alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**-  Midwest  
-  Ntl. Ctr. for Agricultural Utilization Rsch. 
-  Functional Foods Research Unit 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">		You are here: 						Research / 																				**Research Project:**Genomic Approaches to Adding Value to Agriculture
**Location: Functional Foods Research Unit**
**2007 Annual Report**
**1a.Objectives (from AD-416)**													To understand the growth and composition of soybean is governed by its genetic system using functional genomic technologies and to discover and utilize the genes and pathways in soybean that make them valuable and that help keep them competitive in U.S. and world agriculture.						
**1b.Approach  (from AD-416)**													Develop non-destructive analytical methods for soybean, wheat, and new crops germplasm using NIR methods.  Provide analytical support for soybean, wheat and new crop breeders throughout the U.S.						
**3.Progress Report**													This report documents accomplishments under a Specific Cooperative Agreement between the Agricultural Research Service and the University of Illinois.  Additional details of research can be found in the parent project 3620-43000-006-00D entitled "Coordinated Analysis of Soybean Breeding Germplasm."   This is a congressionally mandated agreement for the improvement of soybean genetics.  We conducted near-infrared analysis from public breeders which are reported annually in the coordinated soybean analysis publication.  Anthrocyanins from black beans were isolated and characterized.  Selections of soybeans with higher levels of anthrocyanins were made.  Progress is monitored through annual progress reports.						
    Project TeamLiu, Sean  
Project Annual Reports FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2007 Publications  Publications 
Related National Programs Plant Genetic Resources, Genomics and Genetic Improvement(301) Quality and Utilization of Agricultural Products(306)  							Last Modified: 03/24/2010 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
Exhibit 23.1

                  CONSENT OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-66620),  (No. 333-66123), (No. 333-66121), (No.
333-66119) and (No.  033-63865) of ATC Healthcare,  Inc. and Subsidiaries of our
report  dated April 16, 2004,  except for the last  paragraph of Note 7(a) as to
which the date is May 28,  2004,  relating to the  February  29, 2004  financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



                                                     Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
New York, New York
May 28, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 25784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10037]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review; Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its 
intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The 
purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The 
agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation 
may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The 
majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson, Blvd., 
Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being 
reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, 
including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) 
of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the 
agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.
    These closed proposal review meetings will no longer be announced 
on an individual basis in the Federal Register. NSF intends to publish 
a notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing 
of the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the 
proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on 
changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF Web site: 
http://www.nsf.gov/events/advisory.jsp. This information may also be 
requested by telephoning 703/292-8182.

    Dated: May 2, 2008.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-10037 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08756**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  08756\08756_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 08756\08756_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08756\08756_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08756\08756_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08756\08756_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08756\08756_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08756\08756_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 08756\Supporting Documentation\08756_Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08756\Supporting Documentation\08756_EIS.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08756\Supporting Documentation\08756_EPA Request Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08756\Supporting Documentation\08756_Water Balance Diagram.tif Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 19 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 19

   To restore Americans' individual liberty by striking the Federal 
                     mandate to purchase insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

  Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. 
   Risch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Burr, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
Portman, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Roberts, 
Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Coats, Mr. Blunt, Mr. McCain, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Corker, 
and Mr. Ensign) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To restore Americans' individual liberty by striking the Federal 
                     mandate to purchase insurance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Liberty Restoration Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTORING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

    Sections 1501 and 1502 and subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of 
section 10106 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and 
the amendments made by such sections and subsections) are repealed and 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and administered as 
if such provisions and amendments had never been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
Opinion issued September 24 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 15
- 00176
- CR

——————————— RUSSELL POPE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C ourt at Law N umber 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1967710

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Russell Pope, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2 (a). See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued a decision in the appeal

.2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. We direct the Clerk to issue the mandate within 10 days of the date of this opinion. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 18.1.
PER CURI AM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle. Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Operations Alert:  DSCR operating status for Sat., Jan. 7 and Sun., Jan. 8

By DLA Aviation Public Affairs

Due to impending inclement weather, all Defense Logistics Agency organizations and tenant activities on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, are closed for operations Saturday, Jan. 7, and Sunday, Jan. 8, 2017. Base access will be limited to essential personnel only. 

DLA Installation Support will monitor weather conditions and coordinate with the DLA Aviation commander to determine if a delayed opening or closure of the installation is warranted for  Monday, Jan. 9.  

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA AviationDSCRHazardous Weather
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10948

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Christopher Allen Ragsdale, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:22-CR-72-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Allen Ragsdale has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Ragsdale has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently 

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Ragsdale’s claims of 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 15, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10948 Document: 00517066001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2024
No. 23-10948

2

ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims

without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 

829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Ragsdale’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. 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. Ragsdale’s motion to 

appoint counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-

03 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case: 23-10948 Document: 00517066001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2024
No. D-1769.

#### In re Disbarment of Davison.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 519 U. S. 1104.]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Walter Nathaniel PARKER, Jr., Appellant.

No. 98-3003.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 23, 1998.

Before: SILBERMAN, ROGERS and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

The district court sentenced Appellant to 148 months imprisonment based on 10 convictions for narcotics-related offenses. Appellant requested the district court to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines range because the United States Park Police used “excessive and reckless” force by deploying two SWAT teams to effectuate his arrest, in the course of which appellant sustained serious injuries. The district court concluded that it lacked authority to depart on the grounds sought by appellant.'

On appeal, the government acknowledges that “[t]o the extent that [the district court] concluded that [it] had no authority to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines based upon reckless police conduct because there was no ‘precedent’ for a departure on that ground, we acknowledge that [the district court] erred as a matter of law.” Ap-pellee’s Brief at 14. We see no reason to remand, however, because departing downward on the basis of alleged reckless overde-ployment of SWAT teams would be an abuse of discretion given that there is no evidence showing that SWAT personnel in any way caused appellant’s injuries. *See generally Koon v. United States,*518 U.S. 81, 98, 116 *1313S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996); *United States v. Fenner,*147 F.3d 360, 363 (4th Cir.1998) (“we need not remand to permit the district court to exercise its discretion to depart if its decision to do so on remand would constitute an abuse of discretion”).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. *See*D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


                     Name                                        Country
-------------------------------------------------------   ----------------------
Wing Shing Products (BVI) Company Limited .............   British Virgin Islands
Wing Shing Overseas Limited ...........................   British Virgin Islands
Pentalpha Enterprises Limited .........................   Hong Kong
Pentalpha Hong Kong Limited ...........................   Hong Kong
Kwong Lee Shun Trading Company Limited ................   Hong Kong
Dongguan Wing Shing Electrical Products Factory
  Company Limited .....................................   China
Global-Tech USA, Inc. .................................   United States
Pentalpha Macau Commercial Offshore Limited ...........   Macau
Global Lite Array (BVI) Limited .......................   British Virgin Islands
Lite Array, (BVI) Company Limited(1) ..................   British Virgin Islands
Lite Array, Inc. ......................................   United States
-------------------


(1)  Subsidiary of Global Lite Array (BVI) Limited.
# C_2014409EN.01001301.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by K Oy

(Case C-219/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(2) - Annex III, point 6 - Reduced rate of VAT applicable only to books printed on paper - Books published on physical supports other than paper subject to the standard rate of VAT - Fiscal neutrality))

2014/C 409/17

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

K Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of and point 6 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding, provided that the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of value added tax is complied with, which is for the referring court to ascertain, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which books published in paper form are subject to a reduced rate of value added tax and books published on other physical supports such as CDs, CD-ROMs or USB keys are subject to the standard rate of value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.

1

---
No. 54406.

#### John A. Steer & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 146564-K and 14692-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that certain analyses, part of the official papers, made in accordance with T. D. 43095 and section 8.48, Customs Regulations of 1943, established that the nondutiable moisture content of the fluorspar covered by protest 146564-K was 1.70 percent and that covered by protest 146924-K was 3.10 percent. In view of the stipulation it was held that duty was assessable upon the fluorspar covered by protest 146564-K upon the basis of the net weight of 1,120.12 tons, instead of 1,139.49 tons, and upon the merchandise covered by protest 146924-K upon the basis of the net weight of 2,188.97 tons, instead of 2,259 tons. The protests were sustained to this extent.
S. 188 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

An Act 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 98 West First 

Street, Yuma, Arizona, as the ‘‘John M. Roll United States Courthouse’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JOHN M. ROLL UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse under 

construction, as of the date of enactment of this Act, at 98 West 

First Street, Yuma, Arizona, shall be known and designated as 

the ‘‘John M. Roll United States Courthouse’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 

to be a reference to the ‘‘John M. Roll United States Courthouse’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### John Smith, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Smith & Johnson, defendants in error.

*Error to Johnson.*

Where the parties, in an action of assumpsit, waive a trial by jury, and submit the whole matter to the court, no formal entry of a finding on the issues as on a verdict of a jury, is necessary. The amount of damages found is within its own knowledge, and it is sufficient to enter up judgment for the amount of damages assessed.

*301This was an action of assumpsit brought by Adam Smith and Cbesiey Johnson, for the use of William Harris, against John Smith, upon a note for $123, to which the defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of special matter of defence.

At the January term, 1843, the case was submitted to the court and a judgment awarded the plaintiffs for $36,98 damages. There were motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial overruled. To reverse which, the defendant below brought up the case upon a writ of error.

The following errors are assigned :

1. The judgment was given in favor of said plaintiffs, when by law it ought to have been in favor of said defendants.

2. The court ought to have sustained said motion in arrest, and granted a new trial.

3. There was no finding by a jury or court or. the issues joined, upon which to render judgment.

4. The record aforesaid shows no finding upon which judgment could be rendered.

Bates & Harrison, for plaintiff in error.

Reagan & Gilbert, for defendants in error.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The two first errors assigned in this case are not founded upon matter of record, and therefore cannot now be considered. The third and fourth are identical in substance ; that no verdict was rendered to serve as a basis for the judgment. The right of a jury was waived by the parties at the trial, and the whole case submitted to the court. Without any formal entry ot a verdict, the record merely states as follows : “ and being advised in the premises, it is considered by the court, that the said plaintiffs recover of the said defendant, the sum of thirty-six dollars and ninety-eight cents damages assessed by the court, &c.”

This entry is abundantly sufficient. Where the jury find a verdict, their finding should be substantially set forth on the record, for if forms the basis of the judgment. Without this, we cannot know whether the court entered up the proper judgment. The court has no power of knowing the proper amount but by means of the verdict. But where the whole matter is left to the court, the case is different. The amount of damages found is within its own knowledge, and there is, therefore, not that necessity for entering up a formal verdict, that exists in the other case. It is sufficient to enter up the judgment at once ; stating it to be *302for the amount of damages assessed in the case as was done in the present instance. Judgment affirmed.
No. 49529.

#### Protests 941224-G, etc., of Somerset Importers, Ltd., et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.