alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARK GLENN DESCHAMPS
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 1340

[ November 5, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Okeechobee County ; Michael C. Heis e y , Judge; L.T. Case No.

472016CF000679A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Logan T. Mohs, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER
, C ONNER

, and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
1 

## EPA/Nevada Air Agencies Meeting January 21, 2016 9:00 AM – 2:30 PM

Location: Las Vegas Airport, Room 3 Conference Bridge : - Code:

1. Introductions; Organizational charts; Agen cy updates (“What’s New”) (15 minutes)

2. Grant / Funding Issues (EPA) (5 minutes)

3. Permitting (45 minutes)

a. Title-V audit follow up (NDEP) b. Class I partial permits for Hg at gold mines (NDEP)

c. New emissions reduction credit program (NDEP) d. Washoe/Clark medical marijuana permitting

e. Other permitting issues (All)

4. Monitoring Updates (All)(25 minutes)

a. Exceptional Events Rule Revision; Wildfire/Ozone Guidance b. Network Updates (request updates from each agency)(15 min) i. Clark County (including Near Road Update) ii. Washoe (Spanish Springs SPM) iii. NDEP (GBNP Monitor)

c. TSA updates (EPA)(5 min)

5. Break (15 minutes)

6. NAAQS/2015 Ozone Standard (45)

a. NAAQS Summary Table(5) b. 2015 Ozone NAAQS (EPA)(10 min) i. Overview of changes ii. Review of 2014 and preliminary 2015 design values

c. Background Ozone (15) d. Implementation and Planning (15) i. Rural Areas ii. Ozone Advance, Clark iii. Ozone Advance, Washoe

7. Other Pollutant NAAQS/ SIPs/S tate Plans (30 minutes)

a. 111(d) plan status/direction (NDEP)2 b. Four-Year SIP Management Plan (All)

c. SO 2 Data Requirements Rule/Area Designations (NDEP) d. SIPs status (All) i. PM 10 ii. CO iii. i-SIPs iv. Conformity SIPs

8. Lunch (30 minutes)

9. Special Studies (30 minutes)

a. Low emission vehicles (Clark County)

10. Pahrump Report (NDEP) (10 min)

11. Mobile Sources / DERA (15 min)

a. AB 146 study to review/modernize Nevada’s I/M program b. DERA update

12. Compliance/Enforcement Updates (40 minutes)

a. OECA Update (Matt Salazar, EPA) b. Truckee Meadows water reclamation facility update (Washoe)

c. Naturally occurring asbe stos (Clark County) d. Open discussion of updates (All)

13. Future Meetings (5 minutes)

14. Other Information Sharing

Participants

- EPA: Elizabeth Adams, Amy Zimpfer, Ma tt Lakin, Karina OConnor, Gerardo Rios, Matt Salazar and Meredith Kurpius

- NDEP: Jeffrey Kinder, Danilo Dragoni, Adele Malone, Sig Jaunarajs, Daren Winkelman, Lisa Kremer, Reka Aczel, Travis Osterhout

- Washoe County: Charlene Albee, Dan Inouye, Mike Wolf

- Clark County: Marci Henson, Mike Sword, Richard Beckstead, Phil Wiker, Chuck Richter, Russell Roberts
#### § 2530.200a-3 Labor regulations for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The Secretary of Labor is specifically authorized to prescribe certain regulations (generally relating to hour of service, year of service, break in service, year of participation and special rules for seasonal and maritime industries) applicable to both title I of the Act and sections 410 and 411 of the Code. These regulations are contained in this subpart (A) and subpart B of this part (2530) and must be integrated with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate under sections 410 of the Code (relating to minimum participation standards), 411(a) of the Code (relating to minimum vesting standards) and 411(b) of the Code (relating to benefit accrual requirements). The allocation of regulatory jurisdiction between the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate is governed by titles I through III of the Act. *See* section 3002 of the Act (88 Stat. 996).
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.1051 General requirements. ( a ) A stairway or ladder shall be provided at all personnel points of access where there is a break in elevation of 19 inches (48 cm) or more, and no ramp, runway, sloped embankment, or personnel hoist is provided. ( 1 ) Employees shall not use any spiral stairways that will not be a permanent part of the structure on which construction work is being performed.
( 2 ) A double-cleated ladder or two or more separate ladders shall be provided when ladders are the only mean of access or exit from a working area for 25 or more employees, or when a ladder is to serve simultaneous two-way traffic.
( 3 ) When a building or structure has only one point of access between levels, that point of access shall be kept clear to permit free passage of employees. When work must be performed or equipment must be used such that free passage at that point of access is restricted, a second point of access shall be provided and used.
( 4 ) When a building or structure has two or more points of access between levels, at least one point of access shall be kept clear to permit free passage of employees.
( b ) Employers shall provide and install all stairway and ladder fall protection systems required by this subpart and shall comply with all other pertinent requirements of this subpart before employees begin the work that necessitates the installation and use of stairways, ladders, and their respective fall protection systems.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001. 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bio Tracking Security Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jean-Francois Amyot, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that: 

 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: November 22, 2004
Exhibit
32.2


STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Kathleen M. Jepson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
      included in such Report.





/s/Kathleen
M. Jepson


Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


August
14, 2009
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.


SECTION
      1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the annual report of Berry Plastics Holding Corporation (the
      “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 29, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ira
      G. Boots, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 the
      Registrant.







/s/
      Ira G.
      Boots


Ira
      G.
      Boots


Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer





Date:           December
      26, 2007
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.107 Debtor notification. ( a ) The agency head (or designee) of the creditor Labor Department agency shall send appropriate written demands to the debtor in terms which inform the debtor of the consequences of failure to repay claims. In accordance with guidelines as may be established by the Department's Chief Financial Officer, a total of three progressively stronger written demands at not more than 30-day intervals will normally be made unless a response to the first or second demand indicates that a further demand would be futile and the debtor's response does not require rebuttal. In determining the timing of demand letters, agencies should give due regard to the need to act promptly so the ability to refer a debt for tax refund offset will not be unduly delayed.
( b ) Before the Department refers a debt to IRS for tax refund offset, it will make a reasonable attempt to notify the debtor that: ( 1 ) The debt is past-due;
( 2 ) Unless the debt is repaid or a satisfactory repayment agreement established within 60 days thereafter, it will be referred to IRS for offset from any overpayment of tax remaining after taxpayer liabilities of greater priority have been satisfied; and
( 3 ) The debtor will have a minimum of 60 days from the date of notification to present evidence that all or part of the debt is not past-due or legally enforceable, and the Department will consider this evidence in a review of its determination that the debt is past-due and legally enforceable. The debtor will be advised where and to whom evidence is to be submitted.
( c ) The Department will make a reasonable attempt to notify the debtor by using the most recent address information obtained from the IRS, unless written notification is received from the debtor that notices from the Department are to be sent to a different address.
( d ) The notification required by paragraph (b) of this section and sent to the address specified in paragraph (c) of this section may, at the option of the Department, be incorporated into demand letters required by paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 2200.51 Prehearing conferences and orders. ( a ) *Scheduling conference.* ( 1 ) The Judge may, upon the Judge's discretion, consult with the attorneys, non-attorney party representatives, and any self-represented parties, by a scheduling conference, telephone, mail, or other suitable means, and within 30 days after the filing of the answer, enter a scheduling order that limits the time: ( i ) To join other parties and to amend the pleadings;
( ii ) To file and hear motions; and
( iii ) To complete discovery.
( 2 ) The scheduling order also may include: ( i ) The date or dates for conferences before hearing, a final prehearing conference, and hearing; and
( ii ) Any other matters appropriate to the circumstances of the case.
( b ) *Prehearing conference.* In addition to the prehearing procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Judge may, upon the Judge's own initiative or on the motion of a party, direct the parties to confer among themselves to consider settlement, stipulation of facts, or any other matter that may expedite the hearing.
( c ) *Compliance.* Parties must fully prepare for a useful discussion of all procedural and substantive issues involved in prehearing conferences and shall participate in such conferences in good faith. Parties failing to do so may be subject to sanctions under §§ 2200.101 and 2200.104.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         799,369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               930,604
<PP&E>                                         384,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,391,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,926,840
<BONDS>                                        842,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       139,188
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,405,523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,391,551
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,443,601
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,029,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,543,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             697,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (514,839)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (514,839)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (514,839)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
[S. F. No. 2605.

Department Two.

December 31, 1901.]

#### GRANT SELFRIDGE, Respondent, v. BLITZ W. PAXTON, Appellant, and BESSIE E. PAXTON, Co-Defendant.

appeal—Service of Notice by Mail—Insufficient Affidavit—Dismissal.—An affidavit of service of the notice of appeal by mail, which fails to show that the parties or their attorneys had either offices or residences in two different places named, and does not show personal knowledge of the affiant, other than the defendant, of the statement that the defendant on a certain day made the service of the notice of appeal by depositing it in the post-office addressed, etc., is insufficient to show a compliance with the statute, and the appeal must be dismissed for failure to show service of the notice of appeal.

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a change of the place of trial of an action. J. M. Seawell, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

James W. Oates, for Appellant.

Morrison & Cope, for Respondent.

McFARLAND, J.

This is a motion by plaintiff and respondent to dismiss the appeal of the defendant Blitz W. Paxton from an order of the superior court denying a motion of said Blitz for a change of venue. The motion to dismiss is upon two grounds,—1. That the defendant Bessie was not served with a notice of appeal; and 2. That there is no proof that the plaintiff was ever served with such notice. As we think that the appeal must be dismissed on the second ground, we need not consider the first.

The appellant submitted the motion on the affidavit of substituted service by mail, which is contained in the record; but that affidavit is insufficient for two reasons,—1. It does not show that the parties, or their attorneys, had either offices or residences in the two different places named; for all that appears in the affidavit their residences or their offices may have been in the same place; and 2. The person making the *282affidavit, who was not the defendant, merely states therein that, on a certain day, “the defendant” made service of the notice of appeal, by depositing it in the post-office addressed, etc. The statement is entirely too general and loose; there is nothing in it to show any personal knowledge of the affiant as to the fact to be proven, and it may have been founded entirely upon hearsay. The proof of substituted service should show, at least, a full substantial compliance with the statute. The affidavit of service should strictly and properly be made by the person who had himself made the service; but, at all events, it should show that the affiant had personal knowledge of the fact.

The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Henshaw, J., and Temple, J., concurred.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10 - 17

- 00166 - CV No. 10 - 18 - 00049 - CV DOUBLE DIAMOND, INC. , Appellant v. WHITE BLUFF PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Appellee

From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No s . 53310 - A and 53310 - B MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Double Diamond, Inc., and appellee, White Bluff Property Owners Association, Inc., have informed this Court that they have settled their disputes in appellate cause numbers 10
- 17
- 00166
- CV and 10
- 18
- 00049
- CV. Accordingly, the parties have filed joint motions in both appellate cause numbers. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(2). Specifically, in both appellate cause numbers, the parties filed “Joint Motion[s] for Disposition Pursuant to Settlement Agreement,” requesting that we: (1) lift theDouble Diamo nd, Inc. v. White Bluff Prop. Owners Ass’ n, Inc. Page 2

abatement of the appeals; (2) set aside the trial court’s final judgments in trial court cause numbers 53310
- A and 53310

- B; (3) render judgment dismissing all claims, with each party to bear their own costs of court; (4) order that all costs on appeal shal l be borne by the party or parties incurring same; and (5) order that this Court’s mandate in both appeals shall issue immediately. “While we cannot both vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the appeal, the appellate rules allow us to render judgm ent vacating the trial court’s judgment and dismissing the case, whether that rendition occurs after we consider the merits of the appeal or in effectuating the parties’ settlement agreement.” Braums, Inc. v. Sifuentes , No. 02
- 16
- 00001
- CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1988, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 25, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (footnotes omitted) (collecting cases); see T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), (B), 43.2(e), (f). Accordingly, we grant the parties’ joint motions in appellate cause numbers 10
- 17
- 0016 6
- CV and 10
- 18
- 00049
- CV. As such, we lift the abatement in these cases, and without regard to the merits and effectuating the parties’ settlement agreement, we vacate and set aside the trial court’s final judgments in trial court cause numbers 53310
- A and 53310
- B, and dismiss these cases with prejudice. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(e); see also Sifuentes , 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1988, at *1 & n.8. Relying on the parties’ settlement agreement, as articulated in the parties’ joint motion in each cas e, we order that each party bear their own costs of court and the costs of these appeals shall be paid by the party incurring same. See T EX . R. A PP . P.Double Diamo nd, Inc. v. White Bluff Prop. Owners Ass’ n, Inc. Page 3

42.1(a)(2)(A), (d), 43.4. And furthermore, we order that this Court’s mandate in each of these cases s hall issue immediately.

AL SCOGGINS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motions granted; cases dismissed Opinion delivered and filed December 19, 2018 [CV06]
MiPlato

Nate

MiPlato

Kate

Food and Nutrition Service Una comida 

de MiPlato

Palabras de vocabulario: 

yo, ella, él, nosotros, tener
Este libro pertenece a:
Yo tengo manzanas.
Nate tiene guisantes.
Él tiene jamón.
Kate tiene pan.
Ella tiene leche.
choosemyplate.gov

Nosotros tenemos los cinco 

grupos de alimentos.
Nosotros tenemos un almuerzo.
Nosotros nos divertimos.

Descubre otros materiales 

de educación nutricional 

desarrollados bajo la iniciativa 

de Team Nutrition del 

Departamento de Agricultura 

de los Estados Unidos en: 

https://teamnutrition.usda.gov.

Mayo 2018 · FNS474F-S

USDA es un proveedor, empleador y prestamista que ofrece igualdad de oportunidades.
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.106 Relation to other collection efforts. ( a ) Tax refund offset is intended to be an administrative collection remedy of last resort, consistent with IRS requirements for participation in the program, and the costs and benefits of pursuing alternative remedies when the tax refund offset program is readily available. To the extent practical, the requirements of the program will be met by merging IRS requirements into the Department's overall requirements for delinquent debt collection.
( b ) The debts of individuals of $100 or more will be reported to a consumer credit reporting agency before referral for tax refund offset.
( c ) Debts owed by individuals will be screened for salary and administrative offset potential using the most current information reasonably available to the Department, and will not be referred for tax refund offset where such other offset potential is found to exist.
[59 FR 47250, Sept. 15, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 41017, Aug. 11, 1995]