alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

SCOTT KERNS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 916 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Exhibit 99.2

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 Annual Report of Tom Brown, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel G. Blanchard, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Daniel
G. Blanchard Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerMarch 18, 2003



QuickLinks
Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: May 25, 2012

Subject: Calcium Sulfate: Listing at § 205.605(a) for Sunset 2013

Chair: Barry Flamm

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

To re-list the material to 205.605(a) as follows: 

Calcium sulfate—mined.

 Vote: 15 yes, 0 no

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

Review of the original recommendation, the 2001 TAP review, historical documents, 

the 2007 sunset recommendation, and public comments does not reveal unacceptable 

risks to the environment, human, or animal health as a result of the use or 

manufacture of this material. There is no new information contradicting the original 

recommendation which was the basis for the previous NOSB decisions to list and 

again re-list this material. 

Committee Vote:

Moved: Joe Dickson Second: Jean Richardson

Yes: 15 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0
National Organic Standards Board

Handling Committee

2013 Sunset Proposal

Calcium Sulfate on § 205.605(a)

March 20, 2012

Current National List Citation

List: 205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in or on 

processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified ingredients 

or food group(s)).” 

(a) Nonsynthetics allowed 

Calcium sulfate—mined.

Committee Summary

Calcium sulfate can be chemically synthesized, or mined as gypsum. As a food additive, it is 

used as a coagulant in tofu production (the original petitioned use), and also as a nutrient, 

dough conditioner, sequestrant, jelling aid, firming agent, leavening agent, and pH buffer, 

among other uses. The use of gypsum as a tofu coagulant can be traced back at least 2000 

years, according to the 2001 Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) review, which considered all food 

additive uses of this substance. The panel also found that the use of calcium sulfate was 

necessary for the production of certain types of tofu. 

Processing of mined gypsum deposits into food grade calcium sulfate is minimal; mined 

deposits are crushed, screened, milled, graded and packaged in food grade facilities. The 

current annotation restricts the use of calcium sulfate to that from mined sources only. 

Review of the original recommendation, the 2001 TAP review, historical documents, the 2007 

sunset recommendation, and public comments does not reveal unacceptable risks to the 

environment, human, or animal health as a result of the use or manufacture of this material. 

There is no new information contradicting the original recommendation which was the basis for 

the previous NOSB decisions to list and again re-list this material. 

Committee Recommendation(s)

The handling committee recommends the renewal of the following substance in this use 

category as published in the final rule:

Calcium sulfate – mined.

Committee Vote

Motion: Tracy Favre Second: Harold Austin

Yes: 5 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1 

HC 1 Sunset 2013 calcium sulfate
EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



                                       State             Percentage of Voting
                                     (Country) of          Securities Owned
Name of Company                     Incorporation
---------------                     -------------        --------------------

Edison Plastics International, Inc.     Delaware                100%

Edison Exports, Inc. FSC Limited        Jamaica                 100%

ASPEN Industrial, S.A. de C.V.          Mexico                  100%

Nacional de Envases Plasticos,
  S.A. de C.V.                          Mexico                   60%

Mexicana de Tintas, S.A.                Mexico                   60%

Plastihul, S.A. de C.V.                 Mexico                   60%

Hermes Industrial, S.A. de C.V.         Mexico                   60%

Servicios Profesionales Vigo            Mexico                   60%
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

REGINALD BYRON COLLEY ,

Appellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 23

- 140 LT Case No. 16

- 2022

- T R

- 028633

- CIXX

- MA STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 24, 20 23 Appeal from the County Court for Duval County. Reginald Byron Colley, Jacksonville, pro se. Cherry Shaw Pollock, Assistant General Counsel, of the Offic e of General Counsel , City of Jacksonville, f or Appellee

.

PER CURIAM. Reginald By ron Colley appeals a traffic hearing officer’s determination that he exceeded t he post ed speed limit in violation of secti on 316.187(1),2

Florida Statutes (2022). The State correctly responds that Colley should have appealed this determination to the circuit court pursuant to section 318.33, Florida Statutes (2022), which provides that “[d]ecisions of the hearing officer are appealable, under the rules of court, to the circuit court,” and Florida Rule of Traffic Court 6.630(d), which provides that “[a]ppeals from decisions of a traffic hearing officer shall be made to the circuit court pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure in the same manner as appeals from the county court.” In light of these provisions, jurisdiction to hear traffic infraction appeals was not transferred to the district c ourts by virtue of the enactment of section 3 of Chapter 20

– 1 61, Laws of Florida, which provides: “Circuit courts shall have jurisdiction of appeals from final administrative orders of local government code enforcement boards and of reviews and appeals as otherwise expressly provided by law .” (Emphasis added). Therefore, this appeal is transferred to the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Duval County for d isposition. See State v. Islam , 352 So. 3d 956, 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Nelson v. State , 325 So. 3d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). APPEAL TRANSFERRED. JAY, BOATWRIGHT and MACIVER , JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7349

THOMAS LOWERY, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

SC DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES; 

CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden Ker. CI, 

Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(3:10-cv-03011-TLW) 

Submitted: January 9, 2012 Decided: January 11, 2012

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thomas Lowery, Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Thomas Lowery, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 

(West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lowery has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lowery’s 

motion for 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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
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, 2010 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.
Whitaker





Tony D.
Whitaker


Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


November
15, 2010
[No. 37368.

Department Two.

April 8, 1965.]

#### Sara Hewitt, *Respondent,*v. William R. Hewitt, *Appellant.****

*Chavelle, Chavelle & Greenway,*for appellant.

*Lewis S. Armstrong*and *Caley & Armstrong,*for respondent.

*

Reported in 400 P.2d 771.

Per Curiam.

Defendant husband appeals from a decree which grants custody of two minor children to plaintiff wife with defined visitation privileges allowed to the husband, divides the community property, and grants a divorce to both parties.

Two issues are raised on appeal: the propriety of the visitation privileges granted the husband and the fairness of the property division.

Although both parents were deemed to be fit and proper persons to have the care, custody, and control of the children, aged 9 and 11, the court found that “the best welfare of the children would be met by awarding” custody to the wife. The husband was allowed to have the children with him one week-end per month, two consecutive weeks during the summer, and on certain alternative holidays and birthdays. We have held on many occasions that custody determination is peculiarly within the wide discretionary power of the trial court and it will not be disturbed by us unless we can say that there has been a manifest abuse of that discretion. We find no such abuse of discretion in the record of this case.

> In a divorce action the statute casts upon the trial court the duty of making such disposition of the property of the parties, either community or separate, as shall appear just and equitable ... RCW 26.08.110.

The trial court divided specific personal property between the parties and awarded the equity in the home to the wife, subject to a $2,500 lien in favor of the husband. No value was placed by the court on the various articles of personal property, and it would serve no useful purpose to itemize them. We find that there is substantial evidence of property values to support the conclusion that the trial court made a “just and equitable” distribution of the property, thus discharging its statutory duty.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Earnest W. SHELTON, Petitioner, v. Richard CRISP, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, et al., Respondents.

No. H-77-334.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 24, 1977.

*54ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND/OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The petitioner, Earnest W. Shelton, has filed in this Court a pro se Writ entitled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” which we shall treat as a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The petitioner asserts that he is presently confined in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary serving a term of twenty-five (25) years imprisonment as a result of judgment and sentence received in District Court, Oklahoma County. He alleges that he began serving his sentence on December 28, 1971, and that under 57 O.S.Supp.1976 § 138, the release date computed for him as of September 7,1976, does not reflect credit for four (4) years, eight (8) months and ten (10) days actually spent in confinement. Petitioner asks this Court to compel a credit of said time to his record.

Upon investigation, we find that as of September 7, 1976, the petitioner has served four (4) years, eight (8) months and ten (10) days of actual time and that he had been credited with eleven (11) years, five (5) months and twenty-seven (27) days after the computation of his time in accordance with 57 O.S.Supp.1976 § 138. We find that this computation reflected credit for the four (4) years, eight (8) months and ten (10) days of which the petitioner complains. We further note that the petitioner does not allege that he has pursued the proper administrative appeals available to him and as set out in the Inmate Manual of Rules and Regulations, Sec. Ill (A)(12) at pages 18 and 23. It is axiomatic that administrative appeals should be exhausted before seeking appellant relief in the Courts. A copy of the inmate’s formal complaint and any ensuing responses from the case manager or counselor, the Warden or Superintendent, the Deputy Director of Institutions or Deputy Director of Community Services, and the Director of the Department of Corrections should accompany any such request for relief in this Court. In cases involving time computation, Writ of Mandamus will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates that he is entitled to release and that he has sought the proper administrative relief.

IT, THEREFORE, IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus should be, and the same is hereby, *DENIED.*

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS and the seal of this court, this 24th day of May, 1977.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, P. J.

C. F. BLISS, JR., J.

TOM BRETT, J.
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 Annual Report of Bonanza Gold, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Kistler, President, Treasurer and Director of Bonanza Gold, Inc, 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 results of operations of the Company.



Date: July 10, 2004



/s/ Robert Kistler

Robert Kistler

President, Treasurer and Director
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1104 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require labeling 

of genetically engineered fish. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2019 

Mr. YOUNG (for himself, Mr. DEFAZIO, and Ms. BONAMICI) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

require labeling of genetically engineered fish. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, 

4 AND COSMETIC ACT REGARDING GENETI5 CALLY ENGINEERED SALMON. 

6 Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

7 Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is further amended by adding at the 

8 end the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1104 IH

1 ‘‘(z) If it contains genetically engineered fish unless 

2 the food bears a label stating that the food contains ge3 netically engineered fish.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
SOUTH TEXAS ONION COMMITTEE

Marketing Order No. 959

MANAGER:

Dante Galeazzi

901 Business Park Drive, Suite #500

Mission, TX 78572

(956) 584-9331 Business

Dante.galeazzi@texipa.org

Lilly.garcia@texipa.org

Member Alternate Term Ending

District 1 Chad Szutz Kenneth Wilkins 2021

Producers La Feria, TX McAllen, TX

Max Schuster Wayne Reavis 2021

McAllen, TX McAllen, Tx

Tommy Hanka Michael A. Helle 2022

Mission, TX McAllen, TX

Marcus Forthuber Juan Anciso 2022

San Juan, TX Harlingen, TX

Kristen Davis James V. Bassetti III 2022

Weslaco, TX Edinburg, TX

District 1 Dennis Holbrook Michael Davis 2021

Handlers Mission, TX Weslaco, TX

James William Steele, Jr. Christine Morley 2022

Edinburg, TX San Juan, TX

Dee Eddy Vacancy 2022

Weslaco, TX

District 2 J. Raine Hobbs Jared Boehme 2021

Producers Uvalde, TX Castroville, TX

Jimmy Crawford Jay Williams 2022

Uvalde, TX Sabinal, TX

Jim Harbison Jimmy R. Hobbs 2022

Utopia, TX Quemado, TX

District 2 Steve Cargil Nano Tafolla 2022

Handlers Uvalde, TX Uvalde, TX
J. Allen Carnes Eddy Car

nes 2022

Uvalde, TX Uvalde, TX
KevinAdams US DOT 400 7th St SW Washington, D.C. 20590
Greetings, LakeMinchumina Alaska 99757 907-674-3215; msg. 907-699-9975 

### lD\1 

### 1: Sb

July 23 2012**:We~writing** to endorsetheEAS option 

### of twice-weekly service 

### from WrightAir. We**~­** have had the once-weekly option inthe past and found it inadequate to meet ourneeds. The lesser option has resulted in delayed bills, accounting; and deadlines. 

### Italso means any appointment with doctors or other professionals requires residents to stay a whole week intown for a single visit, which gets prohibitively costly when staying in a hotel. Most ofus prefer to get our shopping and errands done in Fairbanks as quickly as possible and get back home again. The current twice-weekly schedule is ideal for this. It is also vital for our economic future since many visitors and tourists can only come for halfofa week. Forthese reasons we would certainly appreciate the continuation ofthe current twice-weekly option.

We also wish to take this opportunity to compliment Wright Air for their outstanding service. 

### It is the mostreliable service this village has everhad, with on-time flights, appropriately sized and rated aircraft, and reliable, helpful staff. Many days ofbad weather would have prevented scheduled VFR flights, butthe routine availability ofan IFR aircraft has nearly eliminated missed flights. WrightAirhas certainly earned the good, trusting relationship that was lacking with other carriers.

Also, we greatly appreciate the burden that the governmenthas taken onto ensure this service that is so essential to the economic survival ofthis village. Thank-you, 

# 17ly,**~~sident**

Cc: Bob Bursiel, Wright Air Service Miki Collins, Secretary
# FY22 Vendor Table
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     I, E. Eugene Sharer, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Airbee Wireless, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s first fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   /s/ E. Eugene Sharer E. Eugene Sharer  Interim Chief Financial Officer   May 15, 2006  
47
Shared Kitchen Insights 

Overview

Survey participant locations

179

survey 

responses

61%

of survey 

participants

identified as 

female. 

Business operations

Consumer packaged goods

Caterer

Baker

Food truck or mobile vendor

Meal prep 

Beverage

Farmer, producer or instructor

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

24% 

20% 

17% 

14% 

8% 

6% 

3% 

Time producing in a 

shared kitchen 

14% 5+ years 

26% 3-5 years

30%1-2 years

13% 7-12 months

17% 0-6 months Top sales channels

Farmers markets

Individuals

Festivals

Private events

Large retailers and 

grocery stores

Online marketplace

 80kervo

Most businesses 

with high sales sell 

to large retailers.

Most businesses 

with small sales sell 

to farmers markets. 40kunder 

45%

of survey participants 

found shared kitchens 

through word of mouth.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, 

employer, and lender.

May 2023