alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 30, 2024

NO. 03-24-00533-CV

Nick Steward, Appellant

v.

Central Texas Docks, LLC d/b/a What's Up Dock, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on July 29, 2024.

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court 

agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses

the appeal. Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7667

IRA WAYNE MADISON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO; DONALD WELLS; S.

BATTS; D. WILSON; D. MCBRIDE; JOHN HARRIS;

ERIC HOBBS; NASH; DONALD WAYNE PEERY; KEVIN A.

EGGLESTON; STEVEN C. WHISENANT; WALTER EPPS;

WESLEY HAMMOND; CLARENCE W. TERRY; THOMAS

ALEXANDER; DERRICK K. JONES,

Plaintiffs,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; W. P.

ROGERS, Regional Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections; C. D. LARSON, Warden, Lunenburg Correctional Center; CAROL F. WALLACE,

Associate Warden of Operations, Lunenburg Correctional Center; JERRY R. TOWNSEND, Major,

Lunenburg Correctional Center; sued in their

individual and official capacities; VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

KAREEM HARRIS,

Movant.
2

No. 00-7668

IRA WAYNE MADISON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; GENE JOHNSON, Director,

Virginia Department of Corrections; DAVID A.

GARRAGHTY, Warden, G.R.C.C.; G.R.C.C. STAFF

AND SECURITY,

Defendants - Appellees.

KAREEM HARRIS,

Movant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-99-1818-AM, CA-99-1859-AM)

Submitted: May 29, 2001 Decided: June 18, 2001

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ira Wayne Madison, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Ira Wayne Madison appeals from the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in his civil

action challenging Division Operating Procedure 864, a prison

grooming policy requiring that male inmates’ hair not be more than

one inch in thickness/depth and prohibiting beards. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, along with

Madison’s allegations of error, and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Madison v. Johnson, No. CA-99-1818-AM, and Madison v. Angelone, No.

CA-99-1859-AM (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 25, 2000; entered Oct. 30,

2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-1009 Directorate Identifier: 2013-NE-35-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Modify power 

turbine (PT)

containment ring 

by installing 

reinforcement liner

20.0 $1,700.0

0 $1,655 $3,355.00 1000 $3,355,000.00

(SP3478EN-E) $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $3,355,000

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): N/A

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
# C_2004106EN.01002003.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Berlin by order of 14 January 2004 in the case of Veronika Richert v VK GmbH Service Gesellschaft für Vermögenszuordnung und Kommunalisierung mbH.

(Case C-81/04)

(2004/C 106/37)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of 14 January 2004 by the Arbeitsgericht Berlin (Labour Court, Berlin), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Veronika Richert v VK GmbH Service Gesellschaft für Vermögenszuordnung und Kommunalisierung mbH on the following questions:

| 1. | Must Council Directive 98/59/EC (1) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted to the effect that ‘redundancy’ for the purposes of Article 1(1)(a) thereof is to be construed as meaning the notice of dismissal as the first act in terminating the employment relationship or does ‘redundancy’ mean the termination of the employment relationship upon expiry of the period of notice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Council Directive 98/59/EC (1) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted to the effect that ‘redundancy’ for the purposes of Article 1(1)(a) thereof is to be construed as meaning the notice of dismissal as the first act in terminating the employment relationship or does ‘redundancy’ mean the termination of the employment relationship upon expiry of the period of notice?

1

| 2. | If ‘redundancy’ is to be construed as meaning the notice of dismissal, does the Directive require that both the consultation procedure under Article 2 of the Directive and the notification procedure under Articles 3 and 4 thereof must have been concluded before the notices of dismissal are issued? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If ‘redundancy’ is to be construed as meaning the notice of dismissal, does the Directive require that both the consultation procedure under Article 2 of the Directive and the notification procedure under Articles 3 and 4 thereof must have been concluded before the notices of dismissal are issued?

| 3. | If ‘redundancy’ is to be construed as meaning the actual termination of the employment relationship, is it sufficient under the terms of the Directive if the consultation procedure is also conducted only after the notices of dismissal have been issued? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If ‘redundancy’ is to be construed as meaning the actual termination of the employment relationship, is it sufficient under the terms of the Directive if the consultation procedure is also conducted only after the notices of dismissal have been issued?

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

1

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 05, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 05, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19I0162. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. MARGO DELAUNE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2017CV288173
Exhibit 32.0   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 of Kearny Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John N. Hopkins, President and 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 financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
     Date: May 11, 2009
        
        /s/ John N. HopkinsJohn N. HopkinsPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
 Exhibit 32.0   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 of Kearny Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William C. Ledgerwood, 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.
     Date: May 11, 2009
        
        /s/ William C. LedgerwoodWilliam C. LedgerwoodSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit10.1**

 

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE GFI GROUP INC.**

**2008 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN**

 

This First Amendment (this “*First Amendment*”) to the 2008 EquityIncentive Plan (the “*Plan*”) ofGFI Group Inc. (the “*Company*”)has been deemed advisable and has been adopted pursuant to the terms of Section 10.1of the Plan by the Company’s Board of Directors, subject to stockholderapproval. Terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsgiven to such terms in the Plan.

 

**1.***                                     ****Amendments to the Plan*****.**

 

a)                                      The firstsentence of Article 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting “8,250,000”and substituting “14,900,000” therefor.

 

b)                                     The lastsentence of Article 6.8 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting “1,000,000”and substituting “2,000,000” therefor.

 

**2.***                                     ****The Plan*****.**  In all other respects the Plan is ratifiedand shall, as so changed by this First Amendment, continue in full force andeffect.

 

* * * * *

 

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EL E VENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________ No. 15

- 12129 Non

- Argument Calendar

__________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:14

- cv
- 24413

- FAM
JORGE GUTIERREZ , CYNTHIA RECONDO, and other similarly situated individuals, MANFRED ARAUJO, RICARDO QUINONES, YOANNY RODRIGUEZ, JOHN C. AHEARN, JIMMY VAZQUE Z ,

Plaintiff s
- Appellant s , ERNESTO NUEVO, et al., Plaintiffs,

versus CABLE EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC. , CHARLES F. APPLEDOORN, individually , Defendant s
- Appellee s
.

Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 1 of 32 __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

__________________________ ( October 15, 2015 )
Before TJOFLAT , MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR , Circuit J udges.
PER CURIAM : This appeal challenges the District Court’s order of May 11, 2015, granting defendants summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201

- 219, claims on the ground that plaintiffs were not employees covered un der the Act. Doc. 61. Plaintiffs admitted many of the material facts in the case when they failed to respond in any way to defendants’ requests for admissions. In opposing defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs filed declarations containing assertions purportedly contrary to their earlier admissions, but they did not explain why the assertions were contrary to such admissions or seek any relief
from their admissions. Plaintiffs contend that they did seek relief from their admissions in their response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Their response, they submit, “constituted a valid request to withdraw or amend any facts that had been automatically deemed ad mitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36,” and the “ District Court ‘was required to analyze Plaintiffs’ request as to whether withdrawal or

Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 2 of 33 amendment [of the admitted facts] would have subserved the presentation of the case’s merits, and whether it would have prejudiced Defendants.” Appellants’ Br. at 12. Plaitiffs seek the vacation of the summary judgment and a remand of the case so that the District Court can conduct such analysis. We are not persuaded.
We find no error in the District Court’s considera tion of the facts admitted via plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the requests for admissions. There is no material issue of fact for submission to a jury in this case. Summary judgment was appropriate and was due to be granted.
AFFIRMED. Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 3 of 3
National Organic Standards Board

Crops Subcommittee Petitioned Material Discussion Document

Calcium Acetate

August 21, 2018

Summary of Petition for Calcium acetate: 

Calcium acetate is being petitioned for use as a plant micronutrient for the prevention of calcium 

deficiencies and as a product to help prevent sunscald. The petitioner notes that because calcium 

acetate is highly water soluble, it is immediately available for uptake by plants. Other forms of calcium 

may not become water soluble until exposed to soil microbes and/or acidic conditions. Lime, for 

instance, may take up to six months to become available for uptake by plants. Products that include 

calcium acetate coupled with less soluble forms of calcium could have an immediate impact and an 

"extended release" effect. 

Calcium, in addition to being necessary for cell wall formation, also aids in the uptake of other 

micronutrients, producing healthier plants. Plants with strong cell walls produce fruits and vegetables 

with a longer shelf life and a greater resistance to pests. A deficit of calcium produces disease in many 

crops. Examples include hollow heart in potatoes and bitter pit in apples. Some plants, like peanuts and 

soybeans, produce fewer "pops" or empty spots in shells when grown with adequate calcium. 

Calcium products such as gypsum, limestone, dolomite lime, and ground oyster shell flower can take up 

to six months to become available for uptake by crops. Gypsum and oyster shell flour frequently contain 

traces of heavy metals. Other calcium products, such as calcium chloride, must be applied in very small 

amounts when used as a foliar spray to avoid burning a crop. Calcium acetate does not have this issue or 

limitation. Calcium acetate can also reduce sunlight transmission and may be used over black plastic to 

reduce heat loading.

Calcium acetate is a calcium salt of acetic acid. It does occur naturally but is most often manufactured. 

Calcium acetate can be prepared by soaking calcium carbonate (found in eggshells or in common 

carbonate rocks, such as limestone or marble, or hydrated lime) in vinegar.

Questions:

1) Is another calcium material necessary for organic crop production?

2) Does this material have a unique mode of action that differentiates it from other calcium 

materials allowed for organic production?

3) Is there a need for a material to prevent sunscald in organic production?

Motion to accept the discussion document on calcium acetate 

Motion by: Steve Ela

Seconded by: Eric Schwartz 

Yes: 7 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Approved by Steve Ela, Subcommittee Chair to transmit to NOSB, August 21, 2018

NOSB Oct 2018 proposals and discussion documents pg. 201 of 204
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 4, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130194 & (53) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

THE GREATER BIBLE WAY TEMPLE OF Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, JACKSON, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130194 

 COA: 250863 

Jackson CC: 01-003614-AS 

CITY OF JACKSON, JACKSON PLANNING 

COMMISSION, and JACKSON CITY COUNCIL, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion to file amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the November 10, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals 

is considered, and it is GRANTED. We further ORDER that this case be argued and 

submitted to the Court together with the case of The Greater Bible Way Temple of 

Jackson v City of Jackson (No. 130196), at such future session of the Court as both cases 

are ready for submission. 

Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the questions presented 

in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. 

t0427 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

May 4, 2006 

Clerk
CCC COMMODITY INVENTORY

As of June 30, 2020

(Million Units Except as Noted) OUTSTANDING UNDER LOAN CCC-OWNED

CY 2018 CY 2019 INVENTORY 2/

(Actual Units)

BUTTER (LB) - - 0.0

CHEESE (LB) - - 0.0

NONFAT DRY MILK (LB) - - 0.0

BARLEY (BU) 0.0 2.5 0.0

CORN (BU) 1.2 434.3 0.0

OATS (BU) 0.0 0.5 0.0

SORGHUM (BU) 0.0 0.7 0.0

SOYBEANS (BU) 0.0 83.6 0.0

WHEAT (BU) 0.0 30.6 0.0

RICE (CWT) 0.0 8.4 0.0

REFINED SUGAR (Mil. Lbs.) 0.0 465.5 0.0

 IN-PROCESS BEET 0.0 430.5 0.0

RAW CANE SUGAR (Mil. Lbs.) 0.0 730.8 0.0

 IN-PROCESS CANE 0.0 0.0 0.0

HONEY (Mil. Lbs.) 0.0 5.7 0.0

PEANUTS (tons) 0.0 664,650.0 0.00

CANOLA SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 970.0 0.0

CRAMBE (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0

FLAXSEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 25.0 0.0

MUSTARD SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 1.0 0.0

RAPESEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0

SAFFLOWER SEED (CWT) 1/ 4.0 3.0 0.0

SESAME SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0

SUNFLOWER SEED (OIL) (CWT) 1/ 0.0 170.0 0.0

SUNFLOWER SEED (Other) (CWT) 1/ 0.0 3.0 0.0

DRY PEAS (CWT) 1/ 0.0 763.0 0.0

LENTILS (CWT) 1/ 30.0 79.0 0.0

CHICKPEAS (CWT) 1/ 0.0 290.0 0.0

UPLAND COTTON (BALE) 0.0 2,473,000.0 0.0

ELS COTTON (BALE) 0.0 786,000.0 0.0

1/ Minor Oilseeds & Pulses are in thousand units.

2/ CCC acquired 2018 Crop Year upland cotton as follows: 

15 bales from June 2019, 81 bales from July 2019, 2,996 bales from August 2019, 17,630 bales September 2019,

24,633 bales from October 2019, 7,325 bales from November 2019, 12,066 bales from December 2019, 

2,234 bales from January 2020, 58 bales from February 2020; 4,330 bales from March 2020; 

2 bales from April 2020 maturing loans. 

Following were multiple invitations that sold 8,264 bales in September; 39,325 bales in November, 

7,899 bales in December; 9,697 bales sold in January; 1,513 bales in February; 3,856 bales in March; 

822 bales in April. In total, there were 0 bales of upland cotton in inventory on June 30, 2020.

CCC also acquired 2018 Crop Year peanuts as follows: 4,559.12 tons from July 2019, 37,417.73 tons from 

August 2019, 37,845.19 tons from September 2019, 4,735.16 tons from October, 4,054.36 tons from 

November, and December 2,025.31 tons maturing loans.

Total CCC peanut forfeitures for Crop Year 2018 were 84,719.20 tons. CCC sold 340.51 tons from Invitation 

No. 8, 28,563.44 tons from Invitation No. 9, 13,052.09 tons from Invitation No. 10, 34,005.36 tons from

Invitation No. 11, 3,846.40 tons from Invitation No.12, 4,268.73 tons from Invitation No. 13, 0 tons from 

Invitation 14, 2,780.41 from Invitation 15, 1,249.44 tons from Invitation 16, 667.18 tons from Invitation 17, 

2025.31 tons from Invitation 19. 

This brought the total CCC peanut inventory to 0.00 tons as of June 30, 2020. 

Report Completed: July 20, 2020
AMS Ground Beef Contractor Indicator Organism Performance - Fiscal Year: 20201/,2/ 

Standard Plate Count3/ Total Coliforms4/ 

# Sub-lots Produced # Exceeding % Exceeding # Exceeding % Exceeding # Ex

Contractor (% of Total) Critical Limit Critical Limit Critical Limit Critical Limit Critic

C1 2,067 (19.7) 0 0 4 0.19 C3 1,095 (10.5) 2 0.18 0 0 C4 2,254 (21.5) 0 0 2 0.09 C5 1,392 (13.3) 0 0 0 0 

C9 2,685 (25.7) 1 0.04 2 0.07 

C18 309 (3.0) 0 0 3 0.97 

C23 184 (1.8) 0 0 0 0 

C29 233 (2.2) 2 0.86 1 0.43 

C37 248 (2.4) 6 2.42 3 1.21 

Total 10,467 (100.0) 11 0.11 15 0.14 

1/A full description of the ground beef purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#Beef. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020. 3/Standard Plate Count Critical Limit: 100,000 CFU/g.4/Total Coliforms Critical Limit: 1,000 CFU/g.5/Generic E. coli Critical Limit: 500 CFU/g.