alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A Letter from the Office of Policy and Program Development - Policy Development Division

regarding Applying for a Grant of Inspection

Dear Prospective Applicant,

Thank you for your interest in producing a meat or poultry product under Federal Inspection. A Federal 

Grant of Inspection will enable you to sell your product in interstate commerce for resale. The FSIS Web 

page at www.fsis.usda.gov has lots of information. Here are the basics you need to know as you begin the 

process of applying for a Federal Grant of Inspection. 

In order to obtain a Grant of Inspection from USDA-FSIS, you need at a minimum the following:

1. A HACCP Plan. HACCP is an acronym for hazard analysis critical control point. Such a 

food safety “process control program” must be developed by someone formally trained in 

HACCP.

2. A Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure (Sanitation SOP). 

3. A suitable facility where the walls, floors, and ceilings are cleanable, impervious to moisture, 

insects, vermin and meet other sanitary requirements. 

You may obtain an application, and paper as well as electronic copies of all these documents by 

contacting the appropriate District Office (DO). Your DO can put you in contact with a Front Line 

Supervisor assigned to your area who can also answer your questions. Once you have the met the basic 

requirements and submitted your application to the appropriate DO with the required information, the 

approval process takes 4-6 weeks on average. FSIS will provide mandatory inspection service at no 

charge up to 40 hrs per week and voluntary inspection as arranged at a nominal rate. You will be 

responsible for voluntary or overtime charges at approximately $50-70/ hr. 

To enhance your knowledge of the requirements, PDD recommends you become acquainted with the 

Federal Code of Regulations applicable to FSIS. Save this as a Favorite or Bookmark. You should focus 

particularly on Title 9 CFR 305, 307, 416, and 417 that apply to facilities, sanitation and HACCP for red 

meat operations. For poultry operations listed in the 381 regulations under Title 9, you should refer to 

Subparts E and G in addition to all of the 416 and 417 regulations.

If you need assistance in developing your HACCP plan, you can view models of various HACCP plans

on the FSIS Website. You can access these HACCP models by viewing “HACCP” in the A-Z index or 

using the FSIS public site Search engine. 

Finally, if you need supporting documents or more specialized help, you can reach out to the experts and 

tools including askFSIS available via the Small Plant Outreach. Contacts for State HACCP Contacts and 

Coordinators for each state are available on the FSIS Website and in Part 7.

Office of Policy and Program Development

Policy Development Division
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

          - 26 CFR Part 1 
          - [REG-116050-99] 
          - RIN 1545-AX65 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. 

# SUMMARY:

This document provides notice of cancellation of a public hearing on proposed regulations relating to stock transfer rules and carryover of earnings and taxes. 

# DATES:

The public hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, March 13, 2001, at 10 a.m., is canceled. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Guy R. Traynor of the Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel, at (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 15, 2000, (65 FR 69138), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for March 13, 2001 at 10 a.m., in Room 7218 of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. The subject of the public hearing is proposed regulations under section 367 of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these proposed regulations expired on February 20, 2001.                 

The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of February 23, 2001, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for March 13, 2001, is canceled. 

Cynthia E. Grigsby,

Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization & Strategic Planning). 

[FR Doc. 01-4925 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Todd Bruce, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Crystallex International Corporation (the “registrant”), certify that:

1. Based on my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (“Form 40-F”), of the registrant fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information contained in Form 40-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Date: May 5, 2005

/s/ Todd BruceTodd BrucePresident and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Crystallex International Corporation and will be retained by such corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
Motion Granted; Order filed February 7, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00676

- CR

____________ RENDRICK ANTHONY CHE EKS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1328385



### ORDER

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholl y frivolous and without merit. Appellant has made known to this

c ourt his desire to review the record and file a pro se b rief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant requested an extension of time to file his response to counsel’s Anders brief because he has not received a copy of the record. We
GRANT the request and issue the following order.2

Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 232nd District Court to afford appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before February 22, 2013 ; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se brief with this court within thirty days of that date.

PER C URIAM
#### Roberto HERRERA, aka Roberto Torres Herrera, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. NGUYEN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-16358.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 14, 2014.

Roberto Herrera, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Roberto Herrera, AKA Roberto Torres Herrera, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate, indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Herrera’s action because Herrera failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his chronic pain. *See Jett v. Penner,*439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (to demonstrate deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need” and “harm caused by the indifference”); *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) (“Medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”).

*512The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Herrera’s motion for appointment of counsel because Herrera failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. *See Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (setting forth standard of review and explaining “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### YABIN KANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72007.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 27, 2007.

Law Offices of Scott Warmuth, APC, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.

Donald E. Keener, Esq., Alison R. Drucker, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Yabin Kang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying as untimely his motion to reconsider the BIA’s order denying as untimely Kang’s motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider *666for an abuse of discretion, *Oh v. Gonzales,*406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kang’s motion to reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA’s final order of removal and Kang has not alleged any exceptions to that deadline. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B).

We lack jurisdiction to review Kang’s argument that the BIA should have equitably tolled the filing deadline for his August 16, 2004 motion to reopen, because this petition for review is not timely as to the BIA’s October 27, 2004 order, denying that motion. *See Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Petroleum Development Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|   |                                                                                                                      
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Richard W. McCulloughMay 10, 2011Richard W. McCulloughChairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Gysle R. ShellumMay 10, 2011Gysle R. ShellumChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Petroleum Development Corporation and will be retained by Petroleum Development Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, L. Ray Adams, Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
of Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Oregon Steel Mills, Inc.




/s/ L. Ray Adams
---------------------------------------
L. Ray Adams
Vice President-Finance,
Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Jose Cosio GOMEZ, also known as Juan Cosio, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-50692

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 6, 2014.

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

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Jose Cosio Gomez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin and possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. He was sentenced to 100 months of imprisonment. In his sole issue on appeal, Cosio Gomez argues that the district court should have granted him a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because he was less culpable than the other participants in the offense. He also argues that the district court’s denial of the reduction was influenced by incorrect assertions that his conduct should be compared to that of an “average” drug courier.

To qualify for a minor role reduction, a defendant must be “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(A)); *United States v. Villanueva,*408 F.3d 193, 203-04 (5th Cir.2005). We have held that “[i]t is not enough that a defendant does less than other participants; in order to qualify as a *219minor participant, a defendant must have been peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity.” *Villanueva,*408 F.3d at 204 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether a defendant is a minor participant is a factual determination reviewed for clear error. *United States v. Silva-De Hoyos,*702 F.3d 843, 846 (5th Cir.2012). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record read as a whole.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Even if the Government’s arguments incorrectly compared Cosio Gomez’s conduct to that of an “average” courier rather than to an “average participant,” the district court’s statements do not suggest that it made the same error. *See*§ 3B1.2, comment. (nn.1 & 3(A)). While Cosio Gomez’s role may have been somewhat less culpable than that of the other participants, his role in transporting a large quantity of heroin from Texas to Ohio was neither “substantially less culpable” nor “peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity.” § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(A)); *Villanueva,*408 F.3d at 204 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Cosio Gomez should not receive a minor participant reduction. *See Silva-De Hoyos,*702 F.3d at 847.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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>                                           7
                  
                    
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           500,289
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          699,498
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            705,637
<EQUITIES>                                       6,407
<MORTGAGE>                                       1,457 
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 722,339
<CASH>                                               0   
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               5,786
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          92,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 835,600 
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 37,209
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                 54
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   1,522
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          659,078
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 20,470
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     24,586
<COMMON>                                         4,497
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   835,600
<PREMIUMS>                                       6,728
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             48,182
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 122 
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  25,678
<BENEFITS>                                      47,988
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     10,595
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            10,117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,010
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,937
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,073
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,073
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.41
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0 
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0 
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        
             

</TABLE>
Union Calendar No. 356

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2461

[Report No. 103–656]

A BILL

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative

ished families and individuals.to nonprofit providers of necessaries to impoverStates of surplus personal property for donationServices Act of 1949 to authorize the transfer to

AUGUST 3, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
IB

Union Calendar No. 356

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2461

[Report No. 103–656]

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949

to authorize the transfer to States of surplus personal property for

donation to nonprofit providers of necessaries to impoverished families

and individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 18, 1993

Mr. HAMILTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Operations

AUGUST 3, 1994

Additional sponsors: Mr. MCCLOSKEY, Mr. JACOBS, and Mr. COYNE

AUGUST 3, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services

Act of 1949 to authorize the transfer to States of surplus

personal property for donation to nonprofit providers

of necessaries to impoverished families and individuals.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2461 RH

1 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY

2 FOR DONATION TO PROVIDERS OF NEC3 ESSARIES TO IMPOVERISHED FAMILIES AND

4 INDIVIDUALS.

5 Section 203(j)(3)(B) of the Federal Property and Ad6 ministrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.

7 484(j)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘homeless in8 dividuals’’ the following: ‘‘, providers of assistance to fami9 lies or individuals whose annual incomes are below the

10 poverty line (as that term is defined in section 673 of the

11 Community Services Block Grant Act),’’.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-541

In Re: THOMAS KARL KEENAN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-92-487-A)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Karl Keenan, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Karl Keenan brought this mandamus petition seeking an

order compelling the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia to act on Keenan's motion to reconsider the

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion. Because we note that

the district court denied the motion for reconsideration during the

pendency of this petition, we conclude that Keenan's petition is

moot. To the extent that Keenan seeks to challenge the correctness

of the district court's original order denying the 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion, a petition for mandamus is not a substitute for a direct

appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.

1979). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

but deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED