alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-14-00689-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

FRANKIE WAYNE NEALY, Appellant,

v.

ROBIN MICHELLE NEALY, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court 

of San Patricio County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion to abate the appeal to correct 

an inaccuracy in the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record in this cause was filed on 

January 5, 2015. Appellant has advised this Court that the reporter’s record contains 

two inaccuracies. The motion indicates that appellant has attempted to confer with 
2

appellee for correction of the record, but there has been no agreement. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e)(1) provides that the parties may agree 

to correct an inaccuracy in the reporter’s record without the court reporter’s recertification. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6 (e)(1). Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e)(3) provides 

that if a dispute arises after the reporter’s record has been filed in the appellate court, the 

Court may submit the dispute to the trial court for resolution. See Id. 34.6 (e)(3). 

Correction of an inaccuracy in the reporter’s record, thus, must be resolved by agreement 

of the parties or by the trial court. 

Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court. 

Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be given and 

conduct a hearing to determine (1) whether inaccuracies exist in the reporter’s record, 

and if so, whether the parties can agree to correct any of them without the court reporter’s 

recertification; and (2) to settle the dispute if inaccuracies exist in the reporter’s record 

and the parties cannot agree on whether or how to correct any of them. See Id. 34.6(e). 

Otherwise, the trial court shall determine what steps are necessary to ensure the prompt 

preparation of a complete reporter’s record and shall enter any orders required to avoid 

further delay and to preserve the parties’ rights. 

The trial court shall prepare and file its findings and orders and cause them to be 

included in a supplemental clerk's record which should be submitted to the Clerk of this 

Court within thirty days from the date of this order. Should the trial court require more 

time to comply with the directions of this Court, it shall request an extension prior to the 

expiration of this deadline.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

8

th day of April, 2015.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00559-CR

Carmelina Ornelas VALENZUELA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B10726

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2015

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

Carmen Ornelas Valenzuela pled guilty to the second degree felony offense of Possession 

of a Controlled Substance in Penalty Group 1, 4-200 grams, and was placed on deferred 

adjudication for a period of five years. An initial “Motion to Proceed” resulted in Valenzuela’s 

deferred adjudication being continued and extended for one year. Thereafter, the State filed a

second “Motion to Proceed” alleging that Valenzuela violated several conditions of her original 

deferred adjudication community supervision order. Valenzuela pled “not true” to the alleged 

violations. The trial court found that Valenzuela violated the conditions of her community 
04-14-00559-CR

supervision as alleged, adjudicated Valenzuela guilty, and revoked her community supervision. 

The court sentenced Valenzuela to eleven years’ imprisonment. Valenzuela was also assessed 

court costs in the amount of $70.00. She now appeals. 

Valenzuela’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of 

the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that 

the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Valenzuela with a copy of the brief and informed her 

of her right to review the record and to file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 

85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Valenzuela did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the 

record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and appellate counsel’s request to 

withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute 

counsel will be appointed. Should Valenzuela wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals, Valenzuela must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review or Valenzuela must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of 

this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply 

with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 68.4.

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Do not publish

- 2 -
Agricultural Livestock and Poultry Program G-148 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 May 17, 2023

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Upper Iowa Farms Certified Beef Program

G-148 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements:

a. Classed as Steer and Heifer carcasses only1;

b. Have a minimum marbling score of Slight 01

;

c. Moderately thick or thicker muscling and tend to be at least moderately wide and thick in 

relation to their length2

;

d. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height3;

e. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle; 

and

f. Free of “dark cutting” characteristics.

g. Free of any yellow fat cover characteristics. 

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification will be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures.

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service

(FSIS) regulations 9 CFR part 317.2, 9 CFR part 412.1, policy guidelines found at FSIS: Labeling and 

Label Approval website and FSIS: Claims Guidance website and QAD procedures including QAD 

107: Requirements for Grading Terms on Meat Product Labeling.

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Muscle thickness is evaluated by averaging the thickness of the various parts, considering not only the proportion of each part of the 

carcass but also the general value of each part. Superior muscle thickness implies a high proportion of meat to bone and a high 

proportion of the weight of the carcass in the more valuable parts.

3 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural Livestock and Poultry Program G-148 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 May 17, 2023

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service.

___________________________________

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Standards and Specifications Division

Livestock & Poultry Program
I am Kevin Pilarski, and I am the Chief Commercial Officer for Revolution Enterprise a vertically integrated cannabis company based in IL.

We thank the USDA for its efforts in helping America and its farmers to compete with other global farmers and competing countries in insuring America can dominate with this crop as it has with other crops like corn, soybeans and wheat.

We would appreciate clarification from the USDA regarding the 2018 Farm Bill and the 2019 planting season for those states that have an Industrial Hemp Plan completed.

Will those states be allowed to grow if USDA has no plans to approve those plans prior to the 2019 planting season?

If the USDA falls back on the 2014 Farm Bill as the legislative mandate, will acres planning to be planted for hemp in 2019 be required to be part of a University research program as stated in the 2014 Farm bill.
Order entered April 7, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00343-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.T., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-10316-Z

ORDER

Because the trial court determined appellant to be indigent and appointed her counsel, she 

is presumed indigent for the duration of the suit, including the appeal, and may proceed without 

advance payment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a)(3). 

We note the reporter’s record is overdue. Accordingly, we ORDER court reporter 

Glenda Johnson to file the record no later than April 17, 2015. If necessary, the trial court must 

arrange for a substitute reporter. See id. 28.4(b)(1). 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from The Bureau
of National Affairs, Inc. consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement
of income for the period ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           18898
<SECURITIES>                                      9306
<RECEIVABLES>                                    46769
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1658
<INVENTORY>                                       5397
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                106793
<PP&E>                                          113464
<DEPRECIATION>                                   63907
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  299311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           160784
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         11912
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       60213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    299311
<SALES>                                         232632
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                232632
<CGS>                                           131295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   131295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 86779
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   742
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  23
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  21629
<INCOME-TAX>                                      7041
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              14588
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     14588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.65
        

</TABLE>
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00151-CR

KELLY DWAYNE BROWN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 276th District Court

Marion County, Texas

Trial Court No. F14348

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the court reporter’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive 

data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, social 

security number, tax identification number or similar government-issued personal identification 

number.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(1). Volume four of the reporter’s record includes a social 

security number. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper 

filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” 

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper 

form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because volume 

four of the reporter’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her 

appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal the electronically filed volume four of the 

reporter’s record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: February 5, 2019
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE. 

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
KIWIFRUIT

DISCOLORATION (caused by water staining)

KWI-1-IDENT

FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY DISCOLORATION BY WATER STAINING

JUNE 1990 (Previously October 1986)
KiwifruitwithFlatSide KiwifruitwithoutFlatSide

(Figures1and2) RoundorOvalShaped

(Figures3to6)

Widthcannotexceedheight. Disregardwidthandheight.

1 3 4

2 5 6

Flatside

Flatside

USDAVisualAidKWI-IDENT-2Jan2017

FlatsidedVersusRoundorOvalShapedKiwifruit
KIWIFRUIT

WELL FORMED WELL FORMED

KWI-CP-2

FORM

JUNE 1990 (Previously 1986)
KIWIFRUIT

FAIRLY WELL FORMED (SIDE VIEW) FAIRLY WELL FORMED (END VIEW)

FAIRLY WELL FORMED (SIDE VIEW) FAIRLY WELL FORMED (END VIEW)

KWI-CP-3

FORM

JUNE 1990 (Previously 1986)
KIWIFRUIT

FAIRLY WELL FORMED (SIDE VIEW) FAIRLY WELL FORMED (END VIEW)

KWI-CP-3-A

FORM

JUNE 1990 (Previously 1986)
KIWIFRUIT

CULL (TOP VIEW) CULL (END VIEW)

KWI-CP-4

FORM

JUNE 1990 (Previously 1982, PAGE 1)
KIWIFRUIT

CULL (TOP VIEW) CULL (END VIEW)

KWI-CP-4-A

FORM

JUNE 1990 (Previously 1982, PAGE 2)
KIWIFRUIT

U.S. NO. 1 U.S. NO. 2

KWI-CP-5

MOLD

JUNE 1990 (Previously August 1982)
Whenthekiwifruithasaflatsideasshownonthetopright,

thewidthcannotexceedtheheight.Sincewidthdoesnotexceedtheheight,

thisfruitisconsidered“Notbadlymisshapen”andmeetsU.S.No.2.

Whenthekiwifruithasaflatsideasshownonthebottom right,

thewidthcannotexceedtheheight.Sincewidthdoesexceedtheheight,

thisfruitisconsidered“Badlymisshapen”andisacull.

USDAVisualAidKWI-CP-6Jan2017

WidthVersusHeightonFlatKiwifruit

Width Height

Width Height

Flatside

Flatside
Whenthekiwifruitdoesnothaveaflatsideasshownontheright,

disregardwidthandheight.Thisfruitisconsidered“Fairlywellformed”

andmeetsU.S.No.1.

U.S.D.A.VisualAidKWI-CP-7Jan2017

WidthVersusHeightonRoundorOvalShapedKiwifruit

Width Height
SCPW-14-0000989

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

LIVIA SCOTTO, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I ET. AL., Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the documents filed by Petitioner

Livia Scotto, on July 22, 2014, which was filed as a petition for

a writ of mandamus, and the record, it appears that Petitioner is

seeking identical relief challenging the eviction in an appeal to

the first circuit court that will be filed pursuant to the order

issued in SCPW-14-0000973, and the issues raised in the instant

petition are raised in the appeal. Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee. 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-14-0000989

14-AUG-2014

12:33 PM
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a

writ of mandamus is dismissed. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 14, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
Exhibit 10.17

BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION    DIRECTOR STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN    (As Amended Through September 26, 2003)

1.Plan Administration and Eligibility.



2.Stock Subject to the Plan.



3.Options.



---



Elected Portion of Annual Retainer
and Meeting Fees(Fair Market Value - $2.50)

=

Number
of
Option Shares




Dividend Equivalent(Fair Market Value - $2.50)

=

Number
of
Option Shares




2

---



3

---



4

---



4.General Provisions.



5

---



6

---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23733-23734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9549]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Health Resources and Services Administration


CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention and 
Treatment

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) and the Health Resources and Services

[[Page 23734]]

Administration (HRSA) announce the following meeting of the 
aforementioned committee:

    Times and Dates:

    8 a.m.-5:30 p.m., May 8, 2012.
    8 a.m.-3 p.m., May 9, 2012.

    Place: The Westin Buckhead Atlanta, 3391 Peachtree Road, NE.,
    Atlanta, Georgia, 30326, Telephone: (404) 365-0065.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
    The meeting room will accommodate approximately 100 people.
    Purpose: This Committee is charged with advising the Director, 
CDC and the Administrator, HRSA, regarding activities related to 
prevention and control of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, the support of 
health care services to persons living with HIV/AIDS, and education 
of health professionals and the public about HIV/AIDS and other 
STDs.
    Matters To Be Discussed: Agenda items include: (1) Enhancing 
Hepatitis Prevention Treatment and Care in the United States;
    (2) Integrating HIV Prevention and Care Data Systems; (3) 
External Peer Review of CDC Youth HIV/STI Prevention and Sexual 
Health Activities; (4) Preparing for the Ryan White Reauthorization; 
and (5) CHAC Workgroups Update.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Margie Scott-Cseh, CDC, 
National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB 
Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E-07, Atlanta, Georgia 
30333, Telephone (404) 639-8317.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: April 16, 2012.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2012-9549 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
August 18, 2021

Mr. Mark Lamers, President

Lamers Dairy, Inc.

N410 Speel School Road

Appleton, Wisconsin 54915

Dear Mr. Lamers:

This letter is in response to your petition, received in our office on July 17, 2021, to amend 

the exempt plant definition in the Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO). Your petition seeks 

to increase the exemption level for plants with fluid milk product sales of 150,000 pounds 

of route disposition and sales or less per month to 3 million pounds per month. 

Your petition requests USDA enact changes to FMMOs through informal or notice and 

comment rulemaking rather than through a formal hearing. According to the Agricultural 

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA), USDA can only use informal rulemaking if the 

proposed change to the FMMOs does not have a direct impact on the uniform or blend 

price. USDA is currently analyzing whether your proposed change would directly impact 

the uniform or blend price in FMMOs. This analysis is expected to take approximately 60

days. Once completed, we will notify you of the next steps.

Thank you for your interest in the FMMO program. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Dana H. Coale

Deputy Administrator

USDA-AMS-Dairy Program