alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-15-00097-CV 

________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF I.S.S. AND G.P.S, CHILDREN 

 

 

On Appeal from the 320th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 82,139-D; Honorable Don Emerson, Presiding 

 

April 8, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Faustino Salinaz III, was found in contempt for failure to pay child 

support and was committed to 120 days in jail. A document entitled “Notice of Appeal” 

was filed in this Court. 

Unless a party is excused from paying a filing fee, the Clerk of this Court is 

required to collect filing fees set by statute or the Texas Supreme Court when an item is 

presented for filing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 and 12.1(b). Although the filing of a proper 
notice of appeal invokes this Court’s jurisdiction, if a party fails to follow the prescribed 

rules of appellate procedure, the appeal may be dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b). 

By letter dated March 16, 2015, this Court advised Appellant that a filing fee of 

$195 was overdue and noted that failure to submit payment within ten days might result 

in dismissal of the appeal. Appellant has not responded, paid the filing fee, nor made 

other arrangements for the discharge of the clerk’s filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

12.1(b). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with a directive from 

this Court requiring action within a specified time. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Per Curiam
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1


                           BRIDGFORD FOODS CORPORATION


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               State in which 
         Name of Subsidiary                                     Incorporated
         ------------------                                    --------------
     <S>                                                       <C>                     
      Bridgford Distributing Company                             California         
      Bridgford Meat Company                                     California         
      Bridgford Foods of Illinois, Inc.                          California         
      A.S.I. Corporation                                         California         
      Bridgford Distributing Company of                                             
       Delaware (inactive)                                        Delaware          
      American Ham Processors, Inc.* (inactive)                   Delaware          
      Bert Packing Company (inactive)                             Illinois          
      Moriarty Meat Company (inactive)                            Illinois          

</TABLE>
--------------
 * No shares have been issued.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11264 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JOSE GUERRERO, also known as JD

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14

- CR

- 266

- 10

Before SOUTHWICK, WILLETT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Guerrero has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Guerrero h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
June 20 , 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11264 Document: 00514519611 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2018No. 16

- 11264

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRAN TED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-11264 Document: 00514519611 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(i)

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-57577 of Borden, Inc. on Form S-3 of our reports for Borden, Inc. and Wise
Holdings, Inc. dated February 26, 1997 and for Borden, Inc. and Affiliates
dated February 26, 1997, (except for Note 18, as to which the date is March 20,
1997) and Borden Foods Holdings Corporation dated February 26, 1997 (except
for Note 5, paragraph 3, as to which the date is March 20, 1997) appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Borden, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 1996.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

March 26, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  814,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                   442,200
<INVENTORY>                                     20,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               434,000
<PP&E>                                       1,220,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 434,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,249,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          941,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     12,400
<COMMON>                                        31,100
<OTHER-SE>                                     976,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,249,800
<SALES>                                        850,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,395,900
<CGS>                                          279,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,159,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.01

                                                                  March 29, 2002

Michael D. Greenbaum
Hybrid Networks, Inc.
6409 Guadalupe Mines Road
San Jose, CA  95120

Dear Michael,

This Letter  Agreement will confirm that in connection with and in consideration
of your continued  employment with Hybrid Networks,  Inc.  ("Hybrid") Hybrid and
you agree as follows:

1. At Hybrid's  request you will remain employed by Hybrid for up to ninety (90)
days following the date hereof,  provided that Hybrid  continues to pay you your
current  base  salary at its  regular  periodic  payroll  dates (the  "Retention
Period");

2.  You  will  receive  a  Severance  Payment  of  $13,541.00,  (the  "Severance
Payment"),  which is equal to two weeks of your regular base salary, as provided
in paragraph 1 of the Release;

3. You will receive a Retention  Bonus of $162,492.00,  (the "Retention  Bonus")
which is equal to six  months of your  regular  salary,  payable  upon  Hybrid's
receipt  of a  signed  copy of a  release  and a  signed  copy  of  this  Letter
Agreement.  The  Retention  Bonus will be  returned by you to the Company if you
voluntarily  terminate your employment with the Company before the expiration of
the Retention Period; and

Please acknowledge your acceptance of this Letter Agreement by signing below and
returning this letter to me as soon as possible.


Sincerely,


James R. Flach
Chairman of the Board


I have reviewed the above Letter Agreement and understand and agree to the terms
under which I will be continue to be employed with Hybrid Networks, Inc.


------------------------            --------------------------------
Date                                Michael D. Greenbaum
Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

 

Date: October 28, 2010 

Subject: Sunset Review of Whey protein concentrate as listed on 

§205.606, Nonorganically produced agricultural products 

allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as 

“organic.” 

Chair: Daniel G. Giacomini 

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X 

 

 

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

 

Whey protein concentrate is listed on 205.606. This substance was scheduled 

to sunset off the National List in 2012, was reviewed by the NOSB, and a 

motion was made for the re-listing of this substance at the October 2010 

meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 14 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions, 0 absent, 

and 0 recusals. 

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

 

The Handling Committee’s recommendation covering this material is attached. 

There were no public written or verbal comments opposing the committee’s 

sunset recommendation, and the material was recommended for relisting by 

the full NOSB as shown below. 

 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Steve DeMuri Second: Jennifer Hall 

Yes: 14 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0 
National Organic Standards Board 

 Handling Committee 

Sunset Recommendation – 2012 

Whey Protein 

August 23, 2010 

List: 205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as 

ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic.” 

Whey protein concentrate 

Committee Summary: 

Federal register notice of the sunset of this material elicited no public comments against 

re-listing. 

Review of the original recommendation, historical documents, and public comments 

does not reveal unacceptable risks to the environment, human or animal health as a 

result of the use or manufacture of this material. There is no new information 

contradicting the original recommendation which was the basis for the previous NOSB 

decision to list this material. As a 205.606 listed material, it is subject to commercial 

availability scrutiny for use in organic products. 

Committee Recommendation(s)

The handling committee recommends the renewal of the following substance in this use 

category as published in the final rule: 

Whey protein concentrate 

Committee Vote: 

Motion: Steve DeMuri Second: John Foster 

Yes: 5 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ DONALD W. GEPHART, JR., Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________
2024

- 1358

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 22

- 1289

, Judge Michael P. Allen.

______________________
O R D E R The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). Case: 24-1358 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 03/20/2024G EPHART V

. M C D ONOUGH 2

(2) Each side sha ll bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

March 20, 2024 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 20, 2024 Case: 24-1358 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 03/20/2024
DENIED; and Opinion Filed April 8, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00396-CV

IN RE JAMES DAVID HORTON, AND ROBBIE LESA HORTON, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-11551

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Stoddart, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Relators filed this original proceeding requesting that the Court order the trial court to 

vacate its orders dismissing certain claims in the case pursuant to chapter 27 of the Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code and ordering venue of the case transferred to Ellis County, Texas. 

Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. 

Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not met those 

requirements. 

The Supreme Court has explained the burden imposed upon a plaintiff in supporting the 

plaintiff’s choice of venue:

A plaintiff's choice of venue stands unless challenged by proper motion to transfer 

venue. Once challenged, the plaintiff has the burden to present prima facie proof 

by affidavit or other appropriate evidence that venue is maintainable in the county 

of suit. The plaintiff's prima facie proof is not subject to rebuttal, crossexamination, impeachment, or disproof. However, if the plaintiff fails to 
–2–

discharge the burden, the right to choose a proper venue passes to the defendant, 

who must then prove that venue is proper in the defendant's chosen county.

In re Missouri Pac. R. Co., 998 S.W.2d 212, 216 (Tex. 1999). The mandamus record 

demonstrates relators failed to present prima facie proof to the trial court that they resided in 

Dallas County at the time the cause of action accrued or at the time they filed suit or that Dallas 

County is the residence of any of the defendants. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §

15.017 (West 2002). The mandamus record further demonstrates that real parties in interest did 

come forward in the trial court with prima facie proof that mandatory venue lies in Ellis County. 

With regard to the trial court’s determination that it could properly rule on the chapter 27 

dismissal motions before ruling on the motion to transfer venue, relators have an adequate legal 

remedy by appeal. 

We DENY the petition.

150396F.P05

/Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
##### 



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.
 May 10, 2007
    
    /s/ John R. Eckel, Jr.

John R. Eckel, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed August 24, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00955-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF NY’DIA SIMMONS, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-10-00865-2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers and Whitehill

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

Stating this appeal has become moot because the trial court granted her motion for new 

trial, appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and waive the appellate filing fee. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion to the extent we dismiss the appeal. See id.

 

150955F.P05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF NY'DIA 

SIMMONS, AN INCAPACITATED 

PERSON

No. 05-15-00955-CV 

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2, 

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-10-00865-2.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers. 

Justices Francis and Whitehill participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

We ORDER appellee The Arc of Dallas recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from 

appellant.

Judgment entered this 24th day of August, 2015.
\ 

### SERVED: September 19, 2016

- . ' .... 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRA'&SJ?ORTATION

In The Matter Of: Offshore Flight School, Inc. Respondent 

### OFFICE OF 

## HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ) ) ) ) )**·~**

### : ::: '**·-~**

### : ·')(; ;**~---::~ 3~**  !**.~.** 

### i3

DocketNo. FAA-2014-0691 Case No. 2014WP910016

PREHEARING CONFERENCE REPORT On September 16, 2016, the undersignedjudge held a prehearing conference in the above captioned case. Counsel for the Complainant attended the conference telephonically; the Respondent's counsel failed to appear. The parties discussed the following: 

### 1. Settlement
a. The parties have a signed settlement agreement resolving this case. b. As part ofthe agreement, the Respondent agreed to file a motion to withdraw the request for a hearing. 2. Dismissal The undersignedjudge will issue a Dismissal Order once the withdrawal is filed.

Administrative Law Judge
Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1
ONE COPY David Glenn Bettencourt, Respondent's Counsel Dillingham Transportation Building, Suite 304 735 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 TEL: 808-521-3491 FAX: 808-521-3494 Charles Raley, Complainant's Counsel Enforcement Division/ AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 TEL: 202-267-3357 FAX: 202-267.,5106 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 Docket No. FAA-2014-0691 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7828 

RICKY RAISZONER GARDNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick

Correctional Institution; HENRY DARGAN

MCMASTER, Attorney General of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(CA-03-3991-4-27)

Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 4, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Raiszoner Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,

Chief Deputy Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Raiszoner Gardner, a state prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order adopting the report of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims are

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gardner

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1213 

To provide compensation for Federal contractors impacted by a lapse in 

appropriations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Mr. THOMPSON of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To provide compensation for Federal contractors impacted 

by a lapse in appropriations. 

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 ‘‘Federal Contract 

5 Worker Fairness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR FEDERAL CONTRACTORS. 

7 Each Federal contract worker impacted by a lapse 

8 in appropriations in the Federal Government shall receive 

9 compensation. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      539,581
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,547
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         206,444
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        45,659
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  83,926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 878,157
<COMMON>                                        51,418
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       43,233
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            152,312
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 246,963
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           29,326
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           209,493
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  95,202
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      1,743
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   507
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 294,923
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  878,157
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      700,945
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            22,510
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     148,487
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     246,119
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         56,260
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 298
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  56,558
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        18,047
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,511
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,926
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   36,585
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        18,253
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       16,767
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         100,812
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    71.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    71.15
        

</TABLE>