alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

STEVEN AUSTIN GATLIN , Appellants,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee. § § § § § § No. 08

- 12

- 00 221

- CV

Appeal from the
291 st District Court
of Dallas County, Texas (TC# F87

- 69764

- U )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is before the Court on our own motion to determine whether it should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Because there is no appealable order, we will dismiss. Appellant file d a pleading in the district court requesting that the court issue an order prohibiting criminal ju stice agencies from disclosing Appellant’s criminal history record and information relating to the offense that gave rise to Appellant’s deferred adjudication. The district court determined that Appellant was not entitled to a non

- disclosure o rder and den ied the petition. The Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that there did not appear to be an appealable
order and/or judgment , and that the Court therefore intended to dismiss th e appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless any party could show grounds for continuing the appeal. The letter advised that unless any party could show grounds for continuing the appeal within ten days from the date of the letter that the matter would be submitted for dismissal. No party responded to the letter.
This Court has a ppellate jurisdiction over final judgments and certain interlocutory orders.2

Cantu Servs., Inc. v. United Freedom Assocs., Inc. , 329 S.W.3d 58, 62 (Tex.App.

-- El Paso 2010, no pet.). However, the Texas Government Code does not specifically provide this Co urt with jurisdiction over an order denying a petition for non

- disclosure. See generally TEX. GOV’T
CODE ANN. § 411.0 8 1 ( West 201 2 ); Guinn v. State , No. 05

- 90

- 01295

- CV, 2010 WL 22817, *1 (Tex.App

. - - Dallas Jan

. 6, 2010, no pet.)(mem. op

. )(noting that Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of a petition for non

- disclosure of criminal history record information). Accordingly , the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

August 15 , 2012 CHRISTOPHER ANTCLIFF, Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 IASIS Healthcare LLC (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                                      /s/ David R. White
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    David R. White
                                                    Chairman of the Board
                                                    and Chief Executive Officer

                                                      /s/ W. Carl Whitmer
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    W. Carl Whitmer
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

Dated: August 12, 2005
**Base Lean Hog Carcass Slaughter Cost Report.**The LM_HG213 Report is used to show the lean value prices packers are paying for different carcass weights combined with the percentage of lean red meat per carcass. This base cost lean value is calculated by using individual packers’ lean value buying programs. Each packer which gathers fat and muscle measurements and has a lean value buying program, submits data for the generation of this report. These buying programs are based on backfat thickness and loin eye depth measured at the 10th rib. The calculations for creation of the report include hogs from four purchase types: producer sold negotiated, producer sold swine or pork market formula, packer sold negotiated, and packer sold swine or pork market formula. The head count, average carcass weight, and the calculated base cost values for the 49-50, 51-52, and 53-54 percent lean ranges, based on measurements of backfat and a 6 to 7 square inch loin eye at the 10th rib, are released in this report.

While reviewing the data used to formulate this report, an error in the calculations was found originating on January 3, 2012.  Market News has recalculated all values for the report since that date forward.  Market News will not be releasing corrected reports, but will provide the corrected information in table form.  The original values and the corrected values are listed below.  

All questions and comments should be directed to Jim Bernau, 515-284-4460, or jim.bernau@ams.usda.gov
# C_2004106EN.01003003.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/30

---

Action brought on 4 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-118/04)

(2004/C 106/53)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Luca Visaggio, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/88/EC (1) of 23 October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC (2) laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/88/EC (1) of 23 October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC (2) laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

1

2

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 1 January 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 316 of 1.12.2001, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 340 of 11.12.1991, p. 33.

2

---
**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Thomas Kirchner, certify that: 

  1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of INverso Corp.;  

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

  3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  

  4) The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  

  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  

  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon such evaluation; and  

  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and  

  5) The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  

  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information and  

  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.  

Date: May 13, 2005 

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner 

    Thomas Kirchner

    Chief Executive Officer
United States Department of Agriculture

Page 1 of 2

Calculating 

Class I Price

United States Department of Agriculture

for more details, see the next page.

Agricultural Marketing Service
Page 2 of 2

Calculating Class I 

Price: Details

Monthly advanced commodity prices and the Base Class I Price are announced on or before the 23rd 

day of the preceding month and use the most recent two weeks of price data available at that time.

Monthly final prices are announced on or before the 5th of the following month and use 

the most recent four or five weeks of price data since the last publication of Class and Component 

Prices. 

Class prices are announced as dollars per hundredweight. CWT= hundredweight, 100 pounds.

Formula Details

To calculate the Base Class I Skim Milk Price, both the Class III and IV Advanced Skim Milk Pricing Factors must be 

calculated. These calculations are identical to those used to compute the Class III and IV Skim Milk Prices announced 

on or before the 5th of the following month, except for the time series of data used. The average of the Advanced Class 

III and IV Skim Milk Pricing Factors, plus $0.74, determines the Advanced Base Class I Skim Milk Price.

$0.1715 = Manufacturing cost to produce 1 pound of butter, excluding cost of raw milk ($/lb).

1.211 = Factor representing pounds of butter that can be made from 1 pound of butterfat (lb butter/lb butterfat).

To calculate the Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor, use the Butter Price from the Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors 

series released on or before the 23rd of the preceding month. This price series uses the most recent two weeks of 

price data available at that time.

0.965 = 96.5 pounds of skim in 100 pounds of milk (cwt skim/cwt milk).

3.5 = 3.5 pounds of butterfat in 100 pounds of milk (lb butterfat/cwt milk).

For more information on the Price Formulas, visit 

www.ams.usda.gov/resources/price-formulas

For more information on Advanced Prices & Pricing Factors and Class & Component Prices, 

visit www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/mmr/dmr

Agricultural Marketing Service, October 2019.

USDA is an equal opportunity employer, provider and lender.
processverified.usda.gov

PROCESS VERIFIED PROGRAM

USDA’s Process Verified Program (PVP) is a third-party 

verification service that offers companies a unique way to 

market their products using clearly defined, implemented, 

and transparent process points. Process points, often 

referred to as marketing claims, vary by industry and 

product, and may cover production practices, services, and 

factors such as origin, breed, age, and more.

For example, if a beef packer wants to verify a “Born, Raised, and Processed in the USA” claim* on their product label, AMS auditors 

review domestic origin production records and identification, segregation, and traceability procedures through on-site audits at ranches, 

feedlots, and processing facilities. Auditors confirm domestic cattle and beef are properly labeled and segregated from other product and 

ensure domestic origin requirements are followed. 

*All meat and poultry labels are regulated by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service and must adhere to their requirements. AMS 

verification of claims that may be used on a label is a voluntary service, paid for by user-fees.

PVP Service 

Providers

To assist with cattle origin claims, PVP Service 

Providers ensure domestic origin requirements at the 

ranch are met. For a beef packer to make a PVP label claim, 

they must have an approved PVP with AMS even though they use a PVP 

Service Provider to verify domestic origin claims at a ranch.

Purchasing & Packer Approval

The beef packer must select cattle suppliers based on their ability to provide cattle born and raised 

domestically, and have a process in place for ensuring purchased cattle meet the domestic origin requirements 

and maintain records of these reviews.

ID & Traceability

Following this example, the beef packer must also have a documented procedure in place to identify and trace the cattle and beef 

through all phases of product realization, from BIRTH in the U.S. through PRODUCTION to DELIVERY.

Approval

Once approved to be a part of the program, the beef packer may use the “USDA Process Verified” shield on their 

products. For new programs, approval lasts for 1 year, but a surveillance audit is conducted within 6 months of 

the initial on-site audit. After the first year, on-site audits are conducted annually.

For an overview on becoming Process Verified, visit processverified.usda.gov

Agricultural Marketing Service / July 2021 / USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
```

Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Vincent Colangelo, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of MDwerks, Inc.

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

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this report, fairly present in all material
      respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
      the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting;

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

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

                                                    /s/ Vincent Colangelo
                                                    ---------------------

Dated: May 15, 2006
```
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 94 

Designating March 2017 as ‘‘National Read Aloud Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 23, 2017 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Ms. HARRIS) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

APRIL 4, 2017 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating March 2017 as ‘‘National Read Aloud Month’’. 

Whereas medical experts have concluded that reading aloud 

is the ‘‘single most important’’ activity in which parents 

can participate in order to prepare their children to read 

and learn; 

Whereas recent research has concluded that, by 3 years of 

age, there is a gap in early brain development between 

children whose parents read to them and children whose 

parents do not; 

Whereas Congress has highlighted the importance of early 

childhood literacy by including funding for State comprehensive literacy plans and targeted funds toward early 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 94 ATS 

childhood education programs in the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114–95; 129 Stat. 1802); 

Whereas, in 2013, Read Aloud 15 MINUTES launched a 

decade-long national campaign highlighting the importance of reading aloud to children, starting from birth; 

and 

Whereas Read Aloud 15 MINUTES now has more than 21 

National Leadership Partners and 10,000 grassroots 

partners, including day care facilities, schools, libraries, 

health centers, and rotary clubs in all 50 States: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates March 2017 as ‘‘National Read 

3 Aloud Month’’; and 

4 (2) encourages parents and guardians to read 

5 to their children for 15 minutes every day because 

6 of the developmental benefits that activity has for 

7 children. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SEVERE FOOD			
                     DISTRIBUTION SHORTAGES IN TRIBAL AND
                              ELDERLY COMMUNITIES
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
				
		                 JOINT HEARING
		                 
				  BEFORE A
				  
			      SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
				
		          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
		          
		                     AND A
		                     
		              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
		          
			    COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
		          	                 	                   
		            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES		         
		                   				
		        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
					
			         SECOND SESSION
					   
			         __________
			         
	        APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE RURAL
	      DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED
	                          AGENCIES
			         
			          Part 2					   			      				
			        				    
			      Serial No. 118-25

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	

                             www.govinfo.gov 
       Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Appropriations 
                      and the Committee on Agriculture       
               
                                __________
					    
                               

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
56-684                       WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. 
           OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SEVERE FOOD DISTRIBUTION SHORTAGES 
                        IN TRIBAL AND ELDERLY COMMUNITIES

[TEXT NOT AVAILABLE REFER TO PDF]
```
National Organic Standards Board

Crops Committee

2013 Sunset Recommendation

Ozone

October 7, 2011

List: §205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.

(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning 

systems. 

(5) Ozone gas—for use as irrigation system cleaner only.

Committee Summary 

There was a broad consensus in the organic community at the last round of sunset for 

this use of ozone that it should be kept on the list. There has been no new information 

since that time and it was generally agreed within the committee that it is a good 

alternative to chlorine for this use.

Committee Recommendation

The Crops Committee recommends relisting Ozone gas on 205.601 (a) As algicide, 

disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems. (5) Ozone 

gas—for use as irrigation system cleaner only.

Committee Vote 

Motion: Tina Ellor Second: John Foster

Yes: 4 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 3
FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 4/6/2015 12:58:56 PM DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk