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

[Federal Register: July 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 134)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 40719]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy10-1]                         

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================

[[Page 40719]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 102, 103, 104, 108, 112, 113, 114, 116, and 124

[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0069]

 
Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and Analogous Products and Patent Term 
Restoration; Nonsubstantive Amendments

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On April 21, 2010, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service published a direct final rule. (See 75 FR 20771-20773.) The 
direct final rule notified the public of our intention to amend the 
Virus-Serum-Toxin Act regulations concerning veterinary biological 
products to update the addresses provided for units within the Center 
for Veterinary Biologics and to make several nonsubstantive technical 
changes to the regulations to update information concerning the number 
of copies of Outlines of Production and labeling to submit, and to 
provide information concerning using the Internet to obtain forms and 
apply for veterinary biologics permits. We did not receive any written 
adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments 
in response to the direct final rule.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the direct final rule is 
confirmed as June 21, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Albert P. Morgan, Chief of 
Operational Support Section, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, 
Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 148, 
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8245.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151-159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
    Done in Washington, DC, this 8\th\ day of July 2010.

Kevin Shea
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-17076 Filed 7-13-10: 1:33 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-S
```
IN RE: David J. MOTTER

NO. 2016-OB-2263

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

ORDER

Considering the Petition for Transfer to Active Status filed by respondent, the supplements thereto, and the response filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that David J. Motter, Louisiana Bar Roll number 21366, be and he hereby is reinstated to active status pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 22(G), subject to the condition that he must fully and completely adhere to all terms of his April 17, 2018 diagnostic monitoring agreement with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, and such other conditions as may be imposed upon him by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel shall monitor respondent's compliance with his diagnostic monitoring agreement and notify this court of any violation, which may be grounds for immediately returning respondent to disability inactive status.

This order shall be effective immediately.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6254 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to 

conduct a review on the Public Buildings Service, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6254 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Buildings Ac3 countability Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPORT ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE. 

5 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

7 shall conduct a review of the Public Buildings Service and 

8 submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infra9 structure of the House of Representatives and the Com10 mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

11 a report containing the results of such review, including— 

12 (1) a review of the administration and manage13 ment of all Public Buildings Service real estate pro14 grams and activities, including— 

15 (A) a review and accounting of the number 

16 of employees and contract workers, including 

17 functions and the sources of funding (for exam18 ple building operations, reimbursable work, 

19 project-specific funding) categorized by region 

20 and organizational, management, and oversight 

21 structure within the Public Building Service, in22 cluding identification of components, programs, 

23 and reporting structures; 

24 (B) an accounting of in-person attendance 

25 by employee category and function; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 6254 RFS

1 (C) an analysis, trends, and comparisons 

2 of staffing numbers and associated costs and 

3 other administrative costs over the 10 years 

4 preceding the review; and 

5 (D) an analysis of the effectiveness of or6 ganizational structure, management, and over7 sight in carrying out the mission of the Public 

8 Buildings Service; and 

9 (2) a review of the building operations account 

10 of the Federal Buildings Fund established by section 

11 592 of title 40, United States Code, including activi12 ties and costs associated with conferences, training, 

13 and travel and transportation. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 11, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.4

                          CONSENT OF FORMER INDEPENDENT
                           CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT




Intelilabs.com, Inc.
Water Gardens 1620 26th Street
3rd Floor Santa Monica, CA 90404

I hereby consent to the use in Intelilabs.com's Form 10-KSB, Amendment 2, for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000, of our report dated August 31, 1999,
relating to the financial statements of Quentin Road Productions, Inc. (now
known as Intelilabs.com, Inc.).


Dated: February 12, 2001

/s/ Berenfeld Spritzer Schechter & Sheer
-----------------------------------------
Berenfeld Spritzer Shechter & Sheer
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
Miami, Florida
H. R. 6244 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1535 East 

Los Ebanos Boulevard in Brownsville, Texas, as the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres 

Zermeno Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. 1ST LIEUTENANT ANDRES ZERMENO POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1535 East Los Ebanos Boulevard in Brownsville, 

Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres 

Zermeno Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres Zermeno Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EX PARTE Travis WALKER

CR-16-0841

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Omar Orlando RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40041 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 13, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gregory Don Sherwood, Esq., Law Office of Gregory Sherwood, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Omar Orlando Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation and was sentenced to a 33-month term of imprisonment. On appeal, he renews his challenge to the district court’s application of the eight-level aggravated felony enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). The gravamen of his position is that, in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the definition of a crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Therefore, he contends, his Texas conviction of evading arrest with a *340motor vehicle does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 16(b) and thus is not an aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C).

As Rodriguez concedes, his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670, 672-77 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert, filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259), in which we rejected a constitutional challenge to § 16(b) as facially vague.

Accordingly, Rodriguez’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Rodriguez’s alternative motion to hold his appeal in abeyance pending decisions by the Supreme Court in *Gonzalez-Longoria*and *Lynch v. Dimaya,*— U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 31, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016) is DENIED. *See Wicker v. McCotter,*798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5,4.
EX PARTE Brandon JOHNSON

(In re: Brandon Johnson v. Victor Revill, Shaun Styers, and Leroy Maxwell, Jr.)

2160557

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eladio PENA, also known as Chaparro, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50265 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Eladio Pena, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eladio Pena has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Pena has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Results

Orange or red highlights indicate that the EPA criteria have been exceeded. 

Black-and-white version

Persistence Bioaccumulation Toxicity

1464989-16-9 4,7-Methano-1H-indene-1-propanal, octahydro

PBT Profiler Estimate = PBT

Media

Half-Life

(days) 

Percent in

Each Medium BCF

Fish 

ChV

(mg/l) 

Water 15 22% 95 0.15

Soil 30 77%

Sediment 140 0%

Air 0.42 1%

P2 Considerations and more information . 

Based on its structure, this chemical may belong to the 

Aldehydes (Environmental Toxicity) category. Members of this 

category may have potential concerns shown. More 

information and category definitions.

1467039-69-5 4,7-Methano-1H-indene-2-propanal, octahydro

PBT Profiler Estimate = PBT

Media

Half-Life

(days) 

Percent in

Each Medium BCF

Fish 

ChV

(mg/l) 

Water 15 22% 95 0.15

Soil 30 77%

Sediment 140 0%

Air 0.42 1%
P2 Considerations and more information . 

Based on its structure, this chemical may belong to the 

Aldehydes (Environmental Toxicity) category. Members of this 

category may have potential concerns shown. More 

information and category definitions.

Start a New Profile Add More Chemicals to Your Profile

The PBT Profiler Results are available for 20 minutes

NOTE: The estimation modules used by the PBT Profiler have been updated. 

Some chemicals may produce different profiles then in prior versions. 

For a full list of updates see the "What's new" section.

Developed by the Environmental Health Analysis Center under contract to the Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Computer Resources Donated by SRC, Inc. Ver 2.000 Last Updated September 4, 2012
COLLIER PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS & PARAMEDICS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D13-5551

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### In the Matter of John M. Harty, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 915]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered March 13, 2003 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services, inter alia, revoking petitioner’s status as having completed a sex offender program.

*702Petitioner satisfactorily completed a sex offender program (hereinafter SOP) in May 2000, while he was an inmate at Gowanda Correctional Facility in Cattaraugus County. In January 2002, however, his completion status was revoked, based upon his possession of several magazines containing photographs of nude women. To regain his completion status, petitioner was notified that he would be required to take the SOP again. Petitioner filed a grievance, challenging the revocation of his status. The grievance was denied, as were his administrative appeals. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding which was dismissed by Supreme Court, prompting this appeal.

Judicial review of administrative decisions denying inmate grievances is limited to a determination of whether the challenged determination is irrational, arbitrary or capricious *(see Matter of Cliff v Brady,*290 AD2d 895 [2002], *lv denied and dismissed 98*NY2d 642 [2002]; *Matter of Cliff v Eagen,*272 AD2d 687 [2000]). No such showing has been made here. The agreement that petitioner signed on entering the program prohibited his possession of pornography* “at any time,” and the manual he was given stated, “The prohibition of pornography is intended for all sex offenders in [Department of Correctional Services SOPs] or for those offenders who have completed the sex offender counseling program. If accessing, possession and/or use of pornography is detected by program staff, this will result in removal from the program, documentation in the guidance file and notification to parole.” As these are clear indications that petitioner was not to possess pornography, both during and after completion of the program, the revocation of petitioner’s SOP completion status and the requirement that he retake the course cannot be characterized as irrational, arbitrary or capricious nor is the decision affected by an error of law; accordingly, judicial intervention is not warranted *(see generally Matter of White v Goord,*278 AD2d 694 [2000]; *Matter of Lamberty v Schriver,*277 AD2d 527, 528 [2000]; *Matter of Jones v Coombe,*269 AD2d 632 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 755 [2000]). Petitioner’s remaining arguments lack merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

*

 The referenced agreement defines pornography as including “publications and photos depicting nudity of any type.”
#### Justin David SHAFFER, Petitioner-Appellant v. The State of MISSISSIPPI; Marshall L. Fisher, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees

No. 15-60890

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 21, 2017

Jane E. Tucker, Jackson, MS, for Petitioner-Appellant

Frances Patterson Croft, Special Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Respondent-Appellee

ORDER:

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Justin David Shaffer, Mississippi prisoner # 77380, moves for a certificate of *264appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and sentence for exploitation of a child in violation of Mississippi Code § 97-5-83(6). To obtain a COA, Shaffer must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Shaffer argues that the district court erred in treating as procedurally defaulted his claim that his 25-year- sentence was unconstitutionally disproportionate to his crime. He argues that his appellate attorney was ineffective in failing to raise the issue on direct appeal. For claims denied on procedural grounds, a COA movant must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Shaffer fails to make such a showing.

He also raises the ineffective assistance argument regarding appellate counsel as a ground for habeas relief, and he argues that his conviction violated the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. With respect to claims denied on the merits, a COA movant must show “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” *Id.*at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595. Again, Shaffer fails to make the requisite showing.

COA DENIED.
454 A.2d 177

#### Commonwealth v. Foster, Appellant.

Submitted December 7, 1981.

Anne L. Wall, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Kenneth Brown, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CAVANAUGH, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

CAVANAUGH, J., filed a memorandum concurring opinion.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Alonso PINEDA-URQUIA, also known as Luis Alonso Pineda-Urquilla, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40042 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 30, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Luis Alonso Pineda-Urquia, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Alonso Pineda-Urquia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed original and supplemental briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Pineda-Urquia *161has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, Statements of
Operations and Statements of Cash Flows for the quarter ended September 29, 1996
and contained in the Company's Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                          60,645
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  527,761
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    609,818
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,953,447
<PP&E>                                       8,642,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,071,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,685,053
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       671,682
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    329,540
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,223,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,071,962
<SALES>                                     11,483,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,483,050
<CGS>                                        3,455,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,362,618
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             323,767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,698
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,698
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,698
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
Dantez D. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3734

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.