alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 51.620 U.S. Fancy. “U.S. Fancy” consists of grapefruit which meet the following requirements: ( a ) Basic requirements: ( 1 ) Discoloration: Not more than one-tenth of the surface, in the aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See § 51.638.);
( 2 ) Firm;
( 3 ) Mature;
( 4 ) Similar varietal characteristics;
( 5 ) Smooth texture;
( 6 ) Well formed; and
( 7 ) Well colored.
( b ) Free from: ( 1 ) Ammoniation;
( 2 ) Bruises;
( 3 ) Buckskin;
( 4 ) Decay;
( 5 ) Growth cracks;
( 6 ) Scab;
( 7 ) Skin breakdown;
( 8 ) Sprayburn;
( 9 ) Unhealed skin breaks; and
( 10 ) Wormy fruit.
( c ) Free from injury caused by: ( 1 ) Green spots;
( 2 ) Hail;
( 3 ) Oil spots;
( 4 ) Scale;
( 5 ) Scars; and
( 6 ) Thorn scratches.
( d ) Free from damage caused by: ( 1 ) Dryness or mushy condition;
( 2 ) Insects;
( 3 ) Sprouting;
( 4 ) Sunburn; and
( 5 ) Other means.
( e ) For tolerances see § 51.628.
[85 FR 68422, Oct. 29, 2020]
From: McKaughan, Colleen 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 4:15 PM 

To: 'Martz, Verle' 

Cc: Withey, Charlotte; Chen, Eugene; Kelly, Shaheerah 

Subject: Intial Response to Letter from President Enos 

Hi, Verle, 

Jared received the letter from President Enos dated May 22, 2014, with a proposal regarding the FIP 

provisions that would apply to PCC. We will respond formally to the President but, since time is short, I 

wanted to get back to you via email first. We understand the Tribe’s desire for flexibility, but we would 

like to suggest a different way to address the Tribe’s concerns. 

First of all, I want to provide some context. EPA is preparing a FIP because certain aspects of the State’s 

SIP were deficient, and we were required by the Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule to remedy those 

deficiencies. This is not EPA or the State’s preferred path. In our conversations with ADEQ, ADEQ would 

prefer to regulate the Arizona Regional Haze Program, and has expressed interest in replacing the FIP 

requirements with SIP revisions for affected sources. For instance ADEQ submitted a SIP revision for 

Apache Generating Station to EPA two weeks ago. EPA worked with ADEQ on that SIP revision. If EPA 

approves that SIP revision, it will replace the FIP for Apache Generating Station. 

While the Administrator will make the final decision regarding the terms of the FIP, we would like to 

suggest a similar approach for Phoenix Cement. The approach would look like this: 

1) FIP – EPA would include both compliance options for Phoenix Cement as we proposed them 

(i.e., a ton per year NOx limit or a lb/ton NOx limit). We would also require that Phoenix Cement 

tell us by a date certain which option Phoenix Cement intends to comply with by December 31, 

2018. Phoenix Cement would comply with that option by December 31, 2018. 

2) SIP – If Phoenix Cement wants to change the compliance option after December 2018, Phoenix 

Cement can work with ADEQ on a SIP revision to replace the FIP. This approach is consistent 

with the State’s desire to replace FIPs with SIPs, and exercise their regulatory authority. It also 

makes sense in that ADEQ would need to revise the Phoenix Cement permit, so those efforts 

could occur in parallel. 

In this way the Tribe’s needs for flexibility can be addressed and ADEQ would be responsible for 

implementing the requirements of the Regional Haze program as they apply to Phoenix Cement. I hope 

this is clear but please give me a call if it is not. 

Colleen 

520-498-0118
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW     Document 39-2      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 1 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW     Document 39-2      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 2 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW     Document 39-2      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 3 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW     Document 39-2      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 4 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW     Document 39-2      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 5 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW     Document 39-2      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 6 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW     Document 39-2      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 7 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW     Document 39-2      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 8 of 8
From: Brad Anderson
To: Hexter, Joseph A CTR (FAA) Subject: RE: Request for Information
Date: Thursday, March 02, 2017 1:10:26 AM



### Thank you very much Joe, this is extremely helpful.

From: Joseph.A-CTR.Hexter@faa.gov [mailto:Joseph.A-CTR.Hexter@faa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 7:14 AM

To: Brad Anderson <Brad_Anderson@yamaha-motor.com> Subject: Request for Information

Brad:

Since our regulatory group has temporarily suspended posting requests for information to the public docket, I’ve been authorized to send the equivalent request via e-mail instead. The information listed below as well as your response will be posted to the docket at a later date. If you have any questions, please call or e-mail at your convenience.

Operational Limitations to include: Max Takeoff Weight (MTOW) and Empty Weight, as well as any restrictions/warnings for the dispensing of materials or substances Component-level comparison, between the Fazer and RMAX with design changes, Total Fazer flight hours (to include all countries where the UAS is operated) Flight incidents and accidents (including lost link and other communication/control issues) during the flight hours listed along with: Root-cause analysis
Lessons learned Design/operational changes or other mitigations implemented Operating frequencies for communication links (and relevant certification from the FCC if required) Description of the Fazer software configuration control process to ensure the tracking and controlling of changes in the software to avoid the introduction of errors as well as of incompatibilities with other configuration items, and the latest software version number.

Respectfully,



## Joe

Joseph Hexter / SAIC Senior Regulatory Analyst

- NextGen Initiatives Support Services Contract Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office (AUS-430) Email: joseph.a-ctr.hexter@faa.gov Direct: 202-267-4606
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 00451

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

00451\00451_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 00451\00451_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

00451\00451_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

x 00451\00451_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00451\00451_Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6898

LEARIE A. DALY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ST. MARY’S COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; ST. MARY’S

COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; TIMOTHY K. CAMERON,

Lieutenant Commander; DEBORAH L. DIEDRICH,

Lieutenant Assistant; MANAGER, ARAMARK FOOD

CATERING SERVICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-

2352-AMD)

Submitted: August 11, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Learie A. Daly, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Breads, Jr., LOCAL

GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TRUST, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Learie A. Daly appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Daly v. St.

Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office, No. CA-03-2352-AMD (D. Md. Jan. 30,

2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
47.303-2 F.o.b. origin, contractor’s facility.

(a) Explanation of delivery term."F.o.b. origin, contractor’s facility" means free of expense to the

Government delivered on board the indicated type of conveyance of the carrier (or of the

Government if specified) at the designated facility, on the named street or highway, in the city,

county, and State from which the shipment will be made.

(b) Contractor responsibilities. The contractor’s responsibilities are the same as those listed in

47.303-1(b).

(c) Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at

52.247-30, F.o.b. Origin, Contractor’s Facility, when the delivery term is f.o.b. origin, contractor’s

facility.

Parent topic: 47.303 Standard delivery terms and contract clauses.
§ 625.7 Enrollment of easements, contracts, and agreements. ( a ) *Offers of enrollment.* Based on the priority ranking, NRCS will notify an affected landowner of tentative acceptance into the program. This notice of tentative acceptance into the program does not bind NRCS or the United States to enroll the proposed project in HFRP, nor does it bind the landowner to convey an easement, or to contract or agree to HFRP activities. The letter notifies the landowner that NRCS intends to continue the enrollment process on their land unless otherwise notified by the landowner.
( b ) *Acceptance of offer of enrollment.* An agreement to purchase or a restoration cost-share agreement or contract will be presented by NRCS to the landowner which will describe the easement, agreement, or contract area; the easement, agreement, or contract terms and conditions; and other terms and conditions for participation that may be required by NRCS.
( c ) *Effect of the acceptance of the offer.* After the agreement to purchase or restoration cost-share agreement or contract is executed by NRCS and the landowner, the land will be considered enrolled in the HFRP. For easements, NRCS will proceed with various easement acquisition activities, which may include conducting a survey of the easement area, securing necessary subordination agreements, procuring title insurance, and conducting other activities necessary to record the easement or implement the HFRP, as appropriate for the enrollment option being considered. For restoration cost-share agreements and contracts, the landowner will proceed to implement the restoration plan with technical assistance and cost-share from NRCS.
( d ) *Withdrawal of offers.* Prior to execution of an agreement to purchase, a restoration cost-share agreement, or contract between the United States and the landowner, NRCS may withdraw the land from enrollment at any time due to lack of availability of funds, inability to clear title, or other reasons. An agreement to purchase will be void, and the offer withdrawn, if not executed by the landowner within the time specified.
#### § 653.1 General.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for the technical adequacy of conservation practices installed under all NRCS programs, and those practices applied under programs administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) where NRCS has the technical responsibility. NRCS technical or financial assistance will be provided when the practices are applied according to established technical standards.
#### § 51.2656 Diameter.

*Diameter* means the greatest dimension measured at right angles to a line from the stem to the blossom end of the cherry.
Revised Area Source Boiler Preamble and Rule

Mary Johnson to

:

Higgins, Cortney 12/19/2012 03:10 PM

Cc

:

RobertJ Wayland, Thomas Gillis, Jim Eddinger, Keith Mason, Jonathan Averback

From: Mary Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Keith Mason/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jonathan Averback/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cortney,

Attached is a redline version of the Area Source Boiler preamble/rule. It shows the changes made from 

the version sent to you on 12/17/2012.

EO 12866 NESHAP for Area Sources ICI Boilers 2060-AR14_Redline_121712_v_121912.docx 

Thanks.

Mary

Mary Johnson

Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Mail Code D 243-01

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-5025

Fax: (919) 541-5450
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Report") of ANTs software inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the period ended December 31, 2008:

        1. Fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

           This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and
is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be "filed"
for any purpose whatsoever.

Date:    April 30, 2009

                                 /s/ Joseph Kozak
                                 Joseph Kozak, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                 and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be
retained by the Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
upon request.


                                       88
52.209-11 Representation by Corporations

Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a

Felony Conviction under any Federal Law.

As prescribed in 9.104-7(d), insert the following provision:

Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under

any Federal Law (Feb 2016)

(a) As required by sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), and similar provisions, if contained in subsequent

appropriations acts, the Government will not enter into a contract with any corporation that–

(1) Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and

administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely

manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability,

where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless an agency has considered

suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that suspension or

debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government; or

(2) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24

months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency has considered

suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not

necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

(b) The Offeror represents that–

(1) It is □ is not □ a corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for

which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not

being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting

the tax liability; and

(2) It is □ is not □ a corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under a Federal

law within the preceding 24 months.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.209 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DAMIEN D. FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5841-MCR-EMT

OFFICER CARROL, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

November 18, 2020. ECF No. 9. The parties were furnished a copy of the Report 

and Recommendation and 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 

all timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 9,

is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-05841-MCR-EMT Document 10 Filed 01/05/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5841-MCR-EMT

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as malicious, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1).

3. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of January 2021.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05841-MCR-EMT Document 10 Filed 01/05/21 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 9-2 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 9-2 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 9-2 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 9-2 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 9-2 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 9-2 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 9-2 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 9-2 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 9-2 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 9 of 9
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case No: 5:03cr54/MCR

5:05cv129/MCR/MD

STACY SETTS

_____________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

This cause comes onfor consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated January 23, 2005. The defendant previously has been

furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1), and I have made a de novo determination of those portions to which an

objection has been made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed by the parties, I have determined that the report and recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (doc. 126) is

DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2006.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cr-00054-MCR-MD Document 169 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Erwin Jackson, Petitioner, v Jerald S. Carter, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 549]

Proceeding pursuant to *910CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, in effect, to prohibit the respondent, a Judge of the County Court, Nassau County, from proceeding with a criminal action entitled *People v Jackson,*pending under Nassau County Indictment No. 2826/05, and application for poor person relief.

Ordered that the branch of the application which is for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the .filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of prohibition *(see Matter of Carey v Kitson,*93 AD2d 50 [1983]). Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Dillon, JJ., concur.
§ 760.1716 Records and inspection of records. ( a ) The affected farmer, milk marketing organization, and any other person who furnished information to such farmer or to the FSA county committee for the purpose of enabling such farmer to receive a milk loss payment under this subpart, must maintain any existing books, records, and accounts supporting any information so furnished for 3 years following the end of the year during which the application for payment was filed.
( b ) The affected farmer, milk marketing organization, and any other person who furnishes such information to the affected farmer or to the FSA county committee must permit authorized representatives of the Department of Agriculture and the General Accounting Office, during regular business hours, to inspect, examine, and make copies of such books, records, and accounts.
[84 FR 48534, Sept. 13, 2019. Redesignated and amended at 88 FR 62290, 62292, Sept. 11, 2023]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WAYNE BLACK, #137192, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:03cv734-MEF

)

LAMAR GLOVER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff Black seeks to subpoena several witnesses in this case. Based upon plaintiff's

witness lists (Doc. ### 19, 25 and 28), and the status conference conducted by telephone on

September 22, 2006, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED as follows:

The Clerk of the Court shall issue and the United States Marshal shall serve the

following five requested subpoenas on behalf of the plaintiff. 

1. Darien Bush

2601 Rocky Branch Road

Dothan, AL 36301

2. Anthony Boston

903 Woodlawn Drive

Dothan, AL 36301

3. Vallie Hathaway

1581 County Road 81

Abbeville, AL 36310

4. Jacqueline Britt

119 South Foster 

Apartment 213

Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 34 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 1 of 3
Dothan, AL 36301

5. Dr. Sam Banner

c/o Nathaniel Medical Center

1435 W. Main Street

Dothan, AL 36302

In addition, defendants have agreed to produce the following witnesses at trial without

subpoenas in this case: 

Sheriff Lamar Glover

Walter Bowers

Darla Speigner

Roy Caine

LaRoderick Roberts

Sgt. Kim Turner

The court notes that, whether a witness is subpoenaed by a pauper or not, Rule 45(c)

requires that a subpoena must be accompanied by a per diem fee ($40 per day), and a

subsistence fee if overnight stay is required, and mileage at $.44.5 per mile each way, or it

need not be obeyed. The witness will be so informed by the subpoena. It is the

responsibility of the plaintiff to provide that money to the clerk's office for tender with the

subpoena. However, even if the Plaintiff cannot tender the required fee, witnesses still may

be subpoenaed and may still attend if they agree to do so without payment of the per diem

fee and reimbursement of expenses. 

On September 22, 2006, the court reminded plaintiff of the requirements of Rule 45(c)

by conference call, and asked whether he desired the subpoenas referenced above to issue

with or without the fees required. The court informed plaintiff that the subpoenas need not

be obeyed if appropriate fees are not provided with the subpoenas, and offered to give the

plaintiff until September 26, 2006 to provide the required fees to the clerk’s office.

Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 34 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 2 of 3
However, plaintiff declined to provide the fees, requested no extension or continuance of the

trial, and asked that the subpoenas be served immediately without fees. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s requested subpoenas may issue in this case without delay.

DONE, this 22nd day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 34 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 3 of 3