alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

Statistics Division

Crops Branch

1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250

(202) 720-2127 · (202) 720-3578 FAX

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Contact: Lance Honig

Lance_Honig@nass.usda.gov

202-720-2127

Use of FSA Acreage Data

Producers participating in various USDA farm programs are required to self report all cropland on 

their farm(s) to the Farm Service Agency (FSA) each year. For each crop, farmers report acres 

planted, failed, and prevented planted. 

The National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) uses the FSA data to supplement the vast 

array of detailed survey data it collects from producers to make reliable crop acreage estimates. 

The FSA data are incorporated into the estimating process along with other variables. In doing so, 

NASS takes account of variations between the two USDA agencies in definitions, categories of 

data collected, and the time of reporting. 

Definitions. In incorporating FSA data, NASS reviews the exact crop definitions to account for any 

variation between the agencies. For example, NASS filters FSA corn data to exclude a variety of 

types and/or uses (i.e. sweet corn, popcorn, etc.) that are not included in the NASS estimates for 

corn. Such definitional reviews and adjustments are done for each crop. 

Categories of Data. The FSA categories “acres planted” and “acres failed” represent acres 

actually planted to each specific crop, and combined are comparable to the NASS planted acreage 

definition. The FSA category “acres failed” also serves as a minimum level of abandonment and is 

useful to NASS in establishing harvested acreage estimates. The FSA category “acres prevented 

planted” is helpful in understanding current conditions, but does not directly correspond to any 

NASS acreage estimates.

Time of Reporting. Data are reported to FSA over an extended period of time, with varying due 

dates across the country. FSA provides the aggregated data to NASS weekly beginning in late 

spring and continuing throughout the year. The data change over time as more information is 

reported by producers and is processed by FSA field offices. NASS has carefully analyzed these 

data for many years to determine at what point they are complete enough to be reliable indicators 

of total acreage.

Based on experience, NASS uses the FSA planted acreage data along with the NASS survey data 

and remote sensing data at specific times during the growing season to arrive at planted acreage 

estimates. It makes changes, if necessary, in September for cotton, rice, and peanuts, and in 

October for corn, soybeans, sorghum, canola, sunflowers, and dry edible beans. Additionally, 

NASS considers these data in establishing the final end-of-season planted acreage estimates 

published in late September for the small grains and in January for the row crops, and as 

supplemental information in establishing county-level planted acreage estimates.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed November 2, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-350

Lower Tribunal No. 15-1794-SP

________________

Family Health Care Solutions, Inc., a/a/o Ivan Chavez,

Appellant,

vs.

Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Milena 

Abreu, Judge.

Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., and Chad A. Barr (Altamonte 

Springs), for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Daniel E. Nordby, Jason Gonzalez 

(Tallahassee) and Garrett A. Tozier (Tampa), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES, and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings 

consistent with our decision in First Med. & Rehab of Bradenton, LLC v. 

Allstate Ins. Co., 343 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (affirming summary 

judgment in favor of insurer to extent trial court found policy provided 

sufficient notice of insurer's intent to use statutory fee schedule but reversing 

in part and remanding for further proceedings because record lacked 

summary judgment evidence that insurer made payment pursuant to 

schedule).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-03-1998
<CASH>                                         313,784
<SECURITIES>                                    55,915
<RECEIVABLES>                                  173,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,658
<INVENTORY>                                     29,581
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               590,833
<PP&E>                                         228,721
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,969
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 744,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          285,887
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           961
<OTHER-SE>                                     430,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   744,048
<SALES>                                        403,496
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               403,496
<CGS>                                          334,678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  388,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,027)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,958
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,259
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,659
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
OREGON ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (ORARNG) DRINKING WATER PFAS 

SNAPSHOT 

The Army National Guard is committed to ensuring quality drinking water is provided to its 

Soldiers, and civilians. Proactive sampling is performed by the Army National Guard on its

drinking water systems, as well as, coordination with other purveyors to ensure perfluorooctane 

sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) remains below the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) lifetime health advisory (HA) level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). The 

EPA HA is not an enforceable or a regulatory standard, and represents a concentration in 

drinking water that is not expected to produce adverse health effects if the water is consumed 

over a lifetime.

Drinking Water Status: Finished drinking water, which is the treated water people drink at the 

Central Oregon Unit Training Equipment Site does not contain PFOS/PFOA above the EPA HA. 

Additionally, Army National Guard-provided drinking water complies with the standards of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), a federal law designed to protect the quality of drinking water 

supplied to the American public. The Army National Guard will continue to monitor on-base 

drinking water to ensure the EPA HA or a properly promulgated state drinking water standard is 

not exceeded.

Test Date: August 2023

PFOA + PFOS Results: Not Detected

Future Testing Event: Summer 2025

Type of Drinking Water System: Army National Guard-owned

For Questions Contact: Oregon National Guard State Public Affairs Office

Office Phone Number: 971-355-3530

Office E-mail Address: OMD_PublicAffairs@omd.oregon.gov

Water Quality Reports: A water quality report is not required for this location
Exhibit
      32.1





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 Cash Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
      for
      the period ending May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, being, Bruce
      Korman, our Chief Executive Officer, and Edmund King, our Chief Financial
      Officer, respectfully, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 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 Cash Technologies, Inc.





Dated:
      September 13, 2007








/s/
                Bruce Korman
            
            
            /s/
                Edmund KingChief
                Executive Officer
            
            
            Chief
                Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6434

KEITH D. WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT DON WOOD; SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS THEODIS 

BECK,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cv-00408-WO-WWD)

Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith D. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith D. Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists 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 procedural 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 record and 

conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 
3

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric G. Peterson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to SECtion 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/ ERIC G. PETERSON

Eric G. Peterson
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
March 25, 2003
Ms. Janet McCabe Acting Assistant Administratorforthe Office ofAir and Radiation United States Environmental Protection Agency William Jefferson Clinton Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460
Re: Extension ofeffective dates under the Clean Air Act

Dear Janet: Suite 600, 1901 North Moore Street Arlington, VA 22209-1728 Phone: (703) 522-0086 • Fax: (703) 522-0548 Email: hpbamail@hpba.org

Web Site: www.hpba.org

We appreciate the opportunities that the Hearth, Patio 

### & Barbecue Association (HPBA) has had to meet with you and members ofyour staff regarding issues ofconcern to the hearth products industry inthe proposed revision tothe NSPS forWood Heaters. We also metwith Office ofCompliance and Enforcement Assurance (OECA) staffearlierthis month regarding our concerns about their responsibilities under the new rule. During that meeting, a member ofthe Office ofAir and Radiation team reiterated a position on deadlines thatwe have now heard several times: that EPA's Office of General Counsel does not believe there is legal authority underthe Clean AirAct to issue an NSPS with an extended deadline, in this case for the product category ofWarm Air Furnaces (WAFs).
We have asked our legal team to review this issue, and I am forwarding their opinion to you for your consideration

. It is worth noting that, during the same meeting with CECA, HPBA asked when the program would be ready to accept WAF test packages for certification. OECA answered that it would be ready on the effective date ofthe rule. The key concern is that the many small companies coming under the jurisdiction ofthe rule forthe first time will not be able to submit certification applications to OECA before the effective date ofthe·rule. However, on the effective date, these small businesses face a donot-make-or-sell deadline in the rule. This is clearly a death sentence for most ofthese small companies, regardless ofthe attributes oftheirtechnologies

. As I'm sure you can understand, this potential Catch-22 has become the focus within the WAF industry regarding the NSPS. We are sharing this concern with members on the Hill, and will be sharing this opinion with their offices as well.
Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours,

# ldman President & CEO
From: Adams, Jeffrey A <jeffrey.adams@bp.com>

Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 8:47 AM

To: Stoneman, Chris

Cc: Green, Gregory

Subject: RE: Schedule for Finalizing Tribal NSR FIP

Thank you for that confirmation and I understand your limits on what yo u

can say. Industry appreciates

the reduced burden your streamlined NSR program will provide. My company

is starting the process of

preparing individual permits to avoid the delay if the streamlined FIP

process is not available by the time

permits are required. Preparing these applications will cause a lot of

wasted effort if a fix is announced

close to March 3, 2016. Any information you can provide on what we can

expect is appreciated and may

reduce this impact. Alternatively, the quicker th e fix can be set in

place the better.

Thanks for your efforts and foresight,

Jeff A.

From: Stoneman, Chris [mailto:Stoneman.Chris@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:50 PM

To: Adams, Jeffrey A

Cc: Green, Gregory

Subject: RE: Sche dule for Finalizing Tribal NSR FIP

Hi Jeff

– We are aware of the issue and we are working on a possible fix

as we go through the

comments. That’s all that I can say right now. Thanks. Chris Stoneman

From: Adams, Jeffrey A [mailto:jeffrey.adams@bp. com]

Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 10:50 AM

To: Stoneman, Chris <Stoneman.Chris@epa.gov>

Subject: Schedule for Finalizing Tribal NSR FIP

Chris,

Is there a convenient time this week that we can discuss the Tribal NSR

FIP and the schedule for

completing it. I am concerned about construction scheduled after March

3, 2016 if the proposed FIP is

not signed by then. I should be available today or tomorrow at the

numbers below.

Thanks,

Jeffrey Adams

BP, Lower 48

– Regulatory Affairs

737 N Eldridge Parkway, EP3

- 11.147A

Houston, Texas 77079

O

– 281/366

- 3173

C

– 713/824

- 9387

Jeffrey.Adams@bp.com
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3653 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3653

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to prohibit the display of 
           Social Security account numbers on Medicare cards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 2009

   Mr. Hodes (for himself and Ms. Moore of Wisconsin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title II of the Social Security Act to prohibit the display of 
           Social Security account numbers on Medicare cards.

    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 ``Medicare Card Security Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF THE DISPLAY OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS 
              ON MEDICARE CARDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new clause:
    ``(x) The Commissioner of Social Security and the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services jointly shall establish cost-effective 
procedures to ensure that a social security account number (or any 
derivative thereof) is not displayed on the Medicare card issued to an 
individual who is entitled to benefits under part A of title XVIII or 
enrolled under part B of title XVIII.''.
    (b) Funding.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
amounts appropriated for administrative expenses of the Department of 
Health and Human Services for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 
2009, such sums as are necessary to carry out the amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall be available from such amounts for such purpose.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to Medicare cards issued on and after the date that 
is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

National GuardAlways Ready Always There

National Guard

                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  News    -  Guard News         
  -  Overseas Operations         
  -  State Partnership Program         
  -  News Features         
  -  RSS Feeds         
  -  Press Releases         
  -  Transcripts 
-  Features    -  Features by Year         
  -  Posture Statement         
  -  State Partnership Program         
  -  Special Features 
-  About the Guard    -  How We Began         
  -  Air National Guard         
  -  Army National Guard      -  DEERS Soldier Journey         
    -  Leader Development Program 
  -  History and Heritage         
  -  I am the Guard         
  -  NGB Official March 
-  Leadership    -  CNGB         
  -  VCNGB         
  -  SEA         
  -  DANG         
  -  DARNG         
  -  Joint Staff      -  J-1         
    -  J-2         
    -  J-3         
    -  J-4         
    -  J-5         
    -  J-6         
    -  J-7         
    -  J-8         
    -  Personal Staff        -  Inspector General         
      -  General Counsel          -  Special Victims Counsel 
      -  Public Affairs         
      -  Executive Support Services         
      -  Legislative Liaison 
    -  Special Staff        -  Office of the Provost Marshal         
      -  Office of the Joint Surgeon         
      -  Director of Acquisitions         
      -  Small Business Programs         
      -  Chaplain         
      -  Senior Leader Management Office         
      -  Diversity Equity Inclusion 
    -  Comptroller 
-  Resources    -  National Defense Strategy Implementation Guidance         
  -  Community Engagement         
  -  FOIA         
  -  Fact Sheets         
  -  Helpful Links         
  -  Image Gallery      -  News Images         
    -  Graphics         
    -  Historical Paintings 
  -  Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion         
  -  Legislative Liaison         
  -  Small Business Programs         
  -  Social Media         
  -  State Websites         
  -  Videos      -  Featured Videos         
    -  On Every Front         
    -  2019 Videos         
    -  2020 Videos         
    -  2021 Videos 
  -  Suicide Prevention         
  -  Family Programs         
  -  Environmental         
  -  Trial Defense Service         
  -  Holistic Wellness Challenge 
-  Contact Us		 

# Brigadier General Louis A. Abbenante

## Abbenante

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 00-50347

__________________ JUAN PEDRO IBARRA-MARTINEZ Petitioner-Appellant

v. KENNETH L. PASQUARELL Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, San Antonio

October 15, 2001 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1 IT IS ORDERED that the motion of appellant to remand case to district court for proceedings consistent with Supreme Court decisions in INS v. St. Cyr and Calcano-Martinez, Deboris is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the prior opinion dated January 19, 2001 is vacated.
Order filed December 8, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00968-CR

____________

GUADALUPE WALLY RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 209th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1481921

ORDER

On December 1, 2016, the district clerk filed seven original trial exhibits on 

CDs and DVDs. This court copied those exhibits into our electronic filing and case 

management computer system. The copy of State’s Exhibit 108 on the court’s 

computer system is unplayable. The copies of the other six exhibits are playable. 

Accordingly, the district clerk is ordered to file a playable version of State’s 

Exhibit 108 by December 23, 2016.

PER CURIAM