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

Count Min: 0.0 0.0 Count Min: 0.0 0.0

1003 Max: 69.7 2.2 614 Max: 31.9 2.2

Avg: 1.07 0.07 Avg: 1.25 0.14

US #1 US #2 US #3 SG US #1 US #2 US #3 SG

867 90 23 23 495 79 21 19

86.4% 9.0% 2.3% 2.3% 80.6% 12.9% 3.4% 3.1%

Defects IADM Defects IADM

Count Min: 0.1 0.0 Count Min: 0.3 0.0

385 Max: 69.7 0.4 4 Max: 1.7 0.0

Avg: 0.80 0.01 Avg: 0.73 0.00

US #1 US #2 US #3 SG US #1 US #2 US #3 SG

368 11 2 4 4 0 0 0

95.6% 2.9% 0.5% 1.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Weevil Damage OCL Bleach CR Weevil Damage OCL Bleach CR

Min: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Min: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Max: 5.6 17.1 2.4 6.1 23.0 Max: 11.2 26.7 13.2 42.3 19.5

Avg: 0.03 0.90 0.08 0.06 2.28 Avg: 0.24 0.58 0.05 0.41 1.44

Count US #1 US #2 US #3 SG Count US #1 US #2 US #3 SG

822 520 138 71 93 1031 749 139 59 84

63.3% 16.8% 8.6% 11.3% 72.65% 13.48% 5.72% 8.15%

Weevil Damage OCL CR Count #1 #2 #3 SS

Min: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 653 617 19 9 8

Max: 3.5 1.5 0.2 2.0 94.5% 2.9% 1.4% 1.2%

Avg: 0.32 0.24 0.01 0.30 Damage Splits

Min: 0.0 0.0

Count US #1 US #2 US #3 US SG Max: 16.0 29.0

52 40 7 3 2 Avg: 0.64 1.77

76.92% 13.46% 5.77% 3.85%

Count #1 #2 #3 SS Count #1 #2 #3 SS

13 13 17 16 1

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.1% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Damage Splits Damage Splits

Min: 0.1 0 Min: 0.1 0.2

Max: 0.6 1 Max: 2.3 6.4

Avg: 0.30 0.23 Avg: 0.66 2.24

MOTTLED DRY PEAS Chickpeas (Garbanzo Bean)

(18/64)

Grade results based on Damage only, not Total Defects

Chickpeas (Garbanzo Bean)

(13/64 x 3/4)

Chickpeas (Garbanzo Bean)

(16/64)

Grade results based on Damage only, not Total Defects Grade results based on Damage only, not Total Defects

Lentils (9/64) Lentils (7/64)

IADM data determined on 298 samples IADM data determined on 2 samples

SYDP SGDP 

FAQ Summary - 2020

9/30/2020

Lentils (total) Lentils (12/64)

IADM data determined on 556 samples IADM data determined on 256 samples
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture United States Department of

Agricultural 

Marketing Agriculture Standard for

Service 

Dairy Ice Cream

Division 

Effective October 29, 1977 
United States Department of Agriculture Standard for Ice Cream 

§ 58.2825 United States Standard for ice cream. 

(a) Ice cream shall contain at least 1.6 pounds of total solids to the gallon, weigh not 

less than 4.5 pounds to the gallon, and contain not less than 20 percent total milk solids, 

constituted of not less than 10 percent milkfat. In no case shall the content of milk solids not fat 

be less than 6 percent. Whey shall not, by weight, be more than 25 percent of the milk solids not 

fat. 

(b) When one or more of the bulky optional ingredients, as approved by the Food and 

Drug Administration, are used, the weights of milk fat and total milk solids (exclusive of such fat 

and solids in any malted milk used) are not less than 10 percent and 20 percent, respectively, of 

the remainder obtained by subtracting the weight of such optional ingredients, from the weight of 

the finished ice cream; but in no case is the weight of milk fat or total milk solids less than 8 

percent and 16 percent, respectively, of the weight of the finished ice cream. In calculating the 

reduction of milk fat and total milk solids from the use of bulky optional ingredients, chocolate 

and cocoa solids used shall be considered the bulky ingredients. In order to make allowance for 

additional sweetening ingredients needed when bulky ingredients are used, the weight of 

chocolate or cocoa solids may be multiplied by 2.5; the weight of fruit or nuts used may be 

multiplied by 1.4; and the weight of partially or wholly dried fruits or fruit juices may be 

multiplied by appropriate factors to obtain the original weights before drying and this weight 

multiplied by 1.4. The finished ice cream contains not less than 1.6 pounds to the gallon; except 

that when the optional ingredient microcrystalline cellulose is used, the finished ice cream contains 

not less than 1.6 pounds of total solids to the gallon and weighs not less than 4.5 pounds to the 

gallon exclusive, in both cases, of the weight of the microcrystalline cellulose. 

(c) Optional characterizing ingredients, optional sweetening ingredients, stabilizers, and 

emulsifiers as approved by the Food and Drug Administration may be used. 

§ 58.2826 General identification. 

Consumer packaged product shall comply with the applicable labeling regulations of the 

Food and Drug Administration. 

1 
§ 58.2827 Official identification. 

(a) The official symbol to be used to identify product meeting the USDA standard for 

ice cream shall be as follows: 

MEETS USDA 

INGREDIENT STANDARD 

FOR ICE CREAM 

(b) Ice cream manufacturing plants using this symbol shall be USDA approved as set 

forth in subpart B of this regulation, and the ice cream bearing the symbol shall be manufactured 

under continuous resident or continuous nonresident USDA inspection service in accordance with 

subpart A of this regulation. The dairy ingredients used in such ice cream shall come from USDA 

approved plants. 

2
**Exhibit
      23.1**







**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Forms S-3 (No. 333-127095, No. 333-125602, No. 333-122752, No. 333-33174, No.
      333-34822 and No. 333-89973) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-121041, No. 333-94603 and
      No. 333-82541) of
      MSGI
      Security Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries, of our report dated December 22,
      2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements and Schedule II as
      of
      June 30, 2006 and 2005 and for the three fiscal years then ended, which is
      included in this Form 10-K/A filing, which report expresses an unqualified
      opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the ability of MSGI
      Security Solutions, Inc. to continue as a going concern.











/s/
      Amper, Politziner & Mattia, P.C.





December
      26, 2006


Edison,
      New Jersey
Dear Sir/Madam,

 I am the Plant Systems Lead Scientist at the Prairie View A&M University (PVAMU). My expertise is plant systematics and medicinal plants. Before joining to the Texas A&M System, I was the lead botanist and the in charge of medicinal plant program at the University of Mississippi where I involved in the Cannabis research with the support from DEA. Currently I have a USDA/NIFA funded medicinal plant program to evaluate the quality and safety of herbal products in the market and to develop botanical, chemical and genomic standards for the medicinal plants. 

There is a great potential at PVAMU College of Agriculture and Human Sciences to develop a research program for industrial hemp. I am currently working with a private company in Portland, OR to develop GAP and GMP in their industrial hemp production. My team has worked on identification of elite high CBD clones and also few successful breeding lines. We also optimized the currently available CO2 extraction systems to get the high quality CBD oil. However our research has slowed down tremendously as we do not have any permission to grow industrial Hemp in Texas and I am wondering if my university is eligible to apply for a permit to grow industrial hemp and conduct our research more effectively. I really appreciate your attention and advise regarding this process. We are exited to develop a program at PVAMU to help Texas farmers to grow industrial hemp.

Many thanks!

Sincerely,

Aruna Weerasooriya, PhD; FLS

Research Scientist Leader in Plant Systems

Cooperative Agricultural Research Center

College of Agriculture & Human Sciences

Prairie View A&M University
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1212 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1212

 To amend section 1126 of title 41, United States Code, to provide for 
  an exception for failure to deliver goods or complete work due to a 
            lapse in appropriations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2019

  Mr. Thompson of California introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 1126 of title 41, United States Code, to provide for 
  an exception for failure to deliver goods or complete work due to a 
            lapse in appropriations, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Contract Deadline Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER GOODS OR COMPLETE WORK DUE TO 
              LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1126 of title 41, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Exception for Failure To Deliver Goods or Complete Work Due 
to Lapse in Appropriations.--If the head of an executive agency 
determines that a contractor failed by reason of a lapse in 
appropriations in the Federal Government to deliver goods or complete 
work under a contract with the agency by the date or within the time 
period imposed by the contract any information relating to such failure 
may not be--
            ``(1) included in any past performance database used by 
        executive agencies for making source selection decisions; or
            ``(2) evaluated unfavorably on the factor of past contract 
        performance.''.
                                 <all>
```
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW. Policy Memo 11-3

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2646-South Building

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250

PM 11-3 Labeling of Alcoholic Beverages Rev04 03 20 24 Authorized Distribution: Public 

Page 1 of 2 

Policy Memorandum

To:

From:

Subject:

Date:

 Stakeholders and Interested Parties 

Miles McEvoy, Deputy Administrator 

Labeling of Alcoholic Beverages with Organic References

Original Issue Date – January 21, 2011 

Links Updated March 20, 2024

The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) finalized a new memorandum of 

understanding with the Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) (formerly the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)) on June 3, 2010. This agreement between the AMS and TTB 

clarified and delineated the enforcement responsibilities of each agency with respect to the 

labeling and advertising of alcohol beverages produced under the Organic Foods Production Act 

of 1990 (OFPA) (P.L. 101-624, Title XXI, Organic Certification (1990)) and for other related 

purposes. 

Written approval from the certifying agent that issued the certificate to the handler must be 

obtained prior to submitting organic labels to TTB. This written approval must state that the 

product label(s) and corresponding certificates for the handling operation and all organic 

ingredients are in compliance with National Organic Program (NOP) regulations. 

The most up to date information on organic claims on alcohol beverage labels is found on the 

TTB webpage on “Alcohol Beverages Labeled with Organic Claims” at: 

https://www.ttb.gov/alfd/alcohol-beverages-labeled-with-organic-claims. This includes the 

following references:

• Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade

Bureau and the Agricultural Marketing Service (06-03-2010)

• Sample Wine Labels (02-2014)

• Sample Malt Beverages Labels (02-2014)

• Sample Distilled Spirit Labels (02-2014)

NOP has also posted the following information:

• NOP Organic Integrity Learning Center: Organic Regulations and Retail Labeling (NOP160)
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW. Policy Memo 11-3

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2646-South Building

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250

PM 11-3 Labeling of Alcoholic Beverages Rev04 03 20 24 Authorized Distribution: Public 

Page 2 of 2 

Document Control:

This document supersedes “Identification of Organic Ingredients by Non-certified Wineries” 

statement dated November 5, 2003, which is now obsolete
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

77 WES T JACKSO N BOULEVAR D 

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

J AN 2 2 2009 

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: 

A-18J 

Douglas Harris, General Manager 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, Illinois 62201 

Dear Mr. Harris: 

I am writing in follow-up to the phone conversation of January 6, 2009, you had with 

Genevieve Damico and Charles Hall, of my staff, and the January 6, 2009, revision to your 

significant modification application. In November of 2008, you discovered that the feed rate 

calculations submitted on October 10, 2008, did not properly account for the moisture content of 

the solid waste fed during the August 2008 and September 2008 performance tests. On 

January 6, 2009, you submitted, as a revision to your significant modification application, 

operating parameter limits (OPLs) recalculated to account for the moisture content. In order for 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the October 10, 2008, request and 

subsequent January 6, 2009 revision, we will need the underlying information Veolia ES 

Technical Solutions (Veolia) used to develop these OPLs. Please submit the following to EPA: 

1. The laboratory report(s) for the 2008 performance tests including the percent moisture or 

percent solids; 

2. A statement identifying whether the highest feed rates of each mercury, semi volatile 

metals (SVM), and low volatile metals (LVM) from each combustor unit from 

July 1, 2004 through January 1, 2008, submitted to Charles Hall via e-mail on 

December 5 and 10, 2008, are on a dry or wet basis, and a certification to the truth and 

accuracy of the data and the statement; and 

3. A statement identifying whether each of the 2008 performance test feed rates of mercury, 

S V M and LV M to each combustor unit submitted on October 10, 2008, are on a dry or 

wet basis, and certification to the accuracy of the data and the statement. 

o 

z 

O 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer) 
EPA has suspended evaluating Veolia's October 10, 2008, extrapolation request pending this 

information. If you have any questions regarding the letter, please contact Genevieve Damico or 

Charles Hall, of my staff, at (312) 353-4761 and (312) 353-3443, respectively. 

Sincerely, 

Cheryl L.'Newton 

--director 

Air and Radiation Division 

cc: Laurel Kroack, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 234

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001061312
<NAME> GOTHIC PRODUCTION CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             
<CASH>                                           8,010             
<SECURITIES>                                         0             
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,011             
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0             
<INVENTORY>                                          0             
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,167             
<PP&E>                                         310,371             
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (22,956)            
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 316,565             
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,516             
<BONDS>                                        296,735             
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0             
<PREFERRED>                                     31,834             
<COMMON>                                           162             
<OTHER-SE>                                     (29,895)            
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   316,565             
<SALES>                                         27,921             
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,073             
<CGS>                                           23,020             
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,146             
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0             
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0             
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,094             
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,167)            
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0             
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,167)            
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0             
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (31,459)            
<CHANGES>                                            0             
<NET-INCOME>                                   (42,626)            
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (3.03)            
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.03)            
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 09, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 09, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0321. TUESDAY MORNING, et al v. DIANNA PICCOLO.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

141107823
AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.
 CERTIFICATIONS
 Exhibit 31.2
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ames True Temper, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 we 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; andb)
    
    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; andc)
    
    disclosed in the report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting;
 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 controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ David M. NutiDavid M. NutiChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)