alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
April Crop Production

Agricultural Statistics Board Briefing

Lance Honig, Chief

Crops Branch

April 8, 2022
Data Sources

April 8, 2022

Objective Measurement

Florida Citrus

Row Count

Florida Citrus

Operator Reported

Survey

Utilization Florida Citrus Administrative Committee

Data Quantity of Fruit Packed or Processed

70,006 Rows March 28-29

April Citrus Survey Sample Size = 914 March 24 - April 6

Field Surveys

778 Groves March 18-25
April 8, 2022

April 2022 Citrus

Utilized Production

All Oranges

% Change from Previous Estimate ↑ 0.3

% Change from Previous Season ↓ 13.7

Non-Valencia Oranges

% Change from Previous Estimate ↑ 6.6

% Change from Previous Season ↓ 6.1

Valencia Oranges

% Change from Previous Estimate ↓ 10.6

% Change from Previous Season ↓ 26.0

Grapefruit

% Change from Previous Estimate ↑ 7.3

% Change from Previous Season ↓ 9.4

Lemons

% Change from Previous Estimate ↑ 0.4

% Change from Previous Season ↑ 17.5

Tangerines

% Change from Previous Estimate NC

% Change from Previous Season ↓ 26.5

878

3,786

2,550

1,236

397

980

Production

(1,000 Tons)

11.07

9.37 9.03 8.73

7.70

6.08

8.14 7.85

6.85

6.04

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Million Tons

All Citrus Production

United States

8.27

6.77

6.35 6.09

5.09

3.88

5.43 5.25

4.39

3.79

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Million Tons

All Orange Production

United States
Selected Upcoming Reports

April 8, 2022

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/index.php

April 11 Crop Production Historical Track Records

April 22 Cattle on Feed

April 28 Local Foods

April 29 Agricultural Prices

Cotton System

Fats & Oils

Flour Milling - Quarterly & Annual

Grain Crushings

May 4 Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts - Annual

Crop Production

Cotton Ginnings - Annual

County Estimates: Cotton

County Estimates: Peanuts

May 2

May 12
#StatChat

April 8, 2022
USDA NASS DATA USERS’ MEETING

April 8, 2022

Join Us Online or in Chicago

University of Chicago – Gleacher Center

450 North Cityfront Plaza Drive

Chicago, IL 60611

For more information, please go to

www.nass.usda.gov/Education_and_Outreach/Meeting/index.php
2022 Census of Agriculture

April 8, 2022
All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

(202) 720-2127

(800) 727-9540

nass@usda.gov
Attachment A 

Rule Amendment that Address 110(a)(2)(J) Requirements
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY J. BREELAND, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 519 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**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 Annual Report of IMPSAT Fiber Networks on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Héctor Alonso, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,to the best of my knowledge, that: 

 

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 ofthe registrant. 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

Date: March 31, 2006
RODERICK TERRILL FOSTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5916

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Ross M. Goodman, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Charles Lee, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
To: File 

From: Elizabeth Kohl, DOE GC-71 

Date: June 26, 2009 

Re: Ex parte discussion on rare earth phosphors 

On May 27, 2009, Mahima Gupta and Robert Carmichael of Navigant Consulting spoke via 

phone with Dudley Kingsnorth, Industrial Mineral Company of Australia. Ms. Gupta and Mr. 

Carmichael asked Mr. Kingsnorth about the supply of rare earth phosphors as it relates to the 

final rule for general service fluorescent and incandescent reflector lamps. 

Mr. Kingsnorth related that the major issue in phosphor supply is China, which has been 

successful in creating a monopoly. They have very large supplies of rare earth, relative to 

elsewhere in the world. He didn’t believe the physical availability of the rare earth phosphor was 

the issue, rather it was China’s market position. He thought cost increases in phosphors would 

not dramatically increase the cost of lamps and noted the large portion of the cost is from energy 

and chemical processing costs, which wouldn’t change. He thought alternatives to China sources 

were unlikely in the near term. He noted that terbium prices have come way down, while yttrium 

and europium have held their value a little better since the peak in prices in 2008. He said more 

and more of the processing of the rare earth ore is going to China. 

End of conversation. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 96
```

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

NAME:                                        JURISDICTION OF FORMATION:                       DOING BUSINESS AS:

     Panavision GP Inc.                                 Delaware

     Panavision International, L.P.                     Delaware

     Panavision Remote Systems LLC                      California

     Panavision Federal Systems, LLC                    Delaware

     Panavision U.K. Holdings, Inc.                     Delaware

     PANY Rental Inc.                                   New York                              Panavision New York

     TFN Lighting Corp.                                 Delaware

     LPPI, LLC                                          California

     Panavision U.K L.P.                                United Kingdom

     Panavision Europe Limited                          United Kingdom

     Lee Lighting Limited                               United Kingdom

     Lee Lighting Limited                               Isle of Man

     Samuelson Group, Limited                           United Kingdom

     Lee Filters Limited                                United Kingdom

     Camera Bellows Limited                             United Kingdom

     Panavision Polska z.o.o.                           Poland

     Camera Rentals Ireland Limited                     Ireland

     Panavision (1998) Limited                          New Zealand

     Panavision NZ Limited                              New Zealand

     Film Facilities Ltd.                               New Zealand

     Panavision Lighting NZ Limited                     New Zealand

     Panavision Alga Paris Sarl                         France

     Cinecam Sarl                                       France

     Technovision France SAS                            France

     Panavision Australia Pty. Limited                  Australia

     Panavision Asia Pacific Pty. Limited               Australia

     John Barry Group Pty. Limited                      Australia

     Panavision Lighting Asia Pacific Pty. Limited      Australia

     Panavision Asia Pte. Limited                       Singapore

     Panavision Luxembourg Sarl                         Luxembourg

     Panavision Canada Holdings Inc.                    Canada

     Panavision (Canada) Corporation                    Canada
```
EXHIBIT 10.70
                                     FEDERAL
                                  HOME LOAN BANK
                                    Des Moines

               OPEN LINE OF CREDIT APPLICATION AND TERMS AGREEMENT

APPLICATION

AmerUs Life Insurance Company ("Member") hereby applies to the Federal Home Loan
Bank of Des Moines ("Bank") for an Open Line of Credit commitment beginning on
the date of approval and ending one year from the date of approval, ("Ending
Date") in the amount of $25,000,000.

TERMS

1.   Members, through its authorized representative may request funds by
     telephone advice up to the approved Open Line of Credit limit.  Funds will
     be available upon advice.

2.   The interest rate on advances funded under the Open Line of Credit will be
     set and charged daily on the outstanding advance amount.  The interest
     amount will be deducted daily by the Bank from the member's demand account.

3.   Advances funded under the Open Line of Credit will be available after the
     approval date and will mature on the Ending Date.

4.   Member represents and warrants that the Open Line of Credit amount
     requested does not exceed 15% of assets.

5.   The Bank shall have no obligation to make any advance under the Open Line
     of Credit unless the Bank is satisfied as to Member's continued
     creditworthiness and compliance with the terms of the Agreement for
     Advances, Pledge and Security Agreement ("AAPSA").  If adverse facts
     develop which make the member ineligible for Bank advances, the member must
     provide the Bank with immediate written notification of its ineligibility
     and the Bank may cancel this commitment.

6.   The fee for this Open Line of Credit commitment equals .05% times the
     amount of the commitment.  This fee will be charged to the member's demand
     account on the date this application is approved by the Bank.

7.   This Application and Terms Agreement, if approved by the Bank, will
     constitute the Agreement between Member and Bank as to the Open Line of
     Credit and will be wholly incorporated into and become a part of the AAPSA.

By signing this agreement, member hereby accepts the terms hereof.

AmerUs Life Insurance Company           Date: March 3, 1997
Member    

By: /s/ Michael G. Fraizer              By: /s/ Thomas C. Godlasky

Typed Name of Signer:                   Typed Name of Signer:
Michael G. Fraizer                      Thomas C. Godlasky
Title: Senior Vice President            Title: Executive Vice President and
  and Controller/Treasurer                Chief Investment Officer
 




FOR FHLB USE

Date Approved:                          FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF DES MOINES

Expiration Date:                             By:

Amount Approved:                             By:

Commitment Number:

Commitment Fee:
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In  connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report  of  Everyday   Assembly
Productions,  Inc., on Form 10- QSB for the period ending  September 30, 2001 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned,  B. Stephen Bailey,  Chief  Executive  Officer and
Principal  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         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.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Kathryn and Jeff Duke v. American Western Steel

Appellate case number: 01-16-00723-CV

Trial court case number: 88385-CV

Trial court: 149th District Court of Brazoria County

The record was originally due on July 5, 2016. The clerk’s record was filed on 

September 29, 2016. The reporter’s record was not filed. On October 17, 2016, the court 

reporter advised that she had received no payment for filing the reporter’s record. On October 

18, 2016, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice that if the reporter’s record was not requested or 

if payment arrangements were not made for the filing of the reporter’s record, the Court might 

require appellants to file their brief and the Court would decide the appeal on those issues or 

points not requiring a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). This notice 

set a deadline of November 17, 2016 for appellants to submit written evidence from the court 

reporter that appellants had paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee. 

No response to the October 17, 2016 notice was received. On October 27, 2016, 

appellants tendered their brief. On November 28, 2016, appellee filed a motion for extension of 

time to file its brief. On December 2, 2016, the court reporter filed a final notice that appellants 

had not requested or made payment arrangements for the filing of the reporter’s record.

Accordingly, the Court will consider and decide those issues or points that do not require 

a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c) (stating that, if clerk’s record has 

been filed, appellate court may consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a 

reporter’s record). We order appellant’s brief deemed filed on October 27, 2016. We grant 

appellee’s motion and extend the deadline for filing appellee’s brief until December 19, 2016.

It is so ORDERED. 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually 

Date: _December 6, 2016
12:00 P.M.

United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

February Crop Production

Executive Summary

Lance Honig, Chief

Crops Branch

February 11, 2020
USDA-NASS

2-11-20

Field Crops Fruit & Nuts Specialty Crops

Sugarcane Citrus -

Contents
USDA-NASS

2-11-20

Objective Measurement Row Count

Survey Type Field Measurement Field Observation

Crops Included Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines Oranges, Grapefruit, Late 

Tangerines and Tangelos

Sample Size 1,695 Groves 127,976 Rows

Collection Period January 14-27 January 28-29

Survey Overview

Florida Citrus
USDA-NASS

2-11-20

February 2020 Crop Production

% Change % Change

From From

Crop Unit February Previous Previous

2020 Forecast Season 

Production

Oranges Mil Tons 5.31 -1.7 -0.3

Grapefruit Thou Tons 663 +3.4 +17.6

Tangerines & 

Mandarins Thou Tons 930 NC -14.4
13.0

13.0 12.4

11.5

12.9

9.25 9.02

7.63

10.1

9.13

8.24

8.91 8.98

8.27

6.77

6.35

6.09

5.09

3.88

5.33 5.31

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Million Tons

Orange Production

United States

USDA-NASS

2-11-20
USDA-NASS

2-11-20

February 2020 Crop Production

% Change % Change

From From

Crop Unit February Previous Previous

2020 Forecast Season 

Production 

Sugarcane Mil Tons 32.2 +1.2 -6.8
USDA-NASS

2-11-20

Release Date Report Title

February 20 County Estimates: Corn, Sorghum, Soybeans, and Sunflowers

February 21 Cattle on Feed

February 24 Crop Values

February 28 Agricultural Prices

March 2 CAIRS: Cotton System, Fats & Oils, and Grain Crushings

CAIRS: Annual - Cotton System, Fats & Oils, and Grain Crushings

March 10 Cotton Ginnings

Crop Production

March 20 Cattle on Feed

March 26 Hogs and Pigs

March 31

Agricultural Prices

Grain Stocks

Prospective Plantings

Rice Stocks

Upcoming Reports
USDA-NASS

2-11-20
USDA-NASS

2-11-20
United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

202-720-2127

800-727-9540

nass@usda.gov
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of T.C.H., a Child

No. 06-16-00054-CV

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 15 C 

1062-CCL). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated her inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 8, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER****Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350****As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
     I, Mitchell Steinhause, Chief Executive Officerof NYMEX Holdings, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, thatthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period endingMarch 31, 2004 of NYMEX Holdings, Inc., Inc. (the“Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of NYMEX Holdings, Inc.
Dated: May 7, 2004
/s/ MITCHELL STEINHAUSEName:  Mitchell SteinhauseTitle:   Chairman         (PrincipalExecutive Officer)
#### Commonwealth v. Abramson

*369
      *Richard C. Brittain, District Attorney,*for Commonwealth.

*Robert L. Marks,*for defendant.

September 1, 1977

MYERS, *P.J.,*

Defendant was arrested and charged with failing to stop at a stop sign, in violation of section 1112 of The Vehicle Code of April 29,1959, P.L. 58, as amended, 75P.S. §1112. Defendant was found guilty by a district justice and subsequently filed the instant appeal. A de novo hearing was held before this court and the matter is now at issue.

The arresting officer testified that he saw defendant go through a stop sign near the intersection of Interstate 80 and Route 54. The stop sign is located next to a Sunoco station on a township road which intersects with Route 54.

Defendant testified that he had never been to the area in question before the night of the arrest, that he was driving on the road which leads from the Franklin Restaurant to Route 54, and that he was exercising due caution but was nonetheless having substantial difficulty following the road because of poor traffic markings and poor fighting conditions. He stated that he stopped at one stop sign but that *370he did not see the second sign which is located a short distance from the first sign.

The proprietor of the Sunoco station also testified. He stated that the sign in question has been struck by trucks on numerous occasions, and that it is now at an angle which makes it difficult to see. Further, he stated that most drivers do not see the sign and hence go through it without stopping. Finally, he substantiated defendant’s testimony that the fighting at the intersection is poor, and that the traffic markings are inadequate and confusing.

Under the circumstances, we are compelled to find defendant not guilty. We found defendant’s testimony to be credible, and we believe that he was driving in a cautious and prudent manner.

In our view, defendant failed to see the sign because it was bent at an angle, and because the traffic markings at the intersection are confusing and inadequate.

We have always assumed that the purpose of traffic signs and signals was to assist the traveling public in the exercise of reasonable care and caution. Accordingly, there is a continuing duty on the part of the Commonwealth’s Department of Transportation to make sure that these signs and signals are readily understandable and observable to a reasonably prudent motor vehicle operator. In this situation, in our opinion, the Commonwealth has failed in this duty.

ORDER OF COURT

And now, September 1, 1977, after hearing held, we adjudge defendant not guilty.

Costs to be paid by the County of Montour.
#### Hall v. Baltic

On August 2, 1978, defendant James S. Davis, M.D., filed a motion for protective order. On August 14, 1978, plaintiffs filed an answer to the motion.

Defendant Davis argues that he is entitled to know the precise allegations which are being brought against the defendants prior to any discovery being initiated. We do not find that this point is well taken. Pa.R.C.P. 4007(a) provides for discovery which “will substantially aid in the preparation of the pleadings ...” Precomplaint discovery is specifically contemplated by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure: Lapp v. Titus, 224 Pa. *648Superior Ct. 150, 302 A. 2d 366 (1973). However, if discovery is sought to aid in preparation of the pleadings, the inquirer has the burden of establishing the relevancy of the questions and the fact that they will aid in preparation of the complaint: Chatinsky v. Dubrow Electronics Industries, Inc., 27 D. & C. 2d 486 (1962). In Knappenberger v. Feldman, 6 D. & C. 2d 728, 34 Northamp. 57 (1956), the court noted that in a malpractice case discovery in aid of the pleadings may be essential in order to obtain information from defendant concerning his diagnosis and medical treatment of plaintiff. The court specifically stated that this is the type of discovery which Pa.R.C.P. 4007(a) was designed to authorize.

We note that on August 7, 1978, we issued a rule to file a complaint to be served on plaintiffs allowing them 20 days from the service of the rule in which to file a complaint. The deposition of defendant Davis is scheduled for September 13, 1978. Therefore, using our discretion under Pa.R.C.P. 248 to modify time limits, we grant plaintiff 20 days from the date of the scheduled deposition in which to file a complaint.

ORDER

And now, September 13, 1978, upon consideration of defendant James S. Davis, M.D.’s motion for protective order and plaintiffs’ answer thereto, it is hereby ordered and decreed that defendant Davis’ motion is denied and plaintiff is granted 20 days from the taking of James S. Davis, M.D.’s deposition noticed for September 13,1978, in which to file a complaint.