contain the cause(s) for decertification, as well as any documentation supporting decertification. In cases where a private sector entity or public agency is being notified of a proposed decertification, any certified individuals working under the auspices of such organization who are also being considered for decertification will receive a separate Notice of Decertification and will be afforded separate appeal rights following the process set forth below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from Shelter
Properties VII Limited Partnership 2000 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                               0000758009
<NAME>                              Shelter Properties VII Limited Partnership
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                   473
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            295
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                22,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                        11,793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        12,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                               10,674
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                               859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          12,118
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,002
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         920
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                              82
<EPS-BASIC>                                             4.73 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
September 27, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Placement of Electronic Data Set in Docket

FROM: Office of Atmospheric Programs

TO: Public Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491

This memorandum provides a contextual background on an electronic data set EPA placed in the 

docket. 

EPA received a request for certain electronic data sets that were used as inputs for a specific run 

of the air quality assessment tool (AQAT). The particular AQAT run for which the inputs were 

requested was not relied upon by EPA in developing the proposed Transport Rule. Nonetheless, 

because EPA received a specific request for the data, EPA added these data sets to the docket. 

These data sets contain state total projected electric generating unit (EGU) emissions for the 

proposed State Budgets/Limited Trading remedy in 2014 and 2012. For 2014, for states that are 

proposed to be included in the rule, these emission estimates also can be found in section V.E in 

the preamble. As noted above, these data, and the AQAT runs with which they are associated,

were not used to determine states’ significant contribution or interference with maintenance. For 

evaluation of the air quality impacts of the projected EGU emissions under the proposed remedy

in 2014 and 2012 we refer interested parties to the CAMx modeling of the limited trading 

remedy.
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 85 Filed 02/28/2007 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 47

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 64 FR 38108, July 15, 1999.

#### § 47.7 Report of investigation.

Where the facts and circumstances are deemed by the Deputy Administrator to warrant such action, the Fruit and Vegetable Programs shall serve upon each of the parties a copy of the report made by the Fruit and Vegetable Programs in connection with its investigation of the informal or formal complaint. Whenever the Secretary, or the Deputy Administrator, or the examiner deems it necessary, a supplemental investigation shall be made by the Fruit and Vegetable Programs and a copy of the report thereon shall be served upon the parties. If an answer is filed by respondent, a copy of any report or reports of investigation served upon the parties shall be filed with the Hearing Clerk and shall be considered as part of the evidence in the proceeding: *Provided,* That either party shall be permitted to submit evidence in rebuttal in the same manner as is provided in the regulations in this part for the submission of other evidence in the proceeding.

[24 FR 10055, Dec. 12, 1959]
52.227-16 Additional Data Requirements.

As prescribed in 27.409(d), insert the following clause:

Additional Data Requirements (June 1987)

(a) In addition to the data (as defined in the clause at 52.227-14, Rights in Data-General clause or

other equivalent included in this contract) specified elsewhere in this contract to be delivered, the

Contracting Officer may, at any time during contract performance or within a period of 3 years after

acceptance of all items to be delivered under this contract, order any data first produced or

specifically used in the performance of this contract.

(b) The Rights in Data-General clause or other equivalent included in this contract is applicable to all

data ordered under this Additional Data Requirements clause. Nothing contained in this clause shall

require the Contractor to deliver any data the withholding of which is authorized by the Rights in

Data-General or other equivalent clause of this contract, or data which are specifically identified in

this contract as not subject to this clause.

(c) When data are to be delivered under this clause, the Contractor will be compensated for

converting the data into the prescribed form, for reproduction, and for delivery.

(d) The Contracting Officer may release the Contractor from the requirements of this clause for

specifically identified data items at any time during the 3-year period set forth in paragraph (a) of

this clause.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.227 [Reserved]
#### § 51.1354 Well formed.

*Well formed* means that the pear has the shape characteristic of the variety, so that after paring, cutting in halves, and coring, each half of the pear shall be well formed. Bartlett pears shall have at least a fairly well developed neck.

[35 FR 6958, May 1, 1970, as amended at 35 FR 7249, May 8, 1970. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2751 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
```
#### George Bungha LEVAI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-1889.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2007.

Decided: Aug. 24, 2007.

*224Danielle Beach Oswald, Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Kristin K. Edison, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Bungha Levai, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider its previous order adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s decision. We note that only the Board’s denial of Levai’s motion to reconsider is properly before this Court as he failed to timely petition this Court for review of the Board’s initial order.* Therefore, Levai’s only cognizable argument before this Court is that the Board’s denial of Levai’s motion to reconsider was arbitrary and contrary to law. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Levai’s motion for failing to present clear and convincing evidence indicating a strong likelihood that his marriage is bona fide, as required by *Matter of Velarde-Pacheco,*23 I. & N. Dec. 253 (BIA 2002). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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 in the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*

*

 The filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider with the Board does not toll the thirty-day period for seeking review of an underlying order. *Stone v. INS,*514 U.S. 386, 394, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

EMERALD COAST

RESTAURANTS, INC., d/b/a

O’Quigley’s Seafood Steamer &

Oyster Sports Bar,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5898-TKW-HTC

ASPEN SPECIALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the Eleventh Circuit’s order (Doc. 38) 

transferring consideration of whether Plaintiff is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees 

and the amount of any such fees to this Court. Plaintiff has not yet filed a motion 

seeking appellate attorney’s fees—either in this Court or the Eleventh Circuit—and 

based on the Court’s recent order dismissing the remaining claim and the resulting 

judgment, see Docs. 36, 37, Plaintiff is presumably not entitled to an award of 

appellate attorney’s fees. However, in an abundance of caution, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 14 days from the date of this Order to 

seek appellate attorney’s fees in accordance with the bifurcated procedure in Local 

Rule 54.1.

Case 3:20-cv-05898-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of July 2022.

__________________________________

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05898-TKW-HTC Document 39 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 2
52.227-7 Patents-Notice of Government Licensee.       As prescribed at 27.202-5(b), insert the following provision:          Patents-Notice of Government Licensee (Apr 1984)          The Government is obligated to pay a royalty applicable to the proposed acquisition because of a license agreement between the Government and the patent owner. The patent number is ____ [*Contracting Officer fill in*], and the royalty rate is ____ [*Contracting Officer fill in*]. If the offeror is the owner of, or a licensee under, the patent, indicate below:          □ Owner □ Licensee          If an offeror does not indicate that it is the owner or a licensee of the patent, its offer will be evaluated by adding thereto an amount equal to the royalty.          (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.227 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20645

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FILOGONIO VELASQUEZ MEJIA, also known as Fernando Mejia Velasquez, 

also known as Filogonio Mejia Velasquez, also known as Fernando MejiaBarrera, also known as Filogonio Velasquez-Mejia, also known as Miguel A. 

Hernandez, also known as Miguel Hernandez-Mejia, also known as Miguel 

Angel Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-389-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Filogonio Velasquez 

Mejia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20645 Document: 00513556848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
No. 15-20645

2

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Velasquez Mejia has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-20645 Document: 00513556848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 

# Ma jFFi<#Jii$§§iife 

# WRN TO SENDER sTAifW ' PENALTY FOG? PRIVATE y^ •RT

^ ^UV" -^SBSSS^SS^ PITNEYBOWES
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-8627, styled The State of Texas v. David Kellum,

pending in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl presiding.

2... Attorney Michael Raign was appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding

pending in the trial court. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00687-CR

IN RE David KELLUM

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 4, 2009 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

DISMISSED AS MOOT

On October 23 2009, relator David Kellum filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus,

seeking to compel the trial court to conduct a hearing and rule on motions to suppress and for

quantitative weight analysis, which Kellum filed pro se in the underlying criminal proceeding.

Kellum is represented by appointed counsel in that proceeding.2 

A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 240

S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App.
04-09-00687-CR

-2-

1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on a pro se motion in a criminal proceeding in which

the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial

court did not abuse its discretion by failing to rule on relator’s pro se motions, and relator’s petition

for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s motion for leave to file the

petition is dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM

PUBLISH
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3712

_____________________________

JUSTIN TAVARSE BARGE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

July 22, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
52.247-15 Contractor Responsibility for Loading and Unloading.       As prescribed in 47.207-5(e), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for transportation or for transportation-related services when the contractor is responsible for loading and unloading shipments:          Contractor Responsibility for Loading and Unloading (Apr 1984)                                       (a)                                                         (1) 								                Unless otherwise specified in this contract to cover store-door or inside delivery, the Contractor shall load and unload shipments at no additional expense to the Government.                                                            (2) 								                The Government or its agent will place or receive freight at the tailgate of the Contractor’s vehicle. Tailgate delivery, for purposes of this contract, is defined as that which enables a forklift truck or similar equipment, with operator only, to place or remove cargo from the tailgate of the Contractor’s vehicle.                                                                             (b) 						            If loading is the responsibility of the Contractor, the Contractor shall perform all shoring, blocking, and bracing. The Contractor shall provide dunnage at the Contractor’s expense.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
(June 4, 1969)

#### In the Matter of Peter F. Crispino et al., Appellants, v. James F. Byrne et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to declare null and void the petition designating respondent Byrne a candidate of the Republican Party for the public office of Councilman-at-Large for the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, in the Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969, petitioners herein appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 4, 1969, which dismissed the proceeding. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and proceeding remanded to the Special Term for a new hearing and determination. In our opinion, under the circumstances of this case, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to have dismissed the proceeding. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         This certification is intended to accompany the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Berkshire Bancorp Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended
September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002. The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth below, hereby
certifies that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.

                                             /s/ Steven Rosenberg
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Steven Rosenberg,
                                             Chief Executive Officer, President
                                             and Chief Financial Officer

                                             November 4, 2005



                                       39