alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Eastern Regional Research Center: Wyndmoor, PA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About ERRC
                        Greetings from the Director
                                    Directions/Lodging
                                    History and Accomplishments
                    Our Work
                        Biomass Pyrolysis Research
                                    IPMP 2013
                                    IPMP Dynamic Prediction
                                    IPMP Global Fit
                                    Pathogen Modeling Program (PMP)
                                    Predictive Microbiology Information Portal (PMIP)
                                    PoultryFARMSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Campus of ERRC
 Two varieties of rendered protein, meat & bone meal (dark), and poultry by-product meal (light)
 Cold plasma - a waterless, nonthermal sanitizing process developed to inactivate human pathogens on fruits, nuts and other foods
 The progression of sweet sorghum juice fermentation (prior to inoculation and ending after one week) with the yeast strain *Phaffia rhodozyma* to produce the carotenoid astaxanthin
 ERRC's Lab Then and Now
 ERRC's State of the Art Pilot Plant


Mission


Upcoming Events


Northeast Area   sevim.erhan@usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6825
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-6948
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-7102
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,- 2 - versus HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00156) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 19, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard Charles Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: After the district court granted Howard Charles Hudson’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion and reduced his sentence from life in prison to 360 months, Hudson filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion asserting that district court should have applied the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and that his sentence should have been based on an offense level of twelve due to the drug quantity stated in the indictment. The district court denied the Rule 35(a) motion and also denied Hudson’s motion for reconsideration of that order. He now appeals from the orders granting his motion for a reduction in sentence, denying his Rule 35(a) motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hudson , No. 2:93-cr-00156 (E.D. Va. filed May 16, 2007 & entered May 17, 2006; June 6, 2007; filed June 27, 2007 & entered June 28, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00065-TLS   document 110-4   filed 07/29/19   page 1 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00065-TLS   document 110-4   filed 07/29/19   page 2 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00065-TLS   document 110-4   filed 07/29/19   page 3 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00065-TLS   document 110-4   filed 07/29/19   page 4 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00065-TLS   document 110-4   filed 07/29/19   page 5 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00065-TLS   document 110-4   filed 07/29/19   page 6 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00065-TLS   document 110-4   filed 07/29/19   page 7 of 7
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Ferguson, Also Known as Harold Fergeson, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Leon-forte, J.), rendered on June 22, 1983, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.
#### FREDENBERG, Respondent, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Hiram E. Fredenberg, as executor, against the city of Syracuse, the People’s Railroad Company, etc.

No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the judgment as to damages to $7,-000, in which case the judgment and order as so modified affirmed, without costs to either party of this appeal.
**Certification      of Chief Financial Officer Regarding Periodic Report Containing**

**Financial      Statements Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of      2002**

|   | **•** |   | fully                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities                Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **•** |   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |       | /s/                C. Troy Woodbury, Jr.                                                                 |
|--------|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |       |                                                                                                     |
|   | **Name:**  | **C.                Troy Woodbury, Jr.**                                                                 |
|   | **Title:** | **Treasurer                and Chief Financial Officer****(Principal                Financial Officer)** |
|   | **Date:**  | **July                10, 2008**                                                                         |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelvin OWENS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50236.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 8, 2011.

Filed June 2, 2011.

Jean-Claude Andre, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Dorothy McLaughlin, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*746Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Kelvin Owens appeals the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed under 21 U.S.C. § *846*and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine and 500 grams or more of powder cocaine, and possession of a firearm following a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence.

While this appeal was pending, President Obama signed into law the Fair Sentencing Act, which increased the quantity of crack cocaine required to trigger mandatory sentences under § 841(b)(1). See Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2872. Owens asks that we vacate his sentence with instructions for resentencing pursuant to the Act, under which he would qualify for a lower, five-year sentence.

We reject his arguments for the reasons set forth in the opinion that we issue today in *United States v. Baptist,*09-50315.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000715357
<NAME> FARM FRESH, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-14-1997
<CASH>                                             627
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,044
<INVENTORY>                                     43,678
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,863
<PP&E>                                         204,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                  98,208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 189,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,131
<BONDS>                                        206,180
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   189,148
<SALES>                                        323,503
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               323,503
<CGS>                                          245,869
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  245,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                67,076
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,624)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,624)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,624)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### CONSOLIDATED TEA CO., Appellant, v. „ •GOLDBERG, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by the Consolidated Tea ■Company against Isaac Goldberg. L. B. Boudin, for appellant. H. M. Wise, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 ■costs and disbursements. Order filed.
E X H I B I T   2 1

                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>                                                                       Date of
                                                      Place of               Incorporation
Name                                               Incorporation            or Acquisition    
<S>                                                <C>                      <C> 
Automated Language Processing Systems, Ltd.        Canada                   November 17, 1986

a.l.p. Services, Inc.                              Utah, USA                November 25, 1987

A.L.P. SERVICES SARL                               France                   November 30, 1987

INTERDOC SARL                                      France                   November 30, 1987

Automated Language Processing Services, Ltd.       England                  December 2, 1987

ALPNET GmbH                                        Germany                  January 11, 1988

ALPNET Canada Inc.                                 Canada                   January 15, 1988 

Dr. W.D. Haehl GmbH                                Germany                  January 29, 1988

Interlingua Group Ltd.                             England                  March 31, 1988

ALPNET U.K. Ltd.                                   England                  March 31, 1988

Interlingua S.L.                                   Spain                    March 31, 1988

ALPNET Singapore Pte. Ltd.                         Singapore                March 31, 1988

ALPNET Ireland Ltd.                                Ireland                  August 18, 1995

AOLI Network Technology Ltd.                       China                    December 12, 1995

ALPNET Netherlands BV                              The Netherlands          February 12, 1996

ALPNET Belgium NV                                  Belgium                  September 16, 1996

Computype Limited                                  England                  January 31, 1997

<FN>
Notes:  (1)  All subsidiaries are wholly-owned.
        (2)  The Company's Korean and Japanese operations are branches of ALPNET, Inc.
</FN>
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LAURENCE HALSTEAD III,

Plaintiff,

v . GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (GEICO), et al .,

Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : Civil Action No. 08-1778 (JR)

MEMORANDUM

Although the complaint in this case says it is for "breach of contract, malicious breach of contract, breach of the covenant of fair dealing, violation of consumer protection and for abuse of process, malicious abuse of process and misuse of process," it is really an attempt to collect more money than the $100,000 the plaintiff accepted in settlement of claims he made years ago after he suffered injuries in an automobile accident. The suit is entirely without merit. Plaintiff’s assertion of third party rights under his passenger’s insurance policy (see Complaint, para. 85) is muddled, to say the least. The only “contract” that plaintiff had was an agreement to settle, and that agreement was honored. The defendants neither initiated nor served process, so they could not have "abused," "maliciously abused," or "misused" process. Plaintiff has cited no authority, nor have we found any, for the proposition that either the covenant of fair dealing or the consumer protection statute has- 2 -

any application to the settlement of tort cases, particularly where, as here, all the litigants were represented by competent counsel. Plaintiff settled and dismissed with prejudice the same claim against GEICO that he has attempted to repackage here, executing a general release of GEICO. The conflict of interest claim he asserts en passant against the lawyers who represented GEICO in Superior Court is particularly unmeritorious; counsel were not responsible for the fact (surely not an unusual fact in Washington, D.C.) that the underinsured motorist coverage on the vehicle plaintiff was driving and the coverage on the vehicle driven by the tortfeasor was all written by GEICO. If plaintiff's conflict of interest argument were accepted, it would mean that in every case in which GEICO has insured both the plaintiff and the defendant it would have to be unrepresented on one side or another of the "v." Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted.

JAMES ROBERTSON United States District Judge
Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

     The undersigned  officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage  Securities Corp., a
Delaware  corporation (the "Company")  hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and  on  his  own  behalf  for  purposes  of  the  WAMU  MORTGAGE   PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-S1, as follows:

     1. I am the duly appointed, qualified and acting President of the Company.

     2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

     3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Company.

     4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

     5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 15, 2004.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Michael L. Parker
                         Michael L. Parker,
                         President and Director
#### MATTESON, Appellant, v. JENNINGS BRAGDON CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 26, 1912.)

Action by James L. Matte-son against the Jennings Bragdon Company. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See, also, 132 N. Y. Supp. 1138.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2142 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2142

      To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,6-Hexanediamine, N,N'- 
bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- piperidinyl)-, polymer with 2,4,6-trichloro-
  1,3,5-triazine, reaction products with N-butyl- 1-butanamine and N-
             butyl- 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- piperidinamine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2005

  Mr. Berry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,6-Hexanediamine, N,N'- 
bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- piperidinyl)-, polymer with 2,4,6-trichloro-
  1,3,5-triazine, reaction products with N-butyl- 1-butanamine and N-
             butyl- 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- piperidinamine.

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

SECTION 1. 1,6-HEXANEDIAMINE, N,N'- BIS(2,2,6,6-TETRAMETHYL-4- 
              PIPERIDINYL)-, POLYMER WITH 2,4,6-TRICHLORO-1,3,5-
              TRIAZINE, REACTION PRODUCTS WITH N-BUTYL- 1-BUTANAMINE 
              AND N-BUTYL- 2,2,6,6-TETRAMETHYL-4- PIPERIDINAMINE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.54       1,6-               Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Hexanediamine,                                                     31/2008
                         N,N- bis(2,2,6,6-
                         tetramethyl-4-
                         piperidinyl)-,
                         polymer with
                         2,4,6-trichloro-
                         1,3,5-triazine,
                         reaction products
                         with N-butyl- 1-
                         butanamine and N-
                         butyl- 2,2,6,6-
                         tetramethyl-4-
                         piperidinamine
                         (CAS No. 192268-
                         64-7) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         3911.90.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 19-2104

JASON STRICKLAND,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

COLETTE GOGUEN, Superintendent, NCCI Gardner,

Respondent, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court, issued on June 30, 2021, is amended 

as follows:

On the cover page, replace " Ira L. Grant" with " Ira L. Gant"
[No. 15894-2-III.

Division Three.

August 26, 1997.]

#### The Gallatin Group, Inc., et al., *Appellants,*v. Deloitte & Touche, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 96-2-00605-4, Tari S. Eitzen, J., entered June 5,1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kurtz, J., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Brown, J.