alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $6.67 CWT 0.965 $6.4366

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.8580 LB 3.5 $10.0030

Class I Price $16.4396

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $6.33 CWT 0.965 $6.1085

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $3.0291 LB 3.5 $10.6019

Class I Price $16.7103

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT ($0.2708)

(4) Price change per gallon ($0.0233)

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon ($0.0116)

Price change per quart ($0.0058)

Price change per pint ($0.0029)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.0021)

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.0017)

Price change per half pint ($0.0015)

(6) Price adjustment per gallon ($0.02)

Price adjustment per half gallon ($0.01)

Price adjustment per quart ($0.01)

Price adjustment per pint ($0.00)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.00)

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.00)

Price adjustment per half pint ($0.00)

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: Oct. 1, 2017
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 25, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 09 -1 58 19

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 06 7- CV-RWS-2 GRACEWA Y PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, CHESTER VALLEYPHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Pl ai nt iff s- App el lant s,
ve rs us RIVER’S EDGE PHARMAC EUTICALS, LLC, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Nor th ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma y 25 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: W e h av e car efu ll y

rev ie wedth e b rie fs on ap pe al an d t he reco rdin th is cas e. W e h av e h adth e b en efi t o f or al arg um en t. Ou r res ol ut io n o f th is cas e h as adhe redst ric tl y

to th e p art ic ul ar ar gu m en ts ass ert edon ap pe al by app el la nt s. We als o n ot e th atth e rec or d i n t hi s ca se is de fic ie nt ; t he pri m ary reco rdev id en ce re li edup on by ap pe ll an ts forcru ci al ele m en ts of i ts pro of is a su rv ey

of p ha rm aci st s, wh ic h was fla wedin sev eral res pe ct s, i nc lu di ng in pa rti cu lar th atth e su rv ey di d n otde sc rib e actua l ad ve rti se m en ts at i ss ue or r ev eal th e fac t tha t n on e o f th e dru gs in vo lv edwas ei th er ap pr ov edby FDA orrequi redto be ap pr ov ed . After c aref ul de li be rat io n, an d
on th e b as is of t he li m it edreco rdin th is cas e, an d a dd res si ng on ly the pa rti cu la r arg um en ts rai se d b y

th e ap pe ll an ts on ap pe al , we can no t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ct
co urt co m

m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r. 1 Fo r th es e li m it edreas on s, t he jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s AFFIR MED.

Although w e have some conc ern a bout the application of G eorg ia law, a ppellants 1 have f ailed to ar ticulate a pe rsuasive a

rgument challeng ing the district court in this reg ard. L imiti ngourselves to a

ppellants’ par

ticular a rguments on appea l, we dec line to disturb the district court’s ruling . We do note that the district court’s opinion cle arly could have no persua sive or pre clusive value in a ca se not involving Ge org ia law. 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated  balance sheets and the  statements of income of Heritage  Bancorp,
Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1,517,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               4,250,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    20,967,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0
<LOANS>                                        27,056,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                    570,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 55,194,000
<DEPOSITS>                                     44,153,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                   1,922,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            118,000
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,295,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,706,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 55,194,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                616,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              315,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               74,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               1,005,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             323,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             340,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          665,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  98,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                640,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (38,000)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (38,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (39,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.87
<LOANS-NON>                                    838,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                1,019,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               634,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  177,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   11,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              570,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-6917.

#### In re Leonard Walker, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 1013, 132 S. Ct. 569,

181 L. Ed. 2d 417,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8051.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

ABOBSC Program Ordering Process

CUSTOMER sends 

order request form to 

ABOBSCOrders@dla

.mil

UNFUNDED

KO reviews order 

request form & 

performs contract 

scope check

KO replies to email 

for SCOPE DENIAL

(if applicable; 

otherwise go direct to 

step 5)

KO/Buyer 

generates RFQ 

spreadsheet and 

sends to all 16 

vendors for quote

Vendors submit 

quotes (or respond 

with no bid) to 

ABOBSCOffers@dl

a.mil

KO/Buyer reviews 

offers & documents 

F&R price 

determination 

KO sends price 

notification spreadsheet 

to customer with 

proposed award pricing 

Customer returns 

spreadsheet with 

funding information 

to

ABOBSCPriceAckn

owledgements@dl

a.mil

KO/Buyer review 

funding information

KO/Buyer finalize 

award decision

PR Created with 

pending award 

information and 

customer funding

KO sources award 

against winning 

vendor’s contract in 

Eprocurement

DLA obligates 

funds

Vendor receives 

DIBBS award 

notification with 

DD1155 and 

begins 

performance

- Customer 

Receives Material

Customer Submits 

MRA (or vendor 

submits POD)

CUSTOMER 

completes order 

request form

Vendor Ships 

Item(s) to 

Customer

(Vendor submits 

856 Ship Notice)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Step 7 Step 6 Step 10 Step 9 Step 8

Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15

CUSTOMER submits 

registration
Exhibit 34.2

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Citibank, N.A.:

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assessment of Compliance, that the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (the “Servicing Criteria”) for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities serviced by American Honda Finance Corporation issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services; or owner trustee services (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended March 31, 2018. With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the Servicing Criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the Servicing Criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants to obtain reasonable assuranceand, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the Servicing Criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the Servicing Criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the Servicing Criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned Servicing Criteria as of and for the twelve months ended March 31, 2018 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois

May 31, 2018
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 17260 STANDARD 31.40 -2.08 10.47

Tolerance

1 1 RED LIMIT 31.05 -2.03 9.72 -0.35 0.05 -0.75 0.83

2 2

BLUE-VIOLET 

LIMIT 31.11 -2.41 9.76 -0.29 -0.33 -0.71 0.83

3 3 GREEN LIMIT 31.60 -2.47 9.72 0.20 -0.39 -0.75 0.87

4 4 THIN LIMIT 31.92 -2.90 10.36 0.52 -0.82 -0.11 0.98

5 5 THIN LIMIT 33.73 -2.42 10.46 2.33 -0.34 -0.01 1.47

6 6 BLUE LIMIT 32.31 -2.70 10.16 0.91 -0.62 -0.31 0.99

7 7

THIN BLUE 

LIMIT 30.98 -2.75 9.23 -0.42 -0.67 -1.24 1.44

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF

Shade Number GREEN 3454 Piece/Roll Number 17260

DLA/NAVY SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT April 25, 2021

Fabric Nomenclature CLOTH, WOVEN, POLYESTER/COTTON A-A-55095A

TYPE 1/CLASS 2 (NUGGET)
<page>			  EXHIBIT 31.01

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President of Demeter Management Corporation
("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant, certify that:

1.		I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3.		Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;

4.		The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and



<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of Demeter's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:  May 10, 2004         /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman
                               Jeffrey A. Rothman
                               President,
                               Demeter Management Corporation,
                               general partner of the registrant
T o w ho it m a y c on c e r n :

A s a c on ce r n e d c iti ze n o f t h e S a n J o a qu i n V a ll e y I a m t r oub l e d by t h e f a c t t h e E P A i s g r a nd f

a t h e r i ng i n

t h e po w e r p l a n t i n A v e n a l

, C A

. T h e S a n J o a qu i n v a l l e y i s a r e g i on t h a t a l r ea d y h a s h i gh ca s e s o f a s t h m a

a nd h a s m u lti p l e c it i e s i n t h e t op 10 o f b a d a i r qu a lit y i n t h e n a ti on

. W it h t h i s b e i ng t h e ca s e

, t h e h i gh e s t

a nd n e w e s t s t a nd a r d s m u s t b e a dh e r e d t o i n o r d e r t o k ee p it s c iti ze n s h e a lt hy

. P l e a s e r ec on s i d e r a nd D O

NO T g r a nd f

a t h e r i n t h e A v e n a l po w e r p l a n t.

S i n ce r e l y

, M i gu e l A ng e l A y a l a

A v e n a l P o w e r P l a n t

M i gu e l A A y a l a

t o :

R 9 A i r P e r mit s

04 / 12 / 2011 11 : 47 P M

H i d e D e t a i l s

F r o m: M i gu e l A A y a l a

T o : R 9 A i r P e r mit s @ E P A

H i s t o r y : T h i s m e s s a g e h a s b e e n f o r w a r d e d

. P a g e 1 o f 1

4 / 14 / 2011
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3314 

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

1750 McCulloch Boulevard North in Lake Havasu City, Arizona, as 

the ‘‘Lake Havasu City Combat Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2019 

Mr. GOSAR (for himself, Mr. O’HALLERAN, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. GALLEGO, Mrs. LESKO, and 

Mr. STANTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1750 McCulloch Boulevard North in Lake 

Havasu City, Arizona, as the ‘‘Lake Havasu City Combat 

Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LAKE HAVASU CITY COMBAT VETERANS MEMO4 RIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 1750 McCulloch Boulevard 

7 North in Lake Havasu City, Arizona, shall be known and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3314 IH

1 designated as the ‘‘Lake Havasu City Combat Veterans 

2 Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lake Havasu City 

7 Combat Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. 11-6663.

#### Michael Savior, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

565 U.S. 1042, 132 S. Ct. 592,

181 L. Ed. 2d 434,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8119.

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office, denied.

Same case below, 26 A.3d 1211.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20494]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[NAFTA-02185]


Gambro Healthcare, Inc., Cobe Laboratories, Deland, FL (Including 
Leased Workers of TTC Illinois, Incorporated Boca Raton, FL); Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for NAFTA-Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 250(A), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title 
II, of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor 
issued a Certification for NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance on 
February 19, 1998, applicable to all workers of Gambro Healthcare, 
Incorporated, located in Deland, Florida. The notice was published in 
the Federal Register on March 16, 1998 (63 FR 12838).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce on-
off dialysis kits. New information received by the company shows that 
Cobe Laboratories, Lakewood, Colorado is the parent firm of Gambro 
Healthcare, Deland, Florida. Findings also show that workers separated 
from employment at Gambro Healthcare had their wages reported under a 
separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for Cobe Laboratories.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Gambro Healthcare, Incorporated adversely affected by 
imports from Mexico.
    The amended notice applicable to NAFTA--02185 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Gambro Healthcare, Incorporated, Cobe 
Laboratories, Deland, Florida (NAFTA-02185), and leased workers of 
TTC Illinois, Incorporated, Boca Raton, Florida that provided 
payroll function services for Gambro Healthcare, Incorporated, 
Deland, Florida who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after January 29, 1997 through February 19, 2000 
are eligible to apply for the NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 17th day of July, 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-20494 Filed 7-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
J.

NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). A petitioner may be entitled to review of defaulted claims if failure to review the claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). In order to demonstrate a fundamental miscarriage of justice, a petitioner must make a colorable showing of actual innocence of the crime. Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001).

Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate good cause for his untimely and successive petition. Rather, appellant argued that he was actually innocent because he was not the shooter and he did not have the specific intent that his co-defendant kill the victims who were shot at from the vehicle appellant was driving. Appellant did not present any new evidence of his innocence, but rather argued the facts presented at trial. Under these circumstances, appellant did not demonstrate actual innocence because he failed to show that "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of. . . new evidence." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also Pellegrini, 117 Nev. at 887, 34 P.3d at 537; Mazzan, 112 Nev. at 842, 921 P.2d at 922. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 C"Cr":2222=7 J. Saitta

Pickering

(0) 947Acc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Rommie Moss Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947A 

### e
No. 10-10612.

#### Michael Dennis Olds, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 961, 132 S. Ct. 452,

181 L. Ed. 2d 291,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7456.

October 17, 2011.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 180 L. Ed. 2d 357 (2011).

Same case below, 420 Fed. Appx. 260.