alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 76069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30659]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Percentage Rates of Covered 
Aviation Employees for the Period of January 1, 2011, Through December 
31, 2011

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA has determined that the minimum random drug and 
alcohol testing percentage rates for the period January 1, 2011, 
through December 31, 2011, will remain at 25 percent of safety-
sensitive employees for random drug testing and 10 percent of safety-
sensitive employees for random alcohol testing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kevin Kearns, Office of Aerospace 
Medicine, Drug Abatement Division, Program Administration Branch (AAM-
810), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Room 806, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone (202) 267-8442.
    Discussion: Pursuant to 14 CFR 120.109(b), the FAA Administrator's 
decision on whether to change the minimum annual random drug testing 
rate is based on the reported random drug test positive rate for the 
entire aviation industry. If the reported random drug test positive 
rate is less than 1.00%, the Administrator may continue the minimum 
random drug testing rate at 25%. In 2009, the random drug test positive 
rate was 0.534%. Therefore, the minimum random drug testing rate will 
remain at 25% for calendar year 2011.
    Similarly, 14 CFR 120.217(c), requires the decision on the minimum 
annual random alcohol testing rate to be based on the random alcohol 
test violation rate. If the violation rate remains less than 0.50%, the 
Administrator may continue the minimum random alcohol testing rate at 
10%. In 2009, the random alcohol test violation rate was 0.088%. 
Therefore, the minimum random alcohol testing rate will remain at 10% 
for calendar year 2011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you have questions about how the annual 
random testing percentage rates are determined please refer to the Code 
of Federal Regulations Title 14, section 120.109(b) (for drug testing), 
and 120.217(c) (for alcohol testing).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2010.
Frederick E. Tilton,
Federal Air Surgeon.
[FR Doc. 2010-30659 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### § 51.2650 Similar varietal characteristics.

*Similar varietal characteristics* means that the cherries in any container are similar in color and shape.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-50103

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Lucas Marie Medrano, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:21-CR-276-1

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Lucas Marie Medrano 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 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Medrano has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 4, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50103 Document: 00516597368 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2023
No. 22-50103

2

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: 22-50103 Document: 00516597368 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2023
#### § 58.328 Salt.

The salt shall be free-flowing, white refined sodium chloride and shall meet the requirements of The Food Chemical Codex.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF SYNTELLECT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF MARCH 31, 
1998, AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF SYNTELLECT, INC. AND 
SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE THREE MONHTS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,950
<SECURITIES>                                     5,770
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                       912
<INVENTORY>                                      2,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,401
<PP&E>                                           5,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                     677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,010
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           136
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,339
<SALES>                                          4,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,061
<CGS>                                            2,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,396
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    81
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,425)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,425)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,425)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Particle Drilling Technologies, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, J. Chris Boswell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ J. CHRIS BOSWELL      |                |   |
|---------------------------|---------------------|--------|
| J. Chris Boswell          |                |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |                |
| * *                  |                |   |
| Date:                     | August 8, 2008 |   |   |
|                           |                     |        |  |  |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Particle Drilling Technologies, Inc. and will be retained byParticle Drilling Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[878 NE2d 998, 848 NYS2d 583]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony R. Porter, Appellant.

Argued October 10, 2007;

decided November 15, 2007

*967APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Timothy Patrick Murphy,*Lockport, for appellant.

*Matthew J. Murphy, III, District Attorney,*Lockport *(Thomas H. Brandt*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant’s motion to suppress statements granted and a new trial ordered.

Whether a particular request for counsel is equivocal presents a mixed question of law and fact. When there is support in the record for the Appellate Division’s determination of a mixed question of law and fact, the issue is beyond further review by this Court. Here, however, there is no support in the record for the determination that defendant’s request for counsel was equivocal. To the contrary, the only evidence— defendant’s words “I think I need an attorney,” coupled with the interviewing officer’s notation that defendant was “asking for an attorney”—demonstrates an unequivocal invocation of defendant’s right to counsel. This is not to say that utterance of the words defendant used would unequivocally invoke the right to counsel in every instance. But on this record, where there were no additional facts upon which a contrary inference could be drawn, further inquiry by the police was not permitted. Defendant’s confession, made after police questioning continued, must therefore be suppressed.

Finally, the Appellate Division’s finding that the police had consent to search the premises where defendant was located has support in the record and is thus beyond our review.

*968Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.
16.406 Contract clauses.

(a) Insert the clause at 52.216-16, Incentive Price Revision-Firm Target, in solicitations and

contracts when a fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract is contemplated. If the contract calls for

supplies or services to be ordered under a provisioning document or Government option and the

prices are to be subject to the incentive price revision under the clause, the contracting officer shall

use the clause with its Alternate I.

(b) Insert the clause at 52.216-17, Incentive Price Revision-Successive Targets, in solicitations and

contracts when a fixed-price incentive (successive targets) contract is contemplated. If the contract

calls for supplies or services to be ordered under a provisioning document or Government option and

the prices are to be subject to incentive price revision under the clause, the contracting officer shall

use the clause with its Alternate I.

(c) The clause at 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment, is prescribed in 16.307(a) for insertion in

solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract or a cost-plus-award-fee contract

is contemplated.

(d) The clause at 52.216-10, Incentive Fee, is prescribed in 16.307(d) for insertion in solicitations

and contracts when a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is contemplated.

(e) Insert an appropriate award-fee clause in solicitations and contracts when an award-fee contract

is contemplated, provided that the clause-

(1) Is prescribed by or approved under agency acquisition regulations;

(2) Is compatible with the clause at 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment; and

(3) Expressly provides that the award amount and the award-fee determination methodology are

unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

Parent topic: Subpart 16.4 - Incentive Contracts
52.228-1 Bid Guarantee.       As prescribed in 28.101-2, insert a provision or clause substantially as follows:          Bid Guarantee (Sept 1996)                                       (a) 						            Failure to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for opening of bids, may be cause for rejection of the bid.                                          (b) 						            The bidder shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, *e.g.,* bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier’s check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States. The Contracting Officer will return bid guarantees, other than bid bonds-                                                         (1) 								                To unsuccessful bidders as soon as practicable after the opening of bids; and                                                            (2) 								                To the successful bidder upon execution of contractual documents and bonds (including any necessary coinsurance or reinsurance agreements), as required by the bid as accepted.                                                                             (c) 						            The amount of the bid guarantee shall be ______ percent of the bid price or $________, whichever is less.                                          (d) 						            If the successful bidder, upon acceptance of its bid by the Government within the period specified for acceptance, fails to execute all contractual documents or furnish executed bond(s) within 10 days after receipt of the forms by the bidder, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract for default.                                          (e) 						            In the event the contract is terminated for default, the bidder is liable for any cost of acquiring the work that exceeds the amount of its bid, and the bid guarantee is available to offset the difference.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.228 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DANIEL JAMES SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:21cv24-MW/MAF

VENABLE, LLP, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 30. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 30, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s claims are 

DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.” The 

Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on May 11, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge
§ 62.210 Denial, suspension, cancellation or rejection of service. ( a ) *Denial of services.* Services authorized under this part may be denied if an applicant fails to meet or conform to a program's requirements including, but not limited to, a failure to: ( 1 ) Adequately address any program requirement resulting in a nonconformance for the program.
( 2 ) Demonstrate capability to meet any program requirement, thereby resulting in a major nonconformance.
( 3 ) Present truthful and accurate information to any auditor or other USDA official; or
( 4 ) Allow any auditor or other USDA official access to facilities and records within the scope of the program.
( b ) *Suspension of services.* Services may be suspended if the applicant fails to meet or conform to a program's requirements including, but not limited to, a failure to: ( 1 ) Adequately address any program's requirement, thereby resulting in a major nonconformance;
( 2 ) Demonstrate capability to meet any program requirement, thereby resulting in a major nonconformance;
( 3 ) Follow and maintain its approved program or procedures;
( 4 ) Provide corrections and take corrective actions as applicable in the timeframe specified;
( 5 ) Submit significant changes to an approved program and seek approval from USDA prior to implementation of the significant changes to the program;
( 6 ) Allow any auditor or other USDA official access to facilities and records within the scope of the approved program;
( 7 ) Accurately represent the eligibility of agricultural products or services distributed under an approved program;
( 8 ) Remit payment for services;
( 9 ) Abstain from any fraudulent or deceptive practice in connection with any application or request for service; or
( 10 ) Allow any auditor or other USDA official to perform his or her duties under the provisions of this part or program requirements established under one of the authorized services of this part.
( c ) *Cancellation of services.* Services may be cancelled, an application may be rejected, or program assessment may be terminated if the Administrator or his/her designee determines that a nonconformance has remained uncorrected beyond a reasonable amount of time.
( d ) *Rejection of services.* Services may be rejected when it appears that to perform audit and accreditation services would not be in the best interests of the USDA. The applicant shall be promptly notified of the reason for such rejection.
###### 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.

#### § 57.300 Who may request an appeal inspection.

An appeal inspection may be requested by any interested party who is dissatisfied with the determination by an inspector of the class, quality, quantity, or condition of any product.

[69 FR 57167, Sept. 24, 2004]
208.7003-1 Assignments under integrated

materiel management (IMM).

(a) Acquire all items assigned for IMM from the IMM manager except—

(1) Items purchased under circumstances of unusual and compelling urgency as defined in FAR

6.302-2. After such a purchase is made, the requiring activity must send one copy of the contract

and a statement of the emergency to the IMM manager;

(2) Items for which the IMM manager assigns a supply system code for local purchase or otherwise

grants authority to purchase locally; or

(3) When purchase by the requiring activity is in the best interest of the Government in terms of the

combination of quality, timeliness, and cost that best meets the requirement. This exception does not

apply to items—

(i) Critical to the safe operation of a weapon system;

(ii) With special security characteristics; or

(iii) Which are dangerous (e.g., explosives, munitions).

(b) Follow the procedures at PGI 208.7003-1 (b) when an item assigned for IMM is to be acquired by

the requiring department in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this subsection.

Parent topic: 208.7003 Applicability.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,938
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     22,591
<COMMON>                                       263,551
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<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
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### § 51.685 U.S. Combination.

“U.S. Combination” consists of a combination of U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2 oranges: *Provided,* That at least 55 percent, by count, meet the requirements of U.S. No. 1 grade for defects, *And provided further,* That the lot meets the basic requirement for discoloration as specified in the U.S. No. 2 grade. For tolerances see § 51.689.

[85 FR 68426, Oct. 29, 2020]
#### § 58.650 Requirements for frozen custard.

The same requirements apply as for ice cream except plain frozen custard shall have a minimum egg yolk solids content of 1.4 percent, and 1.12 percent when fruits, nuts and other such ingredients are used for flavoring.
****CORRECTED COPY – DESTROY ALL OTHERS****

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman First Class JAMES N. MOISE

United States Air Force

ACM S32354

26 February 2016

Sentence adjudged 14 October 2015 by SPCM convened at Joint Base 

Lewis-McChord, Washington. Military Judge: Lyndell M. Powell (sitting 

alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 70 days, and 

reduction to E-1.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Annie W. Morgan.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Katherine E. Oler.

Before

MITCHELL, DUBRISKE, and BROWN

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred.1 Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

 

1

 We note the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR) misstated that the maximum forfeitures available in 

Appellant’s case were limited to 6 months, instead of the 12-month jurisdictional maximum. The SJAR also did not 

provide a specific statement as to why the convening authority was not obligated to take any action under the pretrial 

agreement. See Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice, ¶ 9.16.3 (6 June 2013). We find 

Appellant suffered no material prejudice from these errors. Additionally, Appellant’s counsel noted the name of one 

of Appellant’s co-conspirators in Charge II is misspelled. We direct a corrected promulgating order to remedy this 

discrepancy.
2 ACM S32354

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are 

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

 LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court