alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Formal Recommendation 

From: National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

To: the National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: October 30, 2020

Subject: Ion Exchange Filtration Process and Materials Used

NOSB Chair: Steve Ela

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Other: None

Statement of the Recommendation: 

The NOSB vote on the proposal on Ion Exchange Filtration Process and Materials Used failed.

Rationale Supporting Recommendation:

Ion exchange filtration is widely used in the organic processing industry. Following conflicting 

interpretations as to whether only the recharge materials or both recharge materials and resins need to 

be on the National List, the National Organic Program asked the NOSB to evaluate which approach 

would be appropriate. The attached NOSB recommendation that only recharge materials be on the 

National List was voted down by the full NOSB board. This was based on stakeholder testimony calling 

into question the legal interpretations of food contact substances and questions on whether the resins 

degrade and are present in the final organic product. While this recommendation was not passed by the 

full NOSB board, the NOSB would like to continue working on a recommendation for the Spring 2021 

board meeting. The recommendation would incorporate and respond to stakeholder comments from 

the Fall 2020 meeting. 

NOSB Vote: 

Motion to approve the recommendation on ion exchange materials

Motion by: Steve Ela

Seconded by: Scott Rice

Yes: 9 No: 6 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0

 

Motion Failed

[Fall 2020 Original Subcommittee Proposal - Ion Exchange Filtration Process and Materials Used]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,226
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,175)
<INVENTORY>                                     96,983
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               224,769
<PP&E>                                         140,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          126,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,762
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   302,652
<SALES>                                        165,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               165,456
<CGS>                                          113,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,932
<INCOME-TAX>                                       528
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,404
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,404
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27


</TABLE>
<Page>
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional
Information constituting part of this Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to the
registration statement (Form N-4 No. 333-65233) (the "Registration
Statement") of our report dated February 15, 2002, relating to the financial
statements of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company, which appears in such
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information. We also consent to the
use in the Statement of Additional Information constituting part of this
Registration Statement of our report dated April 6, 2001, relating to the
financial statements of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company Variable Account D,
which appears in such Statement of Additional Information. We also consent to
the reference to us under the heading "Independent Public Accountants" in
such Statement of Additional Information.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 17, 2002
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, SCP, SCI 

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
Sweet Corn Auxiliary Ears 

 Auxiliary Ears 

 Enclosed in Husk Single Auxiliary Ear Multiple Auxiliary E
TASSELTIPSINCORN

USDAVisualAidCOR-2-IDENTNovember2017

Notscorableunlessdecayed.

FORIDENTIFICATIONONLY
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I E. Eugene Sharer, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of the operations of the Company. /s/ E. Eugene Sharer
E. Eugene Sharer
Chief Financial Officer September 8, 2005
Hay Quality Designation Guidelines 

Agricultural Marketing Service

Livestock, Poultry, and Grain Market News 

 

Source: USDA Livestock, Poultry, and Grain Market News 

Agricultural Marketing Service | Websupport.LPGMN@ams.usda.gov

www.ams.usda.gov/LPSMarketNewsPage

Alfalfa Guidelines (domestic livestock use and not more than 10% grass) 

Quality ADF NDF RFV TDN-100% TDN-90% CP 

Supreme <27 <34 >185 >62 >55.9 >22

Premium 27-29 34-36 170-185 60.5-62 54.5-55.9 20-22

Good 29-32 36-40 150-170 58-60 52.5-54.5 18-20

Fair 32-35 40-44 130-150 56-58 50.5-52.5 16-18

Utility >35 >44 <130 <56 <50.5 <16

Grass Hay Guidelines 

Quality Crude Protein Percent 

Premium Over 13

Good 9-13

Fair 5-9

Utility Under 5

Glossary of Terms 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/livestock-poultry-and-grain-hay-terms
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          22,027
<SECURITIES>                                    12,064
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,171
<INVENTORY>                                     36,787
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,451
<PP&E>                                          25,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,018
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,999
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,750
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,793
<SALES>                                        134,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,013
<CGS>                                           65,930
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,342
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,597
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,768
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,148
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,620
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,620
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.18



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60825 Summary Calendar

AFEES OLAJUWON, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A74-203-064

-------------------- Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Afees Olajuwon, a native and citizen of Nigeria, appeals an order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that summarily affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Olajuwon’s application for voluntary departure. Olajuwon argues that his due process rights were violated at various stages of his removal proceedings because he was denied the opportunity to argue his eligibility for voluntary departure, was not informed of the grounds of his denial by the IJ, and becauseNo. 02-60825 -2- the BIA summarily affirmed the decision. The record reflects that Olajuwon never objected that he was denied the opportunity to argue statutory eligibility. In any event, the record demonstrates that the IJ informed Olajuwon that the basis for the decision was Olajuwon’s statutory ineligiblity due to his status as an arriving alien. In addition, this court has held that the summary affirmance procedure utilized by the BIA does not constitute a due process violation. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003). Olajuwon’s due process challenge is without merit. Olajuwon also argues that the IJ erred in denying his application for voluntary departure. At his removal hearing, Olajuwon confirmed that he was applying for a voluntary departure prior to the commencement of removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C § 1229c(a)(1). At the hearing and later in his reply brief, Olajuwon conceded his status as an “arriving alien.” Under these circumstances, Olajuwon is ineligible for voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(4); In re Arguelles-Campos , 22 I & N Dec. 811 n.2 (BIA 1999). For the first time in his reply brief, Olajuwon alternatively argues that he is applying for voluntary departure as an “applicant for admission.” This court will not review this argument raised for the first time in his reply brief. See Unida v. Levi Strauss Co. , 986 F.2d 970, 976 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993). Olajuwon’s petition for review is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,197)
<INVENTORY>                                     97,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               224,148
<PP&E>                                         141,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 301,988
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,670
<BONDS>                                         13,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,762
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,918
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   301,988
<SALES>                                         76,231
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,231
<CGS>                                           51,676
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,676
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,762
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,077
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    670
<INCOME-TAX>                                       120
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                550
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       550
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>
NICHOLAS “NICO” LAHOOD

Criminal District Attorney

Bexar County, Texas 

April 13, 2015 

Honorable Keith E, Hottle, Clerk

Fourth Court of Appeals District 

Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 

300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

RE: Eberto A. Mendez v. The State of Texas 

 Appellate Case No. 04-14-00917-CR

Trial Court Case No. 2011-CR-5500 

Dear Mr. Hottle: 

The Appellants counsel in the instant case has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738,87 S. Ct. 1402,18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). It is asserted therein 

that no reversible error exists in the instant case. The State waives the right to file an 

Appellee’s brief in response at this time, however, stands ready to respond should the 

Court find it necessary. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration. 

Sincerely yours, 

/s/ Mary Beth Welsh

Mary Beth Welsh 

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

Bexar County, Texas 

Paul Elizondo Tower 

101 W. Nueva 

(210) 335-2782 

S.B.N. 00785215 cc: Richard B. Dulany, Jr. 

mwelsh@bexar.org Assistant Public Defender

 101 W. Nueva St., Suite 310 

 San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Attorney for the State

ACCEPTED

04-14-00917-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

4/13/2015 3:23:25 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 4/13/2015 3:23:25 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
ROY HOWARD MIDDLETON, 

JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1881

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 13, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

W. Joel Boles, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Busharis, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Jane F. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. JOHN FRANKLIN BODY SHOP and Tom Daniels, owner, Appellees.

No. 48379.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 2.

Feb. 1, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1977.

Certiorari Denied May 24, 1977.

Released for Publication by Order of Court of Appeals May 26, 1977.

Gerard K. Donovan, Donovan, Freese & March, Tulsa, for appellant.

Richard D. Gibbon, Joseph F. Clark, Jr., Richard D. Gibbon & Associates, Tulsa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This negligence action based on slip and fall damages was thwarted in the trial court by an order sustaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff sought review by appeal to the supreme court, which assigned the matter here.

The documents submitted by the litigants as briefs do not indicate any recognition of the existence of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 12 O.S.1971, Ch. 15, App. 1. Therefore, the briefs were ordered stricken on the 21st day of December, 1976.

In the absence of compliance with the rules, the court “may continue or dismiss the cause, reverse or affirm the judgment appealed from, render judgment, strike the pleading, brief or record, or impose such other penalty as is necessary to enforce compliance therewith.” Rule 1, Rules of the Supreme Court, 12 O.S.1971, Ch. 15, App. 1.

Compliance with the rules has not been accomplished in the case at bar. In this circumstance, this appeal should be dismissed. *Taylor v. State ex rel. Grant,*102 Okl. 26, 225 P. 916 (1924); *Leonard v. Adams,*86 Okl. 181, 207 P. 90 (1922); *Watkins Nat’l Bank v. Polk,*47 Okl. 256, 147 P. 1011 (1915).

Appeal dismissed and the matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to enforce the judgment rendered.

All Judges concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,270,668
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    203,706
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         430,322
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       199,782
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,104,478
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      742,544
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            297,347
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,039,891
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           49,040
<PREFERRED>                                     43,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           955,563
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      667
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,016,317
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,104,478
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,622,972
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           100,492
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,272,756
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,373,248
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        249,724
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (2,941)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 246,783
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        89,446
<NET-INCOME>                                   157,337
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      8,765
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        22,802
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,166
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         278,694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
nn

ay oO

No. _20l4 & 09436

The State of Texas § Inthe _1 8? District Court
vs. § of
Jutto. Quer § Bexar County, Texas

TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF APPEAL*

“I, judge of the trial court, certify this criminal case:
M4 is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal; (or)

in is a plea-bargain case, but matters were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial and not
withdrawn or waived, and the defendant has the right of appeal; (or)

Qa isa plea barerin case, but the trial court has given permission to appeal, and the defendant has the right of
appeal; (or)

o is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal; (or)

0 ‘isa revocation of the defendant's community supervision, and the defendant has the right to appeal the court’s
action revoking the community supervision, but not the underlying conviction; (or)

a is an adjudication of guilt following a deferred adjudication, and the defendant has a limited right of appeal; (or)

Q
BD

I~ 14-\4
JUDGE Y Date Signed

Uhave received a copy of this certification. [ have also been informed
of my rights conceming any appeal of this criminal case, including
any right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review pursuant

to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, [ have been
admonished that my attorney must mail a copy of the court of

lacknowledge that, if] wish to appeal this case and if] am entitled
to do so, if is my duty to inform my appellate attorney, by written
communication, of any change in the address at which 1 am curremty
living or any change in my current prison unit. ! understand that,
because of appellate deadlines, if | fail to timely inform my appellate

% appeals's judgment and opinion to my tast known address and that attomey of any change in my address, | may lose the opportunity to
% Thave only 30 days in which to file a pro se petition for discretionary file a pro se petition for discretionary review.
Pe review in the Court of Criminal Appeals, Tex. R. App. P. 68.2.
° A TJ
2 DEFENBANT ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
hm Mailing address: Bar number;__2% 94748
hm Telephone number: Mailing address:__[!!_ Suteony sit _ Sev
o Shr Arman, WW rer
wt . .
a Fax number if any: Telephone: 2 324 - dere
oO Fax: 2a > 249 - Tort
ios
*“A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal under Code of Criminat Procedure Article 44.02 and these rutes. This trial court shall enter @ certification
T of the defendant's right of appeal each time it enters a judgement of guilt or other appealable order, In a plea bargain case - that js, a case in which a defendant's plea
wd was guilty or nolo contedere and the punishment did not execed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant - a defendant may
o appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court's permission to appeal.” TEXAS
oy RULE OF OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 25.2(a)(2).
im
tl