alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Frank A. Chirico, Deceased. Rita Eredics, Appellant.

—In an accounting proceeding, Rita Eredics, the attorney for the co-executors of the estate of Frank A. Chirico, deceased, appeals from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.), dated November 27, 1989, as, without a hearing, disallowed, in part, her claims for certain legal fees.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements *(see, Matter of Verplanck,*151 AD2d 767; *Matter of Von Hofe,*145 AD2d 424). Bracken, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-61 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 17, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2 

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

Creekstone Farms Premium Natural Black Angus Beef Program

G-61 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements: 

a. Phenotypic or genotypic requirements of the American Angus Association’s (AAA) Live

Animal Specification;

b. Classed as Steer or Heifer carcasses only1;

c. U.S. Prime, Choice, or Select and have a minimum marbling score of Slight 01; 

d. Less than 30 months of age with lean color, texture, and firmness, meeting the requirements for

A maturity in the U.S. grade it qualifies for1;

e. Medium or fine marbling texture1, 2; 

f. Moderately thick or thicker muscling and tend to be at least moderately wide and thick in

relation to their length3

;

g. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height 4; 

and

h. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures. 

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service 

regulations and policy guidelines and QAD procedures. 

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Evaluated using the USDA-AMS-LS-SB-02 Marbling Texture card (included in the Official USDA Marbling Photographs.) 3 Muscle thickness is evaluated by averaging the thickness of the various parts, considering not only the proportion of each part of the 

carcass but also the general value of each part. Superior muscle thickness implies a high proportion of meat to bone and a high 

proportion of the weight of the carcass in the more valuable parts.

4 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-61 Specification 

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 17, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2 

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

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service. 

___________________________________ 

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Quality Assessment Division

Livestock & Poultry Program
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1942** 

In R e: KAREEM ABDULLAH KIRK

- BEY , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 3:12

- cv - 00106

- RJC )

Submitted : November 4, 2013 Decided: November 8, 2013

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Kareem Abdullah Kirk

- Bey , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kareem Abdullah Kir k

- Bey petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court to honor the “Averment of Jurisdiction” he filed, to stop the collection of funds from his prison account, and to return funds previously collected. We conclude that Kirk

- Bey is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 20 03) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Kirk

Bey is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny Kirk

- Bey’s “Affidavit of Financial Statement,” which we construe as a motion objecting to the terms of the Prison Lit igation Reform Act, and deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
#### Douglas BOSS, Petitioner, v. The Honorable John A. BENSON, assigned Judge to the District Court of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. P-79-31.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 20, 1979.

*537Joe Stamper, Antlers, for petitioner.

Gary L. Brock, Dist. Atty., Hugo, for respondent.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

On the 19th day of January, 1979, an application was filed to assume jurisdiction and issue a writ prohibiting the Honorable John A. Benson from conducting further proceedings in the District Court, Choctaw County, Case No. CRF-78-88. Thereafter this matter was submitted on the 2nd day of March, 1979, on the record and pleadings, and we have assumed jurisdiction.

Petitioner asserts that the Honorable John A. Benson improperly overruled his motion to quash the information for the reason that said information was not properly verified as required by the provisions of 22 O.S.1971, § 303.1 We agree. It appears that it is the common practice not only in Choctaw County, but in other areas of the State, for the Sheriff or a peace officer to sign blank felony or misdemeanor informations which are later filled out by the District Attorney or one of his assistants without the verification of the officer. This irregularity could have been waived by the failure of the defendant to file a timely motion to quash and could have been corrected by amendment. See *Ivy v. State,*Okl.Cr., 414 P.2d 1007 (1966). Counsel in the instant case timely filed a motion to quash, no amendment was made, and the court erred in overruling the same.

Although this matter has become moot in the instant case, for the reason that the information in Case No. CRF-78-88 has been dismissed and a properly verified information has been filed, we take this opportunity to caution prosecutors, peace officers and judges that the provisions of 22 O.S.1971, § 303, require the information in both felony and misdemeanor cases to be verified; and the practice of permitting officers to sign blank informations to be later filled out by prosecuting attorneys without proper verification should be discontinued.

The Writ of Prohibition is DENIED for the reason that it is moot.

CORNISH, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.

1

. “The county attorney shall subscribe his name to informations filed in the county, superior or district court and indorse thereon the names of the witnesses known to him at the time of filing the same. He shall also indorse thereon the names of such other witnesses as may afterwards become known to him, at such time as the court may by rule prescribe. *All informations shall be verified by the oath of the-prosecuting attorney, complainant or some other person.”*[Emphasis Added.].
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42240

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ZACHARI ZAPATA TEETS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 463

Filed: April 15, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Deborah a. Bail, District Judge. 

Withheld judgment with ten years’ probation for domestic violence in the 

presence of children, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GUTIERREZ, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Zachari Zapata Teets was found guilty of domestic violence in the presence of children, 

Idaho Code §§ 18-918(2), 18-903(a), 18-918(4). The district court withheld judgment and 

placed Teets on probation for ten years. Teets appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Teets’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
OMB No. 0581-0093

 LP-12 (Expiration Date 11/30/2024)

NOMINEE’S AGREEMENT TO SERVE

If appointed, I agree to serve on the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research 

Board (Board), and to disclose any relationship with any beef promotion entity 

or any organization that has a contractual relationship with the Board.

_____________________________ _______________________

Signature Date

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 

0581-0093. There is no time estimated to complete this information collection because it requires only a signature.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its 

Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based 

on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, 

family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights 

activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing 

deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, 

American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or 

contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages 

other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all 

of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter 

to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.;

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, 

employer, and lender.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Doug Berry, C.F.O., Treasurer and Director of Sheer Ventures Inc., certify that:



1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sheer Ventures

Inc.;



2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue

statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to

make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such

statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered

by this quarterly report;



3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial

information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all

material respects the financial condition, results of operations and

cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in

this quarterly report;



4.   The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for

establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as

defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and

have:



a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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

quarterly report is being prepared;



b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls

and procedures as of March 31, 2005 (the Evaluation Date);



c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the

effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our

evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.  The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on

my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit

committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing

the equivalent functions):



(a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal

controls which could adversely the registrants ability to record,

process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for

the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal

controls; and



(b)    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; and



6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this

quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal

controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal

controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including

any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material

weaknesses.













Date:  May 10, 2005



/s/ Doug Berry

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

Doug Berry

Treasurer and Director

Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Dean L. Cash, Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of ATELCapital Equipment Fund XI, LLC (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: November 21, 2005   /s/ Dean L. Cash   Dean L. Cash  President and Chief Executive  Officer of Managing Member  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
18
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24

                                   BNS COMPANY

      Brown & Sharpe Employee Stock Ownership and Profit Participation Plan

                                    Amendment
                                    ---------

     WHEREAS the Company terminated the Brown & Sharpe Employee Stock Ownership
and Profit Participation Plan and Trust Agreement (1998 Restatement) (the
"ESOP") on April 27, 2001;

     WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service, in connection with its determination
of the tax-qualified status of the ESOP upon its termination, as requested
certain amendments;

     NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 11.1, the Company hereby amends the ESOP
as provided herein.

1.   Section 2.11 is amended effective January 1, 1997 by adding a new paragraph
to the end thereof to read as follows:

          "For all purposes under the Plan, the term `Highly Compensated
     Employee' means each individual employed by an Affiliated Company who (a)
     during such Plan Year or preceding Plan Year, is a `5% owner' within the
     meaning of Code Section 414(q), or (b) during the preceding Plan Year
     received Compensation in excess of $80,000 (as adjusted under such Code
     section)."

2.   Section 2.15 is amended effective January 1, 1997 by adding a new paragraph
to the end thereof to read as follows:

          "For purposes of this Section 2.15 and Section 2.16 below, a `leased
     employee' means any person who pursuant to an agreement between an
     Affiliated Company and any other person has performed services for the
     Affiliated Company and related persons as defined in Code Section 414(n)(6)
     on a substantially full-time basis for a period of at least one year
     provided such services are performed under the primary direction or control
     of the Affiliated Company."

3.   Section 12.6 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

          "12.6 Veterans' Re-Employment and Benefits Rights. Notwithstanding any
     provision of the Plan to the contrary, effective December 12, 1994,
     contributions, benefits and service credit with respect to qualified
     military service will be provided in accordance with Code Section 414(u)."

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BNS Company has caused this Amendment to be duly
     executed in its name and on its behalf by its officer hereto duly
     authorized this 14th day of November, 2001.

                                                  BNS COMPANY


                                                  By:___________________________

                                                  Title:________________________
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-55 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 16, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2 

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

Ohio Premium Beef Program

G-55 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements: 

a. U.S. Prime or Choice and have a minimum marbling score of Small 00F

1

; 

b. Less than 30 months of age with lean color, texture, and firmness, meeting the requirements for

A maturity in the U.S. grade it qualifies for1;

c. Medium or fine marbling texture1, 2; 

d. Moderately thick or thicker muscling and tend to be at least moderately wide and thick in

relation to their length3;

e. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height 4; 

f. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle;

and

g. Free of “dark cutting” characteristics.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures. 

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service 

regulations and policy guidelines and QAD procedures. 

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Evaluated using the USDA-AMS-LS-SB-02 Marbling Texture card (included in the Official USDA Marbling Photographs.) 3 Muscle thickness is evaluated by averaging the thickness of the various parts, considering not only the proportion of each part of the 

carcass but also the general value of each part. Superior muscle thickness implies a high proportion of meat to bone and a high 

proportion of the weight of the carcass in the more valuable parts.

4 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-55 Specification 

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 16, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2 

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

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service. 

___________________________________ 

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Quality Assessment Division

Livestock & Poultry Program
#### In the Matter of Harry Winston, Deceased. Bankers Trust Company of New York, Appellant; Ronald Winston, Respondent, et al., Respondents.

—In a proceeding for the construction of a will, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Brewster, S.), dated December 11, 1990, which granted the respondent Ronald Winston’s motion to disqualify the law firm representing the petitioner.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant.

The disqualification of the law firm representing the petitioner was proper since an attorney must avoid not only the fact, but also the appearance of representing conflicting interests *(see, Horowitz v Horowitz,*151 AD2d 646). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
*** STRUCTURE DIAGRAMS OF THE PMN SUBSTANCE***

 Sanitized