alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Regulatory Process Overview

10/26/2021 

REGULATORY PROCESS OVERVIEW 

Objective 

After completion of this module, the participant will be familiar with the four 

components that are part of the regulatory process. 

Overview of the Regulatory Process 

An establishment’s food safety system consists of the HACCP plans, a Sanitation 

SOP and other programs, like sanitary dressing procedures. These programs 

ensure that the product the establishment produces is wholesome and not 

adulterated. Inspection Program Personnel (IPP) allow products to be labeled 

with the marks of inspection when they are able to find that the products are not 

adulterated. 

The diagram on the next page shows the Regulatory Process. This diagram is 

used to illustrate the HACCP-based inspection process used by FSIS inspectors. 

It includes the following four components: 

• Inspection Methodology 

 Performing inspection tasks 

 Verifying specific regulatory requirements 

• Decision-making 

 Gathering information, making observations, reviewing documentation, 

assessing the gathered information and arriving at a supportable 

compliance or noncompliance determination. 

• Documentation 

 Entering the results of inspection tasks in PHIS 

 Documenting noncompliance on a Noncompliance Record 

• Enforcement 

 Following the Rules of Practice (ROP) 

 Providing the establishment with due process 

Inspection Methods 4-1 
 

 

 

 

 

Regulatory Process Overview

10/26/2021 

HACCP Regulatory Process 

Inspection Regulatory 

Methodology Decision-Making Documentation Enforcement 

YES 

NO 

Noncompliance 

Found? 

Complete 

NR 

Perform 

Inspection 

Task 

Follow 

ROP 

Stop 

Inspection Methods 4-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regulatory Process Overview

10/26/2021 

Regulatory Process Workshop 

Read each of the following statements and identify which part of the Regulatory 

Process best applies. 

A – Inspection methodology 

B – Regulatory decision-making 

C – Documentation 

D – Enforcement 

1. An inspector is writing up a non-compliance observed during preoperational sanitation inspection. 

2. A CSI is reviewing establishment records from HACCP 

monitoring. 

3. A PHV is looking at conditions of several carcasses and is making 

an evaluation of whether the establishment’s sanitary dressing 

procedures are effective. 

4. An inspector is notifying the establishment management that a 

piece of equipment was rejected for use during pre-operational 

sanitation inspection due to product residue on food contact 

surfaces. 

5. A CSI found several piles of debris in the break room and is 

thinking about whether this finding is a non-compliance with 

sanitation regulations. 

6. An inspector is randomly selecting chicken carcasses from the 

line in order to perform a zero tolerance check. 

7. A PHV has determined that all regulatory requirements were met 

during a HACCP verification task. 

8. During operations, a CSI is observing employee hygiene and 

general sanitation conditions in the beef fabrication department. 

Inspection Methods 4-3
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2605

To amend the National Housing Act to provide that a person purchasing

a home with a mortgage insured under the FHA single family mortgage

insurance program may, under such program, borrow amounts for the

downpayment from family members.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 1, 1993

Mr. ORTON (for himself, Mr. FROST, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. SOLOMON, and Mr. WALSH) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban

Affairs

A BILL

To amend the National Housing Act to provide that a person

purchasing a home with a mortgage insured under the

FHA single family mortgage insurance program may,

under such program, borrow amounts for the downpayment from family members.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FHA Parental Loan

5 Act’’.
2

•HR 2605 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO USE AMOUNTS BORROWED FROM

2 FAMILY MEMBERS FOR DOWNPAYMENTS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 203(b)(9) of the National

4 Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(9)) is amended by insert5 ing before the period at the end the following: ‘‘: Provided

6 further, That for purposes of this paragraph, the Secretary

7 shall consider as cash or its equivalent any amounts bor8 rowed from a family member (as such term is defined in

9 section 201), subject only to the requirements that, in any

10 case in which the repayment of such borrowed amounts

11 is secured by a lien against the property, such lien shall

12 be subordinate to the mortgage and the sum of the prin13 cipal obligation of the mortgage and the obligation secured

14 by such lien may not exceed 100 percent of the appraised

15 value of the property plus any initial service charges, ap16 praisal, inspection, and other fees in connection with the

17 mortgage’’.

18 (b) DEFINITION OF FAMILY MEMBER.—Section 201

19 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707) is amended

20 by adding at the end the following new subsections:

21 ‘‘(e) The term ‘family member’ means, with respect

22 to a mortgagor under such section, a child, parent, or

23 grandparent of the mortgagor (or the mortgagor’s

24 spouse). In determining whether any of the relationships

25 referred to in the preceding sentence exist, a legally adopt26 ed son or daughter of an individual (and a child who is
3

•HR 2605 IH

1 a member of an individual’s household, if placed with such

2 individual by an authorized placement agency for legal

3 adoption by such individual), and a foster child of an indi4 vidual, shall be treated as a child of such individual by

5 blood.

6 ‘‘(f) The term ‘child’ means, with respect to a mort7 gagor under such section, a son, stepson, daughter, or

8 stepdaughter of such mortgagor.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2422 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2422

To extend until January 1, 1995, the previously existing suspensions of 
                       duty on certain chemicals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend until January 1, 1995, the previously existing suspensions of 
                       duty on certain chemicals.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSIONS OF DUTY ON CERTAIN CHEMICALS.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and inserting 
``12/31/94'' in each of the following headings:
            (1) Heading 9902.30.14 (relating to Neville and Winter's 
        acid).
            (2) Heading 9902.30.41 (relating to Broenner's acid).
            (3) Heading 9902.30.42 (relating to D Salt).
            (4) Heading 9902.30.60 (relating to napthol AS types).
            (5) Heading 9902.30.62 (relating to anis base).

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect 
on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon 
a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or 
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of goods to which any 
amendment made by section 1 applies and that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been no duty or a lower duty 
if the amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or 
withdrawal, shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
withdrawal had occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```
2009-1141.

#### Render v. Forest Park Police Dept.

Hamilton App. No. C-080371.
[No. 33819-0-II.

Division Two.

August 14, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Douglas Lee Lane, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 02-1-01658-5, Jill M. Johanson, J., entered September 7, 2005. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Quinn-Brintnall, J., concurred in by Hunt and Penoyar, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4833]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Private Sector Participation in Overseas Trade Missions

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce invites U.S. companies to 
participate in the below listed overseas trade missions. For a more 
complete description of each trade mission, obtain a copy of the 
mission statement from the Project Officer indicated for each mission 
below. Recruitment and selection of private sector participants for 
these missions will be conducted according to the Statement of Policy 
Governing Department of Commerce Overseas Trade Missions dated March 3, 
1997.
    Computer, Telecommunications and Office Equipment (CTO) Forum and 
Seminar Mission, Lagos, Nigeria. March 15-16, 2001. Recruitment Closes 
on March 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Raymond Cho, U.S. Department of 
Commerce. Telephone 202-482-0396; or e-Mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5e7d4ccd8dadbd1eaeaf6dddaf5dcc1d49bd1dad69bd2dac3">[email protected]</a>
    IT-Telecommunications Trade Mission to Russia, Moscow and St. 
Petersburg. May 12-19, 2001. Recruitment closes on April 6, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Beatrix Roberts, U.S. Department 
of Commerce. Telephone 202-482-2952; or e-Mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="692b0c081d1b001136363b060b0c1b1d1a29001d08470d060a470e061f">[email protected]</a>
    U.S. Franchising Matchmaker Trade Delegation, Santiago, Chile and 
Sao Paulo, Brazil. June 4-9, 2001. Recruitment closes on April 20, 
2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sam Dhir, U.S. Department of 
Commerce. Telephone 202-482-4756; or e-Mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f3c0e02412b07061d2f020e0603410b000c41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a497b77345e7273685a777b7376347e7579347d756c">[email protected]</span></a> 
Trade mission applications received after the above closing dates will 
be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. For 
further information contact Mr. Reginald Beckham, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, telephone 202-482-5478, or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="663403010f08070a0239392403050d0e070b260f12074802090548010910">[email protected]</a>

    Dated: February 22, 2001.
Thomas H. Nisbet,
Director, Promotion Planning and Support Division, Office of Export 
Promotion Coordination.
[FR Doc. 01-4833 Filed 2-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kevin Lee DAVIS, aka Slow and Yellow Dude, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-17194.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 12, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 14, 2011.

Alicia Wiltz Fenrick, Esq., USO-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Lee Davis, USPV-U.S. Penitentiary, Adelanto, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Davis’s case was not yet final on direct appeal when the Supreme Court decided *Crawford v. Washington,*541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). *See Caspari v. Bohlen,*510 U.S. 383, 390, 114 S.Ct. 948, 127 L.Ed.2d 236 (1994) (“[A] conviction and sentence become final *for*purposes of retroactivity analysis when ... a timely filed petition [for writ of certiorari] has been finally denied.”). Under *Crawford,*the admission of Medina’s statement violated Davis’s Confrontation Clause rights — a point the government now concedes. *See Crawford,*541 U.S. at 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354. We therefore remand for the district court to determine if the error was prejudicial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         2,525,402
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,225,992
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (848,655)
<INVENTORY>                                    7,273,526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15,549,148
<PP&E>                                         14,443,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,240,431)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 25,082,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,387,930
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       56,467
<OTHER-SE>                                     9,213,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   25,082,382
<SALES>                                        8,780,907
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               21,085,866
<CGS>                                          4,570,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,961,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10,932,723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             794,442
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,593,475)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,135,267)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,728,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,728,742)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.02)



</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-11309

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CURTIS MITCHELL O’BRIEN,

a/k/a Rudolph P. (Peter) Heim,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:89-CR-0009-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 30, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Curtis Mitchell O'Brien, federal prisoner # 17872-077,

appeals the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)

motion for return of property. O’Brien seeks the return of his

aircraft seized on April 5, 1989. The district court denied his

Rule 41(e) motion based on the statute of limitations, finding

that his claim accrued on the date of seizure. O’Brien argues

that the district court erred in denying his motion for return of

property based on the statute of limitations. He contends that 
No. 98-11309

-2-

his claim could not have accrued on the date of seizure on April

5, 1989.

O’Brien alleges that he was informed that the U.S. Customs

Service had given the aircraft to the Menard County Sheriff’s

Office in 1991. Because the plane is no longer in the possession

of the Government, O’Brien’s claim is one for money damages. See

Armendariz-Mata v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, DEA, 82 F.3d 679, 682

(5th Cir. 1996). Rule 41(e) does not provide for monetary

damages. Pena v. United States, 157 F.3d 984, 986 (5th Cir.

1998).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of

O’Brien’s motion for return of property because, according to his

allegations, the property is no longer in the possession of the

federal government and because there is no avenue of relief

currently available to him to seek monetary damages in federal

court. See Matthews v. Wozencraft, 15 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir.

1994) (court may affirm judgment of district court on other

grounds).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                            PRO FORMA
                                                                                      -----------------------
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED            THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                         ---------------------        -----------------------
                                                         March 31    March 31         March 31      March 31
                                                           1996        1997             1996          1997
                                                         ---------   ---------        ---------     ---------
 <S>                                                     <C>         <C>              <C>           <C>
 Shares outstanding at beginning of period . . . .          93,225     612,800           93,225       612,800

 Weighted average shares:

 Issued pursuant to Staff Accounting Bulletin 
   No. 83  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         931,390                      668,890

 Issued in connection with the VPI Acquisition . .                     816,667        1,312,500     1,312,500

 Issued in the IPO, including the over-allotment .                   1,222,889                      1,222,889

 Issued to convert debt to common shares . . . . .                     157,789                        157,789

 Common stock equivalent shares related to stock         
   options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                      65,194                         65,194

 Weighted average shares outstanding at end of           
   period  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       1,024,615   2,875,339        2,074,615     3,371,172
                                                         =========   =========        =========     =========
</TABLE>
2010-0127.

#### In re Petition of CSX Transp., Inc.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 09-125-RR-UNC. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Upon consideration of the motion for leave to intervene as appellee of CSX Transportation, Inc.,

It is ordered by the court that the motion for leave to intervene is granted.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4896]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration A-428-825


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany; 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limits.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limits for the preliminary results of the 1999-2000 administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order (A-428-825) on stainless steel 
sheet and strip in coils from Germany. This review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States, 
Krupp Thyssen Nirosta GmbH (KTN), and the period January 4, 1999 
through June 30, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Odenyo at (202) 482-5254 or 
Robert James at (202) 482-0649, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Enforcement Group III, Office Eight, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because it is not practicable to complete 
these reviews within the normal statutory time limit, the Department is 
extending the time limits for completion of the preliminary results 
until July 31, 2001 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. See Memorandum from Richard O. Weible 
to Joseph A. Spetrini, on file in Room B-099 of the main Commerce 
building. The deadline for the final results of this review will 
continue to be 120 days after publication of the preliminary results.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675 (a)(3)(A) (2000)).

    Dated: February 20, 2001.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 01-4896 Filed 2-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P