alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USDA AMS Standards and Specifications Division, 

In regards to the proposed QAD changes for instrument approval, instrument approval, and continual 

monitoring JBS USA Fed Beef division would like to make the following comments. We understand that 

the original approval and monitoring has not been updated for a version, but there are some concerns 

with the methodology behind some of these proposed changes. 

Our biggest concern on all approval processes for an instrument install and new devices is how we are 

going to compare to the Gold Standard team. Are we planning on using the exact team for all devices 

and all packers? If not, there could be a difference in line that is being approved for each device and/or 

facility install. We also believe that three members of the gold standard team is not enough to truly 

represent the line graders across the US. We proposed it should be the entire gold standard and 

standards team of nine experts to give us a better representation. This would also allow for more data 

points and a better mean to compare the R-square value against. In the proposal it states that if one 

gold standard member is off 30 points to the mean, they will be thrown out and we in turn are left with 

two graders evaluations. We also believe that there should be a comparison to line graders or nonmembers of the gold standard team, to better represent a chain line seen in all facilities, versus a 

correlated line. Will new devices be compared against the current line or to the original line established 

and modified in 2006?

We also believe that the 7L software update should not have to go through the approval proposed 

approval process. The industry has paid for these devices and to the industry’s knowledge we have not 

seen any differences between the readings when comparing GIGE and 7L software.

Some of the requirements for REA are unrealistic and would be very difficult to accomplish to the 

accuracy level the proposal is looking for. 

In continual monitoring proposal. Section 5.2.4 states “If predicted values do not match known values, 

AMS will notify the plant that it will have to move to traditional grading until it can show that the 

software has not been altered from that which was approved.” How would we show you or the line 

graders at the plant that we have not modified our software? Can you give more detail on this point. 

Working with multiple companies that are developing different instrument grading technologies, there 

is frustration with the dragging out of the approval of new devices. E+V is the only approved provider 

today, and we believe that we are slowing down the progression of these instruments improving by not 

allowing companies to be approved on the old process. 

Lastly, we in the industry believe that there should be more input from USDA and industry 

representation to hash these items out to where there is an understanding and common ground. We 

look forward to seeing the updated approval.

On behalf of JBS USA Fed Beef Division. 

Clint Dallas

Corporate Grading Manager
Mark Gordon, Governor

Doug Miyamoto, Director

2219 Carey Ave. ● Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: (307) 777-7321 ● Fax: (307) 777-6593

Web: agriculture.wy.gov ● Email: wda1@wyo.gov

The Wyoming Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the promotion and enhancement of Wyoming’s agriculture, natural resources and quality of life.

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BEAN GRADING FEES

AMA STANDARDS

FEBRUARY 14, 2024 

I. EFFECTIVE DATE- FEBRUARY 14, 2024 

 (Supersedes all other fee schedules issued by WDA) 

“Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) must approve all fees for official services and OAs will assess 

 only those fees appearing on their current approved fee schedule.” 

 “Commodity Cooperative Service Agreement Fees.” In addition to all other applicable fees, 

 commodity cooperative service agreement fees for commodity inspection services (pulses, hops, and 

miscellaneous processed commodities), excluding rice, will be assessed at the current percentage rate 

identified in FGIS Directive 9180.74 (Service Fees and Billing Codes, Attachment 4.) The assessed fees 

 must exclude travel, mailing expenses, and state and local taxes. Invoices will identify assessed 

commodity cooperative service agreement fees as separate line items.” 

II. FEES: 

 

a. Condition of container, check counting, check loading, check weighing: $9.50 per activity 

 

b. Sanitation Inspection: $19.00 per inspection 

c. Insects in Grain Inspection: $19.00 per inspection 

d. Official Sampling: $19.00 per sample

e. Commodity Cooperative Service Agreement Fees: Additional 4% of fees collected 

Equal Opportunity in Employment and Services 

BOARD MEMBERS

Jana Ginter, District 1 ● James Rogers, District 2 ● Kim Bright, District 3 ● Amanda Hulet, District 4 ● Mike Riley, District 5

Jody Bagley, District 6 ● Larry Krause., District 7

YOUTH BOARD MEMBERS

Landon Hoffer, Southeast ● Benjamin Anson, Northwest ● Hadley Manning, Southwest ● Lexi Bauder, Northeast
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofAmes True Temper, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) onForm 10-Q for the period ending July  1,  2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, Richard Dell, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

|                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/Richard Dell                                                                              |
| Richard DellPresident and ChiefExecutive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)August15,  2006 |
|                                                                                              |

----
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00255

- CV

DREAM CREEK ENTERPRI SES, INC. AND RAMEY J. KE ETH APPELLANTS

V.

BBL BUILDERS, LP APPELLEE

------------

FROM THE 415TH DISTR ICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. C V14

- 1224

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------
On August 19, 2014

, and September 3, 2014, we notified appellant s in

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this

appeal unless the $1 9 5 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Appellant s have not paid the $1 9 5 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Because appellant s failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court ’s order of August 16

, 20 13

, 2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant s shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: September 2 5 , 2014

2 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals

, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- district Litigation , Misc. Docket No. 13

- 9127 (Aug. 16 , 20 13 ) (list ing fees in courts of appeals).
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 on Form 10-Q of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), for the
period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                          
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------
|Dated: October 31, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    JEFFREY
KATZENBERG
|                        |  |  |  | Jeffrey Katzenberg       
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer  
|                        |  | 
|Dated: October 31, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    KRISTINA M.
LESLIE
|                        |  |  |  | Kristina M. Leslie       
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1517 WEST FRONT STREET SUITE 354 TYLER, TX 75702 TEL: 903-593-8471 FAX: 903-593-2193

Serving Anderson, Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Houston, Nacogdoches, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Smith, Trinity, Upshur, Van 

Zandt and Wood Counties

www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us

CHIEF JUSTICE

JAMES T. WORTHEN

JUSTICES

BRIAN HOYLE

GREG NEELEY

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

CLERK

CATHY S. LUSK

CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

MARGARET HUSSEY

April 7, 2015

Ms. Lois Rogers

District Clerk, Smith County

Courthouse, Suite 204

100 North Broadway Avenue

Tyler, TX 75702-7201

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 12-14-00065-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 114-0445-13

Style: Renae Louise Harrison

v.

The State of Texas

Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, enclosed herewith is the 

Mandate issued in the above cause. When the District or County Clerk has executed the 

Mandate in accordance with the opinion of this Court, the Clerk is requested to fill in the 

information below and to return the attached copy to this office.

Very truly yours,

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

C

C

:

Mr. Austin R. Jackson (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mr. Michael J. West (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Renae Louise Harrison

Mandate executed on __8TH __ day of APRIL 2015.

Brief explanation of action taken: ___SCANNED__________________________________

_______________LINDA RHYMES_________________________________District/County Clerk

FILE COPY

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 4/8/2015 2:18:42 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1091 

To clarify certain land descriptions under the Northern Arizona Land 

Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2019 

Mr. O’HALLERAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To clarify certain land descriptions under the Northern Arizona Land Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership 

Act of 2005. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION RELATING TO A CERTAIN 

4 LAND DESCRIPTION UNDER THE NORTHERN 

5 ARIZONA LAND EXCHANGE AND VERDE 

6 RIVER BASIN PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 2005. 

7 Section 104(a)(5) of the Northern Arizona Land Ex8 change and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005 

9 (Public Law 109–110; 119 Stat. 2356) is amended by in10 serting before the period at the end ‘‘, which, notwithVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:26 Feb 20, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1091.IH H1091

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1091 IH

1 standing section 102(a)(4)(B), includes the N 1/2 NE 1/ 

2 4 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 , the N 1/2 N 1/2 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 

3 , and the N 1/2 N 1/2 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 , sec. 34, Township 

4 22 North, Range 2 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian, 

5 Coconino County, Arizona, comprising approximately 25 

6 acres’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
July 13, 2015

Mr. Tobias Hamrick

SkyVault Visuals

311 Morgantown, WV 26505

Dear Mr. Hamrick:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 19th 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1705), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7244

JAMES SMITH, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-303-2)

Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 22, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

James Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable 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 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. See Miller-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 Smith 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
Marketing and Regulatory Programs – Agricultural Marketing Service – Specialty Crops Program – Specialty Crops Inspection 1 of 1

 Inspection Aid No. 88

 Size Chart for Canned or Frozen Fruits or Vegetables July 2016 

Weight of Smallest Unit Weight of Largest Unit Which Exceeds Smallest Unit

Ounces By 40% By 50% By 60% By 75% By 100%

0.20 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.40

0.25 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.50

0.30 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.50 0.60

0.35 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.70

0.40 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.70 0.80

0.45 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.90

0.50 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 1.00

0.55 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.95 1.10

0.60 0.80 0.90 0.95 1.05 1.20

0.65 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.10 1.30

0.70 0.95 1.05 1.10 1.20 1.40

0.75 1.05 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.50

0.80 1.10 1.20 1.25 1.40 1.60

0.85 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.70

0.90 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.55 1.80

0.95 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.65 1.90

1.00 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.75 2.00

1.05 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.80 2.10

1.10 1.50 1.65 1.75 1.90 2.20

1.15 1.60 1.70 1.80 2.00 2.30

1.20 1.65 1.80 1.90 2.10 2.40

1.25 1.75 1.85 2.00 2.15 2.50

1.30 1.80 1.95 2.05 2.25 2.60

1.35 1.85 2.00 2.15 2.35 2.70

1.40 1.95 2.10 2.20 2.45 2.80

1.45 2.00 2.15 2.30 2.50 2.90

1.50 2.10 2.25 2.40 2.60 3.00

1.55 2.15 2.30 2.45 2.70 3.10

1.60 2.20 2.40 2.55 2.80 3.20

1.65 2.30 2.45 2.60 2.85 3.30

1.70 2.35 2.55 2.70 2.95 3.40

1.75 2.45 2.60 2.80 3.05 3.50

1.80 2.50 2.70 2.85 3.15 3.60

1.85 2.55 2.75 2.95 3.20 3.70

1.90 2.65 2.85 3.00 3.30 3.80

1.95 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.40 3.90

2.00 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.50 4.00

2.05 2.85 3.05 3.25 3.55 4.10

2.10 2.90 3.15 3.35 3.65 4.20

2.15 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.75 4.30

2.20 3.05 3.30 3.50 3.85 4.40

2.25 3.15 3.35 3.60 3.90 4.50

2.30 3.20 3.45 3.65 4.00 4.60

2.35 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.10 4.70

2.40 3.35 3.60 3.80 4.20 4.80

2.45 3.40 3.65 3.90 4.25 4.90

2.50 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.35 5.00

2.55 3.55 3.80 4.05 4.45 5.10

2.60 3.60 3.90 4.10 4.55 5.20

2.65 3.70 3.95 4.20 4.60 5.30

2.70 3.75 4.05 4.30 4.70 5.40

2.75 3.85 4.10 4.40 4.80 5.50

2.80 3.90 4.20 4.45 4.90 5.60

2.85 3.95 4.25 4.55 4.95 5.70

2.90 4.05 4.35 4.60 5.05 5.80

2.95 4.10 4.40 4.70 5.15 5.90

3.00 4.20 4.50 4.80 5.25 6.00

3.05 4.25 4.55 4.85 5.30 6.10

3.10 4.30 4.65 4.95 5.40 6.20

3.15 4.40 4.70 5.00 5.50 6.30
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Tony D. Whitaker, certify that: 

1.          I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kentucky First Federal Bancorp;

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; and 

(c)  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 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: May   15, 2007 | /s/ Tony D.   Whitaker                              |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                 |                                                     |
|                 | Tony D.   Whitaker                                  |
|                 | Chairman of   the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
Exhibit 32





Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350





Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bowl America Incorporated (the "Company"), respectively, hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 27, 2010, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Leslie H. Goldberg


Leslie H. Goldberg


Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Cheryl A. Dragoo


Cheryl A. Dragoo


Chief Financial Officer





Date:  September 24, 2010