alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Director: Todd Shuck

Bulk Commodity Procurement & Support Branch Chief: Jessica Howlett

Packaged Commodity Procurement Branch: Dan Webber
ICPD Mission

What we do: 

• Purchase bulk and packaged agricultural commodities 

• Serve our customer agencies and their food assistance programs 

• U.S. Agency for International Development

• USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service

Our mission is to ensure timely and efficient provision of high-quality, safe food products to international 

humanitarian food assistance programs, provide expertise in the development and delivery of safe and nutritious 

food assistance, and implement statutory mandates and achieve departmental goals for preference programs 

through procurement activities. 
March 2020 to March 2022

MARCH 2020- MARCH 2022

MTS TOTAL COST AVG COST/ MT

PACKAGED COMMODITIES 929,685 $782,115,525 $841 

BULK COMMODITIES 3,473,890 $1,106,279,381 $318 

EMPTY POLY BAGS 38,026,000 EA $20,694,268 $0.54 
March 2018 to March 2022

March 2020- MARCH 2022

MTS TOTAL COST AVG COST/ MT

PACKAGED COMMODITIES 929,685 $782,115,525 $841 

BULK COMMODITIES 3,473,890 $1,106,279,381 $318 

EMPTY POLY BAGS 38,026,000 EA $20,694,268 $0.54 

March 2018 - MARCH 2020

MTS TOTAL COST AVG COST/ MT

PACKAGED COMMODITIES 817,486 $579,843,791 $709 

BULK COMMODITIES 2,484,150 $638,897,008 $257 

EMPTY POLY BAGS 17,163,000 EA $5,886,297 $0.34 
March 2018 to March 2022 cont.

March 2020- MARCH 2022

MTS TOTAL COST AVG COST/ MT

PACKAGED COMMODITIES 929,685 112,199 $782,115,525 $841 18.60%

BULK COMMODITIES 3,473,890 989,740 $1,106,279,381 $318 23.70%

EMPTY POLY BAGS 38,026,000 EA 20,863,000 $20,694,268 $0.54 58.80%

March 2018- MARCH 2020

MTS TOTAL COST AVG COST/ MT

PACKAGED COMMODITIES 817,486 $579,843,791 $709 

BULK COMMODITIES 2,484,150 $638,897,008 $257 

EMPTY POLY BAGS 17,163,000 EA $5,886,297 $0.34
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Mercy MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 79SA188.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Dec. 10, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1980.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., David W. Robbins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Kathleen M. Bqwers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Craig L. Truman, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Terri L. Brake, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

GROVES, Justice.

The district court denied the defendant’s request in a Crim. P. 35(b) proceeding for credit for presentence detention against a sentence of life imprisonment. The defendant has appealed, and we affirm.

On January 31, 1971 the defendant was arrested under a charge of first-degree murder. He was denied bail and was confined until his trial, at the conclusion of which the jury returned a verdict of guilty and fixed the penalty at life imprisonment. On January 2, 1972 the trial judge so sentenced the defendant. By request filed on April 20, 1978 the defendant asked for an amended mittimus to reflect the presen-tence incarceration of 11 months and five days. The district court denied the request on May 12,1978, and the case is here having been transferred from the court of appeals.

This case was consolidated for oral argument with *People v. Jones,*Colo., 604 P.2d 679, announced contemporaneously with *683this opinion. The principal factual difference between the two cases is that here the defendant was denied bail, whereas in *Jones*the defendant was indigent and unable to furnish bond. Under our holding in *Jones,*the factual difference is immaterial.

For the information of department of corrections, we state that the presentence incarceration of the defendant was 11 months and five days.

For the reasons there expressed, the judgment is affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JENNIFER LOUISSAINT

, Appellant,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY OF AMERICAS

, PROVIDENT FUNDING ASSOCIATES, LP, PROVIDENT FUNDING GROUP, INC. d/b/a PFG LOANS, INC., and PFT FINANCIAL GROUP, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 2246

[ November 5, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael A. Robinson , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 11

- 010565

.

Jennifer Louissaint, Hollywood, pro se.

Steven J. Brotman of Locke Lord, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee

Provident Funding Associates, LP

.

Daniel S. Hurtes, Nicole R. Topper and Maria K. Vigilante of Bl ank Rome, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Deutsche Bank Trust Company

of Americas.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE
, C.J., W ARNER and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6684

MARVIN HOOKER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cv-00213-BR) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 19, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin Hooker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Marvin Hooker, Jr. appeals the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reopen his civil forfeiture case. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review the denial of motions for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. SeeUnited States v. Holland , 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000) (describing standard of review for Rule 60(b)); Brown v. French , 147 F.3d 307, 310 (4th Cir. 1998) (describing standard of review for Rule 59(e)). A d istrict court abuses its discretion when the court fails or refuses to exercise its discretion or when the court's exercise of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or factual premise. See James v. Jacobson , 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). Because Hooker’s Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) motions merely reasserted allegations previously raised, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. , 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (recognizing three grounds for amending an earlier judgment under Rule 59(e): (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice); United States v. Williams , 674 F.2d 310, 312-13 (4th Cir. 1982) (noting when motion is nothing more- 3 - than a request that district court change its mind, it is not authorized by Rule 60(b)). Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. 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
_________________ 

_________________ 

(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 592 U. S. ____ (2021) 1 

Per Curiam 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to 

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 

corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 18–1447 

REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 

ROSALIE SIMON, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

[February 3, 2021]

 PER CURIAM. 

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the D. C. Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for 

further proceedings consistent with the decision in Federal 

Republic of Germany v. Philipp, ante, p. ___. 

It is so ordered.
October 13, 2014

To: expartecommunication@hq.doe.gov (sent via email)

Re: Memorandum Summarizing Ex Parte Communication

On October 9, 2014, a workshop was hosted by the American Gas Association and Washington 

Gas Light (WGL) at WGLs Training Facility in Springfield, VA. The purposes of the workshop 

were to convene representatives from the Department of Energy and stakeholder organizations 

to examine natural gas heating and water heating equipment and the installation differences 

between non-condensing and condensing equipment; to discuss potential implications if the 

new rulemaking for natural gas furnaces were to mandate condensing furnaces; to identify 

additional data needed for the rulemaking; and to discuss technology advancements needed to 

overcome current installation obstacles for condensing equipment.

Melissa Adams, Division Head - Sustainability & Business Development, WGL Holdings, opened 

the session with a presentation on how WGL and other AGA member companies have 

advanced energy efficiency within their service territories; a summary of the results of a 

builder/contractor survey conducted by the Gas Technology Institute to assess and quantify the 

potential fuel switching that would occur if a new condensing standards was established for 

natural gas furnaces; and analysis prepared by the American Gas Association on the impact of 

fuel switching on overall energy costs, consumption and emissions.

Kevin Dunn, Training Manager for WGL, provided a technical review of the various types of 

natural gas heating and water heating equipment, describing the unique components of each 

type of equipment and the installation requirements for them.

Richard Murphy, Managing Director – Sustainable Growth, American Gas Association, led a 

roundtable discussion on the following subjects:

• Technology solutions to address installation issues associated with condensing furnaces 

• Additional data and market intelligence needed to assess the impact of a condensing 

furnace standard 

• Opportunities for advancing efficiency solutions beyond equipment standards

ME1 19062418v.1
The agenda for the workshop, a list of participants and the documents presented at the 

workshop are all attached to the email that this memorandum was delivered under.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kathryn Clay

Kathryn Clay | Vice President, Policy Strategy

American Gas Association

400 N. Capitol St., NW | Washington, DC | 20001

P: 202-824-7122 | F: 202-824-9125 | kclay@aga.org

ME1 19062418v.1
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 9, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00670-CR

RASHARD AVERY JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F19-00075-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek

Opinion by Justice Reichek

Rashard Avery Jones appeals the trial court’s April 29, 2019 order placing him on deferred 

adjudication for indecency with a child by sexual contact. Appellant filed a timely motion for new 

trial on May 1, 2019 which was granted. On May 3, 2019, appellant filed his notice of appeal.

When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, the case is restored to its position before 

the former trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b). Because there is no sentence to be appealed, we have no 

jurisdiction over the appeal. See Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 643–44 (Tex. App.–Dallas

1996, no pet.).

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

190670F.U05

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RASHARD AVERY JONES, Appellant

No. 05-19-00670-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 4, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F19-00075-K.

Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek,

Justices Schenck and Osborne 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Judgment entered this 9th day of July, 2019.
**Exhibit 32**








CERTIFICATION
      OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF MISCOR GROUP, LTD.


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-Q of MISCOR Group, Ltd.. (the
      “Company”) for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned officers of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      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; and





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





Date:
                November 13, 2006/s/
                John A. MartellName:
                John A. MartellTitle:
                President & Chief Executive Officer/s/
                Richard J. MullinName:
                Richard J. MullinTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer
Order filed, April 09, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00318-CV

____________

SVEN ERIK JOHANSSON, Appellant

V.

BUNA I.S.D., ET AL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 1st District Court

Jasper County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 4004

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due October 20, 2014. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Donnece Foster, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                        1000
<CURRENCY>                          U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                              1
<CASH>                                                  21,408
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          690,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                            23,459
<INVENTORY>                                          1,220,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,932,209
<PP&E>                                                 255,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                         112,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       2,489,826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                1,491,585
<BONDS>                                                419,275
<COMMON>                                                66,626
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                             512,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         2,489,826
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     9,942,697
<CGS>                                                9,368,893
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        9,787,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      30,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        125,270
<INCOME-TAX>                                            51,737
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     73,533
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                            73,533
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                1.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                1.83
        

</TABLE>
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Agricultural 

Marketing

Service

Fruit and

Vegetable

Division

Fresh

Products

Branch

United States Standards

for Grades of

Fresh Shelled Lima Beans

for Processing

Effective June 6, 1953

(Reprinted - January 1997)
 Packing of the product in conformity with the requirements of these standards shall not excuse failure to comply with 1

the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

1

United States Standards for Grades of Fresh Shelled Lima Beans

for Processing 1

Grades

51.355 U.S. No. 1. 

51.356 U.S. No. 2. 

Culls; Foreign Material

51.357 Culls. 

51.358 Foreign material. 

Definitions

51.359 Fairly tender. 

51.360 Green color. 

51.361 Injury. 

51.362 Damage. 

Grades

§51.355 U.S. No. 1.

U.S. No. 1 consists of shelled lima beans of similar varietal characteristics which are fairly tender,

have a green color and which are free from decay and from injury caused by discoloration,

shriveling, sunscald, heating, freezing, disease, insects, or other means. 

§51.356 U.S. No. 2.

U.S. No. 2 consists of shelled lima beans which are free from decay, and from damage caused by

discoloration, shriveling, sunscald, heating, freezing, disease, insects, or other means. 

Culls; Foreign Material

§51.357 Culls.

Culls are lima beans which fail to meet the requirements of either of the foregoing grades. 

§51.358 Foreign material.

Thistle buds, weed seeds, pods or other foreign material are not incorporated in the standards

since their presence is not a factor of quality for the purpose of these grades. However, the

amount of such foreign material permitted in a lot may be fixed by agreement between grower and

processor. 

Definitions

§51.359 Fairly tender.

"Fairly tender" means that the lima beans are not hard, tough, or rubbery. 

§51.360 Green color.

"Green color" means that the cotyledons of each bean shall have a green color characteristic of a

tender or fairly tender bean for the variety. 
2

§51.361 Injury.

"Injury" means any defect which more than slightly affects the canning or freezing quality. Split or

broken beans incident to proper harvesting and vining operations shall not be considered as injury. 

§51.362 Damage.

"Damage" means any defect which materially affects the canning or freezing quality. Split or

broken beans incident to proper harvesting and vining operations shall not be considered as

damage.
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

March 30, 2015 (202)479-3011

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Re: Palmer R. Ross

v. Texas

No. 14-8113

(Your No. WR-82, 197-01)

Dear Clerk:

The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 02 2015

AbelAcosta,Clerk
**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 of Kentucky First Federal Bancorp (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Tony D. Whitaker, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.





/s/Tony
                D. WhitakerTony
                D. WhitakerChairman
                of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerNovember
                14, 2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7454

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ELTON WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-04-106-3-MBS; CR-02-505-DWS) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elton Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Todd Hagins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Elton Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED