alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 766.151 Applying for Homestead Protection. ( a ) *Pre-acquisition* — ( 1 ) *Notification.* If the borrower requested primary loan servicing but cannot develop a feasible plan, the Agency will notify the borrower of any additional information needed to process the homestead protection request. The borrower must provide this information within 30 days of Agency notification.
( 2 ) *Borrower does not respond.* If the borrower does not timely provide the information requested, the Agency will deny the homestead protection request and provide appeal rights.
( 3 ) *Application requirements.* A complete application for homestead protection will include: ( i ) Updates to items required under § 766.102;
( ii ) Information required under § 766.353; and
( iii ) Identification of land and buildings to be considered.
( b ) *Post-acquisition* — ( 1 ) *Notification.* After the Agency acquires title to the real estate property, the Agency will notify the borrower of the availability of homestead protection. The borrower must submit a complete application within 30 days of Agency notification.
( 2 ) *Borrower does not respond.* If the borrower does not respond to the Agency notice, the Agency will dispose of the property in accordance with 7 CFR part 767.
( 3 ) *Application requirements.* A complete application for homestead protection will include: ( i ) Updates to items required under § 766.102; and
( ii ) Identification of land and buildings to be considered.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 965 V

Filed: April 22, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

KAREN QUINN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA)

Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY , for petitioner.

Voris Edward Johnson , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On July 5, 2018

, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left Shoulder Injury Related to V accine

Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influe nza (“flu”) vaccine she received on

October 6, 2017 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit

of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 16, 2019

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent states that the Division of Injury Compensation Programs,

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine

Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasio n of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this

case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in

accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management

and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

2 N ational Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

.Department of Health and Human Services (“DICP”), “ have reviewed the petition and

medical records filed in this ca se

. . . [and] concluded that petitioner suffered a Table

injury of left SIRVA

. . . based on the medical records

. . . petitioner met the statutory

requirements by undergoing a surgical intervention and experiencing six months of

residual effects

. Id. at 4.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
§ 66.13 Implementation and compliance. ( a ) *Implementation.* Except for small food manufacturers, the implementation date for this part is January 1, 2020. For small food manufacturers, the implementation date is January 1, 2021.
( b ) *Voluntary compliance.* ( 1 ) Regulated entities may voluntarily comply with the requirements in this part until December 31, 2021.
( 2 ) During this period, regulated entities may use labels that meet requirements of preempted State labeling regulations for genetically engineered food. Stickers or ink stamps may be applied to existing labels to provide appropriate bioengineered food disclosures provided that the stickers or ink stamps do not obscure other required label information.
( c ) *Mandatory compliance.* All regulated entities must comply with the requirements of this part beginning on January 1, 2022.
CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Annual Report of BioFuel Energy, Corp. (the “Corporation”)
on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Scott H. Pearce, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,
certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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
      Corporation.
  March
30, 2010
  
  /s/ Scott PearceScott
      H. PearcePresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
# 52.232-21 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**52.232 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 800.35 Review of applications.

(a) The Service shall review each application to determine if it complies with §§ 800.32, 800.33, and 800.34. If the application complies and the fee has been paid, the applicant shall be registered.

(b) If the application does not comply with §§ 800.32, 800.33, and 800.34 and the omitted information prevents a satisfactory review by the Service, the applicant shall be provided an opportunity to submit the needed information. If the needed information is not submitted within a reasonable time, the application may be dismissed. The Service shall promptly notify the applicant, in writing, of the reasons for the dismissal.

[48 FR 44456, Sept. 29, 1983]
# Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

- Part 201 - FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM 
- Part 202 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS 
- Part 203 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
- Part 204 - ADMINISTRATIVE AND INFORMATION MATTERS 
- Part 205 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS 

**Parent topic:**Subchapter A - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:01cr47-SPM

WILLIE JAMES FRANCIS,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion (doc. 242) to

reduce sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act, the retroactive crack cocaine

amendment (Amendment 750), and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The Government filed

a response in opposition (doc. 244) and Defendant filed a reply (doc. 246).

Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to a sentence

reduction because application of the guideline amendment results in no change

to his sentencing range. Defendant was subject to a statutory mandatory

minimum sentence, which also determined his sentencing range. Because

Defendant’s sentencing range remains the same under the amended guidelines,

he is not eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Williams, 549

F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th

Case 4:01-cr-00047-MCR-AK Document 248 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Cir. 2011) (Fair Sentencing Act’s changes to drug amounts triggering statutory

minimum mandatory sentences do not apply retroactively to defendants who

were sentenced before its enactment). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence

(doc. 242) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2012.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 4:01cr47-SPM

Case 4:01-cr-00047-MCR-AK Document 248 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 2
# L_2014082EN.01001001.xml

| 20.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 82/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 82/10

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 281/2014

of 19 March 2014

on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of March 2014 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 188 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2014 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2014 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2014 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 March 2014.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 March 2014.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 47.

3

---

ANNEX

| Group No | Order No | Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.4.2014-30.6.2014
  (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 09.4410 | 0,239521 |
| 2 | 09.4411 | 0,245762 |
| 3 | 09.4412 | 0,257402 |
| 4 | 09.4420 | 0,249813 |
| 6 | 09.4422 | 0,250816 |

Group No

Order No

Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.4.2014-30.6.2014

(%)

1

09.4410

0,239521

2

09.4411

0,245762

3

09.4412

0,257402

4

09.4420

0,249813

6

09.4422

0,250816

---
§ 760.101 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart establishes general conditions for this subpart and subparts C through H of this part and applies only to those subparts. Subparts C through H cover the following programs provided for in the “2008 Farm Bill” (Pub. L. 110-246): ( 1 ) Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP);
( 2 ) Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP);
( 3 ) Livestock Indemnity Payments Program (LIP);
( 4 ) Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program (SURE); and
( 5 ) Tree Assistance Program (TAP).
( b ) To be eligible for payments under these programs, participants must comply with all provisions under this subpart and the relevant particular subpart for that program. All other provisions of law also apply.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2982 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2982

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Solvent red 227.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2006

  Mr. Isakson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Solvent red 227.

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

SECTION 1. SOLVENT RED 227.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.38.20        Solvent red 227 (CI     Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           60510) (provided for                                              31/2009          ''
                           in subheading                                                                       .
                           3204.19.25...........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

June 19, 2007

NOTICE OF ERROR

To: All Counsel of Record

Case Style: McNabb v. Sanders Lead Company, Inc.

Case Number: 2:06cv00664-MHT

Referenced Pleading: Notice of Appearance

Docket Entry Number: 19

The referenced pleading was filed on ***June 18, 2007*** in this case and is hereby

STRICKEN as a duplicate docket entry. This pleading was E-filed by counsel.

Docket Entry 19 was an erroneous duplicate docket entry. Parties are instructed to disregard

#19 docketing entry and refer to docket entry #20 for correction.

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 21 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 1
§ 766.152 Eligibility. ( a ) *Property.* ( 1 ) The principal residence and the adjoining land of up to 10 acres, must have served as real estate security for the FLP loan and may include existing farm service buildings. Homestead protection does not apply if the FLP loans were secured only by chattels.
( 2 ) The applicant may propose a homestead protection site. Any proposed site is subject to Agency approval.
( 3 ) The proposed homestead protection site must meet all State and local requirements for division into a separate legal lot.
( 4 ) Where voluntary conveyance of the property to the Agency is required to process the homestead protection request, the Agency will process any request for voluntary conveyance according to § 766.353.
( b ) *Applicant.* To be eligible for homestead protection, the applicant: ( 1 ) Must be the owner, or former owner from whom the Agency acquired title of the property pledged as security for an FLP loan. For homestead protection purposes, an owner or former owner includes: ( i ) A member of an entity who is or was personally liable for the FLP loan secured by the homestead protection property when the applicant or entity held fee title to the property; or
( ii ) A member of an entity who is or was personally liable for the FLP loan that possessed and occupied a separate dwelling on the security property;
( 2 ) Must have earned gross farm income commensurate with: ( i ) The size and location of the farm; and
( ii ) The local agricultural conditions in at least 2 calendar years during the 6-year period immediately preceding the calendar year in which the applicant applied for homestead protection;
( 3 ) Must have received 60 percent of gross income from farming in at least two of the 6 years immediately preceding the year in which the applicant applied for homestead protection;
( 4 ) Must have lived in the home during the 6-year period immediately preceding the year in which the applicant applied for homestead protection. The applicant may have left the home for not more than 12 months if it was due to circumstances beyond their control;
( 5 ) Must demonstrate sufficient income to make rental payments on the homestead property for the term of the lease, and maintain the property in good condition. The lessee will be responsible for any normal maintenance; and
( 6 ) Must not be ineligible due to disqualification resulting from Federal crop insurance violation according to 7 CFR part 718.
49.001 Definitions.

As used in this partOther work means any current or scheduled work of the contractor, whether Government or

commercial, other than work related to the terminated contract.

Plant clearance period, as used in this subpart, means the period beginning on the effective date of

contract completion or termination and ending 90 days (or such longer period as may be agreed to)

after receipt by the contracting officer of acceptable inventory schedules for each property

classification. The final phase of the plant clearance period means that period after receipt of

acceptable inventory schedules.

Settlement agreement means a written agreement in the form of a contract modification settling all

or a severable portion of a settlement proposal.

Settlement proposal means a proposal for effecting settlement of a contract terminated in whole or

in part, submitted by a contractor or subcontractor in the form, and supported by the data, required

by this part. A settlement proposal is included within the generic meaning of the word "claim" under

false claims acts (see 18 U.S.C.287 and 31 U.S.C.3729).

Unsettled contract change means any contract change or contract term for which a definitive

modification is required but has not been executed.

Parent topic: Part 49 - Termination of Contracts
.~vEr~oNr 

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Agency of Natural Resources 

Air Pollution Control Division 

103 South Main Street, 3 South [phone] 8o2-24i-384o 

Waterbury, VT o567i-o4o2 [fax] 8o2-24i-259o 

January 3, 2012 

H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator 

EPA New England, Region 1 

5 Post Office Square - Suite 100 

Boston, MA 02109-3912 

Re: Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

Dear Regional Administrator Spalding: 

On August 31, 2009, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation submitted a final Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . One of the elements of 

Vermont's long term strategy to reduce regional haze was a commitment to adopt a rule to reduce the sulfur 

content of fuel oils. 

On September 28, 2011, the Vermont Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) adopted amendments to section 5-

221(1) of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations to adopt the regional low sulfur fuel strategy outlined in 

Vermont's Regional Haze SIP. These amendments took effect on October 14, 2011 . The APCD is now submitting 

the amended rule to EPA for approval as part of Vermont's Regional Haze SIP. 

In support of this submittal, please find enclosed the following documents: 

1 . A copy of the amended rule and supporting documentation 

2. Memorandum from the Secretary of State's Office 

3 . A copy of the public notices 

4. Certification pursuant to 40 CFR § 51.102 

5 . List of witnesses, summary of comments received, and responses to comments 

6. Technical support document required by 40 CFR Part 51, App. V, § 2.2 

Should you have any questions about this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Richard A. Valentinetti, Director 

Air Pollution Control Division 

Enclosures 

Cc: Dave Conroy, Director, Air Programs Branch, EPA New England, Region 1 

E-copy: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA Region 1 

Anne, McWilliams, Envt'1 Scientist, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA Region 1 

Heidi Hales, APCD Planning Section Chief 

Elaine 0'Grady, APCD Counsel 

To preserve, enhance, restore, and conserve Vermont's natural resources, and protect human health, for the benefit of this and future generations .
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

VFS LEASING CO., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv638-SRW

)

G. F. KELLEY, INC., d/b/a )

KELLY TRUCKING and GUY KELLY, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

For good cause, it is 

ORDERED that the pretrial conference previously scheduled for July 9, 2007 be and

hereby is rescheduled for 4:30 p.m. on July 20, 2007 in courtroom 5-B, Frank M.

Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery,

Alabama. 

Done, this 18th day of June, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 41 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 1