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

' 

/ '{(J)' Ills--o:s 

i ~ 

RECi ·~vED - CAv_sE-Jia19_8_S3.Z=-C Y_ML;s -oot!""""' ....... 1\mniMAl 1\li"oir\iii'/!;lj Jrttt."• ~ f111VIII'Cr\t.. n» 0 t:>o<.,. 

API; 0-9-2n1~ 

TH_E_(o_u_r~LoLC~:r.MzllAL_A£P_t:ALs ~.~. ',ljl~ 

a1lL\J~-I~LTtt_Sir_&.o_oM_LtJj,_!!_7_8_ZaL . 

8 O_!_BifX_LllCLB __ ftu_sTx.~ ~ xA5-A28_?J_!_::_fJ. 5of3 

VALt.J11i.NLFA<:.uJf.Dt:J .. {_______.~;, N 11fE__LL:LD~T~ . 

V& .. C.ou.rsT . "ftt_E STATE OF"Thl\a.s oF 

J:l~c«Rz. S lo-tl~~7%x~ 

g E;_· R.e: G.U ESttll G. . SThTus. DE A.P.P~CbJJTS \JJ? .. z:.T 

tJ£ HAB~~. Co~frts_.L/_&7~\JJI.z.CII 1J~g F.x:LED 

OJ{ J]) Ly-"---LIJ;_1 0 tll3~A L ~ N' G .. ·kJ :r-TH. . A. . . . . . ..

1!1.£iJ!1_o_gA.Wl1U M_. A cTuA.l :r. N litlC.£ NLZM. 

CAuse. Jfo_L_bl't-8_8_3 7- C • . ' .. .. .. 

I 

.. 

lli.LL.-:.Y-0 U_EL e. A~ E" C IJE.C.K~f-o u R f_.;t; LE.S To Sti,; 

IE /i{L(ouff f1ADE AI'/~ T)ECz:.S:r.oN.$ ~li·. 

Mf- WRzT of ti.AJiC.A~C d R P us_ll ~ 0 7 AN p 

... M£M01?.AIIDUM- .. . 

. ~ - . . ..... ... ·R E5f'E cTFu 'LLf~Su~B~ 

TH.ANK f-o LL~-Y-o U I{ Tr. lYLe I tJ Til..z s . . VA LIJNTtrJJ! ~AGIJ}/{)O 

.1t '7'-1~ 750 /VlATf€1{ .z.s &' C.e.A!J-y_Ar_p_f....eCL.f!.1EtL~. . " 

... . Ar.KPA Rl<. U)J£1 ' 

- .. 3700 !W Rs:. rJl-17 .. 

.. f3 :£ fl 5 p !<..t;N'G;~ Th_ 

..... .. 'ZfZ2._0 .... .. 

r.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1253 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 296
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1253

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 17, 2019

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                            November 7, 2019

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 13507 Van Nuys Boulevard in Pacoima, California, as the ``Ritchie 
                     Valens Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. RITCHIE VALENS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 13507 Van Nuys Boulevard in Pacoima, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Ritchie Valens Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ritchie 
Valens Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 296

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1253

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 13507 Van Nuys Boulevard in Pacoima, California, as the ``Ritchie 
                     Valens Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 7, 2019

                       Reported without amendment
```
National Organic Standards Board

Handling Committee

Sunset 2013 Proposed Recommendation

Animal Enzymes on §205.605(a)

August 16, 2011

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 

Committee Summary:

Federal register notice of the sunset of these materials elicited no 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 no 

new information contradicting the original recommendation which was the basis 

for the previous NOSB decision to list this material.

Committee Vote:

The handling committee recommends the renewal of the following substance in 

this use category as published in the final rule:

Animal enzymes—(Rennet—animals derived; Catalase—bovine liver; Animal 

lipase; Pancreatin; Pepsin; and Trypsin).

Moved: Steve DeMuri Second: Katrina Heinze

Yes: 5 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2
Hybrid & Onsite

National Grain Center

Kansas City, Missouri

Grain

Inspectio

Advisor

Committe

Meeti

Wednesday

December 14, 2022

Thursday

December 15, 2022

8:30 a.m. Call to Order - Roll Call - Welcome Barbara Grove, Chair

8:40 a.m. Greetings Arthur Neal, Deputy Administrator

8:50 a.m. Program Updates Arthur Neal

Denise Ruggles, Executive Program Analyst

Byron Reilly, Director, International Affairs Division

Dr. Ed Jhee, Director, Technology and Science Division

Anthony Goodeman, Director, Field Management Division

9:30 a.m. Break (30 minutes)

10:00 a.m. Program Updates Arthur Neal

Denise Ruggles

Byron Reilly

Dr. Ed Jhee

Anthony Goodeman

11:30 a.m. Lunch

1:00 p.m. Discuss Industry Issues:

• Destination and Origin Grades

• Technology Prioritization

GIAC

3:45 p.m. Public Comments

(If allotted time is not fully utilized, the GIAC will resume the agenda after the last public comment)

4:30 p.m. Wrap-up Discussions on Industry Issues GIAC

5:00 p.m. Adjourn Barbara Grove

All times reflect 

Central Time

8:30 a.m. Call to Order Barbara Grove

8:40 a.m. Public Comments

(If allotted time is not fully utilized, the GIAC will resume the agenda after the last public comment)

9:00 a.m. Discuss Recommendations Barbara Grove

10:00 a.m. Finalize Recommendations Barbara Grove

10:45 a.m. Break

11:15 a.m. Discuss Agenda Items for Next Meeting Barbara Grove

11:45 a.m. Closing Remarks Arthur Neal

Barbara Grove

12:00 p.m. Meeting Adjourns

Wednesday - December 14t

Thursday - December 15
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 10 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD The State of Idaho has applied for final authorization to revise its authorized hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The State's hazardous waste management program was approved on March 26, 1990 aild became effective on April 9, 1990. The State has s i nce received approval for ten additional state program revisions. On February 11, 2015, EPA received Idaho's11 `" authorization revision request. The State of Idaho's February 2015 application seeks to revise its federallyaLithorized hazardous waste management program to include five Federal hazardous waste regulations 

### proinulgated between July 1, 2010 and July 1, 2013. EPA reviewed Idaho's application and has made a tentative determination that the changes identified in Idaho's program revision meet all statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. This action does not impose any additional requirements on the regulated community because the changes Idaho is requesting to be federally authorized are effective State rules. The public may submit written comments on EPA's proposed action during the public comment period which ends 30 days after the date of the publication of the proposed rule in the 

### Federal Register

. We expect the 

### Federal Re,aister

notice to be published on or about June 2, 2015. Comments ma) , be submitted by one of the following methods: • On line to: www.regulations.goy - Follow the ol1-1111e 111strtictlolls tor stlhlliltt111 0 - con7nlellts

. • E-mail to: mccullough.barbara@epa.gov • Or post-mail to: Barbara McCullough, Mail Stop AWT-150, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101-1128 You may examine copies of the materials submitted by Idaho online at www.regulations.gov under Docket Number EPA-RIO-RCRA-2015-0307. Alternatively, Idallo's program revision application is available for viewing and copying Monday through Friday, dul

- ing normal business hours, at the following locations: U.S. EPA Region 10, EPA Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, fil

- st floor lobby, Seattle, WA 98101, contact: Barbara McCullough, phone number (206) 553-2416; or at the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), 1410 N. Hilton, Boise, ID 83706. The IDEQ contact is John Brueck, and he can be reached by e-mail John.Brueck@deq.idaho.gov or by phoile (208) 373-0458. EPA will respond in the Federal Register to comments received on this proposed rule at a later date. This notice is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

Dennis . McLerr n Dated ~ Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

APRIL 14, 2015 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b). 

1. Case No. SD33278 

 Re: JOSEPH S. BURRIS, 

 Movant-Appellant, 

 vs. 

 STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Respondent-Respondent.
July 30, 2013

Mr. Harvey Cash

K Aircraft Leasing, Inc.

5 Aeronca Road

Belton, SC 29627

Dear Mr. Cash:

This is in response to your June 25, 2013 letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA-2013-

0572) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of K Aircraft Leasing, Inc.

(K Aircraft) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

(14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow K Aircraft to cover its safety-sensitive 

employees under one testing program.

On July 15, 2013, the FAA published the Combined Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs 

final rule (78 FR 41999) relating to air carrier operators and commuter or on-demand 

operators that also conduct commercial air tour operations to combine the drug and alcohol 

testing required for each operation into one testing program. A copy of this rule change is 

enclosed for your information.

If you have any questions, please contact the FAAs Drug Abatement Division at (202) 267-

8442 or drugabatement@faa.gov. Because the relief you seek is now covered under the new 

rule, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
```

                                                                    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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350
of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of Finlay Enterprises, Inc., (the "Company") does hereby certify with
respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
July 30, 2005 (the "Report") 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: September 8, 2005
                                              /s/ Bruce E. Zurlnick
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Bruce E. Zurlnick
                                              Senior Vice President, Treasurer
                                              and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
```
SCWC-12-0000773

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

KAPELI MIKA LAFAELE,

Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, 

Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-12-0000773; S.P.P. NO. 10-1-0084; CR. NO. 06-1-1590)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Nakasone, in place of Pollack, J., recused,

and Circuit Judge Garibaldi, in place of Wilson, J., recused)

Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant Kapeli Mika Lafaele’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on March 11, 2015, is

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 14, 2015.

Shawn A. Luiz

for petitioner

Donn Fudo for

respondent

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Colette Y. Garibaldi

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-12-0000773

14-APR-2015

09:57 AM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN FRANKLIN KNIGHT,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

BRIAN BELLEQUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-35905

D.C. No. 6:06-cv-00345-TC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 8, 2010** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

John Franklin Knight appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging the 630-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to nine counts of first-degree robbery. Knight alleges that

FILED

JUN 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to inform him of a plea

offer under which he would have received a 270-month sentence. The AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) applies to Knight’s claim,

and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district

court’s denial of the petition, Gonzalez v. Brown, 585 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir.

2009), and we affirm. 

Although failing to communicate a plea offer would likely constitute

ineffective assistance of counsel, see Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2003), here the state court reasonably determined that Knight’s trial counsel

had in fact informed Knight of the plea offer. Trial counsel attested that it was his

“invariable practice” to communicate plea offers to clients, and it is undisputed that

Knight was present at a pre-trial hearing at which the prosecution confirmed that

an offer was “on the table.” Indeed, the only evidence that Knight’s counsel had

not informed him of the offer was Knight’s own testimony. Because the state court

thus did not base its denial of Knight’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on

an “unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in

the State court proceeding,” we affirm the denial of habeas relief on this claim. See

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
3

Further, the district court did not err in refusing to allow Knight to expand

the record to include new evidence in support of his claim. Contrary to Knight’s

contention, § 2254(e)(2) limits a district court’s discretion to consider new

evidence unless the petitioner was diligent in developing the facts before the state

court or other exceptions apply. See Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236,

1241 (9th Cir. 2005). Knight did not exercise diligence in the state court postconviction proceeding by relying on his trial counsel’s testimony undercutting his

claim, and he does not contend that any other exception to § 2254(e)(2)’s bar on

consideration of new evidence applies.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             184
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      242
<ALLOWANCES>                                         9
<INVENTORY>                                        129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   861
<PP&E>                                             508
<DEPRECIATION>                                     361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              787
<BONDS>                                            788
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        614
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       (537)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,206
<SALES>                                          1,488
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,488
<CGS>                                            1,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   264
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  93
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     39
<INCOME-TAX>                                        22
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 17
<DISCONTINUED>                                     204
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       221
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74


</TABLE>
[On Letterhead of Partnering Organization]

PARTNER ORGANIZATION LETTER

[Name of Authorized Organizational Representative /Applicant]

[Applicant Organization]

[City, State]

Dear [Project Director]:

[Optional short introduction describing partnering organization’s mission and how it is applicable to the proposed project.]

We commit to participating in and supporting the [Current Year] [Project Title], for the period of [include dates of commitment within proposed project period] in the following way(s):

Person 1 will ... (describe role: what the person will do, time commitment)Person 2 will ... (describe role: what the person will do, time commitment)

The individuals and our organization agree to abide by the commitments, practices and plans contained in the application. 

Sincerely,

[Signature of Partnering Organization’s Authorized Representative (AR)]

Printed Name of AR 

AR’s Title (e.g., Executive Director)

Address and telephone number if that information is not already on the letterhead
EXCERPTS OF MINUTES OF MEETING









 




Exhibit

10.1




 




 




 




EXCERPTS OF MINUTES OF

MEETING




OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF




NASH FINCH COMPANY




 




February 19, 2002




 




 




RESOLVED, that effective as of March 1, 2002, outside members

of the Board of Directors of the Company be compensated at the rate of $1,500

plus reasonable expenses incurred for each meeting of the Board of Directors

attended, $750 plus reasonable expenses incurred for attendance at meetings of

committees of the Board, $1,833 per month ($22,000 per year) retainer for

serving as a director, $208 per month ($2,500 per year) retainer for serving as

a member of a committee of the Board, and $208 per month ($2,500 per year)

retainer for serving as Chair of a committee of the Board.  For the purposes of this resolution, an

outside director is defined as any director who is not a present full time

employee of Nash Finch Company or its subsidiaries.




 




RESOLVED FURTHER, that the director elected to serve as Board Chair,

if such director is not a present full time employee of Nash Finch Company or

its subsidiaries, shall, in addition to and not in lieu of any other

compensation paid to such director as an outside member of this Board of

Directors, be compensated with a monthly retainer equal to two times the amount

of the monthly retainer paid to outside members of this Board of Directors

generally.




 




RESOLVED FURTHER, that upon becoming effective, the foregoing

resolutions shall supersede any resolution heretofore adopted by this Board of

Directors pertaining to compensation of outside directors.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6296** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. PAUL ZIMMERMAN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis trict of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 3:07

- cv - 00295

- MR; 3:02

- cr - 00156

- MR

- 3 )

Submitted : August 9, 2011 Decided: August 26, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per cu riam opinion
.
Paul Zimmerman, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Paul Zimmerman, Jr., seeks to ap peal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of
ap pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jur ists 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 procedu ral grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the recor d and conclude that Zimmerman 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materi als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED