alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

AMS - Beefcarcassrevisions

From: McEvers, Trenton J. <tmcevers@mail.wtamu.edu>

Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:59 PM

To: AMS - Beefcarcassrevisions

Subject: Beef Grading Revisions

Attachments: Commentary Regarding the Revision of Beef Grading Standards.docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

To whom it may concern,

Please find the attached document containing comments related to the current beef carcass grading system.

Thank you,

Trent McEvers, Ph.D.

WTAMU Box 60998

Canyon, TX 79016‐0001

Email:  tmcevers@wtamu.edu

Cell:  806‐676‐9943
Commentary Regarding the Revision of Beef Grading Standards:

1.) Estimation of beef carcass maturity and quality grade.

The current system utilized to determine beef carcass maturity is flawed due to the physiology of 

cartilage ossification. Moreover, the subjective determination of skeletal and lean maturity has 

been widely debated in the industry setting. The key component regarding ossification is estrogen 

and estrogen ligands which have a pronounced effect on ossification of the cartilaginous tips of the 

lumbar, thoracic, and sacral vertebrae. This becomes problematic especially in cycling heifers and 

those exposed to a bull that may experience increased estrogen spiking ante mortem. Ultimately, 

the free market has accepted the utilization of dentition to estimate age and BSE risk rather than 

skeletal and lean maturity. Due to the current marketing atmosphere, I believe removal of the 

skeletal lean and bone maturity system for determination of quality grade is warranted.

2.) Estimation of beef carcass yield grade and saleable meat yield.

Under the current system, beef carcasses must achieve specific ribeye-area measurements at 

carcass weights to achieve a desirable yield grade. These calculated yield grades may result in a 

premium on many value-based formulas. One prominent fact of the beef industry is that cattle 

frame score and overall weights have steadily increased since the development of the current yield 

grading system. In addition, with ever-changing cattle populations such as dairy bred steers and 

heifers being utilized, a new equation that effectively accounts for variation in the current 

population and the foreseeable future is needed. If a new system is developed to classify carcasses, 

it may be advantageous to develop equations that estimate saleable meat yield percentage rather 

than the current ordinal value ranges. The free market could then actively develop ranges of red 

meat yield percentage that could receive discounts and premiums and ultimately reflect shifts in box 

beef yield.
ARTICLES OF MERGER
                                       FOR
                           POZZOLANIC NORTHWEST, INC.,
                           (a Washington corporation)

                                       AND

                              ISG RESOURCES, INC.,
                              (a Utah corporation)

         Pursuant to the provisions of sections 23B.11.070 and 23B.11.050 of the
Washington  Business  Corporation Act (the "Act"),  ISG Resources,  Inc., a Utah
corporation (the "Corporation"),  hereby adopts and files the following Articles
of Merger as the surviving  corporation  to the merger of Pozzolanic  Northwest,
Inc., a Washington corporation, with and into the Corporation:

          FIRST: The Plan of Merger (the "Plan") is attached  hereto and is made
               a part hereof.

          SECOND: The Plan was duly approved by the shareholders of each foreign
               constituent  corporation  in the merger  pursuant  to the laws of
               each such corporation's  state of incorporation and each domestic
               constituent  corporation  has complied with  sections  23B.11.010
               through  23B.11.040  of the Act and has  duly  approved  the Plan
               pursuant to section 23B.11.030 of the Act.

          THIRD: The  shareholders  of  each  domestic  constituent  corporation
               approved  the  Plan  by  their   unanimous   written  consent  in
               accordance with section 23B.07.040(1)(a)(i) of the Act.

          DATED as of November _____, 1998.

                                         ISG RESOURCES, INC.,
                                         a Utah corporation

                                         By:
                                             -----------------------------
                                               R Steve Creamer
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               (An officer's title)
#### § 385.4 Form of staff action.

Unless otherwise specified, staff action shall be by order or informal writing (letters, telegrams, decision marked on copy of application form, etc.). Such orders or informal writings shall contain a recital that action is taken pursuant to authority assigned herein, shall, in cases where there are “parties or interveners,” or where there may be an adverse effect upon a person with a substantial interest, contain a brief reference to the right of aggrieved parties to petition the Reviewing Official for review pursuant to applicable procedural rules, including a statement of the time within which petitions must be filed (§ 385.51); shall state whether the filing of a petition shall preclude the action from becoming effective; and shall be in the name of the person exercising the assigned function. They shall contain all findings, determinations and conclusions which would be required or appropriate if they were issued by the Secretary. Upon request, the appropriate Department Official shall attest as Departmental action orders or informal writings issued pursuant to this part which have become the action of the Department (§ 385.52).

[Doc. No. T-1, 49 FR 50985, Dec. 31, 1984; Amdt. 1, 50 FR 7170, Feb. 21, 1985]
Exhibit
10.20
 
 FIRST
AMENDMENT TO
 DEATH
BENEFIT AGREEMENT
 
 This is
the First Amendment to a Death Benefit Agreement dated June 2, 1994, by and
between Kellwood Company (“Company”), a Delaware corporation, and _____________
(“Employee”), an Employee of Kellwood Company.
 
 WHEREAS,
the Death Benefit Agreement was entered into at a time when the Employee was a
participant of the Kellwood Company Pension Plan, a qualified retirement plan;
and
 
 WHEREAS,
the Death Benefit Agreement defined Retirement in accordance with the provisions
of the Pension Plan; and
 
 WHEREAS,
the Company has since terminated its Pension Plan, but the parties agree that
the same definition of Retirement should continue.
 
 NOW
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the parties agree to amend the
Death Benefit Agreement as follows:
 
 1. Paragraph
7 entitled “Retirement” shall be deleted in it entirety and a new paragraph 7
inserted as follows:
 
 “ Retirement .
Retirement is defined as a termination of an Employee’s employment (a) when the
Employee is either at least 65 years of age, or at least 55 years of age and has
completed 15 years of continuous employment; or (b) when the Employee is
declared by the Compensation and Stock Option Committee of Kellwood Company’s
Board of Directors to be a Retiree.”
 
 2. This
Amendment to the Death Benefit Agreement shall be effective as of December 8,
2000.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed below to indicate their consent and
agreement this _____ day of _________________, 2001.
 
 KELLWOOD
      COMPANYBy:****Hal J. UpbinChairman, President & CEOEMPLOYEEBy:****
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1695

RICHARD W. DAVIS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

EXXON COMPANY, USA; RICHARD HARVIN;

JOHN BIAVASCHI,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-98-1471-A)

Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: January 12, 2000

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kimberly L. Bradley, ABATO, RUBENSTEIN & ABATO, P.A., Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellant. Richard J. Hafets, PIPER & MARBURY L.L.P.,

Baltimore, Maryland; Charles B. Wayne, PIPER & MARBURY L.L.P.,

Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court's order is marked as "filed" on

April 16, 1999, the district court's records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on April 20, 1999. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet

that we take as the effective date of the district court's

decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Richard W. Davis, Jr., appeals the district court's order

granting summary judgment in his former employer's favor in this

action alleging age discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, and defamation. We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the

joint appendices, the supplemental appendix, and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Davis v. Exxon

Company, USA, No. CA-98-1471-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 1999.)* 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
## **Exhibit 31.4**

##  

## Kentucky UtilitiesCompany

##  

I,S. Bradford Rives, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Kentucky UtilitiesCompany;

 

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

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:  March 29, 2006

 
| /s/ S. Bradford Rives |   |
|-----------------------|--------|

S.Bradford Rives

ChiefFinancial Officer

 

157

----
§ 1918.54 Rigging gear. ( a ) *Guy and preventer placement.* Each guy or preventer shall be placed to prevent it from making contact with any other guy, preventer, or stay.
( b ) *Guys.* When alternate positions for securing guys are provided, the guys shall be so placed as to produce a minimum stress and not permit the boom to jackknife.
( c ) *Boom placement.* The head of the midship boom shall be spotted no farther outboard of the coaming than is necessary for control of the load.
( d ) *Preventers.* ( 1 ) Preventers shall be properly secured to suitable fittings other than those to which the guys are secured, and shall be as nearly parallel to the guys as the fittings will permit.
( 2 ) Unless the cleat is also a chock and the hauling part is led through the chock opening, the leads of preventers to cleats shall be such that the direction of the line pull of the preventer is as parallel as possible to the plane of the surface on which the cleat is mounted.
( 3 ) Guys and associated preventers shall be adjusted to share the load as equally as possible where cargo operations are being conducted by burtoning. Exception: Where guys are designed and intended for trimming purposes only, and the preventer is intended to do the function of the guy, the guy may be left slack.
( e ) *Cargo falls.* Cargo falls under load shall not be permitted to chafe on any standing or other running rigging. Exception: Rigging shall not be construed to mean hatch coamings or other similar structural parts of the vessel.
( f ) *Bull wire.* ( 1 ) Where a bull wire is taken to a winch head for lowering or topping a boom, the bull wire shall be secured to the winch head by shackle or other equally strong method. Securing by fiber rope fastening does not meet this requirement.
( 2 ) When, in lowering or topping a boom, it is not possible to secure the bull wire to the winch head, or when the topping lift itself is taken to the winch head, at least five turns of wire shall be used.
( g ) *Trimming and deckloads.* When deck loads extend above the rail and there is less than 12 inches (30.48 cm) horizontal clearance between the edge of the deck load and the inside of the bulwark or rail, a pendant or other alternate device shall be provided to allow trimming of the gear and to prevent employees from going over the side.
[62 FR 40202, July 25, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 40945, June 30, 2000]
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000010607-MAY-201308:53 AM
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v ROGERS

Case No. 88-16771CF10A

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County

August 10, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Robert Mobley, Assistant State Attorney, for plaintiff.

Corey Hoffman, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEL GROSSMAN, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS*

THIS CAUSE was considered by the Court upon the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

A HEARING on the Motion was held in open court July 5, 1989.

THE COURT having considered the grounds for said Motion, heard argument of counsel, read the various Memorandum of Law filed by both parties and considered the applicable law finds as follows:

Defendant in his Motion to Dismiss fully complied with Fl.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). The State then filed its Traverse, specifically *admitting*the contents of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. During the *215oral argument the State speculated that additional evidence might turn up. Any traverse “must be in good faith, and not be based upon speculation, conjecture, presumption nor assumption.” *Ellis v State,*346 So.2d 1044 (1st DCA 1977).

Since the State failed to specifically deny any material fact, the dispositive question for the trier of fact in this case is whether the Defendant was in constructive possession of the cocaine since it is undisputed there was no actual possession. *Ellis, supra.*It is apparent based upon the pleadings that the elements of constructive possession were not met in this case as a matter of law.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing it is,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED tht the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is *GRANTED.*

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of August, 1989.
**Exhibit 32****Certification**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each ofthe undersigned officers of ServiceWare Technologies, Inc.., aDelaware corporation (the “Company”), does herebycertify that:     The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2004 (the Form  10-K ) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.     /s/ Bruce Armstrong       Name: Bruce Armstrong Title:    President and Principal Executive OfficerDated: March 31, 2005     /s/ Scott Schwartzman       Name: Scott Schwartzman Title:    Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial OfficerDated: March 31, 2005     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.     The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K andshall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE WESTIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 22

- 55719

D.C. No. 2:22

- cv

- 03655

- VBF

- DFM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15 , 2023 * *

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Docket Entry No. 4 ) is

granted.

Bruce Westin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing his action alle ging

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 22 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 55719

various federal and state law claims

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed IFP

. Tripati v.

First Nat’l Bank & Tr. , 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) . We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Westin ’s IFP

request because Westin failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim

against either defendant

. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(explaining that, to avoi d dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ) ; Tripati , 821 F.2d at 1370 (“ A

district court may deny leave to p roceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears

from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without

merit. ”)

.

AFFIRMED.
§ 1910.101 Compressed gases (general requirements). ( a ) *Inspection of compressed gas cylinders.* Each employer shall determine that compressed gas cylinders under his control are in a safe condition to the extent that this can be determined by visual inspection. Visual and other inspections shall be conducted as prescribed in the Hazardous Materials Regulations of the Department of Transportation (49 CFR parts 171-179 and 14 CFR part 103). Where those regulations are not applicable, visual and other inspections shall be conducted in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlets C-6-1968 and C-8-1962, which is incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6.
( b ) *Compressed gases.* The in-plant handling, storage, and utilization of all compressed gases in cylinders, portable tanks, rail tankcars, or motor vehicle cargo tanks shall be in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet P-1-1965, which is incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6.
( c ) *Safety relief devices for compressed gas containers.* Compressed gas cylinders, portable tanks, and cargo tanks shall have pressure relief devices installed and maintained in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlets S-1.1-1963 and 1965 addenda and S-1.2-1963, which is incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6.
[39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974, as amended at 61 FR 9236, Mar. 7, 1996]
#### GOWDY v ROBERTS

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1621.

Decided April 24, 1929

Grant, Thomas & Buckingham, Akron, for Gowdy.

Ralph G Thomas, Akron, and Hyre & Hyre, Cleveland, for Roberts.

*319PARDEE, J.

The plaintiff in error claims that the sixty-day period provided in said section, does not start from the day the original summons was issued, which was not served, but starts on the 29th day of January, 1929, that being the day the sheriff made his return of the original summons and the first time that the plaintiff in error became chargeable with notice that service had not been procured. The plaintiff in error, claims that he made a diligent effort to procure a service when he filed his precipe and had a summons issued, in which precipe he set forth the city address of said defendant in error, which was copied in the summons, and at which address, as appears from the files, the sheriff subsequently served the alias summons in error. The plaintiff in error also claims that the service of the alias summons, made on March 23, 1929, was made within time — having been made within sixty days after the return of the original summons.

But with this claim we cannot agree, as the Code especially provides, that an action must be commenced by filing a petition and having a summons issued thereon, and that the time it is deemed to have been commenced is the date of the summons which is served upon the defendant, when there is only one.

The record in this case shows that a proceeding in error was not commenced because service of the original summons was not made upon the defenidant, as is necessary to start an action, but the record does show that an attempt to commence such an action was made by the filing of the petition and having a summons issued within time. This attempt to start the proceeding in error gave the plaintiff in error the right to have an alias summons issued and served and thus put him in the same position he was in originally, except that it gave him further opportunity and additional time to start an action, by having a summons issue’d and served within the additional time of sixty days from the date of the original summons, the date which fixes the time when the original action was attempted to be commenced. But if the date upon which the alias summons was issued could be considered the date when the proceedings were started, then, in this case, the proceedings were not started in time, and for. that reason again, the motion would have to be sustained.

Motion sustained and petition in error dismissed.

Funk, PJ, and Washburn, J, concur.