alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: ___November 30, 2007_____________________

Subject: __Cellulose for re-listing on § 205.605b______________ 

Chair: ____Andrea Caroe_________________________________________ 

 (sign) 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: ___XXX_____ 

Guidance Statement: ________ 

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation (including Recount of Vote):

The Board Recommends the continuation of Cellulose on the National List under section 

205.605b Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in or on processed 

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

Motion: Julie Weisman Second: Tina Ellor 

Board Vote: Yes – 15 No – 0 Abstain - 0 Absent - 0 

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

Demonstrated continued use in handling. Organic substitute unavailable at this time. 

Response by the NOP:

Updated 2/25/05 
National Organic Standards Board 

Final Recommendation for Sunset Review of Materials on 

 § 205.605b 

November 30, 2007 

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

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

ingredients or food groups.” 

(b) Synthetics allowed 

II. Committee Summary: 

The Federal register notice of the sunset of these materials had elicited no public 

comments by early October when this committee was due to give its recommendation on 

the continued use of Cellulose. 

Review of the original TAP did not reveal unacceptable risks to the environment, human 

or animal health as a result of the use or manufacture of these materials. There is no new 

information contradicting the original TAP review which was the basis for the previous 

NOSB decision to list this substance.

Even though this material appeared not to present a risk to the environment, the sunset 

process requires public comment to support the continuation of this regulation. For this 

reason the initial recommendation of the Handling Committee in early October for the relisting of these materials failed. 

It should be noted that this material had been erroneously been included in a group of 

materials that had been due to sunset in October 2007. At it’s November 2005 meeting in 

Washington, DC, the NOSB voted to re-list this material. 

In addition, in the eight weeks prior to the Board meeting, numerous comments have 

been received requesting that this materials be re-listed and there have been no comments 

received opposing it’s continued use in organic handling. 

Motion for the Handling Committee to reconsider it’s earlier vote was made and 

seconded.

Deleted: ¶
III. Board Recommendation(s): 

The Board recommends the re-listing of the following substances in this use category as 

published in the final rule: 

Cellulose 

Moved: Julie Weisman Second: Tina Ellor 

Yes: 15 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(b)

                         OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY
<PAGE>

               [Transamerica Life Insurance Company Letterhead]

April 10, 2002


Transamerica Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001

Re:  Privilege Select Variable Annuity
     Separate Account VA E
     Registration on Form N-4; SEC File No. 333-32110

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Privilege Select Variable Annuity policies
are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)    the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the
       policies,

(2)    the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
       policies,

(3)    the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
       of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that provides for a
       reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)    Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)   Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii)  Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(iv)   Surrender Charges

(v)    Any applicable rider fees and charges
<PAGE>

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
April 10, 2002
Page 2


The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (v)
is established in the pricing of the Privilege Select Variable Annuity, to
achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of
industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products.

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred.  Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges.  In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the registration statement.


/s/ R. Gene Hauser
-----------------------------------
R. Gene Hauser
Associate Actuary
Transamerica Life Insurance Company
#### Sharon M. Hancock, as Limited Administratrix of the Estate of Jerome Crittenden, Deceased, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 72757.)

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Claimant, as limited administratrix of the estate of Jerome Crittenden, appeals from a judgment which dismissed the claim at the close of proof. The claim seeks to recover for the conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death of the decedent, an inmate at Wyoming Correctional Facility, who choked to death on a watch that he had swallowed during a scuffle with guards. The issue in the case is whether the prison nurse was negligent in failing to take adequate steps to prevent decedent from choking.

Judgment was properly awarded to the State. Claimant’s first contention is that the court erred in determining that she failed to prove a prima facie case and in dismissing the claim on that basis. We conclude that, despite inaccurately using the phrase "prima facie”, the court in fact dismissed the claim on the ground that the preponderance of the evidence was in favor of the State. That analysis is borne out by the fact that the court considered the evidence adduced by both parties in reaching its decision.

Moreover, the court’s decision is well supported by the evidence. The testimony of claimant’s expert was properly rejected by the court as unsupported by the facts of this case. The uncontroverted eyewitness testimony demonstrates that the prison nurse was not negligent in her response to this unforeseeable medical emergency. (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, Quigley, J.—Wrongful Death.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 22, 2014

No. 04-14-00260-CV

ONE (1) 1992 CHEVROLET PK, VIN. 1GCEC14Z4NE164549,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-13890

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant has filed in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, 

appellant has not established indigence pursuant to rule 20.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. We therefore hold the motion in abeyance and order appellant to file, by May 2, 

2014, either the certificate described in Rule 20.1(a)(1) or an affidavit of indigence that complies 

with the requirements of rule 20.1(b). 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
2009 TRI Fuel Analysis 3/08/2010 Allen S King - 1915

Lab No Method Units EG57513 Sample Description KING Coal

Air Dry Loss % 18.55 Moisture, Air Dried Basis % 8.51 Ash, Air Dried Basis % 6.32

Aluminum EPA 200.7 ppm Al 5106 Antimony EPA 200.8ppm Sb 0.1 Arsenic EPA 200.8ppm As 0.70 Barium EPA 200.7 ppm Ba 322 Beryllium EPA 200.8ppm Be -0.3 Cadmium EPA 200.8ppm Cd -0.3 Calcium EPA 200.7 ppm Ca 8886 Chlorine EPA 300.0 ppm CL 16 Chromium EPA 200.7 ppm Cr -6 Cobalt EPA 200.8ppm Co 1.45 Copper EPA 200.7 ppm Cu 10 Fluorine EPA 300.0 ppm F 13 Iron EPA 200.7 ppm Fe 2341 Lead EPA 200.8ppm Pb 2 Magnesium EPA 200.7 ppm Mg 1615 Manganese EPA 200.7 ppm Mn 17 Mercury EPA 7473 ppm Hg 0.110 Molybdenum EPA 200.8ppm Mo -2 Nickel EPA 200.8ppm Ni 4 Phosphorus EPA 200.7 ppm P 218 Potassium EPA 200.7 ppm K 248 Selenium EPA 200.8ppm Se -2 Silicon EPA 200.7 ppm Si 6797 Silver EPA 200.8ppm Ag -0.6 Sodium EPA 200.7 ppm Na 763 Strontium EPA 200.7 ppm Sr 169 Sulfur EPA 200.7 ppm S 2719 Thallium EPA 200.8ppm TL -0.3 Titanium EPA 200.7 ppm Ti 454 Vanadium EPA 200.7 ppm V 13.3 Zinc EPA 200.8ppm Zn 12.9

Negative values indicate None Detected and the absolute value is the Reporting Limit.
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements:



| | 1) | Registration Statement (Form S-3/A No. 333-135057) of Lubys Inc.,
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-135058) pertaining to the Lubys Inc. Incentive Stock Plan, Amended and Restated as of December 6, 2005,
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-81606) pertaining to the Lubys Inc. Amended and Restated Nonemployee Director Stock Option Plan,
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-81608) pertaining to the Lubys Inc. miscellaneous employee benefit plans,
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 5) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-55140) pertaining to the Lubys Inc. Nonemployee Director Phantom Stock Plan,
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 6) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-70315) pertaining to the Lubys Inc. Incentive Stock Plan, and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 7) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-19283) pertaining to the Lubys Cafeteria Savings and Investment Plan.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated November 6, 2006, with respect to the 2006 consolidated financial statements of Lubys Inc., included in the 2008 Annual Report (Form
10-K).

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San
Antonio, TX

November 5, 2008
Continued on next page

Science and Technology

Pesticide Data Program

Helping ensure consumer confidence in their food 

USDA’s Pesticide Data Program (PDP) is a national monitoring and database program for pesticide residues 

in food. Using sound statistical and modern laboratory methods, the PDP collects pesticide residue data on 

a wide variety of domestic and imported foods with an emphasis on the foods most likely consumed by 

infants and children.

For more than 30 years, PDP has monitored America’s food supply. The PDP’s highly trained personnel 

manage the sampling, testing, and reporting of pesticide residue data, working collaboratively with State 

agriculture departments and other Federal agencies. The data consistently show that 99 percent of 

sampled products have residues below the legal limit established by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). Every year PDP adds to its growing online database of more than 47 million results and 

publishes an annual report. The publicly available PDP database is among the most comprehensive 

sources for pesticide residues in foods in the world.

Pesticide Facts

• Pesticide residues are pesticides that may remain in or on food after they are applied to a food crop. 

• The legal limit of any pesticide left on food is a tolerance. Tolerances are established by the U.S. EPA.

• Pesticide use is strictly controlled in the United States. PDP works with the EPA to monitor pesticide 

residue levels found in food.
Agricultural Marketing Service

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

February 2024 / www.ams.usda.gov

Agricultural Products Tested by the PDP

USDA and EPA work together to identify foods to be tested on a rotating basis. PDP tests both fresh and 

processed fruit and vegetables, grains, dairy, and other specialty food items such as honey, corn syrup, 

infant formula, and nuts for pesticide residues. Over 130 commodities have been tested by the program, 

including organic products. PDP food samples are randomly collected from volunteer wholesale 

distribution sites in local areas across the US.

PDP Samples Analyzed by Accredited Laboratories

The PDP laboratories are accredited and equipped with instrumentation capable of detecting tiny amounts 

of pesticide residues, including levels significantly below the tolerances set by the EPA. As many as 520 

pesticide residues can be analyzed in a single test. 

PDP Provides High-Quality Pesticide Residue Data

The pesticide data published by USDA annually provide regulators, scientists, pesticide manufacturers, 

farmers, processors, and consumers with important insights into pesticide residue levels found on widely 

consumed foods. The PDP data are available on the AMS website or by contacting the program.

Contact PDP

Phone: 202-572-8177

Email: amsmpo.data@usda.gov

Website: www.ams.usda.gov/pdp
April 29, 2002


Board of Directors
The Prudential Insurance Company Of America
231 Washington Street
Newark, NJ 07102

Ladies and Gentlemen:



     We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal
Matters" in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of
Post-Effective Amendment No. 29 to the registration statement on Form N-4 for
The Prudential Qualified Individual Variable Contract Account (File No.
2-81318). In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of
persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.



                                             Very truly yours,

                                             SHEA & GARDNER



                                             By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER E. PALMER
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     Christopher E. Palmer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0307-14

BOBBY FITZGERALD LEWIS, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

WICHITA COUNTY

PER CURIAM. MEYERS, J. did not participate.

OPINION

We granted the appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine if Article

1.051(h) requires a trial judge to appoint counsel at any time a pro se defendant withdraws

a waiver of the right to counsel. Having examined the record and briefs, we conclude that

1

our decision to grant review was improvident. We therefore dismiss appellant’s petition for

discretionary review as improvidently granted.

Delivered: April 15, 2015

Do not publish

See Lewis v. State, No. 02-12-00246-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 1405 (Tex.

1

App.–Fort Worth Feb. 6, 2014) (not designated for publication).
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Theresa A. Stevenson, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 25, 1990, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she had insufficient weeks of covered employment.

Workers’ compensation benefits are not remuneration within the meaning of Labor Law § 517 (2) and weeks during which such payments are made do not constitute employment for the purpose of computing an employee’s base period *(see, Matter of Luxenberg [Hartnett],*149 AD2d 778). Accordingly, the finding by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant in this case was ineligible to file a valid original claim because she had insufficient weeks of covered employment in her base period *(see,*Labor Law § 527 [1], [2]) or in the six-month extended base period *(see,*Labor Law § 527 [3]) was rational and must be upheld *(see, Matter of Luxenberg [Hart-nett], supra).*

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



                           Subsidiaries of Registrant
                           --------------------------


     The Company has the following subsidiaries, all of which are wholly owned
and included in the consolidated financial statements.



                                                      State or Country
Name of Subsidiary                                    of Incorporation
------------------                                    ----------------

Brush Wellman GmbH                                    Germany

Brush Wellman (Japan), Ltd.                           Japan

Brush Wellman Limited                                 England

Brush Wellman (Singapore), Pte Ltd.                   Singapore

Circuits Processing Technology Inc.                   California

Technical Materials, Inc.                             Ohio

Williams Advanced Materials Inc.                      New York

Williams Advanced Materials Pte Ltd.                  Singapore
BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K

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 Annual Report of Briggs & Stratton
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Rodgers, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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/ David J. Rodgers   
|David J. Rodgers       
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 26, 2010        





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000015511
<NAME> THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             101
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      558<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                        63<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                        211
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,194<F1>
<PP&E>                                          24,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,731<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,182<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,731<F1>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,350
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,375
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    919
<INCOME-TAX>                                       350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                569
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       569
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>RESTATEMENT REFLECTED HEREIN IS THE RESULT OF RECLASSIFICATIONS TO PRIOR
PERIODS' FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO CONFORM TO THE CURRENT PERIOD PRESENTATION.
</FN>



</TABLE>