alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          39,510
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,500
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    177,027
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          24,499
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            25,026
<LOANS>                                        555,166
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 838,251
<DEPOSITS>                                     686,898
<SHORT-TERM>                                    41,732
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,706
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,685
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 838,251
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 24,548
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,772
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   670
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                30,990
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,492
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,493
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,497
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      400
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 106
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,083
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      10,083
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.23
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,659
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,802
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,827
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      549
<RECOVERIES>                                       175
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,853
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,489
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          3,364
        

</TABLE>
1537.110 Solicitation provisions and contract

clauses.

The following clauses are prescribed for service contracts. They may also be used in research and

development contracts when applicable (see 1535.007-70).

(a) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1552.237-70, Contract Publication Review

Procedures, in solicitations and contracts when the products of the contract are subject to contract

publication review.

(b) The Contracting Officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 1552.237-71,

Technical Direction, in solicitations and contracts where the Contracting Officer intends to delegate

authority to issue technical direction to the Contracting Officer's Representative(s).

(c) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1552.237-72, Key Personnel, in solicitations and

contracts when it is necessary for contract performance to identify Contractor key personnel.

Contracting Officers have the flexibility to identify the required number of days of key personnel

commitment during the early stages of contractor performance. The length of time will be based on

the requirements of individual acquisitions when continued assignment is essential to the successful

implementation of the program's mission. Therefore, Contracting Officers may use a clause

substantially the same as in 48 CFR 1552.237-72, regarding substitution of key personnel.

Contracting Officers may include a different number of days in excess of the ninety (90) days

included in this clause, if approved at one level above the Contracting Officer.

(d) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1552.237-74, Publicity, in solicitations and

contracts pertaining to the removal or remedial activities under the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

(e) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1552.237-75, Paperwork Reduction Act, in

solicitations and contracts requiring the collection of identical information from (10) or more public

respondents.

(f) To ensure that Agency contracts are administered so as to avoid creating an improper employeremployee relationship, contracting officers shall insert the contract clause at 1552.237-76,

“Government-Contractor Relations”, in all solicitations and contracts for non-personal services that

exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

Parent topic: Subpart 1537.1 - Service Contracts - General
§ 990.30 USDA producers; License suspension. ( a ) USDA may issue a notice of suspension to a producer if USDA or its representative receives some credible evidence establishing that a producer has: ( 1 ) Engaged in conduct violating a provision of this part; or
( 2 ) Failed to comply with a written order from the USDA-AMS Administrator related to negligence as defined in this part.
( b ) Any producer whose license has been suspended shall not handle or remove hemp or cannabis from the location where hemp or cannabis was located at the time when USDA issued its notice of suspension, without prior written authorization from USDA.
( c ) Any person whose license has been suspended shall not produce hemp during the period of suspension.
( d ) A producer whose license has been suspended may appeal that decision in accordance with subpart D of this part.
( e ) A producer whose license has been suspended and not restored on appeal may have their license restored after a waiting period of one year from the date of the suspension. If the license was issued more than three years prior to the date of restoration, the producer shall submit a new application and criminal history report to USDA.
( f ) A producer whose license has been suspended may be required to provide, and operate under, a corrective action plan to fully restore their license.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13
- 50371 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff
- Appellee
v. ARIEL VALLEJO
- GONZALEZ , Defendant
- Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:12
- CR
- 1255
- 1 Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ariel Vallejo
- Gonzalez appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was greater t han necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court sentenced him within his guidelines range to 32 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 19, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50371 Document: 00512476414 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2013No. 13
- 50371 The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is r eviewed under an abuse
- of
- discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Because Vallejo
- Gonzalez ’s sentence was within his advisory guidelines range, his sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Gomez
- Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565
- 66 (5th Cir. 2008). Vallejo
- Gonzalez wishes to preserve for further review the argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply to within
- guidelines sentences calculated under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 because § 2L1.2 lacks an empiri cal basis. As conceded by him, such an argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Rodriguez , 660 F.3d 231, 232
- 33 (5th Cir. 2011). Vallejo
- Gonzalez argues that his sentence was greater than necessary because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis and gives heavy weight to a defendant’s criminal history through enhancements, such as his crime
- of
violence enhancement, that are based on prior convictions. He notes that the conviction underlying his crime
- of
- violence enhancement was not assesse d any criminal history points because it occurred too long ago. He further contends that the guidelines range overstated the seriousness of his instant illegal reentry offense and failed to reflect his personal history and characteristics. The district c ourt listened to Vallejo
- Gonzalez ’s arguments for a lesser sentence but found that a 32
- month sentence was appropriate. “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular def endant.” United States v. Campos
- Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Vallejo
- Gonzalez has not shown that his sentence was an abuse of discretion . See United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529
- 31 (5th Cir. 2009); Gomez
- Herrera , 523 F.3d at 565
- 66. AFFIRMED.
2 Case: 13-50371 Document: 00512476414 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2013
#### § 945.90 Separability.

If any provision of this subpart is declared invalid, or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance, or thing is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this subpart, or the applicability thereof to any other person, circumstance, or thing, shall not be affected thereby.
#### PULLIAM *v.*DONALDSON.

1. Where one is brought to trial under an indictment or an accusation, and the name under which the State seeks to arraign him is not his, such defect in the indictment or accusation may be taken advantage of by a plea of misnomer filed before arraignment. After conviction or plea of guilty it is too late to attack the indictment, because of the misnomer.

2. An accusation charging that a named person “did play and bet for money or other thing of value, at a game of skin or other games played with cards, contrary to the laws of the State,” etc., while defective and subject to special demurrer, is not void; and if the defendant named! in an accusation so framed pleads guilty, it is too late afterwards, in proceedings instituted to secure the release of the defendant under the writ of habeas corpus, to attack the accusation upon that ground.

November 18, 1913.

Habeas corpus. Before Judge Ellis. Pulton superior court. March 3, 1913.

*Calhoun & Connally,*for plaintiff.

*Rosser &*Brandon, for defendant.

Beck, J.

In the criminal court of Atlanta, to an accusation charging George Pullman with the offense of misdemeanor “for that the said George Pullman . . did play and bet for money or other thing of value, at a game of skin or other games played with cards, contrary to the laws of the State,” etc., a plea of guilty was entered by the defendant, and he was sentenced to work and labor on the public works of Fulton county. Subsequently to the sentence aforesaid Will Pulliam, alleging himself to be a brother of George Pulliam, brought a petition for habeas corpus against Thomas J. Donaldson as superintendent of the Fulton county stockade or chain-gang, alleging that he was unlawfully restraining the liberty of George Pulliam; that the detention was illegal, because the sentence was void; that the accusation was void, because it charged no crime, but charged the accused with playing or betting for money or other thing of value at the game of skin or other game played with cards, the charge being in the alternative, *865and it not appearing that the game of skin was played with cards; and that the accusation did not charge George Pulliam with any offense, but charged George Pullman with the commission of a misdemeanor, and George Pulliam has never been known as George Pullman. The judge hearing the application denied it, and exception was taken.

1. The judge properly held that the prisoner was not entitled to be discharged under the allegations of the petition. If the accused was not named George Pullman, he could have taken advantage of the misnomer by a plea before arraignment. It was too late to do this after conviction.

*2.*The accusation was not void. The pleading was bad, as was ruled in the ease of *Haley*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*216 (52 S. E. 159); but the defect should have been taken advantage of by special demurrer, as was done in that case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 986.72 Notification of regulation.

The Secretary shall promptly notify the Council of regulations issued or of any modification, suspension, or termination thereof. The Council shall give reasonable notice thereof to industry participants.
###### 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.

#### § 801.4 Tolerances for dockage testers.

The maintenance tolerances for dockage testers used in performing official inspection services shall be:

| Item | Tolerance |
| --- | --- |
| Air separation | ±0.10 percent, mean deviation from standard dockage tester using Hard Red Winter wheat |
| Riddle separation | ±0.10 percent, mean deviation from standard dockage tester using Hard Red Winter wheat |
| Sieve separation | ±0.10 percent, mean deviation from standard dockage tester using Hard Red Winter wheat |
| Total dockage separation | ±0.15 percent, mean deviation from standard dockage tester using Hard Red Winter wheat |
Editorial Note on Part 1045
Editorial Notes: Nomenclature changes to part 1045 appear at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023, and 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023.

§ 1045.70 How is information initially determined to be RD? ( a ) For new information to be classified as RD it must fall under the definition of RD that states such information concerns: The design, manufacture, or utilization of nuclear weapons; the production of special nuclear material; or the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy, and the unauthorized release of the information must reasonably be expected to cause undue risk to the common defense and security.
( b ) This initial determination is made by the Director, Office of Classification after: ( 1 ) Ensuring the information is not prohibited from being classified under § 1045.75;
( 2 ) Considering whether the information falls within the classification or declassification presumptions in § 1045.80; and
( 3 ) Evaluating the criteria in this paragraph. ( i ) Whether the information is so widely known or readily apparent to knowledgeable observers that its classification would cast doubt on the credibility of classification programs;
( ii ) Whether publication of the information would assist in the development of countermeasures or otherwise jeopardize any U.S. weapon or weapon system;
( iii ) Whether the information would hinder U.S. nonproliferation efforts by significantly assisting potential adversaries to develop or improve a nuclear weapon capability, produce nuclear weapons materials, or make other military use of nuclear energy;
( iv ) Whether information would assist terrorists to develop a nuclear weapon, produce nuclear materials, or use special nuclear material in a terrorist attack;
( v ) Whether publication of the information would have a detrimental effect on U.S. foreign relations;
( vi ) Whether publication of the information would benefit the public welfare, taking into account the importance of the information to public discussion and education and potential contribution to economic growth; and
( vii ) Whether publication of the information would benefit the operation of any Government program by reducing operating costs or improving public acceptance.
( c ) In consideration of the analysis of the criteria of this section, if there is significant doubt about the need to classify the information, then the Director cannot make an initial determination to classify the information.
Order entered December 20, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00695-CR

DARIOUS DANTREL LEWIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-2075804-H

ORDER

Before the Court is Court Reporter Cheryl A. Dixon’s request for a third 

extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and 

ORDER the reporter’s record filed by January 12, 2023. We caution Ms. Dixon 

that further extensions will be strongly disfavored.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
#### § 500.2 Recording presence.

Admission to the USNA during periods when it is closed to the public will be limited to authorized individuals who may be required to sign the register or display identification documents when requested by the Security Staff, or other authorized individuals.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER WITHDRAWING MEDIATION ORDER

Cause number: 01-14-00792-CV

Style: Eugenia Woodard v. Fortress Insurance Company, Dr. Ronnie Elmore, 

D.D.S.

Date motion filed: January 23, 2015

Type of Motion: Objection to Mediation

Party filing motion: Appellee

It is ordered that Appellee=s objection to mediation is granted. We withdraw our 

Mediation Order dated January 12, 2015.

Judge's signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

 x Acting individually 

Date: January 27, 2015

* Absent emergency or a statement that the motion is unopposed, must wait ten days before acting on motion except for 

motion to extend time to file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

Note: Single justice may grant or deny any request for relief properly sought by motion, except in a civil case a single justice 

should not: (1) act on a petition for an extraordinary writ or (2) dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion 

for rehearing. TEX. R. APP. P. 10.4(a).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 03:06cr208-MEF

 )

JASON EDWARD COFIELD )

UNITED STATES MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR DETENTION

Comes now the United States of America, by and through Leura G. Canary, United States

Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the United

States’ Motion for Detention Hearing filed September 1, 2006. In support thereof, the United States

submits the following:

1) On September 1, 2006, the United States filed its Motion For Detention Hearing

seeking detention of Cofield. 

2) Since filing the detention motion, Cofield has not contested his incarceration. Cofield

has been incarcerated since September 1, 2006.

3) On March 13, 2007, Cofield’s trial was continued until April 23, 2007.

4) Beginning on April 11, 2007, the Government’s keywitness in this case, Investigator

Keith Jordan, will be out of district and unavailable for trial. He will not return to the Middle

District of Alabama until November 2007. 

5) By agreement of both parties, the United States agrees to withdraw its detention

motion on the express condition that Cofield agree to electronic monitoring and abide by all

conditions set by the Honorable Court.

6) The undersigned has discussed this Motion with Attorney Pate DeBardeleben. Mr.

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 57 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 3
DeBardeleben has no objection to this Motion.

Respectfully submitted this 14th day of March, 2007.

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Verne H. Speirs

VERNE H. SPEIRS

Assistant United States Attorney

1 Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

(334) 223-7280

(334) 223-7135 Fax

verne.speirs@usdoj.gov

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 57 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 2 of 3
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 3:06cr208-MEF

)

JASON EDWARD COFIELD )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 14, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to Pate

DeBardeleben.

Respectfully submitted,

 

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Verne H. Speirs

VERNE H. SPEIRS

Assistant United States Attorney

1 Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

(334) 223-7280

(334) 223-7135 Fax

verne.speirs@usdoj.gov

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 57 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 3 of 3
2905.503 Procedures.

(a) Prior to obtaining HCA approval, an agency should seek legal review to determine whether it has

appropriate legal authority for advertising. The HCA exercising the authority delegated by 2905.502

must do so in accordance with the procedures set forth in FAR 5.503 and those in this section.

(b) Requests for procurement of advertising must be accompanied by written authority to advertise

or publish which sets forth justification and includes the names of newspapers or journals

concerned, frequency and dates of proposed advertisements, estimated cost, and other pertinent

information.

Parent topic: Subpart 2905.5 - Paid Advertisements
#### § 784.12 Maintaining records.

Persons making application for benefits under this program must maintain accurate records and accounts that will document that they meet all eligibility requirements specified herein. Such records and accounts must be retained for 3 years after the date of payment to the sheep and lamb operations under this program. Destruction of the records after such date shall be at the risk of the party undertaking the destruction.
#### Susan C. Darrin, Appellant, v David Darrin, Respondent.

Submitted July 16, 2007;

decided September 18, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 1391.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Subpart 315.2 - Solicitation and Receipt of

Proposals and Information

Parent topic: PART 315 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

315.204-5 Part IV - Representations and instructions.

(c) Section M, Evaluation factors for award.

(1) The requiring activity shall develop technical evaluation factors and submit them to the

contracting officer as part of the acquisition plan or other acquisition request documentation for

inclusion in a solicitation. The requiring activity shall indicate the relative importance or weight of

the evaluation factors based on the requirements of an individual acquisition.

(2) Only a formal amendment to a solicitation can change the evaluation factors.

315.208 Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal

of proposals.

(b) In addition to the provision in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-1, Instructions to

Offerors - Competitive Acquisition, if the head of the contracting activity (HCA) determines that

biomedical or behavioral research and development (R&D) acquisitions are subject to conditions

other than those specified in FAR 52.215-1(c)(3), the HCA may authorize for use in competitive

solicitations for R&D, the provision at 352.215-70, Late Proposals and Revisions. This is an

authorized FAR deviation.

(2) When the provision at 352.215-70 is included in the solicitation and if the HCA intends to

consider a proposal or proposals received after the exact time specified for receipt, the contracting

officer, with the assistance of cost or technical personnel as appropriate, shall determine in writing

that the proposal(s) meets the requirements of the provision at 352.215-70.