alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 24, 2014

s0616 

# Order

Clerk June 24, 2014

148619

MICHAEL MORAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 148619

COA: 304281

Manistee CC: 07

- 012845

- CZ

DENNIS RISSER and MANISTEE

- BENZIE

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH BOARD,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the appli cation for leave to appeal the December 19, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Etain believes that the hemp regulations should require mandatory product labeling and

testing. Further, all extract products should be identified as coming from hemp only. We

believe there should be provisions for harvesting only feminized plants to mitigate cross

pollination of medical & Recreational Marijuana. Lastly, we believe it should be

mandatory to continue to require the 0.3% THC limit for safety and consumables.

Stephanie Keeffe

Director of External Affairs

Etain LLC

Katonah, NY
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: May 31, 2006______________________

Subject: Sunset Review - 205.603; Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic 

livestock production 

Chair: Kevin R. O’Rell_________________________________ 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: __XXXXX 

Guidance Statement: _

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation:

See attached Recommendation for Renewal of Ivermectin as Synthetic substances allowed 

for use in organic livestock production on 205.603, category use (a) as disinfectants, 

sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable. 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Hue Karreman Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

Yes – 6 

No – 4 

Abstain – 2 

Absent- 2 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation:

NOSB Sunset Material Vote 

Response by the NOP:
National Organic Standards Board 

Livestock Committee 

Final Recommendation for the Synthetic substances allowed for use in 

organic livestock production 

April 20, 2006

Category Use 

(a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable 

Committee Summary: 

A number of specific comments were received on Ivermectin. Several commentors 

stated that Ivermectin should remain on the National List. Some commentors stated that 

Ivermectin should be removed from the list. The Livestock Committee agrees with the 

commentors who supported the renewal of Ivermectin because its use is considered 

essential for the health and welfare of organic livestock at this time and it can be used in a 

way compatible with organic production practices. 

NOSB Recommendation(s): 

Recommendation Based upon Comments Received – 205.603(a) 

The NOSB recommends the renewal of the following substance(s) in this use category: 

 

 (13) Parasiticides. Ivermectin—prohibited in slaughter stock, allowed in emergency 

treatment 

for dairy and breeder stock when organic system plan-approved preventive 

management does not prevent infestation. Milk or milk products from a treated 

animal cannot be labeled as provided for in subpart D of this part for 90 days 

following treatment. In breeder stock, treatment cannot occur during the last third 

of gestation if the progeny will be sold as organic and must not be used during the 

lactation period of breeding stock. 

Moved: Hue Karreman Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

Board vote: Yes – 6 No – 4 Abstain – 2 Absent - 2
EXHIBIT (31)(b)
 
 
 
 Certification of Financial Statements and Internal Controls
 
 
 I, William H. Carter, certify that:
  1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Borden Chemical, Inc. (BCI);
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 annual report;
  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;
  4.  BCIs other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)                and 15d-15(e) for BCI 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 BCI, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the                 period in which this annual report is being prepared;
  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of BCIs disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the                disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and
  c.  Disclosed in this annual report any change in BCIs internal control over financial reporting that occurred during BCIs most recent fiscal quarter (BCIs                fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, BCIs internal control over                financial reporting; and
 
 5.  BCIs other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to BCIs auditors and the audit                committee of BCIs board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  a.  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect BCI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 BCIs internal control over financial                reporting.
 
 
 Date: March 29, 2004
 
 s/s William H. Carter
 William H. Carter
 Chief Financial Officer
3/70/20

Confidentiality

Guideline
The Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) Act 

of 1999 requires the USDA to publish 

mandatory data on livestock and meat price 

trends, contracting agreements, and supply 

and demand conditions in a manner that 

protects the identity of reporting entities 

and preserves the confidentiality of 

proprietary transactions.
Confidentiality 

Confidentiality Obstacles:

Even with many large slaughter plants 

across the U.S., still considerable 

concentration among companies

There was diversity among data users
Confidentiality

• Confidentiality is simply a 

mathematical process to prevent 

the possibility of ID’ing an 

individual or company in a data 

summary

• Often referred to as suppression 
Confidentiality 

Data quality

Be mindful of the data user needs or wants

While also being mindful of the accuracy 

and timeliness of the data summary
History

The simplest, and most common, form of 

protecting confidentiality is the 3/60 rule:

3 reporters (companies)

Not one of the operations can have more 

that 60% of the data being used in the 

report

AMS used this early in LMR
The transition to 3/70/20

LMR was meeting many criteria for 

expanding confidentiality:

 Large census (many companies)

 Collecting quantifiable information

 Expected audience (significant data output 

used by large cross-section)

 What type of decisions will be based on the 

information published
3/70/20 Guideline

3/

• At least 3 reporting entities need 

to provide data at least 50 

percent of the time over the 

most recent 60 day time period.
3/70/20 Guideline

/70/

• No single reporting entity may 

provide more than 70 percent of 

the data for a report over the 

most recent 60 day time period 
3/70/20 Guideline

/20

• No single reporting entity may be the sole 

reporting entity for an individual report 

more than 20 percent of the time over the 

most recent 60 day time period
Adjustments

Geographic areas or regional reporting:

• AMS has grouped together high production 

areas for cattle and swine (procurement)

• Able to show regional and national data on 

swine and cattle

• Meat is reported on a national basis
Showing more data

What is AMS doing to show more data?

• Comprehensive reporting

• National reporting on cattle, lamb, and 

swine

• Rolling averages
3/70/20 Confidentiality

• Confidentiality is applied across 

all LMR commodities. The 

individual presentations will 

cover how it is applied to their 

area of oversite. 

Link to guideline:

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/ConfidentialityGuidelines.pdf
Contact information

Taylor Cox

LMR Field Chief

USDA - AMS - Livestock, Poultry, & Grain Market News

515-284-4460

Taylor.Cox@ams.usda.gov

Visit us online at:

https://www.marketnews.usda.gov/mnp/ls-home
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 506



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV No. CV-13-57 CLIFFORD RICH APPELLANT V. QUALSERV CORPORATION and THE HARTFORD INSURANCE CO. APPELLEES Opinion Delivered September 18, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. F903764]

AFFIRMED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge In Qualserv v. Rich , 2011 Ark. App. 548, an appeal brought by Qualserv, we affirmed a decision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission in which it found thatClifford Rich’s exposure to carbide dust in the workplace temporarily aggravated his preexisting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Mr. Rich brings the present appeal from a subsequent decision of the Commission on his claims for disability benefits and additional medical treatment. He contends that there is no substantial evidence to support (1) the Commission’s finding that the aggravation ended March 3, 2010, foreclosing entitlement to additional medical treatment; or (2) its determination that he is not entitled to additional temporary-disability benefits. We disagree and affirm. The issue before the Commission in the present case was whether Mr. Rich’s 2008 compensable injury, a temporary aggravation of his pre-existing COPD, resulted in subsequent entitlement to temporary total-disability benefits and additional medical treatment.Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 506

The Commission noted that the temporary aggravation was caused by Mr. Rich’s inhaling carbide dust in the workplace; that the exposure ceased when he left employment in 2009; that he had a thirty-year history of heavy cigarette smoking before the temporary aggravation; that Dr. Richard Melin was unable to causally relate Rich’s current breathing problems to the 2008 aggravation; and that both Dr. Melin and the advanced practical nurse testified that COPD is a progressive disease, that there is no cure, and that shortness of breath is one of its symptoms. The appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission’s decision, which will be affirmed when it is supported by substantial evidence; we will affirm if fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could have reached the conclusions of the Commission. Parker v. Comcast Cable Corp. , 100 Ark. App. 400, 269 S.W.3d 391 (2007). Because the sole issue before us concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Commission’s findings, and because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains the decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions , 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). Affirmed. H IXSON and W OOD , JJ., agree. Walker, Shock & Harp, PLLC , by: Eddie H. Walker, Jr. , for appellant. Smith, Williams & Meeks, LLP , by: Charles H. Crocker, Jr. and Gene Williams , for appellees.

2
#### Ernest Eugene SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. PC-80-186.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 20, 1980.

*277ORDER REMANDING FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

An application has been filed in this Court seeking leave to file an appeal out of time in Pottawatomie County District Court Case No. CRF-78-368. Applicant presented a related post conviction application to the District Court, which entered an order reciting that the District Court was without authority to grant any relief on the application. While that proposition is undoubtedly correct in the abstract, it misconstrues present Oklahoma procedure regarding the appeal out of time remedy. The prior statutory appeal out of time remedy found at 22 O.S.Supp.1965, § 1073 was repealed upon enactment of and has been subsumed within the Post Conviction Procedures Act, 22 O.S.1971, § 1080 et seq.

See The Oklahoma Post Conviction Procedure Act, Lerblance, 41 OBJ 1683, 1684. Hence, the proper procedure1 to secure the remedy is the filing of a post conviction application in the District Court, where Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law should be made as to whether applicant was denied a direct appeal through no fault of his own, which issue is the crucial one to appeal out of time, see *Pierce v. State,*Okl.Cr., 456 P.2d 126 (1969), followed by an application, or “appeal”, as it were, filed in this Court, with the District Court findings and conclusions. Therefore, this cause must be remanded to the District Court for additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as outlined above.

Additional materials and pleadings have been filed in this Court with regard to this case, including an Appellant’s brief, filed by court-appointed counsel, and two applications pro se filed by appellant seeking withdrawal of the brief filed by counsel and extension of time within which to file replacement briefs. Given our views set out above, these materials and the issues raised by them are improvidently before the court.

Therefore, for all of the above and foregoing reasons, this cause is remanded to the District Court for additional proceedings consistent with this order.

WITNESS OUR HANDS, and the Seal of this Court, this 19th day of May, 1980.

TOM R. CORNISH, P. J.

TOM BRETT, J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.

1

. In some instances it may be appropriate for the District Court to simply vacate the original judgment and sentence and impose a new judgment and sentence, so that the appeal time will begin to run anew.
#### In the Matter of Nicholas A. Cokely, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

—Motion by petitioner for order suspending respondent from the practice of law indefinitely due to his incapacity to continue to practice law (22 NYCRR 806.10 [a]) granted, and respondent suspended immediately and until further order of this court. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00019

- CV

CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS APPELLANT

V.

BRAZOS ELECTRIC POWE R

COOPERATIVE, INC. APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 16TH DISTRI CT COURT OF DENTON C OUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 16

- 0 6424

- 16

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant ’ s “Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” It

is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by t he party incurring the same, for which

let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; KERR and PITTMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 3 , 2018

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1213 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1213

To provide compensation for Federal contractors impacted by a lapse in 
                            appropriations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2019

  Mr. Thompson of California introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide compensation for Federal contractors impacted by a lapse in 
                            appropriations.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Contract Worker Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR FEDERAL CONTRACTORS.

    Each Federal contract worker impacted by a lapse in appropriations 
in the Federal Government shall receive compensation.
                                 <all>
```
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    The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR Electric Company, for purposes of 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:(i)the enclosed Annual Report of NSTAR Electric Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and(ii)the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NSTAR Electric Company.Dated: February 9, 2009/s/ THOMAS J. MAY
Thomas J. May
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
Silicones Environmental, Health and Safety Center Revised August 16, 2013

Company Facility Name and 

Address

Facility 

Description

On-Site 

Wastewater 

Treatment

Discharge 

(Direct/

Indirect)

POTW Treatment Reason for 

Not Using

Bluestar 

Silicones

USA 

Corporation

Ventura Plant

320 W Stanley 

Avenue

Ventura, CA 93001

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SOLD

Dow Corning 

Corporation

Carrollton Plant

4770 Highway 42 East 

Carrollton, KY 41008

D4 

manufacturer 

and 

formulator

Collection, 

equalization, 

neutralization, 

air stripping, 

biological

Direct n/a n/a/ Direct 

Discharge

Greensboro Plant

2914 Patterson Street

Greensboro, NC 

27407

D4 processor 

and 

formulator

n/a Indirect T.Z. Ozborne 

WWTP

Tertiary; 

activated 

sludge

Auburn Plant

5300 11 Mile Road 

Auburn, MI 48611

D4 formulator n/a Indirect West Bay County 

Regional WWTP

Combined 

sewers

Healthcare Industries 

Materials Site 

1635 N Gleaner Road

Hemlock, MI 48626

D4 formulator n/a No process 

wastewater 

discharged 

to POTW

Saginaw Charter 

Township WWTP

No process 

wastewater 

discharged to 

POTW

Midland Plant

3901 S Saginaw Road

Midland, MI 48640 

D4 processor n/a Indirect –

transferred 

to WWTP

n/a Discharge to 

private 

treatment 

plant

Elizabethtown Plant

760 Hodgenville Road 

Elizabethtown, KY 

42701

D4 processor n/a Indirect Valley Creek 

WWTP

Oxidation 

ditch
Silicones Environmental, Health and Safety Center Revised August 16, 2013

Company Facility Name and 

Address

Facility 

Description

On-Site 

Wastewater 

Treatment

Discharge 

(Direct/

Indirect)

POTW Treatment Reason for 

Not Using

Evonik 

Goldschmidt 

Corporation

Hopewell

914 East Randolph 

Road Hopewell, VA 

23860

D4 processor n/a Indirect Hopewell WWTP Dilution 

factor

Momentive

Waterford Plant

260 Hudson River 

Road

Waterford, NY 12188

D4 

manufacturer, 

processor, and 

formulator

Primary and 

secondary 

(biological)

Direct n/a n/a Direct 

Discharge

Sistersville Plant

3500 S State Route 2

Friendly, WV 26146

D4 processor Primary and 

secondary 

(biological)

Direct n/a n/a Direct 

Discharge

Shin-Etsu 

Silicones of 

America, Inc.

Shin-Etsu Silicones of 

America, Inc.

1150 Damar Drive 

Akron, OH 55305

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Not a 

manufacturer, 

processor or 

formulator of 

D4

Shincor Silicones, Inc.

1030 Evans Avenue 

Akron, OH 55305

D4 processor None None n/a n/a No Discharge

Wacker 

Chemical 

Corporation

Wacker Chemical 

Corporation

3301 Sutton Road 

Adrian, MI 49221

D4 processor Equalization, 

dissolved air 

flotation, sand 

filter

Direct n/a n/a Direct 

Discharge

*This list focuses exclusively on facilities that manufacture, process, or formulate D4 with associated potential wastewater discharges. For 

purposes of this list, process means facilities that react D4 to create other substances. Formulate means those facilities that mix/blend D4 to 

create products. Facilities that only import or store D4, or only perform R&D, are not included. No facility information is included for 

Milliken (formerly SiVance, LLC).