alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 13

- 00208

- CV

In the ESTATE OF William Stacy LONGSTRETH , Deceased

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13310

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 17, 2013

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED

On April 11, 2013, appellant Nan J. Ginger filed a document entitled “Withdrawal of

Notice of Appeal.” We construe this document as a motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the

motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We order all costs assessed against appellant. See T EX

.

R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d)(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MICHAEL SANTANA,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF

PROBATION AND PAROLE AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH SHAPIRO,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 147 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of November

, 2017, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32



Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,

Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of BNS Co., a Delaware corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



This amended Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in the amended Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 26, 2004 |  | /s/ Michael Warren     
|                     |  | Michael Warren         
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                     | 
|Date: April 26, 2004 |  | /s/ Michael Warren     
|                     |  | Michael Warren         
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the amended Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure
document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to BNS Co. and will be retained by BNS Co. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24559-24560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council

ACTION: National Advisory Council public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration announces that the Marine 
Transportation System National Advisory Council (MTSNAC) will hold a 
meeting to discuss recommendations to the Secretary on the integration 
of marine highways into the national transportation system and the 
development of a steady and reliable funding mechanism for port 
infrastructure development. A public comment period will commence at 
1:30 p.m. on May 8, 2012. To provide time for as many people to speak 
as possible, speaking time for each individual will be limited to three 
minutes. Members of the public who would like to speak are asked to 
contact Richard J. Lolich by May 1, 2012. Commenters will be placed on 
the agenda in the order in which notifications are received. If time

[[Page 24560]]

allows, additional comments will be permitted. Copies of oral comments 
must be submitted in writing at the meeting. Additional written 
comments are welcome and must be filed by May 11, 2012.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 8, 2012, from 9:30 a.m. 
to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Media Center at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation Headquarters, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., 
Washington, DC 20590. To participate via teleconference, please contact 
Richard Lolich at the Maritime Administration as indicated below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Lolich, (202) 366-0704; 
Maritime Administration, MAR-540, Room W21-310, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; [email protected].

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. App 2, Sec. 9(a)(2); 41 CFR 101-6. 1005; DOT 
Order 1120.3B.

    Dated: April 19, 2012.

    By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Julie P. Agarwal,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-9835 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1202 

To reauthorize the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Mr. MCHENRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Blue Ridge National 

5 Heritage Area Reauthorization Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE BLUE RIDGE NATIONAL 

7 HERITAGE AREA. 

8 Section 140 of the Department of the Interior and 

9 Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 (54 U.S.C. 

10 320101 note; Public Law 108–108; 117 Stat. 1280) is 

11 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1202 IH

1 (1) in subsection (i)(1), by striking 

2 ‘‘$12,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$14,000,000’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (j), by striking ‘‘the date’’ and 

4 all that follows through ‘‘of this section’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘September 30, 2021’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
ERIC PEARSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

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. 1D15-0752

Opinion filed April 8, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction.

Eric Pearson, pro se, Petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROWE, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 294TH DISTRICT COURT OF VAN ZANDT COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 21st

day of January, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

EDOM CORNER, LLC AND EARL A. BERRY, JR., Appellants

NO. 12-14-00131-CV; Trial Court No. 09-00138

By per curiam opinion.

IT'S THE BERRY'S, LLC D/B/A MARY ELLEN'S, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this agreed 

interlocutory appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that the appeal be 

dismissed; and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 7

thday of April, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           4,982
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                        58
<INVENTORY>                                        246
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,888
<PP&E>                                         198,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                 112,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,515
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         2,018
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     154,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   164,174
<SALES>                                         24,787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,053
<CGS>                                           20,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,184
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,369
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,111)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,896
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,785
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,785
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
^o. {'irW-oooiL-cs/ [ruedmCOURTCFappeal] 12th Court of Appeals District

For the twelfth oisttkt or texg^HY s. lusk,

v:

£»ck thaler, fefftLj

TOTi-fe ^^aRAiSLG orqDC-EX DF*SfMD <-0«^T;

p-pftllpot^uAix fcrtv^M"-, moves -Kc Coctr*"W* IcAufe

to fHd Prppc\le^(5 Rc^jly Bv'.rf *A?ck is i^ 4Kis ^rf,

r, D<«/wW 32, 1«>I^

ps^(( £c«*\<j( Oct O-ufcrH-on A<kjW«Jy mcrW/y- O^ f>fcyS Icof/y. On
a.

av^^y 21} 2ois: He ^m^w -ttK^ rrVcW/ c/A;^ o

t^k',.^ rVveollCAfvDO-. He U^PkS n&ttKUki'/Tj cfovly tW-

+hr*t W<2ek3,

•6^^ 14dU- Ar^/U/rli Wo^ my ^ ^;^

P^pp<lWci .P&&zk*<( A-? £>^ Af^ly^^ir

pWct P> dot?y o4~ the nr\o4'iO/7 to t^nrsjy^ \/e/^ t^A'/d,

R^'W u,a, ^ W|t 4 ctkv, ^ ^^ ^

+> ^c Wb j^, ftfp,ll««f ^ ^ A£,„ ^

R^V ^ +- *<*,< V^ vTM,W*, „,* **

TT7"

%MWs uA|l not be p^j^lc^- ~t*y A*y '
3

hi/vi

«^^specW<iy SuWrfk/

fkl t^-^W'^ rWof^O 'to/ lo^/c 4t? <ftk &tp(y f?f iC'f U^ft^ rftk/

flW ^Ysk**) 4>Q*h*y. przee; J, by HW Cfe^ flfl^W ^ddreSSn/^

dcrlc, Twti^ £W+o4 &ppeM; \SH W^jrt r^Std^y;^

3$"^ ry'^iv -757*4. £y*chtW 0/7 m^/c^ z^a^s:
#### James D. MILNE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF Alaska, Respondent.

No. 3723.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

July 11, 1980.

*767Charles K. Cranston, Gallagher, Cranston & Snow, Anchorage, for petitioner and cross-respondent.

Patrick J. Gullufsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel W. Hickey, Chief Prosecutor, Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for respondent and cross-petitioner.

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NO WITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion in *Milne v. State,*607 P.2d 360 (Alaska 1980), we elected not to decide the issue raised by petitioner’s argument that search warrants 76-8 and 76-9; taken together, authorized a constitutionally impermissible exploratory search. We stated: “This contention is not supported by a sufficiently detailed argument to allow us to intelligently rule upon it. Thus, we do not decide the issue at this time.” *Id.*at note 4.

Petitioner now moves for reconsideration of our decision, based partly upon counsel’s assertion that he was told by a deputy clerk of this court, immediately after being notified that his petition for review had been granted, that he would be advised when to file a brief on the merits of the issues raised by his petition. Thus, according to petitioner, he was deprived of the opportunity to adequately brief those issues.

Despite the fact that counsel may have been misled by the actions of our deputy clerk, we are still not persuaded to decide the issue of whether search warrants 76-8 and 76-9 authorized an exploratory search. Petitioner is not entitled, as a matter of right, to review of that issue, since his case came before this court on petition for review, pursuant to Appellate Rules 23 and 24, rather than as an appeal after entry of a final judgment. Like our initial decision whether to grant or deny the petition itself, the decision whether to review any particular issues raised thereby remains subject to the exercise of this court’s discretion. Exercising that discretion, we believe it preferable to deny review of the complicated factual and legal issues presented by petitioner’s argument that the search warrants authorized a constitutionally impermissible exploratory search.

Having concluded that petitioner’s remaining arguments are without merit, the petition for rehearing is denied.
NOSB Sanitation Panel 2020

Bob Durst

Linus Pauling Institute

Bob.Durst@OregonState.edu

BobD@SimpleOrganicSolutions.com
Principles

• Food Safety is a top priority

• A foodborne illness because of poor sanitation 

would be a very dark mark on the organic 

industry. 

• Cleaning and sanitizing practices can be 

implemented that are compatible with organic 

principles
Facility Cleaning/Sanitizing

• GMP 

– Good Manufacturing Practices

• Cleaning 

– Removing unwanted materials

• Sanitizing

– Killing microbes 

• HACCP

– Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
GMP

• Procedures to insure effective cleaning/sanitizing

– Standard practices with additional rinses

– Testing to insure no residues

– May require more work than routinely done

• Provide a safe (microbially) food supply

– Conventional industry less concerned with chemical 

safety
Cleaning

• Prevent co-mingling

– OSP should address this

• Prevent contamination

– Standard cleaning practices with extra rinses

– Tests to insure no residues

• Don’t scrimp on cleaning/sanitizing

– Possible to insure good cleaning as well as organic 

integrity 
Sanitizing

• National List items (§205.605)

– Acidified sodium chlorite

• Food contact surfaces

– Chlorine materials

• Cl, ClO2, hypochlorite, hypochlorous acid

– Hydrogen peroxide

– Ozone

– Peroxyacetic acid

• Food contact surfaces

• Quaternary ammonium compounds (Quats)

– Not specifically listed nor restricted
HACCP

• May be incorporated into OSP

– Or vice-versa

• CCP’s

– Critical control points

– Generally unchanged for organic

• OCP’s 

– Organic control points

– Mostly around contamination/co-mingling
Materials/Processes

• Chlorine cmpds

• Bromide

• Alcohols

• Peroxyacetic cmpds

• Hydrogen peroxide

• Acids (mineral)

• Ionics (TSP...)

• Fatty Acids (glycerin)

• Organic acids

• Quats

• Iodophors

• Soaps

• Gases (ClO2,O3,EtOx...)

• UV or IR light

• Essential oils

• Microorganisms

• pH adjusters

• Silver
Questions to Address

• Toxicity

• Environmental mfg. issues

– Waste disposal issues

• Contact time

• Nanotech

• Resistance

• Broad vs narrow spectrum

• Hierarchy of use

• Contact

– Surfaces vs direct food contact

• Cross resistance to antibiotics
OFPA Criteria

• Detrimental interactions

• Toxicity

• Environmental issues

• Human health

• Biological effects

• Alternatives

• Compatibility w/organics
OFPA Synthetic Evaluation

• Natural alternatives

• Environmental impact

– Manufacturing and disposal

• Nutritional quality

– Health impacts

• Preservative?

• GRAS

• Essential?
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 American Bar Association Members/State Street Collective Trust (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert E. Fullam, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Robert E. FullamRobert E. Fullam Chief
Financial Officer May 17, 2010
#### David Louis WARWICK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. M-78-225.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 10, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1980.

*1140W. E. Maddux, Nowata, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., William S. Flanagan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Wilcox-en, Legal Intern, for appellee.

OPINION

CORNISH, Presiding Judge:

David Louis Warwick, the appellant, was charged with Unlawful Possession of Marihuana in the District Court of Nowata County, Case No. CRM-77-73. The jury found the appellant guilty, and punishment was set at one (1) year in the County jail.

The State’s testimony revealed that when arrested marihuana and other drugs were found on the appellant. The appellant’s only witness, his father, explained that the controlled drugs were present because they had been prescribed by a physician.

The first and second assignments of error allege an illegal search and seizure. The appellant contends that an arrest for a misdemeanor cannot be made without a warrant, unless the misdemeanor is committed in the presence of a police officer. Accordingly, he argues this warrantless arrest and subsequent search and seizure was illegal. In *McGaha v. State,*Okl.Cr., 492 P.2d 1101 (1972), we stated that it is the appellant’s responsibility to provide on appeal enough of the record to allow review of the alleged error. Therefore, because the transcript of the Motion to Suppress referred to in the appellant’s brief was not made a part of the appeals record herein, we are unable to review or resolve this issue.

Next, the appellant asserts the trial court erred in refusing to give his requested instructions. The submitted instructions stated that if the jury found the evidence seized consisted only of stalks or seeds incapable of germination, then the jury must return a verdict of not guilty. The trial court was correct in not giving these instructions. The active ingredient in marihuana is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and if this chemical is present, it makes no difference in what portion of the plant it is found. It is true, as the appellant argues, that 63 O.S.1971, § 2-101(19), excepts “mature stalks” and “sterilized seed incapable of germination” from the definition of marihuana. However, these excepted portions of the plant do not contain THC. In the instant case, the State chem*1141ist testified that he did find THC. We hold that the instructions given were adequate and find no merit to this assignment of error.

The judgment and sentence is *AFFIRMED.*

BUSSEY, J., concurs.

BRETT, J., specially concurs.

BRETT, Judge,

specially concurring:

I concur in this decision for the reason the transcript of trial supports the jury’s verdict. The appellant’s first assignment of error discusses the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence, but that transcript was not included in the record on appeal. Notwithstanding the fact that the designation of record provided for the entire record to be prepared for appeal, it is the appellant’s responsibility to assure that the record is complete when the appeal is submitted to this Court. Therefore, based upon the record submitted, I concur in this decision.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


     As independent petroleum engineers, 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.



                                                             RYDER SCOTT COMPANY


March 17, 2000
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
  **Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 **(Section
        1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
        Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhao
        Hongwei, Chief 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, 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.
  Date: August
                14, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Zhao
                HongweiZhao
                  Hongwei
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Date: March 26, 2015 

Meeting: Tri-State NUCLA Facility and MATS 

Rule(s) Discussed: 

Written Materials? Yes/No 

Name Organization Phone Number
April 14, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROBERT DUNLAP, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00125-CV V.

SUNTHENOIL, LLC, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed November 5, 2013 in favor 

of appellee Sunthenoil, LLC, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order the 

judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for 

proceedings in accordance with the court’s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellee Sunthenoil, LLC.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.