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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2845 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain women’s footwear. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18, 2006 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain women’s footwear. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN’S FOOTWEAR. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.13.80 Footwear for women with 

outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile 

materials other than of vegetable fibers, with open toes 

or open heels or of the slipon type (provided for in subheading 6404.19.30) ............ 4.2% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2845 IS 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
§ 59.20 Recordkeeping. ( a ) *In general.* Each packer or importer required to report information to the Secretary under the Act and this Part shall maintain for 2 years and make available to the Secretary the following information on request: ( 1 ) The original contracts, agreements, receipts, and other records associated with any transaction relating to the purchase, sale, pricing, transportation, delivery, weighing, slaughter, or carcass characteristics of all livestock or livestock products; and
( 2 ) Such records or other information as is necessary or appropriate to verify the accuracy of the information required to be reported under the Act and this Part.
( b ) *Purchases of cattle and swine and sales of boxed beef cuts.* A record of a purchase of a lot of cattle or swine, or a sale of a unit of boxed beef cuts, by a packer shall evidence whether the purchase or sale occurred: ( 1 ) Before 10 a.m. central time;
( 2 ) Between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. central time; or
( 3 ) After 2 p.m. central time.
( c ) *Purchases of lambs.* A record of a purchase of a lot of lambs by a packer shall evidence whether the purchase occurred: ( 1 ) Before 2 p.m. central time; or
( 2 ) After 2 p.m. central time.
( d ) *Sales of lamb carcasses and sales of boxed lamb cuts.* A record of a sale by a packer of lamb carcasses and cuts, shall evidence time and date the sale occurred: ( 1 ) Before 2 p.m. central time; or
( 2 ) After 2 p.m. central time. A record of sale by an importer of lamb cuts shall evidence the date the sale occurred.
( e ) *Reporting sales of boxed beef cuts and sales of boxed lamb cuts.* ( 1 ) Beef packers must report all sales of boxed beef items by the applicable Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications (IMPS) item number or the boxed beef items' cutting and trimming specifications.
( 2 ) Lamb packers and importers must report all sales of boxed lamb items by the applicable Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications (IMPS) item number or the boxed lamb items' cutting and trimming specifications.
( f ) *Reporting sales of wholesale pork.* A record of a sale of wholesale pork by a packer shall evidence whether the sale occurred: ( 1 ) Before 10:00 a.m. central time;
( 2 ) Between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. central time; or
( 3 ) After 2:00 p.m. central time.
[73 FR 28633, May 16, 2008, as amended at 77 FR 50573, Aug. 22, 2012]
#### PLAUT, Respondent, v. NEW YORK BUTCHERS’ FAT MELTING CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

September 28, 1906.)

Action by Robert Plaut against the New York Butchers’ Fat Melting Company.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BAY MEDICAL CENTER,

a special district of the state of Florida; 

BAPTIST HOSPITAL, INC., a Florida not for profit 

corporation; and 

THE HEALTHCARE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF 

HUNTSVILLE, an Alabama public corporation, 

on their own behalf and on behalf of all 

CLASS MEMBERS similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 5:03cv144/MCR

HUMANA MILITARY HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., 

a Delaware corporation; 

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN HEALTH AND MEDICAL PROGRAM OF THE 

UNIFORMED SERVICES and TRICARE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY,

subdivisions of the 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA; and 

DONALD RUMSFELD,

in his official capacity as the Secretary of Defense for

the United States of America,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R

By Order dated August 9, 2005, all proceedings in this cause were stayed pending

appeal. (Doc. 170). The Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit issued its mandate on

June 26, 2006, affirming this court’s decision. (Doc. 198). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the stay is hereby LIFTED and a Rule 16 conference shall be

conducted in this matter before the undersigned on Thursday, August 3, 2006, 11:00 A.M.,

Case 5:03-cv-00144-MCR-MD Document 199 Filed 07/13/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 5:03cv144/MCR

at the United States District Courthouse, One North Palafox Street, Courtroom 4 North,

Pensacola, Florida.

DONE and ORDERED on this 13th day of July, 2006.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00144-MCR-MD Document 199 Filed 07/13/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 16476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06195]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    Briefing Matter: Soft Infant Carriers.
    A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/Webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: March 13, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06195 Filed 3-13-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
52.242-1 Notice of Intent to Disallow Costs.

As prescribed in 42.802 , insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when a costreimbursement contract, a fixed-price incentive contract, or a contract providing for price

redetermination is contemplated:

Notice of Intent to Disallow Costs (Apr 1984)

(a) Notwithstanding any other clause of this contract-

(1) The Contracting Officer may at any time issue to the Contractor a written notice of intent to

disallow specified costs incurred or planned for incurrence under this contract that have been

determined not to be allowable under the contract terms; and

(2) The Contractor may, after receiving a notice under paragraph (a)(1) of this clause, submit a

written response to the Contracting Officer, with justification for allowance of the costs. If the

Contractor does respond within 60 days, the Contracting Officer shall, within 60 days of receiving

the response, either make a written withdrawal of the notice or issue a written decision.

(b) Failure to issue a notice under this Notice of Intent to Disallow Costs clause shall not affect the

Government’s rights to take exception to incurred costs.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.242 [Reserved]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40795

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUADALUPE ALANIZ-RAMIREZ,

DefendantAppellant.

---------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-00-CR-363-ALL

----------------------------------------------------------

November 20, 2001

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Guadalupe Alaniz-R amirez appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his plea of

guilty to a charge of being found in the United States aft er deportati on, a vi ol ati on of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment. This

argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States

, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). S ee Apprendi

v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 489-90 (2000); United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.

2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). In light of the following, however, this issue is moot.Over his objection, Alaniz-Ramirez’s offe nse level was enhanced 16 levels pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on a Texas felony driving-while-intoxicated (“DWI”) conviction

which was characterized as an aggravated felony. When it sentenced Alaniz-Ramirez, the district

court did not have the benefit of this court’s opinion in United States v. Chapa-Garza

, 243 F.3d 921,

927 (5th Cir. 2001), which holds that a Texas felony DWI conviction is not a “crime of violence” as

defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16 and thus is not an aggravated felony for the purpose of a § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)

16-level enhancement. Under Chapa-Garza , the 16-level increase is improper.

Accordingly, we VACATE Alaniz-Ramirez’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing in

accordance with Chapa-Garza

.
#### § 51.1903 Size classification.

The following terms may be used for describing the size of the tomatoes in any lot:

| Small | Medium |
| --- | --- |
| Under 3 oz | 3 to 6 oz., inc. |

| Large | Very Large |
| --- | --- |
| Over 6 to 10 oz., inc | Over 10 oz. |

(a) The tomatoes may also be classed in terms of combinations of the above sizes, as “Small to Medium,” “Medium to Large,” “Small to Very Large,” etc., in accordance with the facts.

(b) Incident to proper sizing, not more than 10 percent, by count, of the tomatoes in any lot may vary from the size specified.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Watson & Taylor, Ltd. 3
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0000759726
<NAME>              P-B Watson & Taylor, Ltd. 3

<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Sep-30-1998

<PERIOD-START>                  Oct-01-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos

<CASH>                          1,007,978

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,007,978

<PP&E>                          275,000

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,282,978

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           178,090

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      1,104,888

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,282,978

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0<F1>

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0<F1>

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    0<F1>

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0<F1>

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
<FN>
<F1>
Registrant adopted the liquidation basis of accounting 
on October 1, 1996, and, accordingly, does not reflect
Statement of Operations subsequent to 1996. See Note A
to the financial statements for further details.
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Michael Jones, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered October 5, 1978, convicting the defendant, upon his plea of guilty, to the crime of attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of from *3Vs*to 10 years, unanimously modified, on the law and in the interest of justice and as a matter of discretion, to reduce defendant’s sentence to an indeterminate term of 3 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed. We are of the opinion that defendant is entitled to specific performance of the plea bargain. At the plea, the following colloquy took place: "the court: Was any promise made by either your lawyer, the district attorney or the Court? the defendant: NO. the court: Other than the fact that the Court had indicated it would impose a sentence of not less than three years nor more than ten years. Was any other promise made? the defendant: NO.” At sentencing the court stated in two instances that the minimum term to be imposed would be three years. Realizing this to be error, the court amended the minimum to correct an obvious misstatement. Although a motion to withdraw the plea was not made, the defendant is entitled to a four-month reduction in the minimum term as a matter of essential fairness. As the Court of Appeals remarked recently: "a promise made by a State official authorized to do so and acted upon by a defendant in a criminal matter to his detriment is not lightly to be disregarded [citations omitted]. Of importance also is the detrimental effect on the criminal justice system that will result should it come to be believed that the State can renege on its plea bargains with impunity notwithstanding defendant’s performance. Finally to be noted is the fact that specific performance rather than vacation of the plea works to the benefit of the State in those cases in which the staleness of the indictment would make it difficult if not impossible for the prosecution to obtain a conviction” *(People v McConnell,*49 NY2d 340, 349). An objective reading of the plea bargain can leave no doubt that defendant’s reliance on a three-year minimum is not misplaced and this understanding should be honored *(People v Gray,*65 AD2d 525); commendably, the People consent. The defendant’s final argument of excessive sentence is without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Markewich, Silverman and Yesawich, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:01cr19-RH

WILLIAM LAMONT SHOWERS, DOCKET NO. 4:05mj151-WCS

Defendant.

 / 

O R D E R

The Defendant appeared before the undersigned on a first appearance today

to answer to the charges of violating his supervised release. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant shall appear before Judge

Hinkle on January 10, 2006, beginning at 11:00 A.M., for a revocation hearing.

Until that appearance, Defendant will remain subject to the conditions of supervised

release. 

DONE AND ORDERED on December 9, 2005.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:01-cr-00019-RH Document 46 Filed 12/09/05 Page 1 of 1
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from 

discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Food and Nutrition 

Service

he enclosed Fact Sheets were developed by USDA’s Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS) to help schools implement the major 

recommendations from the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans 

(DGA) --- the nutrition foundation for all school meals programs. FNS has 

contracted with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to provide input on updating 

the school meal patterns and nutrition standards to reflect the new DGA

recommendations. 

While awaiting changes to the school meals regulations, schools can use 

these Fact Sheets to incorporate the 2005 DGA recommendations within 

the current meal pattern requirements and nutrition standards. The series 

of one-page fact sheets addresses the following key topics: 

 Use Low-fat Milk, Cheese, and Yogurt

 Jazz Up Your Menus With Fruits

 Vary Your Vegetables

 Serve More Dry Beans and Peas

 Serve More Whole Grains

 Be Salt Savvy – Cut Back on Sodium

 Include Fiber-Rich Foods

 Limit Saturated Fat and Cholesterol

 Trim Trans Fat

 Meeting the Challenge of Rising Food Costs

Where To Find Them

These sheets provide practical 

tips to update menus and 

recipes and offer suggestions 

for making gradual changes 

to help students develop a 

taste for new menu items. 

The Fact Sheets are available 

for downloading at the Team 

Nutrition website:

www.teamnutrition.usda.gov

More Information

Look for additional 

training opportunities and 

resources on the 2005 DGA 

recommendations available 

through the National Food 

Service Management Institute 

(NFSMI) at www.nfsmi.org

or your State agency.

Just the Facts!

Serving School Meals That Meet the

2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
#### §§ 764.3-764.50 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Subpart ECFR7b3ee71a250c28d of Part 799
Editorial Note: At 81 FR 51295, Aug. 3, 2016, subpart F was revised; however, the subpart F heading was published erroneously as a second subpart E.

§ 799.55 Final EIS. ( a ) FSA will prepare the final EIS addressing the information specified in § 799.53.
( b ) FSA will evaluate the comments received on the draft EIS and respond in the final EIS as specified in 40 CFR 1503.4. FSA will discuss in the final EIS any issues raised by commenters that were not discussed in the draft EIS and provide a response to those comments.
( c ) FSA will attach substantive comments, or summaries of lengthy comments, to the final EIS and will include all comments in the administrative record.
( d ) FSA will circulate the final EIS as specified in 40 CFR 1502.19.
( e ) FSA will file the final EIS with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as specified in 40 CFR 1506.9.
( f ) The final EIS will include a cover sheet with the information specified in 40 CFR 1502.11.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BARBARA J. BABCOCK and

RICHARD D. BABCOCK,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:03cv536/RV/EMT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court having been advised that mediation resulted in a contingent

settlement between the parties, it is ORDERED:

(1) This cause is hereby dismissed with prejudice, and without taxation

of costs.

(2) In the event settlement is not consummated for any reason, the Court

reserves the power, upon motion filed by any party within 120 days after date, to

amend, alter or vacate and set aside this order of dismissal.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2005.

 /s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior U.S. District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00536-RV-EMT Document 39 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 230.2 - CAS PROGRAM

REQUIREMENTS

Parent topic: Part 230 - COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

230.201 Contract requirements.

230.201-5 Waiver.

(a)(1)(A) The military departments and the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting

(DPC), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment)—

(1) May grant CAS waivers that meet the conditions in FAR 30.201-5(b)(1); and

(2) May grant CAS waivers that meet the conditions in FAR 30.201-5(b)(2), provided the cognizant

Federal agency official granting the waiver determines that—

(i) The property or services cannot reasonably be obtained under the contract, subcontract, or

modification, as applicable, without granting the waiver;

(ii) The price can be determined to be fair and reasonable without the application of the Cost

Accounting Standards; and

(iii) There are demonstrated benefits to granting the waiver.

(B) Follow the procedures at PGI 230.201-5 (a)(1) for submitting waiver requests to the Principal

Director, DPC.

(2) The military departments shall not delegate CAS waiver authority below the individual

responsible for issuing contracting policy for the department.

(e) By November 30th of each year, the military departments shall provide a report to the Office of

the Principal Director, DPC (Contract Policy) of all waivers granted under FAR 30.201-5(a), during

the previous fiscal year, for any contract, subcontract, or modification expected to have a value of

$15 million or more. See PGI 230.201-5 (e) for format and guidance for the report. The Principal

Director, DPC, will submit a consolidated report to the CAS Board and the congressional defense

committees.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 29, 2015

NO. 03-14-00790-CR

George Henry Walker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 119TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the trial court. Having reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial 

court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is 

made.