alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Version November 2023

FDA FACT SHEET

MANUFACTURED FOOD REGULATORY 

PROGRAM STANDARDS (MFRPS) 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM

Program Description

• Enhance the nation’s food safety, as directed by the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

• Provide the tools and resources to enable state food regulatory programs to build strong infrastructures and 

systems that complement national uniformity and promote an integrated food safety system.

• Promote quality regulatory programs through continuous self-improvement.

• Improve communication among regulatory and public health partners.

Intended Outcomes

• Enhance capacity of food safety regulatory programs by serving as the foundation for mutual reliance.

• Promote internal program consistency, a highly trained workforce, and partnerships with other regulatory and 

public health programs.

• Provide tools to help programs build a quality management system to measure and improve performance 

and accountability.

• Promote consumer confidence in food protection programs

• Assess gaps and set priorities for program improvements through MFRPS’ self-assessment approach.

• Use MFRPS tools to complete a resource assessment to help justify existing resources or to request 

increases resources.

• Facilitate opportunities for states to network, learn, and work with other state regulatory programs by 

facilitating information-sharing and improved communications.

Program Metrics

• Current program funding: $9.77M

• Current number of awards: 43

MFRPS CAP Awardees (FY2023)

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California* Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia

Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota

Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Jersey New 

Mexico

New

York

Nebraska Nevada North 

Carolina

Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode 

Island

South 

Carolina*

Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont

Virginia Washington West 

Virginia*

Wisconsin Wyoming

*Denotes a state with two agencies holding individual cooperative agreements.
Version November 2023

Have you seen our Blog? FDA Voice

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, 

effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The 

agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, and products that give off 

electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.
# FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

### COURT 

## SEp 

## 3 

## 0 2010 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

### ~oua forthe 

### District ofColumbia DIALLOBE A. McDOUGALD, ) ) Plaintiff, 

## 1 1 

## 1 Civil Action No. 

## 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on review ofplaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro secivil complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed. I The Court has reviewedplaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro selitigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. SeeHaines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5 19, 520 (1972). Evenpro selitigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell 

### v. Tisch, 656 

### F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine ofres judicata applies. Brown 

### v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Axcess International, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers 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)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined Exchange Act
Rules 13-15(f) and 15d-(f)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidating
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report was prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report (the
Evaluation Date); andc)
    
    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our
most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.
  /s/ ALLAN GRIEBENOW

Allan Griebenow, President andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
##### 



Exhibit 12
  TEXTRON
    FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    (Dollars in millions)
  Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, 2007Income before income taxes

$
174FIXED CHARGES:Interest on debt


298Estimated interest portion of rents


2Total fixed charges


300Adjusted income

$
474Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(1)


1.58x     (1)
    
    The ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been computed by
    dividing income before income taxes and fixed charges by fixed
    charges. Fixed charges consist of interest on debt and one-third
    rental expense as representative of interest portion of rentals.
**EXHIBIT 31**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Ron Hooper, certifythat: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sabine Royalty Trust,for which Southwest Bank acts as Trustee; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), or for causing such controls and proceduresto be established and maintained, for the registrant and I have: 

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

b) Designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring 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 controlover financial reporting; and 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors: 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 7, 2015
Rocky BUNNELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4412

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11331]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP91-47-016]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.; Notice Of Compliance Filing

May 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 26, 1995, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) notified the Commission that on April 13, 1995, 
it made the following Billing Adjustment to its former RQ and CD 
customers, in accordance with Section 20(f) of the General Terms and 
Conditions of National's FERC Gas Tariff.
    Under Section 20, National is required to make any Billing 
Adjustments caused by the reallocation of take-or-pay (TOP) charges 
under the winter requirement quantity allocation method within sixty 
days of a final Commission order. National states that this Billing 
Adjustment reflects charges or refunds caused by the reallocation of 
TOP charges from Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Texas Gas 
Transmission Corporation, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and CNG 
Transmission Corporation.
    National states that copies of the letter and the attached 
worksheets were sent to each of National's former RQ and CD customers.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426 in accordance with Rule 211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 18 CFR 385.211. All such 
protests should be filed on or before May 10, 1995. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11331 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) 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>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             507
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (379)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,199
<PP&E>                                           5,688
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,756)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,096
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,620
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,545)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,309
<SALES>                                          2,288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,288
<CGS>                                            1,428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,322)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,322)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,604)<F2>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.47)
<FN>
<F1>Provision for doubtful accounts and inventory provision included in total
costs.
<F2>Net loss applicable to common stock.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Rodney Alexander MITCHELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10162.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10955]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-917-000]


Central Illinois Public Service Company; Notice of Filing

April 28, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 14, 1995, Central Illinois Public Service 
Company (CIPS) submitted a Service Agreement, dated March 22, 1995, 
establishing Citizens Lehman Power as a customer under the terms of 
CIPS' Coordination Sales Tariff CST-1 (``CST-1 Tariff'').
    CIPS requests an effective date of March 22, 1995, and accordingly, 
seeks waiver of the Commission's notice requirements. Copies of this 
filing were served upon Citizens Lehman Power and the Illinois Commerce 
Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before May 12, 1995. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10955 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Ahsan MOHIUDDIN, petitioner, v. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.

No. 12-9580.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

ORDER RE: WAYMO’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL FURTHER RULE 30(B)(6) 

TESTIMONY

DKT. NO. 1353

Waymo seeks to compel further Rule 30(b)(6) testimony from Uber on Topics 1, 9 and 10. 

After reviewing the deposition transcript, Waymo’s motion is DENIED with one exception. Its 

motion to compel further testimony on Topic 1 is denied as Waymo does not identify any question 

that went unanswered. It motion to compel further testimony on Topic 10 is denied as the 

deponent answered Waymo’s questions. As for Topic 9, Uber shall make a 30(b)(6) witness 

available to testify as to Uber’s spread sheets; Uber’s offer to answer written questions is 

inadequate. This deposition shall occur on or before September 1, 2017. In all other respects 

Waymo’s motion to compel further testimony on Topic 9 is denied.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 1253.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2017 

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 INCLUDED
IN PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          42,573
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,754
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,171
<PP&E>                                          10,216
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,414
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,396
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,433
<SALES>                                         15,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,265
<CGS>                                            8,247
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,235
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    22
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 285
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,799<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,436
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,363
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,363
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.71
<FN>
<F1>Includes 19,667 gain on sale of assets
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 11, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00709

- CV

Marcia E. Alvarez, Appellant

v.

Victor M. Alvarez, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAN D
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the tr i a l court on Octob er 12, 2015.

Having reviewed the record , the Court holds that Marcia E. Alvarez has not prosecuted her

appeal and did not comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court

dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.