alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AppealOrdered Withdrawn and Opinion issued April 26, 2000

In The

Cimrt of Appeals

Jftfflj m&ttitt of Ofexaa at Dallas

No. 05-00-00497-CR

No. 05-00-00498-CR

No. 05-00-00499-CR

BENJAMIN DOUGLAS, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MB98-38071, MB98-56842 & MB98-56843

OPINION PER CURIAM

Before ChiefJustice Thomas and Justices Kinkeade and O'Neill

Appellant has filed a motion towithdraw the appeal. Appellant's counsel has approved

the motion.

This Court hereby GRANTS themotion and ORDERS the appeal withdrawn and that

this decision be certified below for observance. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47

If*
Fifth Court of Appeals

Case Attorney Address List

Page: 1

Date Printed: 04/26/2000

Case Number: 05-00-00498-CR Date Filed: 03/28/2000

Style: Douglas, Benjamin

v.

The State of Texas

Trial Judge: Barker, Phil

Trial CourtReporter: Phillips, Trisha

Trial Court: COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO 6 Trial County: DALLAS

STA William T. (Bill) Hill, Jr.

ATT 009669000

ATTN: APPELLATE SECTION

Frank Crowley Courts Bldg., 10th FL

133 N. Industrial Blvd. LB 19

Dallas, TX 75207

Phone 214/653-3845

Fax

BENJAMIN DOUGLAS

BN #00002818

500 COMMERCE STREET

DALLAS TX 75202
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0001312

14-APR-2015

08:30 AM
Miscellaneous

Section 205.690 provisions the Office of Management and Budget control number assigned to the 

information collection requirements of these regulations. Sections 205.691 through 205.699 are 

reserved.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6684

MARVIN HOOKER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (7:02-cv-00213-BR)

Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 19, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Hooker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Hooker, Jr. appeals the district court’s orders

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reopen his civil forfeiture case.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review the denial of motions for reconsideration for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523,

527 (4th Cir. 2000) (describing standard of review for Rule 60(b));

Brown v. French, 147 F.3d 307, 310 (4th Cir. 1998) (describing

standard of review for Rule 59(e)). A district court abuses its

discretion when the court fails or refuses to exercise its

discretion or when the court's exercise of discretion is flawed by

an erroneous legal or factual premise. See James v. Jacobson, 6

F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993).

Because Hooker’s Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) motions merely

reasserted allegations previously raised, we find that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. See

Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th

Cir. 1998) (recognizing three grounds for amending an earlier

judgment under Rule 59(e): (1) to accommodate an intervening

change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not

available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or

prevent manifest injustice); United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d

310, 312-13 (4th Cir. 1982) (noting when motion is nothing more
- 3 -

than a request that district court change its mind, it is not

authorized by Rule 60(b)).

Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23 (b)



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses
constituting part of these Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 33-44475);
Form S-4 (No. 33-44403) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-36304, 33-67826, 33-67828 and
33-36305) of our report dated February 10, 1995; appearing in Bird
Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.



/s/Alpern, Rosenthal & Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 31, 1997
391 A.2d 712

#### Solimini v. Solimini, Appellant.

Argued December 13,1977.

Robert C. McGrath, with him Michael J. Eagen, Jr., for appellant; No appearance entered nor brief submitted for appellee.

Order affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: November 23, 2016 

## DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC 

## Z81. HOY 2 5 A 

## q: I

## b DOCKET OPERATIONS DocketNo. FAA-2013-1082 Ridan Investments, Inc. 

### ) ) 

### ) ) ) Case No. 2012S0700133 Respondent
ORDER SETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE On October 12, 2016, the undersignedjudgeissued a Notice ofHearing, setting the hearing to begin onJanuary 24, 2017. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.205(a)(l) and (7), it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The parties shall appearbytelephone for a prehearing conference withthe undersigned judge on

### January 12, 2017 at 3pmEastern time. 2. The parties shall access the conference by dialing telephone number 

### 888-204-5984 and then inputting access code 

### 6392406 when prompted. 3. During the conference, the parties shall be preparedto discuss the issues in dispute, the upcoming hearing, the status ofany settlement negotiations, and any other related matters.

Attachment: Service List DOUGLAS M. RAW ALD Administrative LawJudgeSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001ONE COPY 

### Lawrence M. Burek, Respondent's Counsel 

### 550 North Parkcenter Drive, Suite 204 Santa Ana, CA 92705 TEL: 714-564-9033

**F~:** 

### 714-564-1685 Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

### Enforcement Division, Western Team Federal Aviation Administration 222 W. 7th Avenue, Box 14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 TEL: 907-271-5271 FAX: 907-271-2800 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald,Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2013-1082 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Here are a few questions that I had.

1. Will individuals with a felony or misdemeanor be able to grow or work in the industrial hemp industry?

2. Has the USDA considered creating a program to connect convicted felons and individuals with a record with jobs in the industrial hemp industry?

Alan Holmes
**Direct Dial:**  **435.634.3530 Direct**  **Fax: 435.634.3505 e-mail:**  **temerson(il),skv v,,..** **est.com** 

# RECEIVED **OCT 14**  **2014 HEARING**  **DOCKET**
**October 13,2014** 
**VIA FEDERAL**  **EXPRESS Federal**  **Aviation Administration**  **ATTN: Hearing**  **Docket Clerk,**  **AGC-430 Wilbur**  **Wright Building-**  **Suite 2W1000**  **800 Independence**  **Avenue SW**  **Washington, DC**  **20591**

**Re: Case**  **No. 2012NM060123**  **Dear Sir/Madam:** 

**The Final** **Notice of** **Proposed Civil**  **Penalty in** **the above-referenced**  **case was**  **received in**  **our office**  **on October**  **6, 2014.**  **Pursuant to**  **§13.16 (e)**  **(2) (ii)**  **of Federal**  **Air Regul** **ations, Sky** **West Airlines**  **hereby requests**  **a hearing**  **on this**  **matter.** 

# �y,



# l,ucL
**Todd C.**  **Emerson Director-**  **Government and**  **Legal Affairs**  **TCE/jb**
**cc: Robert**  **Spitzer**

**444 South**  **River Road**  **!! St.**  **George, Utah**  **84790 1/ Phone**  **43S.634.3000 !!**  **www.skywest.com**
### NUMBER 13 - 11 - 00 00 8 - C V 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ EDWARD DOUGLAS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND BARRY JAMES MORGAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A CONCRETE STRUCTURES , A ppellants ,
v. WA Y NE NEAL, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A MIRAGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 267 th District Court of Calhoun County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza , Benavides , and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam2

Appellant s , Edward Douglas , Individually, and Barry James Morgan, Individually, and d/b/a Concrete Structures, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 267 th District Court of Calhoun County, Texas, in cause number 09

- 02

- 0679

. The trial court entered a final judgment in this cause on October 5, 2010. A

mo tion for new trial was filed on November 5, 2011 , and notice of appeal was filed on January 4, 2011

. On January 7, 2011 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant s that it appeared that the notice of appea l was late because the motion for new trial was untimely. Appellant s w ere advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court = s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant s ha ve not filed a response to the Court = s notice

. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26. 1 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for new trial is timely filed

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26. 1 (a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment is signed

. Id. Appellants ’ deadline for filing the motion for new trial was November 4, 2010. The motion fo r new trial was untimely because it was filed on November 5, 2010. Accordingly , appellants’ notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before November 4, 2010. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(a)

. The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants ’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants ’ failure to respond to this Court = s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of3

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FO R WANT OF JURISDICTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 7 th day of March , 20 11

.
#### Charles (Chuck) MOLLE, Appellant (Defendant below), Alco Ranch, a partnership, Woodrow M. (Mike) Hedlund and Al Smith III, (Defendants below), v. IBERLIN RANCH, a partnership consisting of John P. Iberlin, Sr., John P. Iberlin, Jr., Steven Mark Iberlin and James M. Iberlin Trust, Appellees (Plaintiffs below).

No. 5347.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Aug. 12, 1980.

*1340Greg L. Goddard, Buffalo, for appellant.

Kim D. Cannon, Burgess & Davis, Sheridan, for appellees.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Upon examination of the record, the Court finds that there is no final adjudication as to the rights of one or more of the parties in that no judgment has been rendered as to the remaining causes of action put forth in the plaintiff’s complaint. Nor have the cross claims of the defendant Charles Molle been addressed so as to thereby state that his rights have been adjudicated.

This Court has in the past stated that no appeal will lie from an order granting a partial summary judgment as such is not a final order under Rule 54(b), W.R.C.P. *Hayes v. Nielson,*Wyo., 568 P.2d 905 (1977).

Furthermore, this Court has stated that despite an express determination by the trial court that there is no just reason for delay, this Court will not consider piecemeal appeals. *Mott v. England,*Wyo., 604 P.2d 560, 563 (1979); *Butts v. Gierse,*Wyo., 573 P.2d 1365 (1978).

On the Court’s own motion, pursuant to Rule 1.02, W.R.A.P., it is

ORDERED that the above-captioned appeal be and is dismissed.
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act

(PACA)

Working in partnership with the fruit and vegetable 

industry, PACA facilitates fair trade practices through 

education, mediation, arbitration, licensing and 

enforcement.
PACA provides:

 A forum to investigate, mediate, and arbitrate contract 

disputes;

 A mechanism for recovering damages when buyers and sellers of 

produce fail to meet their contractual obligations; 

 Provisions to sanction produce sellers that fail to pay 

obligations or misrepresent the products they are selling;

 A mechanism to monitor the activities of PACA violators.
PACA Highlights - 2020

 PACA maintained over 13,200 active licensees;

 PACA renewed 8940 licenses and licensed 875 new entities, 

bringing these companies into compliance with the Act;

 PACA assisted 2350 callers with produce transactions valued at 

over $66.5 million through calls to the PACA “good delivery” line;

 PACA suspended the licenses of 88 produce firms and imposed 

sanctions or employment restrictions for failure to pay more than 

$4.1 million for multiple shipments of produce.
PACA Highlights - 2020

 PACA opened 1150 new informal reparation complaints 

involving $58.8 million and reached settlements totaling over 

$55 million;

 PACA assisted parties in settling approximately 90 percent of 

informal complaints within four months;

 PACA updated and enhanced its industry training modules 

available on the PACA website, migrating the training to the 

BlackBoard platform.
ePACA

PACA continued the development of the online ePACA system,

including the online portal. 

 In 2020, approximately 2500 industry members used ePACA to 

apply for or renew their PACA license or file a PACA complaint 

online; 

 ePACA’s “PACA Search” function provides real-time information 

on a company’s PACA license status and complaint history, 

assisting the industry in making informed business decisions; 

 In July 2020, PACA launched the ePACA mobile app, providing 

access to PACA search capabilities on mobile devices.
PACA ENFORCEMENT

PACA can only take action after receiving written notice from outside 

the Division.

Examples of unfair trade practices include: 

 Fraud

 False and misleading statements

 Non-payment

 Misbranding/mislabeling

 Employing people who are under employment restrictions
PACA Priorities

 To continue to provide the highest level of customer service;

 To address the needs and concerns of industry stakeholders;

 To expand PACA’s presence in the industry through outreach 

efforts; 

 To maintain an emphasis on PACA licensing, ensuring compliance 

with the law.
000

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act

(PACA)

1-800-495-7222

www.ams.usda.gov/paca
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of our report included in this Form 10-K, into Tom Brown, Inc.'s
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 Nos. 33-42991, 33-44225,
33-60191, 33-60842, 33-13157, 33-30069, 33-42011, 333-56577, 333-69353,
333-31426, 333-89031 and 333-89033.



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Houston, Texas
March xx, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,044,541
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,909,238
<ALLOWANCES>                               (2,473,720)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,199,719
<PP&E>                                       9,270,563
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             111,097,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,626,635
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,720
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,282,596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,399,324
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,813,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             529,034
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,918
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,475
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,443
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,443
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 906 Certification 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 Form 10-Q of DreamWorks Animation
SKG, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), for the period ending
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company
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 results of operations of the
Company. Dated: December 10, 2004
    
    /s/ JEFFREY KATZENBERGJeffrey KatzenbergChief Executive OfficerDated: December 10, 2004
    
    /s/ KRISTINA M. LESLIEKristina M. LeslieChief Financial Officer
 58
National Organic Standards Board

Handling Subcommittee Proposal

Re-classification of Alginic Acid to §205.605(b)

June 2, 2015 

Summary of Proposed Action:

The Handling Subcommittee proposes reclassification of Alginic Acid from §205.605(a) to §205.605(b) of 

the National List.

Subcommittee Review 

Alginic acid is derived from wild harvested seaweeds. Increasing demand for alginic acid and alginates 

has led to some concerns regarding potential for overharvesting of these wild seaweeds. 

Alginic acid exists naturally in both brown seaweeds and two bacterial genera. However, alginic acid is 

manufactured on an industrial scale through a chemical separation process that involves the 

maceration, alkali treatment and acid precipitation of alginic acid from brown seaweeds. In order to 

separate alginic acid from its salt form, it is subjected to numerous pH adjustments to promote ion 

exchange. These chemical processes result in pure alginic acid. Since alginic acid is present in seaweeds 

in its calcium, sodium, magnesium or other salt forms, and not in the free acid form, it is clear that the 

free acid form does not appear in nature. (2015 Technical Review – Alginic Acid, Lines 283-286). In the 

1995 TAP review for Alginic Acid, the reviewers determined that the material was non-synthetic. 

However, given the draft Classification of Materials document and the information presented in the 

2015 TR, it could be suggested that Alginic Acid is synthetic. 

There has been recent research into production of Alginic Acid and Alginates from a biological 

fermentation process. However, this process does not currently produce sufficient quantities to be 

commercially available, (2015 Technical Review – Alginic Acid, Lines 299-300).

FDA limits the use of Alginic Acid as a stabilizers, emulsifier and thickener in soups and soup mixes. 

The Handling subcommittee proposes that Alginic Acid remain on the National List. However, the 

Handling subcommittee is bringing forward a proposal to change the listing from 205.605(a) to 

205.605(b) due to the determination that Alginic Acid would likely be classified as synthetic under the 

new draft Classification of Materials document. 

Vote in Subcommittee

Motion to reclassify Alginic Acid from 205.605(a) to 205.605(b) of the National List. 

Motion by: Tracy Favre

Seconded by: Lisa De Lima 

Yes: 6 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Approved by Tom Chapman, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 25, 2015
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 operations of the Company.
 August 9, 2007
    /s/ John R. Eckel, Jr.John R. Eckel, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer