alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Mr. Elliott P. Laws

Crowell & Moring

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

JUL .\ 2010

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Re: EPA 2010/15 PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic Acid) Stewardship Program

Dear Mr. Laws:

Thank you for your letter dated June 16, 2010, in which you raised some potential issues

with reporting under the 2010115 PFOA Stewardship Program ("Program"), particularly with

lack of clarity about reporting requirements for sales ofintermediates by the Program members

to non-Program members. You recommend two options for reporting improvements that you

believe will help clarify the Program results. You suggest that additional improvements would be

best timed to become effective with the 2011 reporting year.

The Agency recognizes that consistent reporting by the members is very important to the

success of the Program. We will fully consider the issues that you highlighted and your

recommendations. As we have discussed with your client, the Agency will release additional

reporting clarifications by the end of 2011, after reviewing the 2010 milestone reports due to the

Agency by Program members on October 31, 2011.

Again, thank you for your letter and support for our activities, and I hope the information

provided is helpful. If you have additional questions, please contact Toni Krasnic

(krasnic.tonicmepa.gov; 202-564-0984).

Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable. Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
February 2024 / www.ams.usda.gov

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Livestock and Poultry Program

Remote Grading Pilot for Beef

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) launched a pilot program to explore a new method of USDA 

Meat Grading Service delivery to beef packers. The Remote Grading Pilot for Beef (RGP Pilot) matches 

simple technology with robust data management and program oversight to enable USDA to assess beef 

carcass characteristics and assign official quality grades from a remote location.

• The RGP Pilot utilizes imaging technology and digital data collection to mirror what an official USDA 

Grader does when physically at the beef packing facility.

• Remote grading dramatically reduces the travel expenses related to USDA grading and certification, 

making these services more accessible and facilitating access to new, better, and more diverse 

marketing opportunities for small and independent beef producers and processors. 

• RGP Pilot participants receive official results from the USDA Grader within 24 hours, allowing them to 

process and market their high-quality beef as USDA Prime, USDA Choice, or USDA Select, and/or to 

participate in approved Certified Meat Programs, such as Certified Angus Beef.

• AMS oversight of RGP Pilot activities maintains the integrity of the Meat Grading Service and USDA 

Grade Mark. This includes metadata capture and analysis, frequent plant records reviews, periodic 

surveillance visits, and open and continuous communication and support for pilot participants.

RGP Pilot Participation and Cost

• Applicants must be domestic beef slaughter facilities operating under a federal grant of inspection 

(FSIS inspection), FSIS Cooperative Interstate Shipping (CIS) Program, or Federal-State cooperative 

inspection agreement.

• After reviewing the RGP Pilot information, contact AMS to request a consultation and confirm 

eligibility. The business must apply and be approved for USDA Meat Grading Service. 

• AMS conducts an Initial Site Visit to review program requirements and complete a Grading Plant 

Survey before initiating service, after which the Applicant may submit product for remote grading.

• To maintain product and USDA grade mark integrity, AMS periodically reviews an Applicant’s internal 

documentation and controls, and conducts on-site visits to ensure program compliance. 

The cost of grading and related compliance activities—including on-site visits— for the RGP Pilot are 

charged at the Unscheduled Service Fee rates: https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grading/fees. 

For additional information regarding the RGP Pilot, visit www.ams.usda.gov/remote-beef-grading or 

contact AMS-LP at AskLP@usda.gov.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB/A for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, E.
      Eugene Sharer, Interim 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(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 the operations of the
      Company.




/s/
                  E. Eugene SharerE.
                  Eugene SharerInterim
                  Principal Financial
                  Officer
  February
      1, 2008
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-136 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 August 12, 2022

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Upper Iowa Angus Beef Program

G-136 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements:

a. Phenotypic or genotypic requirements of the American Angus Association’s (AAA) Live 

Animal Specification or Red Angus Association of America’s (RAAA) Live Animal 

Specification;

b. Classed as Steer or Heifer carcasses only1;

c. U.S. Prime, Choice, or Select and have a minimum marbling score of Slight 01

;

d. Lean color, texture, firmness and skeletal characteristics meeting the requirements for A or B

maturity in the U.S. grade it qualifies for1

;

e. Medium or fine marbling texture1,2;

f. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height3;

g. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle; 

and

h. Free of “dark cutting” characteristics.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures.

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service

(FSIS) regulations 9 CFR part 317 and policy guidelines found at FSIS: Labeling/Label Approval 

website and FSIS: Claims Guidance website and QAD procedures including QAD 107: Requirements 

for Grading Terms on Meat Product Labeling.

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Evaluated using the USDA-AMS-LS-SB-02 Marbling Texture card (included in the Official USDA Marbling Photographs.) 3 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-136 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 August 12, 2022

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service.

___________________________________

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Quality Assessment Division

Livestock & Poultry Program
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Shetara Garcia, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Elisa S. Koenderman, J., at plea; Stephanie I. Zaro, J., at sentence), rendered June 18, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of assault in the third degree, resisting arrest, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and harassment in the second degree. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), seeking leave to withdraw as counsel.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders v California</i> (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (<i>see id.</i>; <i>Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.]</i>, 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; <i>People v Paige</i>, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; <i>cf. People v Gonzalez</i>, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: June 23, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 8-K

                  CURRENT REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                      THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                       Date of Report: February 23, 1996

                        BOONTON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

                            A New Jersey corporation
                         Commission File Number 0-2364
                 I.R.S. Employer Identification No. 22-1543137

           25 Eastmans Road, PO Box 465, Parsippany, N.J. 07054-0465
                                 (201) 386-9696

    ITEM 5.  OTHER EVENTS
             ------------

    On Februrary 23, 1996, in accordance with the Letter of Intent dated January
14, 1996, by and between Boonton Electronics Corporation (BEC) and General de
Mesure et de Maintenance Electronique, S.A. (GMME), G.E.M. USA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of GMME, purchased 180,300 treasury
shares for three dollars and twelve and on-half cents ($3.125) per share.

    In conjunction with the above, the employment contract of Holmes Bailey,
President and CEO, will not be renewed and Otto H. York, Chairman of the Board,
will serve as President of the Corporation in the interim.


    EXHIBITS: None
    --------

                                   SIGNATURE

    Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned
hereunto duly authorized.

                           BOONTON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

                        By: /s/ John E. Titterton
                           -------------------------------
                                  John E. Titterton
                             Secretary/Treasurer and Vice
                                  President Finance

Dated: February 23, 1996

                                       38
Opinion issued January 23, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-01011-CR

———————————

IN RE ANDRE JONES, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Andre Jones, acting pro se, has filed a document with this Court 

entitled as an “Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.”1In criminal matters, this 

Court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction is appellate only, and we do not have original 

habeas corpus jurisdiction. See Ex parte Denby, 627 S.W.2d 435, 435 (Tex. App.—

 

1 The underlying case is State of Texas v. Andre Jones, cause number 917355 in the 

182nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jeannine Barr

presiding.
2

Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, orig. proceeding); see also Chavez v. State, 132 S.W.3d 

509, 510 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (citing TEX. GOV’T CODE § 

22.221) (“A court of appeals does not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in 

felony cases.”). We lack jurisdiction over this attempt to seek habeas relief directly 

from this Court. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the habeas corpus petition for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Goodman, and Countiss.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
NO. 04-14-00916-CR

IN THE 

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

OF TEXAS 

AT SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

EBERTO A. MENDEZ, 

Appellant

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Comes now, and RICHARD B. DULANY, JR., Assistant Public Defender, 

counsel for Appellant in the above-styled appeal, and respectfully requests 

permission to withdraw as counsel.

I. 

The Bexar County Public Defender’s office was appointed on December 29, 

2014 to represent Appellant in this appeal from the revocation of probation and 

adjudication of guilt in this case, obtained upon Appellant’s plea of true to the trial 

court. 

II. 

Undersigned counsel has conducted a diligent review of the record and 

pertinent case law, and counsel finds the appeal to be wholly frivolous. Counsel 

ACCEPTED

04-14-00916-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

4/13/2015 1:29:07 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 4/13/2015 1:29:07 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and High v. 

State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), in which counsel relates that he has 

diligently searched the record and has failed to find any meritorious issues for 

review on appeal.

III.

Counsel has provided Appellant, by Certified Mail, a copy of the brief filed 

in this case, along with a letter outlining Appellant’s rights under Anders, including 

the right to review the appellate record and file a pro se brief.

IV.

Counsel has provided Appellant with a motion for pro se access to the 

appellate record to sign, date, and return to this Court for filing. See Kelly v. State, 

436 S.W.3d 313, 318-19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

V.

Counsel has provided Appellant a copy of this Motion to Withdraw 

contemporaneously with filing of said brief.

VI.

For the above reasons, counsel respectfully requests permission to withdraw 

from further representation of Appellant. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Richard B. Dulany, Jr.

____________________________________

RICHARD B. DULANY, JR.
Assistant Public Defender 

Bexar County Public Defender’s Office

101 W. Nueva St., Suite 310

San Antonio, Texas 78205

richard.dulany@bexar.org

(210) 335-0701

FAX (210) 335-0707

Texas Bar No. 06196400

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and 

foregoing Motion To Withdraw as Counsel has been delivered electronically to the 

Bexar County District Attorney’s Office, Appellate Division, Paul Elizondo 

Tower, 300 Dolorosa St., Suite 710, San Antonio, Texas 78205, on April 13, 2015.

I further certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was 

served upon Eberto A. Mendez, TDCJ# 01965661, Dominguez State Jail, 6535 

Cagnon Road, San Antonio, Texas 78252-2202, by certified mail, return receipt 

requested, Article No. 7012 1640 0002 4217 9888, on April 13, 2015.

This document contains 442 words.

/s/ Richard B. Dulany, Jr.

____________________________________

RICHARD B. DULANY, JR.
EXHIBIT 31.3



CERTIFICATION



I, George Zweier, certify that:



1. I have reviewed
this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 of BRT Apartments Corp.;



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;



|Date: May 15, 2020 |  | /s/ George Zweier                                                                
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | George Zweier
        Vice President (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
1.            I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10‐K of Smith Douglas Homes Corp.;
  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)          [omitted];
  (c)           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; and
  (d)          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; and
  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; 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:April 1, 2024
            By:
            /s/ Gregory S. BennettGregory S. BennettPresident, Chief Executive Officer,Vice Chairman, and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1189 

To repeal section 12616 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N of Puerto Rico (for herself, Mr. SABLAN, Mr. SAN

NICOLAS, Ms. PLASKETT, and Mrs. RADEWAGEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in 

addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal section 12616 of the Agriculture Improvement 

Act of 2018, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF STATE RIGHT TO REGULATE 

4 INTRASTATE ACTIVITY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective on the date of the enact6 ment of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public 

7 Law 115–334), section 12616 of such Act (Public Law 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1189 IH

1 115–334) and the amendments made by such section are 

2 repealed. 

3 (b) APPLICATION.—The Animal Welfare Act (7 

4 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) and section 49(a) of title 18, United 

5 States Code, shall be applied and administered as if sec6 tion 12616 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 

7 (Public Law 115–334) and the amendments made by such 

8 section had not been enacted. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
THOMAS FOWLER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3017

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 9, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gulf County.

John L. Fishel, II, Judge.

Thomas Fowler, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BENTON, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0552. LIZZETTE ALEXIS v. MICHAEL SHAW et al.

Michael and Antonia Shaw purchased property at a tax sale. After Lizzette

Alexis failed to exercise a right of redemption, the Shaws filed a quiet title action. 

The Shaws moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Alexis

appealed the trial court’s ruling to this Court. We, however, lack jurisdiction. 

The Supreme Court has original appellate jurisdiction over casesinvolving title

to land. See Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III. Because Alexis’s appeal

implicates title to land, jurisdiction over this matter lies in the Supreme Court. See

Tharp v. Harpagon Co., 278 Ga. 654, 655 (1) (604 SE2d 156) (2004). Accordingly,

the appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

03/26/2015

March 26, 2015