alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 10, 2022

No. 04-22-00725-CV

David Gene BECKA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR1257

Honorable Andrew Wyatt Carruthers, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In this accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal was filed in the trial court on October 28, 

2022, and the reporter’s record was initially due on November 7, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P.

35.1(b). 

However, the original notice of appeal was not sent to the court reporter responsible for 

preparing the record, contra TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a); TEX. R. APP.

P. 25.1(e), and no docketing statement was filed, contra TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. 

On November 9, 2022, court reporter Roxanne F. Pena filed a first motion for extension 

of time to file the reporter’s record. She requested a sixty-day extension of time to file the 

record. She notes that the “priority status [for this record] is behind three other records.” 

By statute, this appeal must be given priority over all other appeals. See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.070 (“The court of appeals and supreme court shall give an appeal 

under this section preference over all other cases and shall advance the appeal on the docket.”

(emphasis added)). 

We ORDER Roxanne F. Pena to give this record the highest priority status in the order of 

preparing records. See id.

The reporter’s record is due on November 17, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) 

(limiting an extension in an accelerated appeal to ten days). 
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 11.1



Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings



Computation of Earnings Per Share



The following formula was used to calculate the earnings per share, Consolidated Statements of Income for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, included in this
report as Exhibit 13.3.



Earnings Per Share



Net Income / Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for the period



|                                    |  |                              |           |      |   |          
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                    |  | Three months ended March 31,
|                                    |  | 2005                         |           | 2004
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                              | 1,528,443 |      |   | 1,528,443
|Net Income                          |  | $                            | 545,728   |      | $ | 658,740  
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                            | 0.36      |      | $ | 0.43     



No common stock equivalents exist.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

HEADQUARTERS (HQ) 

Office of the Secretary 

December 11, 2017 

Gwendolyn Wyard 

Vice President, Regulatory and Technical Affairs 

Organic Trade Association 

Re: In the Matter of Moonlight Slumber, LLC, File No. 162 3128, Docket No. C-4634 

Dear Ms. Wyard, 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed consent 

agreement in the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has considered your comment 

and placed it on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii). 

In your comment, you both commend the Commission for taking action against the 

deceptive use of the term “organic” and ask the Commission to develop draft policy on the use of 

“organic” claims that are outside USDA’s jurisdiction, and ultimately, to publish such guidance 

in the Green Guides. You do not, however, propose any revisions to the draft complaint or the 

consent agreement. Therefore, after considering your comment, the Commission has determined 

that the relief set forth in the consent agreement is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the 

violations alleged in the complaint. Specifically, as you recognize, the Order would require that 

Moonlight Slumber substantiate its future representations regarding organic content with 

competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable 

scientific evidence. 

The Commission appreciates hearing from a variety of sources in its work. At this time, 

the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by issuing the 

Decision and Order in final form without modification. The final Decision and Order and other 

relevant materials are available on the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary
258 La. 366

#### Linnye Ruth Wimberly LESTER v. Donald Elbert LESTER, Jr.

No. 51345.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1971.

In re: Donald Elbert Lester, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Natchitoches. 245 So.2d 478.

Writ refused. The judgment is not final —Rights of all parties are reserved.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Carl Ralph Daily, Appellant

No. 06-23-00093-CV v.

Phil Smith and Law Office of Phil Smith, 

Texas Bar 18664400, Appellees

Appeal from the 62nd District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

CV45414). Panel consists of Chief Justice 

Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Stevens. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the trial court’s order granting Smith’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss.

We further order that the appellant, Carl Ralph Daily, pay all costs incurred by reason of 

this appeal.

RENDERED JUNE 3, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Farrel Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter C Lazarcheck,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

(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
     as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.



/s/ Walter C Lazarcheck
--------------------------------
Walter C Lazarcheck
Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2003










                                                                              21
#### Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

77-126.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 22, 1977.

*1162EMBRY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ. concur.
#### FLAVOR PICT CO-OP and Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Company, Petitioners, v. Henry NISSEN and the Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 42963.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 26, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### M. I. ROBBINS, Appellant, v. Russell THOMPSON, Appellee.

No. 72-267.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1974.

John D. Kruse, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Henry J. Prominski, Tucker, Roth, Prominski & Peschio, Pompano Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by M. I. Robbins, defendant below, from an order denying defendant's motion to set aside default and entering final judgment in favor of the plaintiff pursuant to such default.

The plaintiff moved for the entry of a default on the basis of defendant’s failure to serve an answer or otherwise defend within the time prescribed by law. A default having been entered, the cause proceeded to trial. Defendant was present at the time set for trial and at that time filed *226his motion to vacate and a responsive pleading.

The general rule in respect to setting aside a default or a final judgment consequent thereon is that relief may be granted within the sound discretion of the trial court upon showing of the existence of a meritorious defense and a legal excuse for failure to comply with the rules. Florida Investment Enterprises, Inc. v. Kentucky Co., Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 733. The defendant has failed to demonstrate that the order denying defendant’s motion to vacate on the basis of excusable neglect constituted an abuse of discretion. Smiles v. Young, Fla.App.1973, 271 So.2d 798; Farish v. Lum’s, Inc., Fla. 1972, 267 So.2d 325; 19 Fla.Jur. Judgments and Decrees, Sec. 459. Although the default deprived the defendant of the right to contest the existence of plaintiff’s claim and his liability thereon, defendant still had the right to contest the amount of damages by way of the introduction of evidence in mitigation of them or by cross-examination. Stevenson v. Arnold, Fla.1971, 250 So.2d 270; Holder Turpentine Co. v. M. C. Kiser Co., 1914, 68 Fla. 312, 67 So. 85; Russ v. Gilbert, 1882, 19 Fla. 54. The reconstructed record of the proceedings below (the same not having been stenographically reported) reflects that the action of the trial court was of such nature as to preclude the defendant from participating at the trial on the issue of damages.1

Accordingly, that portion of the final judgment determining the amount of damages is vacated and set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings on the issue of damages. In all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.

Reversed, in part; affirmed, in part.

OWEN, C. *].,*and CROSS and MA-GER, JJ., concur.

1

.The judge appeared to be of the view that since the default was entered the defendant did not have the right to put on testimony or cross-examination. Defendant’s “acquiescence” to this observation did not, under the particular facts and circumstances, constitute a waiver of his right to submit the matter for review.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices 

# Order

March 9, 2012

142320

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142320 COA: 298964 Macomb CC: 1998-003105-FH WAMIDH BUTIRUS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e December 1, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

M ARKMAN

, J. ( concurring ).

I concur in the Court’s order denying leave to appe al. In 1998, defendant, a noncitizen, pleaded no contest to fourth-deg ree criminal sexual conduct. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defense attorney must “advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal char ges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” Padilla v Kentucky , 559 US ___; 130 S Ct 1 473, 1483; 176 L Ed 2d 284 (2010). Later, in May 2010, defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment, alleging that his trial counsel had provi ded ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise him of the immigration conseque nces of his no-contest plea. The trial court denied this motion, and the Court of Appeals denied leav e to appeal. In order to obtain relief,

defendant must establish that he was actually prejudiced by hi s counsel’s failure to advise him concerning the risk of adverse immi gration consequences. MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b);

Padilla , 130 S Ct at 1483. Even assuming that Padilla applies retroactively to this case, as the trial court explained, “defendant has no t proffered any evidence (i.e., an affidavit) establishing that his trial counsel failed to discuss the immigration ramifications of a guilty plea.” Defendant also failed to pr esent any evidence th at he was actually prejudiced by such a failure. Defendant has since filed an affidavit with this Court in

which he avers that his attorn ey failed to advise him of th e immigration consequences ofI, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 9, 2012

h0306 2

his plea and that he would not have pleaded no contest had he know n that he would be deported. He also aver s that he has been ordered deported to Iraq, but because of the war in that country, the Department of Homela nd Security has placed him under an order of supervision until it is safe to physically depo rt him. However, even assuming that this affidavit would be a sufficient offer of proof, it was never submitted to the trial court. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion for relief from judgment.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James N. GRAVOIS.

No. 60119.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1977.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ denied. See *State v. 1971 Green GMC Van,*No. 59,461; *State v. 1973 Pontiac Grand Prix,*59,635.

SANDERS, C. J., and MARCUS, J.,

having dissented in the cited cases, concur in denial.

SUMMERS, J.,

dissents. I do not agree with the decision in *State v. 1971 Green GMC Van,*No. 59,461, or No. 59,635 holding the Act involved here unconstitutional.
### Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature:

___________________________ Project No.: 0172.0 7.005.503 DISTRIBUTION

Page _ 1 _ of __ 1

_

Project Name: 304(m) Annual Review

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 2/12/2010 Time: 12:30 pm EST

Company Name: John Morrell & Co. Contac t Name: Steve Draveland

Phone No.: 605

- 330

- 3656

Name: Elizabeth Sabol Eastern Research Group

GENERAL SUBJECT : Basis of M ercury and Mercury Compound load reported to TRI in 2008



## TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I called John Morrell & Co . on February 12, 2010, to speak with Steve Draveland. Mr. Draveland and I briefly

discussed the mercury and mercury c ompound discharges that the facility reported to TRI for 2008. Mr.

Draveland stated that the facility es timates the calculated load from a nnual metals testing the facility performs

for the city discharge. These data are multiplied by the annual flow to estimate the direct and indirect loads for

the facility.

The facility reported having directly discharged 1,572 lbs of mercury and mercury like compounds and

discharg ed 140 lbs to a POTW . I asked Mr. Draveland if he thought these discharge s were accurate or a

possible overestimate. Mr. Draveland explained that the facility enters the detection limit as the concentration

for metals because TRI does not acknowledge “<” signs in their data entry. He stated that all metal testing for

the facility results in data below the detection limit and that these discharges are likely an overestimate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          9
<CIK>                                      0000037032
<NAME>                                     FIRST VIRGINIA BANKS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                               1000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         326,733
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              25
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                80,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    112,870
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,024,813
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,996,659
<LOANS>                                      6,351,946
<ALLOWANCE>                                     69,605
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,392,660
<DEPOSITS>                                   7,846,765
<SHORT-TERM>                                   384,247
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            121,906
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,465
<COMMON>                                        49,693
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        492
<OTHER-SE>                                     987,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               9,392,660
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                376,178
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               91,576
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                12,251
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               480,005
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             144,032
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,307
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          324,666
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   11,567
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 832
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                244,986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                177,146
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     177,146
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   116,153
<EPS-BASIC>                                     2.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.31
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.08
<LOANS-NON>                                     15,082
<LOANS-PAST>                                    12,819
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,919
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 30,803
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                70,312
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   11,184
<RECOVERIES>                                     3,233
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               69,605
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            69,605
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         65,284


</TABLE>
Area Code/County,Count202  District of Columbia,12532Ward 1,1835Ward 2,1811Ward 3,2125Ward 4,975Ward 5,375Ward 6,3575Ward 7,168Ward 8,732"No Zip Code Reported, District of Columbia",175
#### William R. PARKS and Mae Vanderveen Parks, Appellants, v. Dennis STURGILL, Jr., Appellee.

No. 69-541.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 1, 1970.

Rehearing Denied July 27, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Shirley Robert CLARK, Petitioner, v. L. L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 39392.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 15, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 1059

_____________________________ C LIFFORD E UGENE C UTWRIGHT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

___________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Cou rt for Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace, Judge

. April 3, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and J A Y and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Action

Notice of Availability of draft environmental impact statement and notice of public comment period.

Summary

We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has issued a draft 

environmental impact statement (DEIS) to address the need for a national feral swine damage 

management program to protect agriculture, natural resources, property, and human health and safety. 

The preferred alternative is to implement a nationally coordinated, integrated feral swine damage 

management program in cooperation with Tribes, agencies, and organizations at the National, State and 

local level to accommodate varying local laws and management objectives for feral swine. Program 

activities would be implemented in all or most States and Territories where feral swine may occur. 

We are requesting public comments on the DEIS.

Dates

The public comment period will be open for 45 days after the Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Once the Notice of Availability is published, we 

will post the closing date of the comment period here. We will consider all comments that we receive on 

or before the closing date.

Additional information 

All comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the 

public record and will be released for public review as required and allowed by law. If you prefer to mail 

your comments, please send them to Project Managers, Feral Swine EIS, USDA APHIS-WS, 732 Lois 

Drive, Sun Prairie, WI 53590.

Additional information about feral swine may be viewed by visiting the APHIS feral swine web page at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/feral_swine

For Further Information Contact

Dr. Kimberly Wagner, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Services, APHIS, 732 Lois Drive, Sun Prairie, WI 

53590; (608) 837-2727.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Joseph J. Simons, Chairman 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rohit Chopra

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

Christine S. Wilson

In the Matter of

DOCKET NO. 9386 

RagingWire Data Centers, Inc., 

a corporation. 

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING IN 

LIGHT OF PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY

Because of the declared public health emergency1 associated with the outbreak of the 

coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”), also known as SARS-CoV-2; and because it has been 

advised that gatherings of ten or more persons may facilitate the spread of the disease, the 

Commission has determined that it is in the public interest to mitigate the transmission and 

impact of COVID-19, and that good cause exists to stay this proceeding and reschedule the 

evidentiary hearing date. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this proceeding be fully stayed for 30 calendar days; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing date and all pre-hearing 

deadlines in this proceeding be extended by the number of calendar days of this stay. The 

Administrative Law Judge retains discretion to adjust any such pre-hearing deadlines to the 

extent compatible with the hearing date as extended by this Order or to make a recommendation 

to the Commission regarding an alternative hearing date.

 

1 Pursuant to the Public Health Services Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d, on January 31, 2020, the Secretary of the Department 

of Health and Human Services issued a declaration that a health emergency exists because of COVID-19; and on 

March 13, 2020, the President of the United States issued a proclamation that a national emergency exists concerning 

COVID-19. Remarks by President Trump, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarkspresident-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-conference-3/ (Mar. 13, 2020).
2 

By the Commission.

 April J. Tabor 

 Acting Secretary

SEAL:

ISSUED: March 19, 2020