alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Office of the Secretary

                    Pursuant to Section 112 of the 1976 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (Pub L. 94-283, 2 U.S.C. 441a (c)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)), the Secretary of Labor has certified to the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission and publishes this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     that the United States City Average All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (1967 = 100) increased 356.2 percent from its 1974 annual average of 147.7 to its 2011 annual average of 673.818 and that it increased 27.0 percent from its 2001 annual average of 530.4 to its 2011 annual average of 673.818. Using 1974 as a base (1974 = 100), I certify that the United States City Average All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers thus increased 356.2 percent from its 1974 annual average of 100 to its 2011 annual average of 456.207. Using 2001 as a base (2001 = 100), I certify that the United States City Average All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased 27.0 percent from its 2001 annual average of 100 to its 2011 annual average of 127.040. Using 2006 as a base (2006 = 100), the CPI increased 11.6 percent from its 2006 annual average of 100 to its 2011 annual average of 111.578.                

      ( print page 23283)    
 Signed at Washington, DC, on the 12th day of April 2012.

Hilda L. Solis,

Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 2012-9360 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion). Furthermore, 

Mayo stipulated to the sentence he received in his guilty plea agreement. 

Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion 

at sentencing, and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

So, pea 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

J. 

J. 

(C) 1947A
Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

 

Date: October 28, 2010 

Subject: Sunset Review of Hops (Humulus luplus) as listed on §205.606, 

Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as 

ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic.” 

Chair: Daniel G. Giacomini 

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X 

 

 

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

 

Hops (Humulus luplus) is listed on 205.606. This substance was scheduled to 

sunset off the National List in 2012, was reviewed by the NOSB, and a motion 

was made for the re-listing of this substance at the October 2010 meeting. The 

motion passed by a vote of 13 yes, 1 no, 0 abstentions, 0 absent, and 0 

recusals. 

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

 

The Handling Committee’s recommendation covering this material is attached. 

There were some public written or verbal comments opposing the committee’s 

sunset recommendation, but the material was recommended for relisting by the 

full NOSB as shown below. A petition for removal of Hops from the National 

List was submitted and reviewed independently by the Handling Committee 

and the NOSB, and a separate recommendation has been submitted in 

response to that petition for the removal of Hops. 

 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Joe Smillie Second: Steve DeMuri 

Yes: 13 No: 1 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0 
National Organic Standards Board 

Handling Committee 

Sunset Recommendation – 2012 

Hops (Humulus luplus) 

August 30, 2010 

List: 205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as 

ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic.” 

Hops (Humulus luplus) 

Committee Summary 

Federal register notice of the sunset of this material elicited public comments against 

re-listing. 

Review of the original recommendation, historical documents, 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 new information contradicting 

the original recommendation which was the basis for the previous NOSB decision to list 

this material.This information contained in a petition cites the increased production of 

organic hops. The petition calls for the removal of Hops from 205.606 . The Handling 

committee has examined this and issued a recommendation. As a 205.606 listed 

material, it is subject to commercial availability scrutiny for use in organic products. 

Committee Recommendation(s) 

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

category as published in the final rule: 

Hops (Humulus luplus) 

Committee Vote: 

Motion: Joe Smillie Second: Steve DeMuri 

Yes: 6 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW. Notice 11-1 

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2646-South Building 

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250 

NOP Notice 11-1 Neotame Not Allowed in Organic Foods 01 10 11 Authorized Distribution: Public 

Page 1 of 1 

National Organic Program 

Notice to Stakeholders and Interested Parties 

To: Stakeholders and Interested Parties 

From: Miles McEvoy, Deputy Administrator 

Subject: Neotame Not Allowed in Organic Foods 

Date: January 6, 2011 

The National Organic Program has received inquiries concerning Internet claims that the 

artificial sweetener Neotame is allowed in organic foods. 

To clarify, it is NOT permitted in organic foods or foods labeled "made with organic [specified 

ingredient or food group]," nor is it permitted in organic livestock feed. 

All additives used as ingredients or processing aids for foods labeled "organic" or "made with 

organic [specified ingredient or food group]" must appear on the National List (7 CFR 205.605-

205.606). 

 

The NOP is not aware of any complaints at present regarding Neotame in organic food products. 

Complaints may be filed by phone or e-mail to the NOP Compliance and Enforcement Division: 

 

NOP Compliance and Enforcement 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service 

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Mail Stop 0268 

Washington, D.C. 20250 

 

Phone: 202-720-3252 

Fax: 202-205-7808 

E-mail: nopcompliance@ams.usda.gov
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Sidney M.Bresler, certify that:

1.                Ihave reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Bresler &Reiner, Inc. (“the Company”);

2.                Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

4.                The Company’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theCompany and have:

a)                Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

b)               Evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c)                Disclosed in thisreport any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                The Company’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)                All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)               Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 28, 2007

|   | /s/ SIDNEY M. BRESLER                        |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Sidney M. Bresler                            |
|   | Chief Executive Officer,                     |
|   | Assistant Secretary of the Company |

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00324-CV

In the Interest of J.F., A Child §

§

§

§

From the 233rd District Court

of Tarrant County (233-472828-10)

October 29, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant D.F. shall bear the costs of this appeal, 

for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
X . .

> CsStLtSo/stis jlM 22 ./<*/^

^i-/ //<?.^i^ <*/£« * / y

-

J

•

•

vfJv

/y - *S/* • /S . < SJ- S^To <? _ /•/ -

»^s. /fa** /*

T^W

A+s r • S/*- /</ RECEIVE

iiOURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

T0~H5

*~r 'k *t

*. *j( /r" lfa Cc

To. /r /ataxc*

ot^n^a **£-/'- /d€*'rrf87Tl

J* 60 /rU Jf/V

SxtA^S.^/TSF- 7770 £

f:> •(>-•
#### In the Matter of Stephen E. ROUNDS, a Member of the Bar of the State of Colorado.

Supreme Court of Colorado.

Sept. 12, 1977.

ORDER

PRINGLE, Chief Justice.

Upon the stipulation and consent of Stephen E. Rounds, he shall continue to be suspended from the practice of law pursuant to C.R.C.P. 256(B) without waiver of any of his rights to petition for reinstatement as provided in C.R.C.P. 256.

Done nunc pro tunc May 31, 1975 this 12th day of September 1977.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         410,671
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,614,276
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,415,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,738,049
<PP&E>                                       1,300,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,558,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,454,729
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,033,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,558,923
<SALES>                                     36,025,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            36,025,591
<CGS>                                       31,186,855
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,186,855
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,249,093
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,509,971
<INCOME-TAX>                                   165,342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,344,629
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,344,629
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Keynoa Evans v. Pines of Northwest Crossing

Appellate case number: 01-15-00227-CV

Trial court case number: 1058198

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

On March 9, 2015, appellant, Keynoa Evans, filed an affidavit of indigence in the 

trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a)(2)(A). On March 31, 2015, the district clerk filed 

a clerk’s record on indigence containing the trial court’s March 24, 2015 order sustaining 

a contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence. See id. 20.1(e)(1), (i)(4). Appellant did 

not file a motion seeking review of the trial court’s order within 10 days of the order. See 

id. 20.1(j)(1), (2). Therefore, the required filing fee is due.

Appellant is ORDERED to pay one-half of the filing fee to this Court no later than 

10 days from the date of this order and the other one-half of the filing fee to this Court no 

later than 30 days from the date of this order, or the Court may dismiss the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 14, 2015
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-23 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 8, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2

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

Swift Black Angus Beef Program

G-23 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;

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. Less than 30 months of age with lean color, texture, and firmness, meeting the requirements for 

A maturity in the U.S. grade it qualifies for1;

e. Medium or fine marbling texture1,2;

f. Moderately thick or thicker muscling and tend to be at least moderately wide and thick in 

relation to their length3;

g. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height4;

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

and

i. 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 

regulations and policy guidelines and QAD procedures.

 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 Muscle thickness is evaluated by averaging the thickness of the various parts, considering not only the proportion of each part of the 

carcass but also the general value of each part. Superior muscle thickness implies a high proportion of meat to bone and a high 

proportion of the weight of the carcass in the more valuable parts.

4 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-23 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 8, 2019

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
#### In the Matter of City of Rochester, Appellant, v Jack G. Lubelle, Respondent.

—Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: On this appeal from an order and judgment awarding the sum of $542,680 as compensation for the condemnation of respondent’s 3-story office building, the City of Rochester contends that Supreme Court erred in concluding that it was required to find a separate value for land and buildings and apply a split capitalization rate under the income approach to valuation. We agree. There are no fixed rules for establishing a capitalization rate *(Onondaga Sav. Bank v Cale Dev. Co.,*63 AD2d 415, 418). It is an issue of fact dependent upon the proof and arguments in any particular case *(supra; see also, Matter of Burke Apts. v Swan,*137 AD2d 321, 325-326; *Kurnick v State of New York,*54 AD2d 1098). Use of an overall capitalization rate to arrive at a value of the property as a unit has been approved by this court on numerous occasions *(see, e.g., Matter of Sunnycrest Apts. v Srogi,*100 AD2d 730; *Matter of Schoeneck v City of Syracuse,*93 AD2d 988; *Onondaga Sav.*
      *1001
      *Bank v Cale Dev. Co., supra).*In this case, both appraisers applied an overall capitalization rate in their respective income approaches to valuation of the subject property as a unit. The City’s appraiser used the mortgage equity method to capitalize income. Respondent’s appraiser relied upon the property residual method, but also considered the mortgage equity method as a check upon the value indicated by the property residual method. As a result, there was no record evidence to support the court’s use of a split capitalization rate for land and buildings, and the court’s use of a 6% capitalization rate to establish a value attributable to the land was unsupported by the record.

Neither party has challenged the trial court’s findings that the income approach is the most reliable indicator of value for the subject property and that the annual net income for subject property was $44,868. We conclude that use of the mortgage equity method and the capitalization rate developed by respondent’s appraiser is supported by the evidence and provides the most reliable indicator of value for the subject property. Accordingly, we modify the order and judgment to award respondent the sum of $498,533. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J. —Condemnation.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                   5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BERGEN BRUNSWIG CORPORATION FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                1000
<CURRENCY>                  U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1
<CASH>                                       79,004
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               950,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                 30,363
<INVENTORY>                               1,458,290
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          2,500,788
<PP&E>                                      286,559
<DEPRECIATION>                              141,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            3,003,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,909,370
<BONDS>                                     464,778
<COMMON>                                    167,753
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  461,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              3,003,212
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         17,121,668
<CGS>                                    16,371,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            17,015,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             11,934
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           39,996
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              65,903
<INCOME-TAX>                                 62,801
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           3,102
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  3,102
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.03
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Michael Wayne McIntosh v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00109-CR

Trial court case number: 13-CR-3003

Trial court: 56th District Court of Galveston County

On March 23, 2015, counsel for appellant filed a Notice of Dismissal of Appeal, which 

we construe as a motion to dismiss. The motion is DENIED, without prejudice to refiling, 

because it is not signed by the appellant. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

42.2(a), any voluntary motion to dismiss in a criminal case must be signed by the appellant and 

his or her attorney.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 14, 2015