alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
63% 17%

4%

7%

8% 1%

47%

3%

22%

1%

10%

3%

14%

United States Department of Agriculture

Organic Integrity Dashboard – Fiscal Year 2021, Second Quarter

 A quarterly review of National Organic Program (NOP) enforcement activities 

Investigations & Inquiries by Fiscal Year

Effective Enforcement Starts with Strong Standards

Maintaining a fair and competitive market for all starts with sound and sensible

regulations. The 15 volunteer members who serve on USDA’s National Organic 

Standards Board (Board) review and recommend changes to the National List of Allowed 

and Prohibited Substances and consider a wide range of other issues important to 

organic farmers, businesses, and consumers. Congress set up the Board to represent 

every part of the organic community. Each member is appointed to represent the 

interests of a specific area of the community, including producers, handlers/processors, 

certifiers, retailers, consumers/public interest advocates, environmentalists/resource 

conservationists, and scientists.

NOP needs your help each year to ensure there are well qualified candidates for each member seat. This year, we are seeking 

nominations for four seats that become open in January 2022. Learn more about the Board and our work to include voices from 

historically underserved communities involved in organic agriculture in the recent Call for Nominations announcement. 

Deadline for nominations: June 1, 2021.

For additional details on the National Organic Program visit www.ams.usda.gov/Organic.

NOTES: Open cases are based on allegations, complaints, and surveillance, and are not in themselves proof of wrongdoing. Administrative 

Actions are warnings/notices to businesses, often uncertified, and are critical in establishing that violators are aware of the rules, to support 

future enforcement action, if needed. 

417 Cases in Progress

As of 3/31/2021 

449 Closed Cases by Outcome

12 Months ending 3/31/2021 

Voluntary

Compliance

Referred for Criminal

Investigation

No Violation

Referred for

Investigation

Settlement, Civil 

Penalty, Appeal

Administrative Actions

Fraudulent Certificates Posted

Uncertified 

Operations Making

Organic Claims

Labelling Error

Prohibited Substance

Fraud

Prohibited Practice

Pesticide Residue

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Completed Investigations 127 279 260 285 390 360 470 335 413 448 190

Resolved Inquiries 30 197 248 386 219

New Investigations 183 278 215 411 548 508 395 370 374 391 185

Total Incoming 183 278 215 411 548 508 425 567 622 777 404

Percentage completed 69% 100% 121% 69% 71% 71% 118% 94% 106% 107% 101%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

*

* Fiscal year 2021 

numbers as of 

4/1/2021

NOSB Fall 2019 Meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HYPERION SOLUTIONS CORPORATION FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         250,381
<SECURITIES>                                    37,610
<RECEIVABLES>                                  150,977
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,900
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               451,486
<PP&E>                                         152,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                  83,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 559,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,323
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                     297,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   559,059
<SALES>                                        125,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,798
<CGS>                                           36,532
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  117,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                80,788
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,413
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,613
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19


</TABLE>
#### Thomas D. BEAULIEU, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 5226.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

March 19, 1980.

Michael H. Schilling, Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender Program, Cheyenne, signed the brief on behalf of appellant.

John D. Troughton, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen. and Michael L. Hubbard, Legal Intern, signed the brief on behalf of appellee.

Before RAPER, C. J., and McCLIN-TOCK, THOMAS, ROSE and ROONEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The only issue here is whether the sentencing court considered probation for the defendant as required by *Sanchez v. State,*Wyo.1978, 592 P.2d 1130.

The past criminal record of the defendant, as disclosed by the presentence report, indicates that probation could be only a far-removed alternative for disposition. The fact that probation was requested and the appearance of a probation plan in the pre-sentence report can lead to no conclusion but that the court could not avoid giving it consideration. No particular amount of consideration is required. There need be no specific entry into the record of reasons why probation is denied nor does the word “probation” even need be mentioned by the court if it can be determined from the proceedings that it has been considered, however slightly. *Kenney v. State,*Wyo.1980, 605 P.2d 811.

We note the appellant’s argument that his codefendant, who he claims had a substantially similar personal history, was given the benefit of probation after suspension of sentence. While apparently intended to demonstrate that the district court obviously did not consider probation in this *276appellant’s instance, there are overtones of an argument that the appellant should not be dealt with more severely than his code-fendant. We reject any such sentencing standard. Our position is clear that an appropriate sentence is within the discretion of the trial judge, so long as it is within the punishment prescribed by statute, and we can visualize no more severe inhibition upon that discretion than to recognize a claim that codefendants must be sentenced alike. A sentence should be patterned to the individual defendant in each instance insofar as the trial judge can do so in performing this most difficult function.

Affirmed.
# C_2016202EN.01017201.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/172 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/172

---

Article 290

1.   A legislative act may delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act.

The objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation of power shall be explicitly defined in the legislative acts. The essential elements of an area shall be reserved for the legislative act and accordingly shall not be the subject of a delegation of power.

2.   Legislative acts shall explicitly lay down the conditions to which the delegation is subject; these conditions may be as follows:

| (a) | the European Parliament or the Council may decide to revoke the delegation; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the European Parliament or the Council may decide to revoke the delegation;

| (b) | the delegated act may enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by the European Parliament or the Council within a period set by the legislative act. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the delegated act may enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by the European Parliament or the Council within a period set by the legislative act.

For the purposes of (a) and (b), the European Parliament shall act by a majority of its component members, and the Council by a qualified majority.

3.   The adjective ‘delegated’ shall be inserted in the title of delegated acts.

---
Exhibit
32





Certifications


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350





Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.(the
“Company”), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended May 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





/s/  Fred R. Adams,
      Jr.Fred
      R. Adams, Jr.Chief
      Executive Officer/s/  Timothy A.
      DawsonTimothy
      A. DawsonChief
      Financial OfficerDate:  August
      11, 2009
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 5

SECTION 5

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Article 274

(ex Article 240 TEC)

(ex Article 240 TEC)

Save where jurisdiction is conferred on the Court of Justice of the European Union by the Treaties, disputes to which the Union is a party shall not on that ground be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts or tribunals of the Member States.

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

IN RE § CASE NO. ______________

JUSTIN CHISUM § 

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: 

COMES NOW, Justin Chisum, Relator in the above-styled and numbered 

cause, and requests an emergency stay of proceedings. In support of this motion, 

Relator would show the Court as follows:

1. On April 13, 2015, Relator filed a Motion to Stay Grand Jury 

Proceedings pursuant to the dictates of article 46B.004(d) of the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure.

2. On April 15, 2015, the 364th Judicial Court of Lubbock County, Texas, 

held a hearing on Relator’s motion and denied the motion from the bench.

3. The District Attorney is submitting this case to the Grand Jury in the 

morning on April 16, 2015.

4. Relator filed his Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus on April 

15, 2015.

5. This case involves a statute mandating the trial court to take action in a 

case. The scope of the statute, however, has yet to be discussed by any court in 

Texas. Because this case involves a mandate from the Texas Legislature and is an 

issue of first impression, the Court should stay the proceedings to at least allow for 

WR-83,141-01

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/16/2015 11:12:52 AM

Accepted 4/16/2015 11:26:43 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 4/16/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
full briefing and proper review of the case. See In re Solis-Gonzalez, No. WR82,831-01, 2015 WL 575049 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 9, 2015) (staying proceedings 

to allow for full briefing on the issues of the case).

6. Relator requests a stay of the grand jury proceedings be ordered 

pending resolution of Relator’s Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Relator prays his motion be granted and an emergency 

stay of the grand jury proceedings by ordered pending resolution of Relator’s 

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.

Respectfully submitted,

THE LAW OFFICE OF

ALLISON CLAYTON

P.O. Box 64752

Lubbock, Texas 79464-4752

Tel: (806) 773-6889

Fax: (888) 688-4515

By:_________________________________

Allison Clayton

State Bar Number 24059587

Attorney for Justin Chisum
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on April 16, 2015, a copy of this brief was served on opposing 

counsel, Jeffrey S. Ford of the Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office and on 

the trial court, the Honorable William Eichman, II, of the 364th District Court of 

Lubbock County, Texas, via electronic mail.

_________________________________

Allison Clayton
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 17, 2015

s0414

Order 

Clerk

April 17, 2015

146357

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146357

COA: 300460

Grand Traverse CC:

10-011026-FC

ALAN STARR TROWBRIDGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On April 7, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to 

appeal the September 25, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, 

the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2016203EN.01003201.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/32

---

Article 77

In accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, the Commission shall satisfy itself that, in the territories of Member States:

| (a) | ores, source materials and special fissile materials are not diverted from their intended uses as declared by the users; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

ores, source materials and special fissile materials are not diverted from their intended uses as declared by the users;

| (b) | the provisions relating to supply and any particular safeguarding obligations assumed by the Community under an agreement concluded with a third State or an international organisation are complied with. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the provisions relating to supply and any particular safeguarding obligations assumed by the Community under an agreement concluded with a third State or an international organisation are complied with.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MICHAEL ANTHONY CARTER,

Appellant,

v.

CANDACE DENISE MOORE

AND KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00014

- CV

Appeal from

353rd District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC # D

- 1

- FM

- 15

- 001246)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order that because Appellant is indigent, no order regarding costs

is made. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 (the “Report”),
I, John A Hardy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                              
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 14, 2015 |  | /s/ John A. Hardy                            
|                    |  | John A. Hardy
        Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1462 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1462

 To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit periodic reports on the 
          cost of presidential travel, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2019

Mr. O'Halleran introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit periodic reports on the 
          cost of presidential travel, 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 ``Protecting Defense Dollars Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORTS ON COST OF PRESIDENTIAL TRAVEL.

    (a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force, shall 
submit to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Armed 
Services of the House of Representatives a report detailing the direct 
and indirect costs to the Department of Defense in support of 
presidential travel. Each such report shall include costs incurred for 
travel to a property owned or operated by the individual serving as 
President or an immediate family member of such individual.
    (b) Immediate Family Member Defined.--In this section, the term 
``immediate family member'' means the spouse of such individual, the 
adult or minor child of such individual, or the spouse of an adult 
child of such individual.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016202EN.01009001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/90

---

Article 105

(ex Article 85 TEC)

(ex Article 85 TEC)

1.   Without prejudice to Article 104, the Commission shall ensure the application of the principles laid down in Articles 101 and 102. On application by a Member State or on its own initiative, and in cooperation with the competent authorities in the Member States, which shall give it their assistance, the Commission shall investigate cases of suspected infringement of these principles. If it finds that there has been an infringement, it shall propose appropriate measures to bring it to an end.

2.   If the infringement is not brought to an end, the Commission shall record such infringement of the principles in a reasoned decision. The Commission may publish its decision and authorise Member States to take the measures, the conditions and details of which it shall determine, needed to remedy the situation.

3.   The Commission may adopt regulations relating to the categories of agreement in respect of which the Council has adopted a regulation or a directive pursuant to Article 103(2)(b).

---
Exhibit 32.1

   Certification Of Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
           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 ABC Funding, Inc. (the "Company") for
the quarter ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven Barrenechea, as Chief
Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with 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.


      Dated: February 4, 2008                 By: /s/ Steven Barrenechea
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Steven Barrenechea
                                                  Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-143622 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 18, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc.and subsidiary, the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Carrols Corporation and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. and subsidiary’s internal control over financial reportingappearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. for the year ended January 2, 2011. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Rochester, New York

March 18, 2011