alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Dori Klein 

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:41 AM 

To: Coale, Dana - AMS 

Subject: Dairy Price petition 

Dear Secretary Vilsack & Deputy Administrator Coale:

Due primarily to drought and fast‐rising grain/forage costs, many U.S. dairy

farmers face their worst net income squeeze ever – even worse than in 2009. USDA’s

monthly “All Milk Price” vs. USDA data for “U.S. Monthly Dairy Costs of Production

Per Cwt. of Milk Sold” show this progressive red ink bath for January‐June 2012 (per

hundredweight of milk sold): January (‐$4.05), February (‐$6.22), March (‐$6.23), April

(‐$7.12), May (‐$8.35), and June (‐$8.65). Milk prices are at about 32% of parity.

The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority, under Section 608(c) 18 of the

enabling language for federal milk orders, to act upon evidence presented at a hearing to

adjust regional farm milk prices when, according to the law:

“... the parity prices of such commodities are not reasonable in the view of the

price of feeds, the available supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which

affect the market supply and demand for milk and its products ... he shall fix prices as he

finds will reflects such factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome milk,

and be in the public interest.”

This communication is a request to you to immediately convene a national federal

milk order pricing hearing, under Section 608(c) 18. We urge you to hold this hearing in

a Drought‐stressed dairy region – so REAL dairy farmers may attend. No prevailing

“other economic conditions” exist to justify failure to act under Section 608(c) 18.

We await your immediate response and action on this matter.

Dori Klein

August 17, 2012
##### 



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 registrants other certifying officer 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; andc)
    
    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 (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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;
andb)
    
    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.
 Dated: November 11, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Kirk E. SanfordKirk E. SanfordChief Executive Officer
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Monthly Inventory Report

As of December 26, 2022

(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 1.0 0.0

Corn Bushels 3.1 278.1 0.0

Oats Bushels 0.1 0.2 0.0

Sorghum Cwt. 0.0 0.3 0.0

Soybeans Bushels 0.3 55.2 0.0

Wheat Bushels 0.1 9.5 0.0

Rice Cwt. 0.3 17.5 0.0

Refined Sugar Pounds 110.0 698.0 0.0

In-process Beet Pounds 0.0 623.5 0.0

Raw Cane Sugar Pounds 0.0 781.7 0.0

In-process Cane Pounds - - -

Honey Pounds 0.0 0.0 0.0

Peanuts

Tons (not

millions) 0.0 1,902,250.0 0.0

Canola Seed* Cwt. 0.0 233.0 0.0

Crambe* Cwt. - - -

Flaxseed* Cwt. 0.0 5.0 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. 24.0 100.0 0.0

Sunflower Seed (Other)* Cwt. 0.0 16.0 0.0

Dry Peas* Cwt. 0.0 62.0 0.0

Lentils* Cwt. 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chickpeas* Cwt. 6.0 33.0 0.0

Upland Cotton

1,000

Running

Bales 5.7 4,009.8 0.0

ELS Cotton

1,000

Running

Bales 0.4 159.3 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 December 31, 2022.

Report Completed January 23, 2023.
H. Con. Res. 92 Agreed to September 16, 2020

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. PRINTING OF REVISED VERSION OF ‘‘WOMEN IN CONGRESS, 1917–2006’’. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—An updated version of House Document 108– 

223, entitled ‘‘Women in Congress, 1917–2006’’ (as revised by the 

Library of Congress), shall be printed as a House document by 

the Public Printer, with illustrations and suitable binding, under 

the direction of the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives. 

(b) NUMBER OF COPIES.—In addition to the usual number, 

there shall be printed such number of copies of the document 

referred to in subsection (a) as does not exceed a total production 

and printing cost of $500,000, of which— 

(1) 80 percent shall be for the use of the Committee on 

House Administration of the House of Representatives; and 

(2) 20 percent shall be for the use of the Committee on 

Rules and Administration of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
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 11, 2012.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas**                     (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

                    1.                     *B2B Holdings, Inc.,*                     Houston, Texas; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Stockmens National Bank in Cotulla, Cotulla, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 12, 2012.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2012-9156 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 92 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 92

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 prohibit the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment 
                              for a crime.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2020

   Mr. Richmond submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 prohibit the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment 
                              for a crime.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude may be imposed as a 
punishment for a crime.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Toohey *v.*Carnegie Coal Corporation, Appellant.

Argued April 23, 1942.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.

*James J. Burns, Jr.,*with him *Gustav M. Berg*and *Harold V. Fergus,*for appellant.

*A. L. McLaughlin, Jr.,*for appellee.

September 30, 1942:

Kenworthey, J.,

Opinion by

The Workmen’s Compensation Board made an award which was affirmed by the court below. Defendant appeals on the ground there was no evidence of an accident.

Claimant is a coal miner. On October 18, 1938, he stooped to walk through a trap door leading from one section of the mine into another. He was doing nothing unusual; the door was often used by him and other miners; they were required to stoop because the open*298ing was only thirty inches high. He described what occurred as follows: “Well, we were carrying our tools, my buddy and I, carrying our tools from one section to another, and we had to pass through this trap door, and I had the jack in one hand, and dinner bucket in the other, and when he went through, I held the door and then I reached down and got the dinner bucket and whenever I was stooping through, that’s when I twisted myself.” He said he immediately felt a sharp pain in his right hip and upper leg.

Although he said he was unable to do much, he continued to.work until November 23, 1938. He first saw a physician on December 1, 1938.

Claimant’s attending physician was called as a witness by the employer. He testified that his diagnosis was perineuritis of the sciatic nerve; that it was not caused by trauma. Claimant, on the other hand, called a physician who examined him in April, 1939, whose diagnosis was sprain of the muscles of the back and whose opinion, based on the history, was that the condition was the result of the “accident.”

In affirming the award, the court relied on our cases of *Rice v. Stevens Coal Co.,*120 Pa. Superior Ct. 15, 181 A. 516, and *Betts v. American Stores Co. et al.,*105 Pa. Superior Ct. 452, 161 A. 589. But, the authority of these cases has been limited by *Adamchick v. Wyoming Valley Cotlieries Co.,*332 Pa. 401, 3 A. (2d) 377. Under this decision, an accident cannot be inferred from an injury alone; there must be other evidence, direct or circumstantial. And this court, following this decision, has held that a statement by the claimant that he “twisted” himself is not enough. See *Martin v. Union Collieries Co.,*141 Pa. Superior Ct. 93, 14 A. (2d) 867; *Paydo v. Union Collieries Co.,*146 Pa. Superior Ct. 385, 22 A. (2d) 759.

Judgment reversed and entered for defendant.
Exhibit 32.3



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 Solo Cup Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Susan H. Marks, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Susan H. Marks     
|Susan H. Marks         
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 14, 2005      



6
# C_2004094EN.01006201.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/62

---

Action brought on 18 February 2004 by Christos Gogos against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-66/04)

(2004/C 94/156)

Language of the Case: Greek

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 February 2004 by Christos Gogos, resident in Waterloo, Belgium, represented by Kharis Tagaras, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decisions, namely the decision to classify him in Grade A 7 following his success in internal competition COM//A/17/96 and the Commission's rejection dated 24 November 2003 of the his complaint under No R/323/03; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions, namely the decision to classify him in Grade A 7 following his success in internal competition COM//A/17/96 and the Commission's rejection dated 24 November 2003 of the his complaint under No R/323/03;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 1997 the applicant, who is a Commission official, took part in an internal competition for promotion from Category B to Category A, but was unsuccessful in the oral test. In an action brought before the Court of First Instance (1)the decision rejecting him was annulled; he was invited to take part in a new written test, but failed again. He brought fresh proceedings against this second rejection (2). The parties settled these proceedings on the basis that the applicant would be invited to a fresh (third) oral test; he was successful in that test and was entered on the reserve list. The applicant submitted an application for a vacant Category A post and was selected. On 31 March 2003 he was informed that his classification upon appointment was in Grade A 7.

1

2

The applicant challenges that classification, submitting that he should have been classified in Grade A 6. He pleads first of all that, if Article 233 EC, the principles of equal treatment, equity and proper administration and the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects are applied correctly, he has to be granted the rights, of whatever nature, which he would have had if he had been entered on the competition reserve list from the beginning, without his two prior actions. He further pleads that both the Commission decision of September 1983 on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and classification in step, as amended in 1996 in consequence of the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-17/95 (3), and the Commission's administrative guide on the same subject require his initial classification in Grade A 6.

3

---

(1)  Case T-95/98, OJ No C 258, 15.8.1998, p. 38.

1

(2)  Case T-97/01, OJ No C 186, 30.6.2001, p. 17.

2

(3)  Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 1995 in Alexopoulou v Commission, OJ No C 315, 25.11.1995, p. 14.

3

Alexopoulou

Commission

---
# C_2004094EN.01003507.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/35

---

Removal from the register of Case C-432/02 (1)

1

(2004/C 94/95)

By order of 29 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-432/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Guidice di Pace de Lendinara): Lucio Trombin v Insight World Education System Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.

1

---
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 9, 2015 518614 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of

PENNY TRAVIS,

Respondent.

GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION

NETWORK, INC., MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appellant;

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: February 10, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (L. Michael Zinser

of Zinser Law Firm, Nashville, Tennessee, admitted pro hac vice),

for appellant.

James W. Cooper, Warrensburg, for Penny Travis, respondent.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Mary

Hughes of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP, New York City (Mark

A. Fowler of counsel), for New York News Publishers Association,

amicus curiae.

__________
-2- 518614 

Lynch, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board, filed June 10, 2013, which ruled that Gannett Satellite

Information Network, Inc. is liable for unemployment insurance

contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others

similarly situated.

Claimant contracted with Gannett Satellite Information

Network, Inc. to deliver newspapers and other publications. 

After an Administrative Law Judge (hereinfter ALJ) found claimant

to be an independent contractor ineligible for unemployment

insurance benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

reversed the ALJ's decision, found that claimant and others

similarly situated were employees and held Gannett liable for

unemployment insurance contributions. Gannett appeals.

In Matter of Armison (Gannett Co., Inc.-Commissioner of

Labor) (122 AD3d 1101, 1103 [2014], lv dismissed 24 NY3d 1209

[2015]), this Court recently affirmed decisions of the Board

finding that claimants performing delivery services for Gannett

and Gannett Company, Inc. under contracts, which in all relevant

respects are identical to claimant's contract herein, were

employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Given

that the indicia of control here retained by Gannett mirrors that

in Armison, we find that the Board's decision that claimant was

an employee and that Gannett was liable for additional

unemployment contributions was supported by substantial evidence

(see Matter of Hunter [Gannett Co., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor],

125 AD3d 1166, 1167-1168 [2015]; Matter of Isaacs [Speedy Media

Assoc., LLC-Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1077, 1079 [2015];

see also Matter of Gager [Gannette Satellite Information Network,

Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], ___ AD3d ___ [decided herewith]). 

Also, as in Armison, we find that the decision is consistent with

Department of Labor guidelines.

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry and Devine, JJ., concur.
-3- 518614 

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
D ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA " 

DA 24-0256 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

CHARLES DAVID AMENT, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

FLED 

MAY 3 0 2024 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

Stew, of Montana 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Appellant's motion for extension of time to produce the 

transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Thomas Sapp is granted an 

extension of time to and including June 24, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve 

the transcripts requested on appeal. 

The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Charles David Ament, all counsel of 

record, the district court, and the court reporter. 

No further extensions will be granted without an affidavit from the court reporter. 

, 

DATED this .5 do day of May, 2024. 

For the Court, 

hief Justice 

05/30/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0256