alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Information Required Breeders Seed Pre-Basic Basic 

Copy of the official description of the variety or copy of the official description of the parental component of the variety Availability of standard sample(s) Name and address of the contracting party in the country of origin of the seed Name and address of the contracting party in the country of multiplication of the seed Species name Variety name Reference number of seed lot(s) Weight of seed lot(s) Contracted area First harvest year Number of harvest years permitted Number of generations permitted Special conditions 

9-21-2004 Table 2. List of information to be supplied by the Designated Authority in the Country of Origin of thDesignated Authority in the Country of Multiplication of the Seed, for a Listed Variety.
OMB No. 0581-0178

(Rev. 05/2017) Destroy previous editions.

The Secretary of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Secretary:

I hereby accept the appointment to the position on the Vidalia Onion Committee as set forth in 

the Selection Order. I agree to serve during the period for which I was appointed and until my successor 

has been selected and has qualified.

In accepting this appointment, I also agree to carry out assigned duties in administering the terms 

and provisions of the Marketing Order to the best of my ability.

Sincerely,

_______________________________________

Signature

_______________________________________

Address

_______________________________________

Date
**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**

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kentucky First Federal Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R. Clay Hulette, the Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

| /s/ R. Clay Hulette                        |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                            |   |
| R. Clay Hulette                            |   |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| February 14, 2007                          |   |
#### In the Matter of Vaughn Bloom et al., Respondents, v Herrick Union Free School District, Appellant.

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim, Herrick Union Free School District appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated January 23, 1989, which granted the petitioners’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim to the extent of granting the infant-petitioner leave to do so, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated August 15, 1989, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 23, 1989 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated August 15, 1989, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 15, 1989, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, the order entered January 23, 1989, is vacated, and the petitioners’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The infant-petitioner was allegedly sexually abused by the respondent Jerome Cohen during the 1980-1981 school year, while Cohen was employed as a teacher by the respondent Herrick Union Free School District. The infant’s mother allegedly did not discover the abuse until October 1987, and in *666October 1988 she and the infant sought leave to serve a late notice of claim.

“In deciding whether leave to file a late notice of claim should be granted, the key factors are whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose (General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]) or a reasonable time thereafter and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits *(Braverman v City of White Plains,*115 AD2d 689, 690)” *(Matter of Perry v City of New York,*133 AD2d 692, 693). The availability of the toll of infancy in proceedings pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) does not deprive the court of its discretion in deciding applications for leave to file a late notice of claim or require that an extension be granted in every case *(see, Cohen v Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist.,*51 NY2d 256). Here, the petitioners have failed to allege adequate facts to establish that the Herrick Union Free School District had acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or within a reasonable time thereafter (General Municipal Law § 50-e [1]; *Matter of Katz v Rockville Centre Union Free School Dist.,*131 AD2d 574, 575). Thus, the disability of infancy did not outweigh any prejudice to the school district from the delay. Accordingly, under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to have granted the infant-petitioner leave to serve a late notice of claim. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Fiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

 

Certification of the President and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

I, Bowen S. Diehl, President and Chief Executive Officer of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:

 

|  | 1. |  | The Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2018, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2018 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|--|----|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|                     |   |                                                  |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  June 5, 2018 | By:    | /s/ Bowen S. Diehl                                    |
|                     |   | Bowen S. Diehl

President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
W^-^-HcAJ^U^ o*= ?ETmasi^ oox- OF -Vine

~tT A-^=0 -T5EC?oe«ST- -TVA^T- ^XJ Kjcrr^Y VAC

^ ^ _. RECEIVED IN

O^ams^^fg- Cbwt vWc-JiDr, C0URT 0F CRIMINAL APPEALS

Avav^.ul^ v~feAro '-RICH .qc^Oy

APR 13 2015

4oe>Acosta,GI©&
douKF of V^-A^o Vio. on-o-oo^T^-c^

§

§

OF ^-r'vT-'^ovie^o OJT - GSF -^Ht

"v^-ri-r'iovi Ffcrc_ "D\«oeee-r\ov-^< "fe\/\fevs/

£-ou12^t~ "D^C -fog.. r>vs/-.t^^q -.

A^F^A<-£o A\^t> 15XZ.Q$&£XZ> A^ -TMVcS58^v3rr" Q>vjEc55Y-\oU C>p

er*c^. -^fc> T^i^eRA^— uW -ttMet" HAf3 Kis-r 'BjT"

a.
icw .*?" \J=3E3e: ~^=*=*J^ ~H of OUT- - OF-""TA^L

-r^e "^e-^Kr^ (^Lu^rr- of Ap££4^^ -^Pe^^> -to -vMye

T3uci\fc=c:^ A^-i rcVAV=ts?=^KXT- oje-sf'iov^ -x:s4 -A vv/W

o>P -v^e Cloj^rF" cap O^jvA'.k^A^Ap^^AS5^ <=>^ "^^ cOJ?*2£Y^£

&oU*2^F~. Ov*c*si CU^H'\>-J^V 'v^-T-',~r*c>v^£^o "X>4t>;crrvfev-J-T-

-ro -^ -p^s^^-^ll^ jou^^it^—f*1^ ""bev^r^ dou^rop- A£=5^A-^> 4Ves> -/^sVm^Fv^ulL^ v^s^ret^ —^E" ~T^AL_

cxrr- -OF --F»H$£ T%-r-rTva*-i F32^T>.-scte-noN^^ 'vWev^

~"TtSj,,A\— (Wp-=-r F^e>vA —rt^s: A<::c=e?:3r^c^:::> A*^1^ <JP5*ML—~

A**i £x*31Z-£r«<=^E o^= —T=*e CoU^T" oft <i*>^',Nj4__ Apa^A(-^=:i

-p^jce— <2F c3u*ae^-y'«*=»,»e>H4. (^j=~t "Xr»SA3e ~fir~ cjf oq~f-

-XK>£^ o>F "Pfe-F«-r-;ovJcre5?=> <rx3-r--c^F --H.v-^E Vfenr'rr'iOfcJ £c5^

T>\^><^0sr-r\ow-432>(' "^.•iev^j',

^—rrj

loc^'^E.V^tTVeferr' OF GpaW.wA1. ^\j-?5T»C€:^W»a_AV\ "P. di=£vpqT^

•2_
Ck^rr.F°»c^n^ OF <5eevtae~.

CArr-or--Fih^VE 'V-k-r"rT-io»4 f=cSe^"C>,»c3CSZ£-r»ov^>( ^v^a/^

-p^CFA4^> vF"«i23— ^^o^ x~ir> -rr\e ^E^rAre "vHscFrsoLmKjev

t^z *\>»<srr-Rjctrc~ A"vrcJ?i*JOv' Fc*^ ^rbrnre^ ^Lojvj-rf ""Tey^r^.

F**o>A -^A£ ^TF* T^^-TF-i^r-CLaJKr^ ,'ooV -b..F«t4^K<^e: V^JH

T>^ OF A*=^<— /2o^ ^ WAjfciau- Ap^^^A: ^Qjlb&J^^
#### Paul Conti et al., Respondents, v Herbert M. Citrin, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered February 1, 1990, which, *inter alia,*awarded plaintiffs attorneys’ fees of $27,814.07, and litigation expenses of $2,586.20, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As was previously determined *(Conti v Citrin,*132 Misc 2d 834, *affd*121 AD2d 852, *lv dismissed*69 NY2d 742), defendant Citrin was an illusory tenant who had illegally subdivided premises and sublet them for profit. The court awarded the undivided apartment to the plaintiffs, the subtenants in possession. In its memorandum decision of August 1985, the trial court directed that Citrin pay plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and disbursements pursuant to section 2106.1 of the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations (22 NYCRR). In the court’s final order of October 1985, it ultimately directed that such fees and disbursements be determined "in accordance with all applicable regulations.”

On his previous appeal, Citrin asserted that Supreme Court had no basis to award attorneys’ fees. Citrin never raised the issue of the change in language from the August 1985 memorandum decision to the October 1985 order with regard to the basis for awarding attorneys’ fees and disbursements.

The trial court thereafter held hearings and determined the amounts of attorneys’ fees and disbursements. The court noted that such fees could be recovered pursuant to statutory regulations including Real Property Law § 234.

Citrin’s assertion that the fees and disbursements are limited to those incurred in the DCHR proceedings is barred by the doctrine of *res judicata. (KTM Partnership-I v 160 W. 86th St. Partners,*169 AD2d 462.) Moreover, it is clear that Real *415Property Law § 234 was an appropriate basis for awarding attorneys’ fees and disbursements in this case, as the action was commenced as a result of Citrin’s violations of the lease covenants. *(See, Park House Partners v DeIrazabal,*140 AD2d 84, *lv dismissed*73 NY2d 866, *rearg denied*73 NY2d 919.)

We have considered Citrin’s other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.

15
#### In the Matter of Jimmie L. Engram.

—Motion for reinstatement granted as indicated. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.
1

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

James H. Davis d/b/a JD Minerals, Walter 

Allison Baen, Santos J. Dominguez and 

Dixie L. Hester,

 

 Appellants,

v.

COG Operating, LLC, Neal Brusenhan 

Properties, LP, Neal Brusenhan 

Management, LLC as General Partner of 

Neal Brusenhan Properties, LP, Robert L. 

Neal as Trustee of the Neal Robert L. 

Management Trust and Jessie Frances 

Neal,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00205-CV

Appeal from the

112

th District Court

of Upton County, Texas 

(TC# 18-04-U4615-OTH)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is the Appellants’ unopposed motion to direct the district clerk 

to send original documents to the Court of Appeals. The motion is GRANTED. Therefore, the 

Court ORDERS the district clerk to forward the original Exhibits 32 through 43 inclusive, marked 

“confidential” and filed “under seal,” attached to Plaintiffs’ Traditional Motion for Summary 

Judgment filed on October 28, 2019. The original exhibits are due with this Court on or before 

November 13, 2020. The Court will return the original exhibits to the District Clerk of Upton 
2

County, Texas, after final disposition of this appeal. The Court will keep these files under seal 

pending review of this appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3

rd day of November, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Thomas Bonilla, Petitioner, v Peter J. Lacy, as Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional Facility, Respondent.

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Respondent has conceded that petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks in his petition and has reversed the determination and expunged the matter from petitioner’s records. Under these circumstances, the controversy has been brought to an end, both administratively and judicially. Petitioner is therefore no longer aggrieved and respondent’s motion to dismiss the matter as moot should be granted *(see, Matter of Gonzalez v Jones,*115 AD2d 849).

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

802 

CA 13-00915 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF STEVON MCFADDEN, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JEFFREY W. LANG OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark

H. Dadd, A.J.), entered April 24, 2013 in a CPLR article 78

proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Matter of Ansari v Travis, 9 AD3d 901, lv denied 3

NY3d 610).

Entered: July 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Hello, this is elloPaul Ulanch, Executive Director of the Crop Commercialization Program at the North Carolina Biotechnology Center.  The program I lead is coordinating research that leads to increased profitability of crops in North Carolina and South Atlantic region.  The State of North Carolina has many reasons to be in favor of the production and processing of industrial hemp.

- Textiles heritage within the state: North Carolina State University has the #1 College of Textiles program in the nation and the state has a manufacturing sector with the tools and labor force to incorporate additional natural fibers, including hemp, into woven and non-woven textile products.  Thought leaders within this community are already laying the groundwork to include hemp fibers into their production and processing systems.

Ag technology industry: the largest ag tech hub in the nation, if not the world, is in North Carolina, developing innovation to solve many problems impacting global agriculture.  The ag tech sector in the state is poised to add value to hemp and improve its performance, from genetics to processing.

Therefore, we would like to impress upon the USDA and other federal agencies that there are many knowledge gaps in the production of this crop, and the thrust of my comment is request funding to support these gaps in areas such as breeding, cropping systems optimization, organic production practices, market development for hemp products to solve problems and add value, and regulations that allow for proper yet less-constrained management of the crop and the resulting products.

Thank you for my allotted time.
Exhibit 32.02


                    Certification by the Chief Financial Officer
              of Bulova Corporation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                         (as adopted by Section 906 of the
                            Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned chief financial officer of
Bulova Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that the Company's  annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:  March 19, 2004                             By  /s/John T. O'Reilly
                                                       -----------------------
                                                       JOHN T. O'REILLY
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.2

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

We consent to the inclusion of our report dated December 6, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Media Recovery, Inc. as of September 30, 2016 and 2015 and for the years ended September 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014, as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Capital Southwest Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Capital Southwest Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-207296, effective October 5, 2015; File No. 333-177433, effective October 21, 2011; File No. 333-177432, effective October 21, 2011; File No. 333-118681, effective August 31, 2004).

 

/s/ Whitley Penn LLP

 

Dallas, Texas

 

December 12, 2016

 

 

----
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART FOUR

TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

TITLE IV

OTHER PROVISIONS

OTHER PROVISIONS

Article 36

1.   The Commission shall closely monitor all commitments undertaken by Croatia in the accession negotiations, including those which must be achieved before or by the date of accession. The Commission's monitoring shall consist of regularly updated monitoring tables, dialogue under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part (1) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SAA’), peer assessment missions, the pre-accession economic programme, fiscal notifications and, when necessary, early warning letters to the Croatian authorities. In the autumn of 2011, the Commission shall present a Progress Report to the European Parliament and the Council. In the autumn of 2012, it shall present a Comprehensive Monitoring Report to the European Parliament and the Council. Throughout the monitoring process, the Commission shall also draw on input from Member States and take into consideration input from international and civil society organisations as appropriate.

1

The Commission's monitoring shall focus in particular on commitments undertaken by Croatia in the area of the judiciary and fundamental rights (Annex VII), including the continued development of track records on judicial reform and efficiency, impartial handling of war crimes cases, and the fight against corruption.

In addition, the Commission's monitoring shall focus on the area of freedom, security and justice, including the implementation and enforcement of Union requirements with respect to external border management, police cooperation, the fight against organised crime, and judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters, as well as on commitments in the area of competition policy, including the restructuring of the shipbuilding industry (Annex VIII) and of the steel sector (Annex IX).

As an integral part of its regular monitoring tables and reports, the Commission shall issue six-monthly assessments up to the accession of Croatia on the commitments undertaken by Croatia in these areas.

2.   The Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may take all appropriate measures if issues of concern are identified during the monitoring process. The measures shall be maintained no longer than strictly necessary and, in any case, shall be lifted by the Council, acting in accordance with the same procedure, when the relevant issues of concern have been effectively addressed.

---

(1)  OJ L 26, 28.1.2005, p. 3.

1

---
ey
##### 



FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED
SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT
   Sale and
Purchase of Securities; Closing
  Miscellaneous
 (m)
    
    Approval. The Purchaser acknowledges that (i) the Company has not
sought, or received, stockholder approval as may be required under the rules and
regulations of the NASD or Nasdaq National Market in respect of transactions that may
result in, among other things, a change of control or the issuance of more than 20% of
a companys outstanding common stock, (ii) all of the Companys representations and
warranties contained herein are deemed modified by the disclosures in this Section
9(m), (iii) the restrictions on the issuance of Shares set forth in the last




---



##### 



sentence of Section 1(c) are intended to ensure that the Company does not violate
any rules, regulations or listing requirements of the NASD or the Nasdaq National
Market, and (iv) if the Company ever needs to seek shareholder approval with respect
to such matters, the Purchaser shall not be entitled to vote on such matters.
     SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.By: 
Name:
    
    /s/ William S. Loder

William S. LoderTitle:
    
    Chief Underwriting OfficerAEON INSURANCE GROUP, INC.By: 
Name:
    
    /s/ Lee Wendleton

Lee WendletonTitle:
    
    President