alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFIED VEAL PROGRAMS 

Characteristic Certified Nature Veal Marcho Farms Premium Veal

Live Requirements

Domestic or Non-Domestic Veal Calves XDressing Percent 58%

Carcass Requirements

Chill 36 hours

Quality Factors

U.S. Prime X XU.S. Choice X XColor score Minolta Chromameter NPPC Color Standards 

Yield Factors

Hot carcass weight, pounds 200 – 350Ribeye size, (square inches) 3 categories 7.0 – 8.0

USDA Information

Initial release date Oct 2004 Jan 2005Revision date Oct 2004 Jan 2005USDA Certified X XUSDA Process Verified X

Management Claims

Contact program for requirements X X

X-Indicates program requirementMarch 2, 2005 USDA Certified Programs
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

FOURTEENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

HOUSTON, TEXAS

NO.14-14-00920-CR

LEONARD STOREMSKI

APPELLANT On Appeal from Cause Number 1361698

From the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

APPELLEE

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF 

APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Leonard Storemski, and files this Motion to Extend Time to File Brief, 

and in support thereof, would respectfully show the Court the following:

I.

The appellant has a concurrent appeal in COA No. 14-14-00921-CR. Counsel filed a 

motion for extension in that case but accidentally failed to put this cause number in the 

caption of her motion as well. The motion in the other case was granted and the due 

date was extended to April 23, 2015.

II.

Counsel requests for this case to be aligned with No. 14-14-00921-CR and for the brief 

to also be due on April 23, 2014.

ACCEPTED

14-14-00920-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/14/2015 6:32:53 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/14/2015 6:32:53 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
III.

Appellant’s attorney requests this extension which is necessary so that the brief can be 

thoroughly written and timely filed. This motion is not made for the purpose of delay.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Honorable 

Court grants this extension to April 23, 2015.

Respectfully Submitted,

ALEXANDER BUNIN

Chief Public Defender

Harris County, Texas

/s/ Sarah V. Wood 

SARAH V. WOOD

Assistant Public Defender 

Harris County, Texas

Texas Bar Number 24048898

1201 Franklin, 13th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Phone: (713) 368-0016

Fax: (713) 368-9278

Sarah.Wood@pdo.hctx.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

By my signature below, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and 

foregoing has been served upon the Harris County District Attorney's Office – Alan 

Curry, via the electronic filing service.

/s/ Sarah V. Wood 

Sarah V. Wood
EXHIBIT 10.2



PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources


RECORD OF 4 POST CLAIM - MINERAL TENURE ACT

(Section 27)



	
__________________________________
	
39221_____________________________

	
Mining Division
	
Tenure No.

	
__________________________________
	
__________________________________

	
Gold Commissioner
	
Date of Record




_____________________________________________________________________________________

APPLICATION TO RECORD A 4 POST CLAIM



I, Stephen Kenwood, Name of Locator, 2073 149th Street, Surrey, British Columbia, V4A 8C4, (604) 535-8146, Client No. 134185, hereby apply for record of a 4 Post Claim for the location as outlined on the attached copy of mineral titles reference map No. 82L02E, in the Vernon Mining Division.



ACCESS



Describe how you gained access to the location, include reference to roads, trails, topographic features, permanent landmarks and a description of the legal post location.



Travel approximately 50 km. east of Vernon on Highway 6 to Cherryville.  Continue along Highway 6 approximately 16 km. to Monashee Creek and then a further 3.7 km.  LCP is approximately 200 metres east of Highway 6 along power line.



GPS Co-ordinates taken of posts:  Yes [  ]  No [x]  If yes, complete information chart on reverse.


TAG INFORMATION



I have securely fastened the metal identification tag embossed "LEGAL CORNER POST" to the legal corner post (or "witness post") and impressed this information on the tag:



TAG No. 244219   LEGAL CORNER POST



	
CLAIM NAME
	
MADI

	
LOCATOR
	
Stephen Kenwood

	
FMC NO.
	
134185

	
DATE COMMENCED
	
March 13, 2002

	
TIME COMMENCED
	
10:15 a.m.

	
DATE COMPLETED
	
March 13, 2002

	
TIME COMPLETED
	
4:30 p.m.






Number of Claim Units



N 4 S__ E 5 W __



IDENTIFICATION POSTS NOT PLACED were 4N0E, 4N1E, 4N2E, 4N3E, 4N4E, 4N5E, 5E3N, 5E2N, 5E1N, 5E0N ,4E0N, 3E0N, 2E0N, 1E0N because deep heavy snow in valley and snow and ice on steep slopes to the east were treacherous.



If a Witness Post was placed for the legal corner post:



Bearing from witness post to true position of legal corner post is ________degrees at a distance of _____ metres. 


NOTE:  Legal Corner Post can be witnessed only if it was not feasible to place any posts.



ACKNOWLEGEMENT



I have complied with all the terms and conditions of the Mineral Tenure Act and Regulation pertaining to the location of 4 post claims and have attached a plan of the location on which the positions of the legal corner post and all other corner posts (and witness and identification post, if applicable) are indicated.  The tag information supplied above is the identical information that I impressed upon the tag affixed to the applicable post when I located this claim and this information is true and correct.


/s/ "Stephen Kenwood"

Stephen Kenwood

Signature of Locator



SEAL



RECEIVED

SUB-RECORDER

VANCOUVER, BC

MAR. 20, 2002

Recording Stamp
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Exhibit
32.1








Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Finlay
Enterprises, Inc., (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the
Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 1,
2008 (the “Report”) that:





1.
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the SecuritiesExchange
      Act of 1934; and


2.
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financialcondition
      and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
December 16, 2008




/s/
      Arthur E. ReinerArthur
      E. ReinerChairman,
      President and Chief Executive
Officer
   The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

 

Date: October 28, 2010 

Subject: Sunset Review of Magnesium Sulfate as listed on §205.605 (a), 

nonagricultural (nonorganic) non-synthetic substances allowed 

as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic” 

or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” 

Chair: Daniel G. Giacomini 

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X 

 

 

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

 

Magnesium sulfate is listed on 205.605(a) with the annotation “non-synthetic 

sources only”. This substance was scheduled to sunset off the National List in 

2012, was reviewed by the NOSB, and a motion was made for the re-listing of 

this substance at the October 2010 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 

14 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions, 0 absent, and 0 recusals. 

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

 

The Handling Committee’s recommendation covering this material is attached. 

There were no public written or verbal comments opposing the committee’s 

recommendation, and the material was recommended for relisting by the full 

NOSB as shown below. 

 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Steve DeMuri Second: Joe Smillie 

Yes: 14 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0 
National Organic Standards Board 

Handling Committee 

Sunset Recommendation – 2012 

Magnesium Sulfate 

August 23, 2010 

List: 205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in 

or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified 

ingredients or food group(s)).” 

(a) Nonsynthetics allowed 

Committee Summary: 

Federal register notice of the sunset of these materials elicited no public comments 

against re-listing. 

Review of the original recommendation, historical documents, and public comments 

does not reveal unacceptable risks to the environment, human, or animal health as a 

result of the use or manufacture of this material. There is no new information 

contradicting the original recommendation which was the basis for the previous NOSB 

decision to list this material. 

Committee Recommendation(s)

The handling committee recommends the renewal of the following substance in this use 

category as published in the final rule: 

Magnesium Sulfate – non-synthetic sources only 

Committee Vote: 

Motion: Steve DeMuri Second: Joe Smillie 

Yes: 5 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2
News Media Contact(s) : (202) 586-4940 For Immediate Release July 22, 2009 

### Energy Secretary Chu, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announce $6.3 million for Biofuels Research Washington, DC – U.S. Department of Energy Secr etary Steven Chu and U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced today th e joint selection of awards of up to $6.3 million towards fundamental genomics-enabled research lead ing to the improved use of plant feedstocks for biofuel production. The seven projects announced toda y follow the green jobs and renewable energy Rural Tour event hosted last weekend by the two cabinet Secretaries in Virginia. These investments will further the Obama Administration’s efforts to broade n the nation’s energy portfolio while decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. "Part of the solution to the energy problem will be home-grown energy crops," Secretary Chu said. "These projects will help us unlock the true potenti al of advanced biofuels, decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and create new jobs and a thriving biofuels industry in America.” ”Helping expand and diversify produc tion of biofuels is an example of the Obama Administration’s commitment to developing a sustainable domestic bi ofuels industry that can help strengthen rural America while decreasing our dependence on foreign oil,” said Secretary Vilsack. These grants will be awarded under a joint DOE- USDA program begun in 2006 that is committed to fundamental research in biomass genomics, providing the scientific foundation to facilitate use of lignocellulosic materials for bioenergy and biofuels. Since lignocellulosic crop plants are less intensive to produce and can grow on poorer quality land, co mpetition with crops grown for food production is avoided. DOE will provide $4 million in funding for four pr ojects, while USDA will award $2.3 million to fund three projects. Initial funding will support research projects for up to three years. Awards have been selected for:

z USDA-ARS Northern Plains Area (Lincoln, NE), $1,182,000 z USDA-ARS Western Regional Research Center (Albany, CA), $1,300,000 z University of Georgia (Athens, GA), $1,200,000 z University of Georgia (Athens, GA), $705,000 z Michigan Technological University (Houghton, MI), $900,000 z University of Florida (Gainesville, FL), $643,000 z University of Nebraska (Lincoln, NE), $390,000 Secretary Chu recently posted a video on his Facebook page and on his YouTube channel discussing the Page 1 of 2 U.S. Department of Energy

1/22/2010 http://www.energy.gov/news2009/print2009/7683.htmgreat potential of next generation biofuels. Read more information on the individual projects and the DOE-USDA biomass genomics research p rogra m . U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. Page 2 of 2 U.S. Department of Energy

1/22/2010 http://www.energy.gov/news2009/print2009/7683.htm
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

457 

CA 16-01638 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

NICHOLAS DOMINICK AND LORRAINE J. DOMINICK, 

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, 

V ORDER

CHARLES MILLAR & SON CO., CHARLES MILLAR 

SUPPLY, INC., MILLAR SUPPLY, INC., PACEMAKER 

MILLAR STEEL & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO 

CHARLES MILLAR & SON SUPPLY, INC., PACEMAKER 

MILLAR STEEL & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY OF BINGHAMTON, INC., 

PACEMAKER STEEL & ALUMINUM OF BINGHAMTON CORP., 

PACEMAKER STEEL AND PIPING CO., INC., INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS SUCCESSOR TO CHARLES MILLAR, PACEMAKER STEEL 

WAREHOUSE INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, 

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, ALBANY (GEORGE F. CARPINELLO OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

BELLUCK & FOX, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (SETH A. DYMOND OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Charles

C. Merrell, J.), entered December 3, 2015. The order denied the

motion of defendants-appellants to set aside the jury verdict.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs (see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,

155 AD2d 435; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1], [2]). 

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Agricultural Marketing Service, Specialty Crops Program, Specialty Crops Inspection Division

This PATCH represents official guidance. This PATCH is scheduled to be incorporated into the 

document listed above. After incorporation into the document listed above this PATCH will 

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

PATCH #021 FEIRS Shipper Selection (June 1, 2017)

SCI Division Inspection Series

Page 1 of 2

PATCH # 021

DOCUMENT: Fresh Electronic Inspection Reporting/Resource System (FEIRS) electronic 

programs revision.

REMARKS: The following guidance is to be followed when completing the Shipper 

information in FEIRS. Under the Shipping tab the known shipper name and location information 

is to be entered on all FEIRS certificates. 

UNKNOWN SHIPPER

If the applicant fails to specify the shipper and it is not possible to obtain their name and address, 

select Unknown Shipper (see below).

APPLICANT SPECIFIED SHIPPER

Many specified shippers have FEIRS accounting codes already assigned. These shipper codes 

all begin with 21200 and can be located by clicking on the binocular icon next to the Number 

field and searching the listed accounting codes for ones that begin with 21200. Codes with 

21200 are the only accounts to be selected in the Shipper Number field for all non-test applicant 

certificates (see below). 
This PATCH represents official guidance. This PATCH is scheduled to be incorporated into the 

document listed on the first page. After incorporation into the document listed above this 

PATCH will become obsolete.

PATCH #021 FEIRS Shipper Selection (June 1, 2017)

SCI Division Inspection Series

Page 2 of 2

If the specified shipper does not have an existing 21200 code then their information must be 

entered as a new shipper. When entering a new shipper click on Enter New Shipper and 

complete the Company, City, State/Country fields and select Unknown Phone and Unknown Tax 

ID before selecting Save (see below). 

If the specified shipper is also the applicant do not select Same As Applicant as this would place 

a non-21200 code into the Shipper Number field. You must select their respective 21200 code or 

if a code is not listed enter as a new shipper. It is permissible to select Same As Applicant only 

when completing test certificates and the applicant is “Test Applicant.”

Requests to create a 21200 accounting code for an unlisted shipper can be forwarded to the 

Service Center, include: Company name, Address, City, State/Country, Zip code, and Phone 

Number. Once the shipper account is created and activated FEIRS users must perform a FEIRS 

transmit cycle to capture the newly created 21200 accounting code.
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB)

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP)

Date: _________4/21/2007______

Subject: Elderberry Juice, color for addition to National List under Colors, §205.606 

Chair: Andrea Caroe

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following:

Rulemaking Action: _XXX___

Guidance Statement: ________

Other: ________

Statement of the Recommendation (including Recount of Vote):

The Board recommends adding Elderberry Juice, color to the National List under §205.606-

nonorganically produced agricultural products

NOSB Vote: Motion: Julie Weisman Second: Joe Smilie

Board vote: Yes -13 No-0 Abstain- 0 Absent -2 Recuse- 0 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with OFPA and NOP):

The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances §205.606 

Response by the NOP:
National Organic Standards Board

Final Recommendation for 

Date: April 21, 2007

I. List: (where in FR rule example 205.606)

National Organic Program Subpart G: The National List of Allowed and Prohibited 

Substances. §205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as 

ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic 

(specified ingredients or food groups(s)).”

II. Committee Summary: 

III. Board Recommendation 

Elderberry Juice, color for inclusion on §205.606 of the National List

Moved: Julie Weisman Second: Joe Smilie

Board vote: Yes-13 No- 0 Absent- 2 Abstain-0 Recuse-0
Exhibit 31.1
 AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.
 CERTIFICATIONS
      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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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 (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  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;
andb)
    
    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/ Duane R. GreenlyDuane R. GreenlyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph VERDIN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 16048.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May 3, 1979.

Joseph C. Fratto, Jr., Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., William W. Barrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

STEWART, Justice:

Defendant-Appellant (“Verdin”) appeals from his felony conviction of aggravated assault under Section 76-5 — 103(b) of the Utah Criminal Code. The case was tried without a jury. Verdin does not contend that his right to trial by jury was in any way infringed. He primarily contends that the code subsection under which he was convicted proscribes the same conduct as does Criminal Code Section 76-10-506 which categorizes that conduct as a misdemeanor. When the same conduct is proscribed by two criminal statutes providing different penalties, Verdin argues, the convicted person is entitled to be sentenced under the section providing the lesser penalty.

The validity of the legal proposition Verdin advances is based on sound authority, *State v. Loveless,*Utah, 581 P.2d 575 (1978); *Rammell v. Smith,*Utah, 560 P.2d 1108 (1977), but the actions prohibited by the above cited statutes are clearly separate and distinct. The conduct criminalized by 76-5-103(b) is the use of “a *deadly*weapon or such means or force likely to produce *death or serious bodily injury”*in an “attempt, with unlawful force or violence, to do bodily injury to another” or in making a “threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force or violence, to do bodily injury to another.” The conduct proscribed by 76-10 — 506, on the other hand, is (except in self-defense) the drawing or exhibition of “any *dangerous*weapon in an angry and threatening manner” or its unlawful use in a fight or quarrel. The distinctions in levels of proscribed conduct are clear and easily to be comprehended.

*863Credible evidence in this ease establishes all the elements of the higher crime, i. e., that Verdin aimed a *deadly*weapon, a loaded rifle, at a police officer, worked the action to put a shell into the firing chamber, and attempted to pull the trigger while declaring his intention to “smoke” the officer. This is quite a different and more reprehensible course of action than exhibiting a dangerous weapon in a threatening manner.

While the record includes testimony which, if believed, might exonerate Verdin from the felony charge, assessment of the credibility of witnesses was the prerogative and function of the trial judge in the posture of this case, *State v. Howard,*Utah, 544 P.2d 466 (1975).

The sentence and conviction are affirmed.

CROCKETT, C. J., and MAUGHAN, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.