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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Science Foundation (NSF) published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 30, 2012, a notice of a partially open meeting for the Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research, #1203. This notice is to correct the ending time of the meeting on April 24, 2012 being held at the Pennsylvania State University, College Station, PA.                    

## Correction

                        On page 19362, column 2, under                         *Dates & Times,*                         please replace “April 24, 2012; 5:30p.m.-8:30p.m.” with “April 24, 2012; 5:30p.m.-10:30p.m.”                    

On page 19362, column 3, line 3, please replace: “7 p.m.-8:30p.m. Open-Poster Session” with “7 p.m.-10:30p.m. Open-Poster Session”.

Dated: April 5, 2012.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-8564 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### Robert Charles WILSON, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. C-79-607.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 20, 1981.

*81ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF CERTIORARI

The petitioner was charged with the offense of Robbery with Firearms in the District Court, Tulsa County, in Case No. CRF — 79-1780. Through negotiations the State and petitioner reached an agreement whereby the petitioner would enter a plea of nolo contendere and take a polygraph test. If he passed the test the State would dismiss the charge and give him a letter exonerating him; and if he failed the test he would be sentenced on his plea. He failed and was sentenced to five (5) years in prison. The district court denied his application to withdraw his plea.

In seeking a writ of certiorari from this Court, the petitioner asserts that he was misled concerning the reliability of the polygraph. The question of reliability was the very thing that led this Court to rule that polygraph results are not admissible for any purpose, even upon stipulation. *Falton v. State,*Okl.Cr., 541 P.2d 871 (1975). And since *Fulton*was decided there have been no marked changes in the machine’s acceptability. If polygraph results are too unreliable to be admitted at a trial, they are certainly too unreliable to be used as the sole determinant of whether a person will be incarcerated.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The judgment and sentence are reversed and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to allow the petitioner to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty.

WITNESS OUR SIGNATURES AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT, this 20th day of January 1981.

TOM BRETT, P. J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.

TOM R. CORNISH, J.
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Monthly Inventory Report

As of March 27, 2023

(Million Units Except as Noted)

CCC Commodity

Unit of

Measure

Outstanding Under

Loan

CY 2021

Outstanding

Under Loan

CY 2022

CCC-Owned

Inventory

(Actual Units)

Butter Pounds - - -

Cheese Pounds - - -

Nonfat Dry Milk Pounds - - -

Barley Bushels 0.0 0.5 0.0

Corn Bushels 0.5 233.3 0.0

Oats Bushels 0.0 0.3 0.0

Sorghum Cwt. 0.0 0.4 0.0

Soybeans Bushels 0.1 34.2 0.0

Wheat Bushels 0.1 6.2 0.0

Rice Cwt. 0.1 14.1 0.0

Refined Sugar Pounds 93.0 1,128.6 0.0

In-process Beet Pounds 0.0 1,012.0 0.0

Raw Cane Sugar Pounds 0.0 1,554.4 0.0

In-process Cane Pounds - - -

Honey Pounds 0.0 0.0 0.0

Peanuts

Tons (not

millions) 0.0 1,543,800.0 0.0

Canola Seed* Cwt. 0.0 161.0 0.0

Crambe* Cwt. - - -

Flaxseed* Cwt. 0.0 14.0 0.0

Mustard Seed* Cwt. 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rapeseed* Cwt. - - -

Safflower Seed* Cwt. 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sesame Seed* Cwt. - - -

Sunflower Seed (Oil)* Cwt. 0.0 270.0 0.0

Sunflower Seed (Other)* Cwt. 0.0 47.0 0.0

Dry Peas* Cwt. 0.0 56.0 0.0

Lentils* Cwt. 0.0 9.0 0.0

Chickpeas* Cwt. 0.0 25.0 0.0

Upland Cotton

1,000

Running

Bales 0.0 3,383.8 0.0

ELS Cotton

1,000

Running

Bales 0.0 187.8 0.0
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:

 *Minor Oilseeds & Pulses are in thousand units.

 CCC acquired 2021 Crop Year Upland (if not specified) and ELS cotton because of the following

months' forfeited Marketing Assistance Loans:

o 3 bales from July, 20 bales from August, 15 bales from September, 33 bales from

October and 1 bale from November 2022.

o Invitations sold all 3 bales in August, 20 bales in September, 15 bales in October, 33

bales in November and 1 bale in December.

o In total, there were 0 bales of cotton in inventory as of March 27, 2023.

Report Completed April 20, 2023.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

Ju ly 1 4 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk July 1 4 , 2017

154358 ( 62 )

STEVEN ILIADES and JANE ILIADES,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

SC: 154358

v COA: 324726

Oakland CC: 12

- 129407

- NP

DIEFFENBACHER NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of the Michigan Manufacturers

Association to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANT ED

. The amicus brief submitted on

Ju ly 11 , 2017, is accepted for filing.
#### Ebner, Jr., Appellant, *v.*The Union Savings & Loan Co. et al., Appellees.

(No. 31515

Decided October 27, 1948.)

*Mr. James Blair*and *Mr. Francis X. Ebner, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Light & Siferd,*for appellee Fred C. Dunn.

It is ordered and adjudged, *sua sponte,*that this appeal as of right he, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
# Table 1bQtrNorth-China

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Rand Logistics,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence S. Levy, Chief Executive 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as
      of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the
      Company for the periods presented.

Dated: November 20, 2006


/s/ Laurence S. Levy
-----------------------
Laurence S. Levy
Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD BENTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BAKER HUGHES, a Texas Corporation;

BAKER PETROLITE, a Texas 

Corporation,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-56356

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-07735-MMMMRW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2015**

Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Edward Benton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 

diversity action alleging state law contract and tort claims in connection with 

his chemical transportation business. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

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

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

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

FILED

DEC 1 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-56356

§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a 

claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pride v. 

Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Benton’s breach of an implied-infact contract claim because Benton failed to allege facts sufficient to show the 

existence of a valid contract. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1549, 1550, 1621 (defining 

a contract and an implied contract, and setting forth the elements of a contract); 

Amelco Elec. v. City of Thousand Oaks, 38 P.3d 1120, 1129-30 (Cal. 2002) 

(elements of a breach of contract claim under California law); see also DanielsHall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts need not 

accept as true allegations contradicted by exhibits to the complaint).

The district court properly dismissed Benton’s intentional infliction of 

emotional distress (“IIED”) claim because Benton failed to allege facts 

sufficient to show that defendants acted with intent to cause or reckless 

disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress. See Avina v. United 

States, 681 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (elements of an IIED claim under 

California law).

Because we affirm on the above bases, we do not consider Benton’s 
3 13-56356

arguments concerning the timeliness of his claims.

We reject Benton’s contention that the district court erred by giving him 

only 30 days to retain counsel, and defendants’ contention that this court lacks 

jurisdiction over this appeal.

We do not consider issues that are not supported by argument or clearly 

and distinctly raised in the opening brief. See Pierce v. Multnomah County, 

Or., 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n.3 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument 

in pro se brief are deemed abandoned); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 

(9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and 

distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0604 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. PRESTON CSOO ROSSBACH,

Defendant and Appellant.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 1, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening bri ef on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 25 2022

05/25/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0604
#### STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Randal Ray TIEMAN, Appellee.

No. 0-80-510.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 13, 1981.

*1361S. M. Fallís, Jr., Dist. Atty., Ken Cunningham, Asst. Dist. Atty., Tulsa, for appellant.

William C. Kellough, Boone, Smith, Davis & Minter, Tulsa, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CORNISH, Judge:

The appellee was charged by information in the District Court, Tulsa County with the offense of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor. On the 29th day of May, 1980, the trial court, on its own motion, dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that because the accused was a minor at the time of the offense, the proper forum to initiate the action was in the Juvenile Division of the District Court.1

The State is now seeking to appeal the decision of the district court by attempting to construe the trial judge’s order as one sustaining a motion to quash the information. Title 22 O.S.Supp.1980, § 1053.2 We find the State’s attempt to categorize the judge’s action as a motion to quash to be improper.

An order by the trial court, on its own motion, dismissing an action is authorized by 22 O.S.1971, § 815. An order issued under the authority of the above section is not a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. See 22 O.S.1971, § 817. The order is therefore not final and the State has no standing to appeal under 22 O.S.Supp.1980, § 1053, See *State v. Gary,*594 P.2d 796 (Okl.Cr.1979); *State v. Robinson,*544 P.2d 545 (Okl.Cr.1975).

Since the State is not barred from refiling the information we find this purported appeal be and the same is, hereby DISMISSED.

BRETT, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.

1

. The court’s ruling was made prior to this Court’s decision in *Fanshier v. Oklahoma City,*620 P.2d 1347 (Okl.Cr. 1980), wherein we held proper an adult prosecution for a juvenile charged with D.U.I.

2

. Section 1053 provides that:

> “Appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeals may be taken by the State or a municipality in the following cases and no other:

> 1. Upon *judgment*for the defendant on quashing or setting aside an indictment or information.

> 2. Upon an order of the court arresting the judgment.

> 3. Upon a question reserved by the state or a municipality.” [emphasis added]
Office of the Governor 

State of Utah 

GARY R. HERBERT 

Governor 

GREG BELL 

Lieutenant Governor November 29, 2010 

James B. Martin, Region Administrator 

US EPA Region 8 


1595 Wynkoop Street 


Denver, Colorado 80202-1129 

Dear Mr. Martin: 

Re: Utah Area Designation Recommendations for the 2010 N02 NAAQS 

On February 9,2010, EPA promulgated revised Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for Nitrogen Dioxide (N02). Section 1 07( d) ofthe Clean Air Act establishes that it is 

incumbent on each state to recommend initial designations for all areas within its respective geographical 

boundary within one year following the date of promulgation of a new or revised standard. 

Data collected along the Wasatch Front indicate that N02 levels are well below both the one hour 

NAAQS of 100 ppb and the annual NAAQS of 53 ppb. The table below shows the current N02 levels in 

the State ofUtah in relation to the I-hour and the annual average N02 primary standards. 

I-Hour Annual 

Site County 2007 2008 2009 2007-2009 2009 

49-005-0004 Cache 46 47 46 46 13 

49-011-0004 Davis 72 63 62 66 17 

49-035-0003 Salt Lake 70 63 57 63 18 

49-035-3006 Salt Lake 69 64 56 63 18 

49-049-0002 Utah 63 57 56 59 18 

49-057 -0002 Weber 65 67 64 65 22 

Utah is recommending an attainment designation for Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber 

Counties, and an unc1assifiable designation for all other areas ofthe State. Any questions your agency 

staffmay have concerning this submittal may be addressed to Cheryl Heying, Director, Division ofAir 

Quality, at 195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84116, 801-536-4015. Thank you. 

Sincerely, ~. 

!. 

t ~~IVEO fL. tJv.t.,..ft U.S. EPA Region 8 0 C Gary R. Herbert (n RA's Office fT1 

n ~. ::0 Governor 

I 

r mm <::> -"tin (II»m 

0:> ~::o- I'-> -~ ~ c:::l 2 0'0 

:J 


00
 f: -c:::::> 

I,· 


f 
 Utah State Capitol, Suite 200· P.O. Box 142220· Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2220' Telephone (801) 538-1000
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-811]

Ammonium Nitrate From Russia: Correction to Notice of Opportunity 
To Request Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda E. Waters, AD/CVD Operations, 
Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4735.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 2, 2012, the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') published its opportunity to request administrative 
review of the antidumping duty orders and inadvertently omitted 
Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, POR 5/2/2011-3/31/2012. See Antidumping 
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 77 FR 63 (April 2, 2012). 
This notice serves as a correction to include the Ammonium Nitrate from 
Russia administrative review in the referenced notice.

    Dated: April 4, 2012.
Gary Taverman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-8621 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 3, 2012.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:

                    1.                     *HCBF Holding Company, Inc.,*                     Palm City, Florida, to become a bank holding company by acquiring Harbor Community Bank, FSB, Indiantown, Florida, upon its conversion to a state nonmember bank.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Dated: April 6, 2012.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2012-8658 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
EXHIBIT
        32.1
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 
 **PURSUANT
        TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I,
        Liang
        Zhang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the amended Quarterly
        Report
        of Synutra International, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended
        June
        30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such amended
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects
        the
        financial condition and results of operations of Synutra International, Inc.
 
 September
                  28, 2006By:
              /s/ Liang
                  ZhangName:Liang
                  ZhangTitle:  
                  Chief Executive Officer