alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John R. Duff, Respondent, *v.*William J. Hutchinson et al., Appellants.

(Submitted June 18, 1884;

decided June 27, 1884.)

*William B. Putmey*and *Joseph, R. Choate*for appellants.

*Klihu Root*for respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Neil Salmon, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report), 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
Innophos, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided Innophos, Inc. and will be retained by Innophos, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: November 4, 2009



/s/ NEIL SALMONNeil Salmon Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report.
###### Editorial Note on Part 94

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 94 appear at 61 FR 51352, Oct. 2 1996.

#### § 94.102 Analyses available.

A wide array of analyses for voluntary egg product samples is available. Voluntary egg product samples include surveillance, certification, and unofficial samples. The physical and chemical tests for voluntary egg products include analyses for total ash, fat by acid hydrolysis, moisture, salt, protein, beta-carotene, catalase, cholesterol, NEPA color, density, total solids, aflatoxin, daminozide and amitraz residues, BHA, BHT, alcohol, chlorinated hydrocarbon and fumigant residues, dextrin, heavy and light filth, glucose, glycerol and gums. In addition, egg products can be analyzed for high sucrose content, pH, heavy metals and minerals, monosodium dihydrogen phosphate, monosodium glutamate, nitrites, oxygen, palatability and odor, phosphorus, propylene glycol, SLS, and zeolex. There are also be tests for starch, total sugars, sugar profile, whey, standard plate count, direct microscopic count, *Campylobacter,* coliforms, presumptive *Escherichia* coli, *Listeria* monocytogenes, proteolytic count, psychrotrophic bacteria, *Salmonella, Staphylococcus,* thermoduric bacteria, and yeast with mold count.
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 12-2 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
252.204-7008 Compliance with Safeguarding

Covered Defense Information Controls.

As prescribed in 204.7304 (a), use the following provision:

COMPLIANCE WITH SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION CONTROLS (OCT

2016)

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision—

“Controlled technical information,” “covered contractor information system,” “covered defense

information,” “cyber incident,” “information system,” and “technical information” are defined in

clause 252.204-7012 , Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting.

(b) The security requirements required by contract clause 252.204-7012 , shall be implemented for

all covered defense information on all covered contractor information systems that support the

performance of this contract.

(c) For covered contractor information systems that are not part of an information technology

service or system operated on behalf of the Government (see 252.204-7012 (b)(2)—

(1) By submission of this offer, the Offeror represents that it will implement the security

requirements specified by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication

(SP) 800-171 “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems

and Organizations” (see http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171) that are in effect at the time the

solicitation is issued or as authorized by the contracting officer not later than December 31, 2017.

(2)(i) If the Offeror proposes to vary from any of the security requirements specified by NIST SP

800-171 that are in effect at the time the solicitation is issued or as authorized by the Contracting

Officer, the Offeror shall submit to the Contracting Officer, for consideration by the DoD Chief

Information Officer (CIO), a written explanation of—

(A) Why a particular security requirement is not applicable; or

(B) How an alternative but equally effective, security measure is used to compensate for the inability

to satisfy a particular requirement and achieve equivalent protection.

(ii) An authorized representative of the DoD CIO will adjudicate offeror requests to vary from NIST

SP 800-171 requirements in writing prior to contract award. Any accepted variance from NIST SP

800-171 shall be incorporated into the resulting contract.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 252.204 RESERVED
SUBPART 32.4 –– ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR

NON–COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Parent topic: PART 32 –– CONTRACT FINANCING

32.402 General.

(c)(1)(iii) The HCA is the designee.

32.407 Interest.

(d) The HCA is the designee.
#### § 772.16 Liquidation.

When the Agency determines that continued servicing will not accomplish the objectives of the loan and the delinquency or financial distress cannot be cured by the options in § 772.13, or the loan is in non-monetary default, the borrower will be encouraged to dispose of the Agency security voluntarily through sale or transfer and assumption in accordance with this part. If such a transfer or voluntary sale is not carried out, the loan will be liquidated according to 7 CFR part 766. For AMP loans, appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11 are provided in the notice of acceleration. For IMP loans, appeal rights must be exhausted before acceleration, and the notice of acceleration is not appealable.

[68 FR 69949, Dec. 16, 2003, as amended at 72 FR 64121, Nov. 15, 2007]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000759440
<NAME> BIG RIVER PRODUCTIONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          20,118
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,118
<SALES>                                         65,659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,659
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,424
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 523

_____________________________ S.S., Mother o f T. D

. a nd L. D
., Minor Children
, Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. James P. Nilon , Judge

. July 3, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , W ETHERELL , and R OWE , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Henri C. Cawthon of Law Office of Henri C. Cawthon, P.A., Gainesville
, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division, Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahas see.
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.

§ 810.207 Special grades and special grade requirements. ( a ) *Blighted barley.* Barley that contains more than 4.0 percent of fungus-damaged and/or mold-damaged kernels.
( b ) *Ergoty barley.* Barley that contains more than 0.10 percent ergot.
( c ) *Garlicky barley.* Barley that contains three or more green garlic bulblets, or an equivalent quantity of dry or partly dry bulblets in 500 grams of barley.
( d ) *Smutty barley.* Barley that has kernels covered with smut spores to give a smutty appearance in mass, or which contains more than 0.20 percent smut balls.
[52 FR 24418, June 30, 1987, as amended at 52 FR 24441, June 30, 1987]
Washington, DC 20590 

Submitted via www.requlations.gov 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On March 29, 2013 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) granted Exemption No. 10741 on 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-201 0-0920 to Air Methods Corporation (AMC). This exemption from 

§§ 47.49 and 91 .203(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) allows AMC to 

temporarily operate its U.S.-registered aircraft in domestic air operations without the registration 

or airworthiness certificates on board the aircraft, subject to certain conditions stated therein. 

Since the first Exemption No. 1 07 41 was granted it has been extended every two years. The 

latest extension, Exemption No. 10741A will expire by its own terms on April30, 2015. 

There have been no changes to the conditions and circumstances to which Exemption No 

10741 was originally granted. Experience with Exemption No 10741 demonstrates that the 

public interest is served and a level of safety equivalent to regulation is maintained when Air 

Methods aircraft are temporarily allowed to operate without a registration or airworthiness 

certificate on board. 

Exemption No. 10741 remains vital to the public interest, therefore Air Methods petitions the 

Administrator to extend this exemption for an additional two-year term, or for such longer term 

as the Administrator may deem appropriate. 

If you have any questions concerning this request for an extension please contact me at 

(303)792-7442 or email at kmoore@airmethods.com. 

Respectfully, 

Kerensa Moore 

135 Maintenance Compliance Specialist 

Aviation Services 

Air Methods Corporation 

7211 S. PEORIA I ENGLEWOOD, CO 80112 I 303.792.7400 I AIRMETHODS.COM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifton Greene, Also Known as Michael Greene, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 12, 1978, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The postarrest statements made by defendant in response to the arresting officer’s inquiry should have been suppressed due to the officer’s failure to first advise him of his *Miranda*rights (see *People v Whyte,*71 AD2d 631). However, we find that the proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. Moreover, “there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendants conviction” *(People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230,237) or that the admission into evidence of defendant’s statements contributed thereto *(People v Almestica,*42 NY2d 222,226). Thus, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
§ 870.13 Records and inspection. ( a ) *Required records.* The eligible domestic user shall maintain all records and reports relating to their Upland Cotton Domestic User Agreement for a period of three years following termination of the Agreement. At a minimum, records must include those listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section. ( 1 ) A monthly consumption record including a detailed list of bales consumed, showing the bale numbers, net weights, date received, date consumed, type of eligible upland cotton, and a facility identifier. The consumption record must be accompanied by source documents such as purchase orders and invoices to verify the information provided.
( 2 ) Documentation supporting the receiving of cotton, including a register of contracts, amendments, and cancellations. Records must show the number of bales received each month by type of cotton, supported by invoices or waybills and weight sheets documenting the net weight when received at the user's facility.
( 3 ) Documentation tracing the consumed bale weight back to source documents showing the documented bale weight received at the user's facility.
( 4 ) Documentation supporting the acquisition, consumption, and disposition of ineligible cotton and other textiles.
( 5 ) A bale inventory record that summarizes, at least monthly, the eligible domestic user's beginning inventory, receipts, adjustments, consumption, and ending inventory.
( 6 ) Documentation of capital expenditures that are equal to or greater than payments received. ( i ) The eligible domestic user must record information about capital expenditures in a supplemental ledger as defined in § 870.2, including, but not limited to, detailed descriptions of each capital expenditure, acquisition date, date of payment, amount of payment, and proof of payment, serial number(s), invoice number, and location (applicable facility).
( ii ) Capital expenditures must be grouped by Marketing Year.
( iii ) Each line item must reflect only a single expense for an identifiable single expenditure.
( b ) *Inspection of records.* ( 1 ) Upon request from WCMD, the eligible domestic user must forward to WCMD copies of any and all records which support the domestic user's claims for payment.
( 2 ) Eligible domestic users must make records available at all reasonable times for an audit or inspection by authorized representatives of AMS, the United States Department of Agriculture, and/or any other governmental unit needing access for audit or inspection purposes.
( 3 ) Eligible domestic users shall permit, and assist without impediment, any AMS-authorized individual to inspect or audit, on any business day during the normal and customary hours of business, the books, papers, records, accounts, and other applicable documents relating to the Agreement. Failure to provide access or respond timely to requests for information and records will result in denial of benefits.
§ 930.62 Exempt uses. ( a ) The Board, with the approval of the Secretary, may exempt from the provisions of § 930.41, § 930.44, § 940.51, § 930.53, or § 930.55 through § 930.57 cherries for designated uses. Such uses may include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) New product and new market development;
( 2 ) Export to designated destinations;
( 3 ) Experimental purposes; or
( 4 ) For any other use designated by the Board, including cherries processed into products for markets for which less than 5 percent of the preceding 5-year average production of cherries were utilized.
( b ) The Board, with the approval of the Secretary, shall prescribe such rules, regulations, and safeguards as it may deem necessary to ensure that cherries handled under the provisions of this section are handled only as authorized.
( c ) Diversion certificates shall not be issued for cherries which are used for exempt purposes; *Provided,* that growers engaging in such activities under the authority of § 930.58 shall be issued diversion certificates for such activities.
[67 FR 51715, Aug. 8, 2002]
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,988-02

EX PARTE THOMAS EDWARD BETTS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F05-58299-M IN THE 194TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM DALLAS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to possession with

intent to deliver a controlled substance, and originally received five years’ deferred adjudication

community supervision. His guilt was later adjudicated and he was sentenced to imprisonment for

fifteen years. 

On February 11, 2014, an order designating issues was signed by the trial court. The Dallas

County District Clerk properly forwarded the application to this Court after 180 days had passed

since the State received service of the application. TEX.R.APP.P.Rule 73.4(5). Nevertheless, there
are issues which still need to be resolved. Specifically, although it appears that the State filed an

amended motion to revokeApplicant’s communitysupervision on August 3, 2011, the habeas record

does not reflect whether a capias was issued for the arrest of Applicant before the five-year period

of deferred adjudication had expired. Furthermore, there has been no resolution of the question of

whether Applicant received effective assistance of counsel, as designated in the February 11, 2014,

order designating issues. Therefore, we remand this application to the 194th District Court of Dallas

County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation and enterfindings of fact and

conclusions of law.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: September 17, 2014

Do not publish
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TERRY DEESE, * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

 * 

v. * Case No. 06-643-MHT 

 * 

CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, INC., et. * 

al., * 

 * 

 Defendants. * 

JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - PREEMPTION 

 The parties respectfully request that this Court extend the deadline for the filing 

responses to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Summary Judgment – 

Preemption. Plaintiff’s response is currently due on November 2, 2007 and Defendant’s reply to 

Plaintiff’s response is currently due on November 7, 2007. 

 Additional time is requested because the parties have just concluded depositions and need 

additional time to receive the transcripts in order to properly cite the record. 

 Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the deadline for filing his response to Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Summary Judgment – Preemption be extended 

until November 12, 2007 and Defendant’s Reply extended to November 19, 2007. 

Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 50 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

 

/s/ C. Lance Gould 

 C. Lance Gould (ASB-0913-G66C) 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

OF COUNSEL: 

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, 

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.

Post Office Box 4160 

Montgomery, Alabama 36103 

(334) 269-2343 

(334) 954-7555 (fax) 

 /s/ Gregory S. Ritchey 

 Gregory S. Ritchey (ASB-8193-H68G) 

RITCHEY & SIMPSON, PLLC 

3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 100 

Birmingham, Alabama 35216 

(205) 876-1600 

(205) 876-1616 (fax) 

 

Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 50 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have electronically filed the original of the foregoing document in 

this Court and served a copy upon all parties by placing a copy of same in the United States 

Mail, first class, postage prepaid and/or by hand delivery on this the 1st day of November, 2007. 

 /s/ C. Lance Gould 

 OF COUNSEL 

 /s/ Gregory S. Ritchey 

Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 50 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### § 52.27 Who shall perform appeal inspection.

An appeal inspection shall be performed by an inspector or inspectors (other than the one from whose inspection the appeal is requested) authorized for this purpose by the Administrator and, whenever practical, such appeal inspection shall be conducted jointly by two such inspectors: *Provided,* That, the inspector who made the inspection on which the appeal is requested may be authorized to draw the samples when another inspector or licensed sampler is not available in the area where the product is located.