alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 920 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 920

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 19, 2006.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2389) to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the 
jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving 
the Pledge of Allegiance. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their designees. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. The bill shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. 
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
2007-0863.

#### Evanich v. Bridge.

Lorain App, No. 05CA008824, 170 Ohio App.3d 653, 2007-Ohio-1349. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County. Upon consideration of appellants’ motion for leave to file a corrected merit brief,

It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that the motion is stricken as prohibited by S.Ct.Prac.R. VIII(7) and XIV(C).
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         In connection with the accompanying amended Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Velocity Asset Management Inc. for the three months ended September
30, 2004, I, John C. Kleinert, Chief Executive Officer of Velocity Asset
Management, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1) such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three
months ended September 30, 2004, 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 such amended Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2004, fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Velocity Asset Management, Inc.

                                        /s/ JOHN C. KLEINERT
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        John C. Kleinert
                                        Chief Executive Officer


         August 10, 2005


                                       27
§ 1307.11 Distribution by dispenser to another practitioner. ( a ) A practitioner who is registered to dispense a controlled substance may distribute (without being registered to distribute) a quantity of such substance to— ( 1 ) Another practitioner for the purpose of general dispensing by the practitioner to patients, provided that— ( i ) The practitioner to whom the controlled substance is to be distributed is registered under the Act to dispense that controlled substance;
( ii ) The distribution is recorded by the distributing practitioner in accordance with § 1304.22(c) of this chapter and by the receiving practitioner in accordance with § 1304.22(c) of this chapter;
( iii ) If the substance is listed in Schedule I or II, an order form is used as required in part 1305 of this chapter; and
( iv ) The total number of dosage units of all controlled substances distributed by the practitioner pursuant to this section and § 1301.25 of this chapter during each calendar year in which the practitioner is registered to dispense does not exceed 5 percent of the total number of dosage units of all controlled substances distributed and dispensed by the practitioner during the same calendar year.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) If, during any calendar year in which the practitioner is registered to dispense, the practitioner has reason to believe that the total number of dosage units of all controlled substances which will be distributed by him pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and § 1301.25 of this chapter will exceed 5 percent of this total number of dosage units of all controlled substances distributed and dispensed by him during that calendar year, the practitioner shall obtain a registration to distribute controlled substances.
( c ) The distributions that a registered retail pharmacy makes to automated dispensing systems at long term care facilities for which the retail pharmacy also holds registrations do not count toward the 5 percent limit in paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b) of this section.
[68 FR 41229, July 11, 2003, as amended at 70 FR 25466, May 13, 2005; 79 FR 53565, Sept. 9, 2014]
Syngenta See ds, Inc. CR003

- EPA

- 1 Page 2 of 173 Statement of Data Confidentiality Claim

A claim of confidentiality is being made for information in this application on the basis of its

falling within the scope of FIFRA §10(d)(1)(C). The information claimed confidential has

been removed to a confidential appendix

.

Syngenta submits this material to the United States Environmental Prot ection Agency

specifically under provisions contained in FIFRA, as amended, and consents to use and

disclosure of this material by EPA according to FIFRA. In submitting this material to EPA

according to method and format requirements contained in Pesticid e Registration Notice 86

- 5

and 40 CFR §158.33, Syngenta does not waive any protection of rights involving this

material that would have been claimed by the company if this material had not been

submitted to the EPA.

Company: Syngenta Seeds, Inc.

- Field Crops

- NAFTA

Submitter :

_ ______

David J. Mason, Jr

. , Ph.D.

Regulatory Affairs Manager

Date: April 1, 2011Syngenta See ds, Inc. CR003

- EPA

- 1 Page 6 of 173 List of Accompanying Volumes (continued)

Vol. Category 1 Volume/Study Title MRID

1 0 B Seastrum, L. (2010). Investigation of the Potential Interaction

between Insecticidal Proteins mCry3A + eCry3.1Ab Using

Colorado Potato Beetle ( Leptinotarsa decemlineata )

. TK0026862

1 1 B Kurtz, R. (2011). Insect Resistance Management Plan for

Bt1 1xMIR162xMIR604xTC1507x5307 Maize

. NRA

- 107

- 11

1

– Categorization code for placement of documents in the Public Docket

Company Official: April 1, 2011

David J. Mason, Jr. , Ph.D. Date

Regulatory Affairs Manager

Company Name: Syngenta Seeds, Inc.

- Field Crops

- NAFTA

Company Contact: David J. Mason, Jr. , Ph.D. / Tel. (919) 226

- 7377
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy CALHOUN, Appellant.

No. 05-1238.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 6, 2005.

Decided Oct. 11, 2005.

Jonathan Allen Kobes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Rapid City, SD, for Appellee.

Timothy Calhoun, Oklahoma City, OK, pro se.

James L. Jeffries, Rapid City, SD, for Appellant.

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Calhoun (Calhoun) pled guilty to failing to pay child support, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3). The district court1 treated the Guidelines as advisory *490and sentenced him to 24 months in prison and 1 year of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel argues the prison sentence imposed by the district court, which was the sentence called for by the Guidelines, is unreasonable under the standard of review announced in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 765-66, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because a non-prison sentence would better address the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), particularly the goal of having Calhoun pay past and future child support.

We have reviewed the record and are satisfied the district court considered all of the section 3553(a) factors present in this case. The court expressly declined to impose a sentence that would have allowed Calhoun to work and pay child support because Calhoun had a lengthy history of faffing to pay child support. The court found during the four years preceding the filing of the instant charge, Calhoun had paid less than $200 in total child support; and during the seven months he was free on bond on the instant charge, despite being required to pay child support as a condition of his bond, Calhoun had paid only $125 in child support. With this history, we cannot say the sentence imposed is unreasonable.

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude there are no nonfrivo-lous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
#### In the Matter of Dabari S. MercyFirst et al., Respondents; Dawn S., Appellant.

[818 NYS2d 91]

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the grounds of permanent neglect and abandonment, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogacz, J.), dated November 17, 2004, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminated her parental rights upon a finding that she permanently neglected the subject child, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

To terminate parental rights based upon permanent neglect, the petitioning agency must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent failed, for a period of more than one year following the date the child came into care, “substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding . . . diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship” (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; *see Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 142-*594143 [1984]; *Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368, 381-386 [1984]). Here, the agency met its burden by establishing that, during the relevant time period, the mother failed to maintain regular contact with the child, failed to complete a parenting skills class, and failed to avail herself of mental health services to which she had been referred, all of which were a necessary part of the plan for the child’s return, despite the agency’s diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parent-child relationship *(see Matter of Star Leslie W., supra; Matter of Ebony Starr B.,*14 AD3d 507 [2005]; *Matter of Chimere C.,*259 AD2d 615 [1999]).

The Family Court properly concluded that termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Moreover, the child, age 16 at the time of the order of fact-finding and disposition, expressed a clear preference not to be reunited with her natural mother *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [k]). The child, having bonded with her foster parents, was happy and thriving. Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
§ 71.45 Lifting and tie-down standards for all packages. ( a ) Any lifting attachment that is a structural part of a package must be designed with a minimum safety factor of three against yielding when used to lift the package in the intended manner, and it must be designed so that failure of any lifting device under excessive load would not impair the ability of the package to meet other requirements of this subpart. Any other structural part of the package that could be used to lift the package must be capable of being rendered inoperable for lifting the package during transport, or must be designed with strength equivalent to that required for lifting attachments.
( b ) Tie-down devices: ( 1 ) If there is a system of tie-down devices that is a structural part of the package, the system must be capable of withstanding, without generating stress in any material of the package in excess of its yield strength, a static force applied to the center of gravity of the package having a vertical component of 2 times the weight of the package with its contents, a horizontal component along the direction in which the vehicle travels of 10 times the weight of the package with its contents, and a horizontal component in the transverse direction of 5 times the weight of the package with its contents.
( 2 ) Any other structural part of the package that could be used to tie down the package must be capable of being rendered inoperable for tying down the package during transport, or must be designed with strength equivalent to that required for tie-down devices.
( 3 ) Each tie-down device that is a structural part of a package must be designed so that failure of the device under excessive load would not impair the ability of the package to meet other requirements of this part.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin EARNEST, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10752

Non-Argument Calendar.

D.C. Docket No. 04-00002-CR-RH-WCS.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 26, 2005.

Gwendolyn L. Spivey, Federal Defender Office, Randolph P. Murrell, Federal Public Defender, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

E. Bryan Wilson, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Benjamin Earnest appeals his 137-month sentence, imposed after he pled *843guilty to thirteen counts of bank robbery and attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). According to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”), in the course of robbing a bank, Earnest handed a bank teller a note, which read: “I have gun, do not alert anyone, give me all the money from the drawer now.” At sentencing, the district court enhanced Earnest’s sentence, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F), which provides for a 2-level offense level enhancement “if a threat of death was made” during the robbery. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F).

On appeal, Earnest argues that the written statement that he had a gun was not an affirmative statement of intended deadly action, such that it would cause a bank teller to have a fear of death. He urges us to reconsider and overrule our decision in *United States v. Murphy,*306 F.3d 1087 (11th Cir.2002), in which we held that a written note, given to a bank teller during a bank robbery and stating that the defendant had a gun, constituted a “threat of death,” even though the defendant made no express threat to use the gun, thereby supporting an enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F). *See*306 F.3d at 1088-89. In a footnote in *Murphy,*we specifically rejected the position, stated in the dissenting opinion in *United States v. Clark,*294 F.3d 791, 797 (6th Cir.2002), which Earnest asserts we should adopt here, that a robber’s intent is not determinative because “guns are widely known to be capable of producing death.” 306 F.3d at 1089 n. 1.

Under our prior panel precedent rule, *Murphy*is the controlling law on the instant issue and we must follow it here. *See United States v. Hogan,*986 F.2d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir.1993) (“[I]t is the firmly established rule of this Circuit that each succeeding panel is bound by the holding of the first panel to address an issue of law, unless and until that holding is overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court.”). Accordingly, we affirm Earnest’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 17

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003, and at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

#### § 17.20 Ex parte contacts.

No party or person (except employees of the presiding officer's office) shall communicate in any way with the presiding officer on any matter at issue in a case, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. This provision does not prohibit a person or party from inquiring about the status of a case or asking routine questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.
Editorial Note on Part 177
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 177 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 177.1830 Styrene-methyl methacrylate copolymers. Styrene-methyl methacrylate copolymers identified in this section may be safely used as components of plastic articles intended for use in contact with food, subject to the provisions of this section. ( a ) For the purpose of this section, styrene-methyl methacrylate copolymers consist of basic copolymers produced by the copolymerization of styrene and methyl methacrylate such that the finished basic copolymers contain more than 50 weight percent of polymer units derived from styrene.
( b ) The finished plastic food-contact article, when extracted with the solvent or solvents characterizing the type of food and under the conditions of time and temperature characterizing the conditions of intended use as determined from tables 1 and 2 of § 176.170(c) of this chapter, yields extractives not to exceed the following when tested by the methods prescribed in § 177.1010(c); ( 1 ) Total nonvolatile extractives not to exceed 0.3 milligram per square inch of surface tested.
( 2 ) Potassium permanganate oxidizable distilled water and 8 and 50 percent alcohol extractives not to exceed an absorbance of 0.15.
( 3 ) Ultraviolet-absorbing distilled water and 8 and 50 percent alcohol extractives not to exceed an absorbance of 0.30.
( 4 ) Ultraviolet-absorbing *n-*heptane extractives not to exceed an absorbance of 0.40.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10254

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REGINA RENEE JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-41-18

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

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Regina Renee Jones on

appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jones has

responded to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the

brief, Jones’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous

issue in this appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### § 111.355 What are the design requirements for manufacturing operations?

You must design or select manufacturing processes to ensure that product specifications are consistently met.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PRO TECH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER
31, 2000,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000945481
<NAME>                        Pro Tech Communications, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
<CURRENCY>                    US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                       1,070,408
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  421,372
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,557
<INVENTORY>                                    558,860
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,082,775
<PP&E>                                         278,805
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,652,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          662,956
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,505,425
<COMMON>                                        28,248
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,472,349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,652,665
<SALES>                                      1,562,484
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,562,484
<CGS>                                          623,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,898,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,990
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (374,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (374,340)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (374,340)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.57)




</TABLE>
#### § 2700.220 What contracts and subcontracts, in addition to those listed in 2 CFR 180.220, are covered transactions?

In addition to the contracts covered under 2 CFR 180.22(b) of the OMB guidance, this part applies to any contract, regardless of tier, that is awarded by a contractor, subcontractor, supplier, consultant, or its agent or representative in any transaction, if the contract is to be funded or provided by the SBA under a covered nonprocurement transaction and the amount of the contract is expected to equal or exceed $25,000. This extends the coverage of the SBA nonprocurement suspension and debarment requirements to all lower tiers of subcontracts under covered nonprocurement transactions, as permitted under the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.200(c) (see optional lower tier coverage in the figure in the appendix to 2 CFR part 180)