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

Commodities 5,000

NPMA food processing structures 

(cocoa beans removed) 17,365

Mills and processors 135,299

Dried Cured Pork 3,730

Total Post Harvest 161,394

Cucurbits 195,698

Eggplant - field 19,725

Forest nursery 93,547

Nursery stock - fruit, nut, flower 7,955

Orchard replant 183,232

Ornamentals 64,307

Peppers - field 206,234

Strawberry - field 812,709

Strawberry runners 6,036

Tomatoes - field 292,751

Sweet potato slips 11,612

Total Pre-Plant 1,893,806

Total Use Limit 2,055,200

as % of baseline 8.1%

CRITICAL USES in DECISION XXI/11 (kg)
Pre-plant total use (as percent of total use) 92.1%

Total pre-plant 

CUA Allowances 1,382,206

Post-harvest total use (as percent of total use) 7.9%

Total postharvest 

CUA Allowances 117,794

Sum of above percentages 100.0% Total CUAs 1,500,000

As % of baseline 5.9%

CUA Allocation Calculations

PRE-PLANT vs. POST-HARVEST CUA ALLOCATIONS (kg)
Company

Relative 

Share

Pre-Plant 

Allocation

Pre-Plant 

Rounded

Post Harvest 

Allocation

Post Harvest 

Rounded

Chemtura Corp. 0.6077 839,966.358 839,966 71,583.642 71,584

Albermarle 0.2499 345,413.186 345,413 29,436.814 29,437

ICL-IP (Ameribrom) 0.1381 190,882.597 190,883 16,267.403 16,267

Trical 0.0043 5,943.484 5,943 506.516 507

Subtotal 1.0000 1,382,205.625 1,382,206 117,794.375 117,794

Total (kg) 1,500,000

Company Specific CUA Allowances

Proposed CUE Allowance Allocation
Albemarle ICL-IP America

Bill Clark Pest Control, Inc. Industrial Fumigant Co.

Burnside Services, Inc. Pacific Ag

Cardinal Professional Products Pest Fog Sales Corp.

Chemtura Corp. Prosource One

Crop Production Services Reddick Fumigants

Degesch America, Inc. Trical, Inc.

Helena Chemical Co. Trident Agricultural Products

Hendrix and Dail Univar

Hy-Yield Products, LLC Western Fumigation

Total (kilograms) 482,333

CRITICAL STOCK ALLOCATIONS

Note: Specific company stocks data are CBI material. EPA has company 

specific data in the classified portion of the docket.
#### Patricia LITTLE a/k/a Patricia M. Johnson v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50090.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 14, 1977.

Roger D. Harris, Biloxi, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gil-foy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Merle F. Palmer, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>



                                                                      Exhibit 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
               --------------------------------------------------

         We have issued our report dated January 25, 2002, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements incorporated by reference or included in the
Annual Report of Berkshire Bancorp Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2001. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statement of Berkshire Bancorp Inc.
on Form S-8 (File No. 333-41708, effective July 19, 2000 and File No. 333-22287,
effective February 25, 1997).


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 25, 2002
Exhibit
32.1




Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





In
connection with the filing of the Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) by The Saint James Company
(“Registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of his
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/ RICHARD
      HURSTRichard
      HurstChief
      Executive Officer





Date:  September
4, 2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been
provided to The Saint James Company and will be retained by The Saint James
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1365 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow for fair application 

of the exceptions process for drugs in tiers in formularies in prescription 

drug plans under Medicare part D. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2013 

Mr. NELSON (for himself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow 

for fair application of the exceptions process for drugs 

in tiers in formularies in prescription drug plans under 

Medicare part D. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Part D Beneficiary 

5 Appeals Fairness Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1365 IS

1 SEC. 2. FAIR EXCEPTIONS PROCESS FOR DRUG IN TIERS 

2 UNDER MEDICARE PART D. 

3 Section 1860D–4(g)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 1395w–104(g)(2)) is amended— 

5 (1) in the first sentence— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘for tiered cost-sharing for 

7 drugs included within a formulary and’’ and in8 serting ‘‘for any tiered cost-sharing structure 

9 within a formulary (including a structure that’’; 

10 and 

11 (B) by inserting ‘‘, or provides for different 

12 co-payment or coinsurance amounts for drugs 

13 in different tiers included within the for14 mulary)’’ before ‘‘, a part D eligible individual’’; 

15 (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ‘‘in any 

16 plan formulary’’ before ‘‘could be covered’’; and 

17 (3) by inserting the following before the last 

18 sentence: ‘‘In no case may the Secretary allow a 

19 PDP sponsor to make any formulary tier of the 

20 tiered cost-sharing structure (including a formulary 

21 tier used for very high cost or unique items) ineli22 gible for lower-cost sharing through an exception 

23 under this paragraph.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of First Investors Financial Services, Inc., (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, TommyA. Moore, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

(2)                   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: September 13,2004

 
|   | By: /s/ Tommy A. Moore,  Jr. |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Tommy A. Moore, Jr.          |
|   | Chief Executive Officer      |

 

----
#### Clifford H. FORD and Mildred F. Ford, his wife, Appellants, v. The CITY OF WINTER HAVEN, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-488.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 2, 1974.

J. Julian Bennett, Winter Haven, for appellants.

Lawrence Braisted, City Atty., Winter Haven, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, failing to demonstrate by competent evidence that the ordinance of the City of Winter Haven is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory, and bore no reasonable relation to public safety, health or general welfare of the City, is, therefore, not entitled to the relief sought.

Affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The data reported in this exhibit are based on unaudited statements but
include all adjustments which the company considers necessary for a fair
presentation of results for this period.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000041499
<NAME> THE GILLETTE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                     113,000
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            2,648,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                71,000
<INVENTORY>                              1,784,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         5,138,000
<PP&E>                                   5,646,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           2,325,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          11,467,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    3,323,000
<BONDS>                                  1,961,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 90,000
<COMMON>                                 1,357,000
<OTHER-SE>                               3,248,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            11,467,000
<SALES>                                  6,881,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         6,881,000
<CGS>                                    2,639,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            2,639,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         2,638,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          61,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            998,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               352,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        646,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               646,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .56
        


</TABLE>
#### Thomas DALY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-579.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 11, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
rtd

FOURTEEN’
Do

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCESUREAU'OF THE CENaUS

TH CENSUS OF THE UNITED! STATES: 1820—-POPULATION ©
Save oF wonton mee. cote
Sea As Si

Evderateo y HE O8 THE ov

sirnnsor osm aL | pie

lEnuwenarion Distnier Ng 5 26. 5 (A

Wann oF ori: Cacenae

Historic census records

sit htt

www .archi

are maintained and rel

i
t

gov for more in

leased by the National Archives and Records Admit

formation about publicly available record:

then:

slike the one shown

inistration, not the U.S.

here.

Rak:
awd |
J Lhasa

7 [tne eo

Hessen nil

rage
iia

ea

VGossmaewn.
ee |
Le

H
i

z Sa
bate SHE Se.Ps|
#### Michael D. MANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-534.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 3, 1974.

*433James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Baya Harrison, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

GRIMES, Judge.

The appellant was charged with two counts of breaking and entering a building other than a dwelling house, one with intent to commit a felony and the other with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Following the entering of a not guilty plea, the appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained in a warrantless search of an apartment. After hearing testimony on the subject, Judge David Patterson denied the motion to suppress. Thereupon, the appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a negotiated plea of nolo con-tendere reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress.

The testimony concerning the legality of the search is inconclusive. The State called no witnesses. At the outset, the Assistant State Attorney announced that the defendant had the burden with respect to his motion and the Assistant Public Defender concurred. Thus, it would appear that the entire hearing was held under the misapprehension that the defendant had the burden of proof with respect to the legality of the warrantless search.

The ultimate burden of proof as to the validity of a warrantless search is on the State. See Jeffers v. United States, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951); United States v. Johnson, 425 F.2d 630 (CA 9th 1970). The promulgation of Rule 3.190(h)(3), CrPR, 33 F.S.A., has not relieved the State of this burden. State v. Lyons, Fla.App.2d, 1974, Case No. 73-728. Under these circumstances, we believe the better procedure to follow would be to have another hearing upon the motion to suppress at which time everyone concerned would have a clear understanding of the respective burdens of the parties.

This is a revised opinion upon petition for rehearing. Since we adhere to our original decision, the petition is denied. The judgment is vacated for proceedings consistent herewith.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION



I, Allen E. Larson, certify that:



1.

        I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Minn Dak Farmers Cooperative;




2.

        Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.

        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4.

        The Companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




a)

        designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b)

        evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.




c)

        disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and




5.

        The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




a)

        all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and




b)

        any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.






Date:

        January 12, 2009

        

        /s/ Allen E. LarsonController and Chief Accounting Officer




---
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                                  NOVELL, INC.
 
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
 
     The computation of common and common share equivalents is as follows (in
thousands):
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                                                 ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                 OCTOBER 30, 1993     OCTOBER 29, 1994     OCTOBER 28, 1995
                                                 ----------------     ----------------     ----------------
<S>                                              <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding*.................................       358,490              361,648              367,963
Number of common share equivalents resulting
  from stock options, computed using the
  treasury stock method*.......................         9,410                6,684                6,621
                                                      -------              -------              -------
Number of common and common share equivalents
  used in computation*.........................       367,900              368,332              374,584
                                                      =======              =======              =======
</TABLE>
 
---------------
*All share amounts reflect the June 1994 merger with WordPerfect Corporation.
 
                                       20
#### Murry WORONER, Appellant, v. WALSTON & CO., Inc., Appellee.

No. 71-1098.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 9, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v William H. Rives, Jr., and Vanessa A. Washington, Respondents.

[654 NYS2d 797]

Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), dated May 5, 1995, and entered in favor of each defendant, which granted those branches of the defendants’ omnibus motions which were to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, those branches of the defendants’ motions which were to suppress physical evidence are denied, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for further proceedings.

A police officer who has probable cause to arrest an occupant of an automobile may contemporaneously search the vehicle, *313including any containers therein, if he has "reason to believe that the vehicle or its visible contents may be related to the crime for which the arrest is being made” *(People v Belton,*55 NY2d 49, 55; *see also, People v Langen,*60 NY2d 170, *cert denied*465 US 1028; *People v Acevedo,*167 AD2d 891). Here, the defendants’ vehicle had been stopped in connection with a traffic violation (no issue has been raised on appeal as to the propriety of the stop). The arresting officer observed a glass pipe used to smoke crack cocaine, which apparently contained cocaine residue, on the front seat of the defendants’ vehicle. These observations, together with the driver’s inability to produce a valid registration or driver’s license, provided the police with both probable cause to arrest the defendants and to believe that the vehicle contained contraband *(see, People v Blasich,*73 NY2d 673; *People v Goldring,*186 AD2d 675; *People v Acevedo, supra).*Accordingly, since the police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the automobile for contraband, neither the use of a "drug-sniffing” canine nor the discovery of the drugs hidden behind the glove box was improper. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
259 La. 898

#### GRINNEL MUTUAL REINSURANCE COMPANY v. Robert W. RICH and Earl F. Surratt et al. Robert W. RICH v. SEABOARD FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY. Gladys M. BROWN v. CIM INSURANCE CORPORATION et al.

No. 51784.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1971.

In re: Seaboard Fire & Marine Insurance Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 251 So.2d 450.

Applications denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there appears no error of law in its judgment.
259 La. 884

#### Shirley HEBERT v. Clarence A. MESTAYER, Jr.

No. 51750.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: Shirley Hebert applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Iberia. 251 So.2d 66.

Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
#### Jay GARROTT, Appellant, v. Tracy Lynn HERZOG, a minor, by and through her next friend and natural father, Dennis Herzog, and Dennis Herzog, individually, Appellees.

No. 71-416.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 5, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
| | 
| | 



|Exhibit 31.2                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|Certification of Chief Financial Officer under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|                                                                                            
|CERTIFICATIONS                                                                              
|I, Lawrence A. Heilbronner, certify that:                                                   
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            



|February 8, 2007 |  | /s/ Lawrence A. Heilbronner                     
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Date             |  | Lawrence A. Heilbronner, Principal Financial and
|                 |  | Accounting Officer