alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1.1102 What definitions apply to this subpart?

The definitions of terms in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act apply to such terms when used in this subpart, unless otherwise specified. For the purposes of this subpart, the following definitions also apply:

*Analyst* means an individual who analyzes samples.

*Corrective action* means an action taken by an accreditation body or laboratory to investigate and eliminate the cause of a deficiency so that it does not recur.

*Directed food laboratory order* means an order issued by FDA under § 1.1108 requiring food testing to be conducted under this subpart by or on behalf of an owner or consignee.

*Food* has the meaning given in section 201(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, except that food does not include pesticides (as defined in 7 U.S.C. 136(u)).

*Food testing* and *testing of food* means the analysis of food product samples or environmental samples.

*Laboratory accreditation for analyses of foods (LAAF)-accreditation* means a determination by a recognized accreditation body that a laboratory meets the applicable requirements of this subpart to conduct food testing under this subpart using one or more methods of analysis.

*LAAF-accredited laboratory* means a laboratory that a recognized accreditation body has determined meets the applicable requirements of this subpart and has been LAAF-accredited to conduct food testing under this subpart using one or more methods of analysis.

*Owner or consignee* means any person with an ownership or consignment interest in the food product or environment that is the subject of food testing conducted under § 1.1107(a).

*Recognition* means a determination by FDA that an accreditation body meets the applicable requirements of this subpart and is authorized to LAAF-accredit laboratories under this subpart.

*Recognized accreditation body* means an accreditation body that FDA has determined meets the applicable requirements of this subpart and is authorized to LAAF-accredit laboratories under this subpart.

*Representative sample* means a sample that accurately, to a statistically acceptable degree, represents the characteristics and qualities of the food product or environment from which the sample was collected.

*Sampler* means an individual who collects samples.

*Sampling firm* means an entity that provides sampling services.

*Scope of LAAF-accreditation* refers to the methods of analysis for which the laboratory is LAAF-accredited.

*Street address* means the full physical address, including the country. For purposes of this rule, a post office box number alone is insufficient; however, a post office box number may be provided in addition to the street address.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-60100

Summary Calendar

LAWRENCE DOMINGO RILEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HEALTH ASSURANCE, L.L.C.; PAT OLSEN, ADM/MED; HARRISON

COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:09-CV-201

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Lawrence Domingo Riley, Mississippi prisoner # 45204, filed the instant

42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for alleged deliberate indifference to

deliberate medical needs that occurred when he was a pretrial detainee. The

magistrate judge granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and

dismissed the suit. In this appeal, Riley insists that his rights were violated

because more than three weeks passed between the day when he fell in the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 14, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-60100 Document: 00511381505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2011
No. 10-60100

shower and hurt his back and the day when he saw a doctor. Additionally, he

contends that defendant Olsen infringed his rights by denying him medication.

He moves this court to supplement the record on appeal with medical records

that were not presented to the magistrate judge.

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Dillon

v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010). A prisoner raises a viable claim of

deliberate indifference to medical needs by showing that an official “knows of

and disregards an excessive risk to [his] health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006).

Our review of the record and Riley’s brief shows no error in the magistrate

judge’s decision. Rather, this review shows only that Riley disagrees with the

treatment he was given, which is insufficient to show deliberate indifference to

serious medical needs. See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346; Domino v. Texas Dep’t of

Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001).

The judgment is AFFIRMED, and Riley’s motion to supplement the record

is DENIED.

2

Case: 10-60100 Document: 00511381505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2011
#### MECUM v. BECKER

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 24, 1914.)

Action by Elizabeth A. C. Mecum against O. Adelbert Becker.

No opinion. Motion granted. Settle order on notice. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1096.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7594
NICHOLAS J. QUEEN, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versusEDWARD BRENNAN; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CA-95-859-WMN) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 14, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas J. Queen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray, OBER, KALER, GRIMES & SHRIVER, Towson, Maryland; Kathryn L. Grill, SMITH, SOMERVILLE & CASE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appellant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Queen v. Brennan , No. CA-95-859-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 23, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 910.520 Criteria for a low-risk auditee. An auditee that meets all of the following conditions for each of the preceding two audit periods may qualify as a low-risk auditee and be eligible for reduced audit coverage. ( a ) Compliance audits were performed on an annual basis in accordance with the provisions of this Subpart, including submitting the data collection form to DOE within the timeframe specified in § 910.512 Report submission. A for-profit entity that has biennial audits does not qualify as a low-risk auditee.
( b ) The auditor's opinion on whether the financial statements (if available) were prepared in accordance with GAAP, or a basis of accounting required by state law, and the auditor's in relation to opinion on the schedule of expenditures of DOE awards were unmodified.
( c ) There were no deficiencies in internal control which were identified as material weaknesses under the requirements of GAGAS.
( d ) The auditor did not report a substantial doubt about the auditee's ability to continue as a going concern.
( e ) None of the DOE programs had audit findings from any of the following in either of the preceding two audit periods: ( 1 ) Internal control deficiencies that were identified as material weaknesses in the auditor's report on internal control as required under § 910.515 Audit reporting, paragraph (c);
( 2 ) Not applicable.
( 3 ) Not applicable.
[87 FR 15323, Mar. 18, 2022]
H. Res. 1160 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 29, 2018. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

88) to modify the boundary of the Shiloh National Military 

Park located in Tennessee and Mississippi, to establish Parker’s Crossroads Battlefield as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes, with the Senate 

amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without 

intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the 

chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee 

that the House concur in the Senate amendment with an 

amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 

115–85 modified by the amendment printed in the report of 

the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The 

Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as 

read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous 
2 

•HRES 1160 EH 

question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its 

adoption without intervening motion. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
§ 3256.100 What does this part do? This part requires that the award and administration of NEA grants and cooperative agreements comply with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance implementing the portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701-707, as amended, hereafter referred to as “the Act”) that applies to grants. It thereby— ( a ) Gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance (subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 182) for the NEA's grants and cooperative agreements; and
( b ) Establishes NEA policies and procedures for compliance with the Act that are the same as those of other Federal agencies, in conformance with the requirement in 41 U.S.C. 705 for Governmentwide implementing regulations.
11/4/10 

B&V E-23 1 

PNM Responses to Joe Kordzi’s email of November 1, 2010 

Question 1: 

Any additional sections to the SJRPP proposal that were not otherwise provided. 

Response: 

PNM has provided the following information on SJRPP: 

• A detailed breakdown of the estimate developed for SJRPP. 

• A complete bill of quantities for the SJRPP estimate. 

• A copy of all the quotations used in developing the PNM estimate. 

PNM believes that this is a complete package of information. If additional information is 

requested, please provide a further description of what is being requested. 

Question 2: 

Did the SJRPP project include modifications to the air heaters? If yes, please provide a 

description of the modifications and the final vendor quote for the work. 

 

Response: 

SJRPP did have replacement air heaters. The quotes were not used on PNM because 

PNM has three air heaters per unit and SJRPP has two heaters per unit. In addition, the 

primary air heater has a horizontal shaft, making it difficult to modify with SCR-ready 

baskets. As a result, a quote was obtained specifically for PNM. However, for 

comparison purposes, the air heater quotation for SJRPP has been provided as a separate 

file with this email. The cost for the air heaters for SJRPP was $3,900,800 per unit. If 

this bid were scaled to San Juan Unit 3, the following calculation would be performed for 

equipment cost: 

cos $3,901,000

3,081,500

3,082,200

cos 1.03 $3,900,800

_ _

_ _ _ cos _ _ _ 2007 _ $ _ cos

0.6

0.6

=

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = × ×

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = × ×

PNM t

PNM t

SJRPP flow rate

PNM gas flow rate PNM t escalation rate to SJRPP t

The costs included in B&V’s estimate for San Juan Unit 3 and Unit 4 (per unit) is as 

follows: 

 

Primary Air Heaters Material per unit $533,000 Quote for SJGS

 Installation per unit $962,000 Scaled from another 

project

Secondary Air Heater Material per unit $1,030,000 Quote for SJGS

 Installation per unit $2,565,000 Scaled from another 

project

Total $5,090,000 
11/4/10 

B&V E-23 2 

As can be seen, the equipment costs for San Juan are lower than SJRPP ($1,563,000 for 

San Juan versus $3,901,000 scaled from SJRPP), even considering the one additional air 

heater per unit. This is mainly due to the fact that the primary air heater cost for San Juan 

is replacement of the metal baskets with a more corrosion-resistant metal. Enamel 

baskets are not possible with a horizontal shaft air heater. The metal baskets are less 

expensive that enamel-coated baskets. 

Question 3: 

Please provide a copy of the 3/15/07 RFQ for SJRPP and any modifications thereto.

Response: 

We do not understand what request for quotation (RFQ) you are referring to on SJRPP. 

Are you requesting an additional vendor quote as noted in SJRPP documentation supplied 

or something different? Please clarify what “3/15/07 RFQ for SJRPP and any 

modifications” document(s) is being requested so that we can respond appropriately.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 316 

Celebrating the success of the Marshall Plan in fostering peace and prosperity 

in the seven decades since its conception and affirming the continued 

relevance of the Marshall Plan for the United States and its global 

allies and the values for which it stood. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2017 

Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself and Mr. MEEKS) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Celebrating the success of the Marshall Plan in fostering 

peace and prosperity in the seven decades since its conception and affirming the continued relevance of the 

Marshall Plan for the United States and its global allies 

and the values for which it stood. 

Whereas 2017 marks the 70th year since the European Recovery Program, or what came to known as the ‘‘Marshall Plan’’, was first conceived and proclaimed by General George Catlett Marshall while he was serving as U.S. 

Secretary of State; 

Whereas the Marshall Plan has been hailed by leaders of 

World War II allied and enemy countries alike as the 

most magnanimous act by Americans in history; 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 316 IH 

Whereas the Marshall Plan made possible new measures of 

transatlantic cooperation through the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) and other institutions; 

Whereas these institutional developments have profoundly enhanced the security, freedom, and prosperity of the 

United States and the Atlantic Community generally; 

Whereas new challenges continue to arise which call for recommitment to and reinvigoration of these institutions 

and for their continued viability; 

Whereas creative thought and rededication to the ideals and 

principles undergirding the Marshall Plan are now necessary in order to assure the preservation and perfection 

of these institutions; and 

Whereas the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Marshall 

Plan provides a fitting opportunity for rededication of 

commitments to these institutions: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) acknowledges that the spirit of magnanimity 

3 and innovation with which the Marshall Plan was 

4 enacted are as essential to United States foreign pol5 icy now as they were in 1947; 

6 (2) believes the success of the Marshall Plan in 

7 fostering peace and prosperity in the past 70 years 

8 should serve as a beacon for the people of the 

9 United States and the world as we address the chal10 lenges of the present; and 

11 (3) calls upon all Americans to rededicate them12 selves to the ideals that inspired the Marshall Plan: 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 316 IH 

1 international cooperation, democracy, free enter2 prise, and universal respect for all. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAILASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY,

Ph. D.,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al.,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 10-17236

D.C. No. 5:09-cv-03560-RMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Former California state prisoner Kailash Chandra Chaudhary appeals pro se

from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we dismiss the appeal as moot.

FILED

OCT 05 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-17236

Chaudhary contends that his federal due process rights were violated by the

state’s failure to give him credit, against the five-year service requirement under

California Penal Code § 3000.1(b), for the time served between the date that the

Board granted him parole and the date that the state court reversed the Governor’s

decision denying the grant of parole. Chaudhary has now been discharged from

parole. Thus, his appeal is moot. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150

(1996) (per curiam) (“[A]n appeal should . . . be dismissed as moot when, by virtue

of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief

whatever in favor of the appellant[.]”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We construe Chaudhary’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the

certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-

1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

DISMISSED.
§ 111.455 What requirements apply to holding components, dietary supplements, packaging, and labels? ( a ) You must hold components and dietary supplements under appropriate conditions of temperature, humidity, and light so that the identity, purity, strength, and composition of the components and dietary supplements are not affected.
( b ) You must hold packaging and labels under appropriate conditions so that the packaging and labels are not adversely affected.
( c ) You must hold components, dietary supplements, packaging, and labels under conditions that do not lead to the mixup, contamination, or deterioration of components, dietary supplements, packaging, and labels.
§ 1600.765 How may I request reconsideration of my DFC suspension? ( a ) If the DFC suspending official issues a decision under 2 CFR 180.755 to continue your suspension after you present information in opposition to that suspension under 2 CFR 180.720, you can ask the suspending official to reconsider the decision for material errors of fact or law that you believe will change the outcome of the matter.
( b ) A request for review under this section must be in writing; state the specific findings you believe to be in error; and include the reasons or legal bases for your position.
( c ) The suspending official must notify you of their decisions under this section, in writing, using the notice procedures at 2 CFR 180.615 and 180.975.
#### § 200.476 Trustees.

Travel and subsistence costs of trustees (or directors) at IHEs and nonprofit organizations are allowable. See also § 200.475.

[85 FR 49571, Aug. 13, 2020]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

869 

CA 12-00146 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ. 

 

GENESEE/WYOMING YMCA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BOVIS LEND LEASE LMB, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

(APPEAL NO. 2.)

 

HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, SYRACUSE (JOHN G. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (BRIAN D. GWITT OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A.

Michalek, J.), entered January 3, 2012 in a breach of contract action. 

The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment

dismissing the complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by granting that part of the motion of

Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the second

cause of action in the complaint and as modified the order is affirmed

without costs. 

Same Memorandum as in Genesee/Wyoming YMCA v Bovis Lend Lease

LMB, Inc. ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Sept. 28, 2012]).

Entered: September 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
38469.

#### CREWS v. LIFE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE. CREWS, Guardian v. LIFE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE.

38470.

*566Decided October 11, 1960.

*Donald E. Austin,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Garrett & McDonald, F. B. McDonald, Jr.,*contra.

Nichols, Judge.

In the case of *Plummer v. Moore,*63 Ga. 626, Justice Bleckley, speaking for the Supreme Court, said: “An affidavit made not only after the bill of exceptions was filed, but after the time allowed by law for filing it had expired, is no evidence of service.” Thereafter, the General Assembly in the act of 1885 (Ga. L. 1884-85, p. 102, *Code*§ 6-1302), provided that a bill of exceptions could be served after it was filed; however, it did not change the provision that the affidavit must be filed within the time wherein the bill of exceptions could be filed, or that service must be perfected within such statutory period, but expressly stated that such service must be made within the time provided by law. In the case of *Duke v. Sims, 70*Ga. App. 318 (28 S. E. 2d 174), Judge Felton, now Chief Judge of this court, said: “Nor will an affidavit suffice when *567made after the time allowed for service and filing of the bill of exceptions, to the effect that the service was made on the same date the certificate was signed. *Plummer v. Moore,*63 Ga. 626; *Goodwin v. Kennedy,*99 Ga. 123 (24 S. E. 975); *Brantley v. MacArthur,*132 Ga. 459 (64 S. E. 326).”

There being no proper service, acknowledgment or waiver of .service of the bills of exceptions, this court is without jurisdiction ■to hear and determine the cases, and the writs of error must be ■dismissed.

*Writs of error dismissed.*

*Felton, C. J., md Bell, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32



                        President's Written Certification
                             Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 907 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity
as president of Ridgefield Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") that

     (a)  the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period
          Ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (b)  the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
          of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such
          period.


Dated: May 14, 2007

                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President