alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed July 1 7 , 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00046

- CR

____________ ERIC DEMOND DOUGLAS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1122749



### ORDER

This is an out

- of

- time appeal granted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The reporter’s record in this case was due March 01, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On May 06, 2013, B.J. Orsack filed 3 volumes of reporter’s record
and advised the court that Wong Lee, a substitute court reporter, reported the plea proceedings on July 11, 2008. On May 30, 2013 , this court ordered Wong Lee to file the record within 30 days. The record has not been filed with the court.Becaus e the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following

order.

We order Wong Lee , the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. No further extension will be
entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Wong Lee does not timely file the record as ordered, we
will issue an order directi ng the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the
reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential 

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

______________________

JAMES F. OUTLAW, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent.

______________________

2013

- 3061

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in consoli dated Nos . DE0752110279 -I-2 and

DE0752110514 -I-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________ Before N EWM AN

, R EYNA , and W ALLACH

, Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

James F. Outlaw moves for reconsideration of the court’s previous rejection of his petition for review.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) issued
its final order on October 19, 2012. Mr. Outlaw received Case: 13-3061 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 06/19/2013JAMES OUTLAW v. ARMY 2

the order via electronic mail on October 19, 2012. * Mr. Outlaw’s petition was received by this court on December 21, 2012, sixty

- three days after he received the Board’s

final order.

Our review of a Board decision or order is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) , which provides in relevant part that “[n] otwithstanding any other provision of law, any pet ition for review shall be filed within 60 days after the

Board issues notice of the final order or deci sion of the

Board. ” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (2012). This filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp

., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ; see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived ). We also note that the petition for review must be received by this court by the due date, Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A), and that pet itions for review cannot be filed by fax or electronically

with this court , Fed. Cir. R. 25.

Because Mr . Outlaw’s petition was not received wit hin 60 days of the date he received the Board’ s decision, we

must dismiss h is petition as untimely.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

1) Mr. Outlaw ’ s motion for reconsideration is denied,

and his petition is dismissed.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs

.

* Mr. Outlaw is a registered electronic filer with the Board. The regulation governing the dates for service of
electronic documents at the Board states, in relevant part,

“ MSPB documents served electronically on registered e

filers are deemed received on the date of electronic su bmission.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2). Case: 13-3061 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 06/19/2013JAMES OUTLAW v. ARMY 3

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O'Toole
Daniel E. O'Toole
Clerk

s25

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: J une 19, 2013 Case: 13-3061 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 06/19/2013
# C_2012326EN.01020101.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

PROTOCOL (No 8)

RELATING TO ARTICLE 6(2) OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION ON THE ACCESSION OF THE UNION TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1

The agreement relating to the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the ‘European Convention’) provided for in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union shall make provision for preserving the specific characteristics of the Union and Union law, in particular with regard to:

| (a) | the specific arrangements for the Union's possible participation in the control bodies of the European Convention; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the specific arrangements for the Union's possible participation in the control bodies of the European Convention;

| (b) | the mechanisms necessary to ensure that proceedings by non-Member States and individual applications are correctly addressed to Member States and/or the Union as appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the mechanisms necessary to ensure that proceedings by non-Member States and individual applications are correctly addressed to Member States and/or the Union as appropriate.

Article 2

The agreement referred to in Article 1 shall ensure that accession of the Union shall not affect the competences of the Union or the powers of its institutions. It shall ensure that nothing therein affects the situation of Member States in relation to the European Convention, in particular in relation to the Protocols thereto, measures taken by Member States derogating from the European Convention in accordance with Article 15 thereof and reservations to the European Convention made by Member States in accordance with Article 57 thereof.

Article 3

Nothing in the agreement referred to in Article 1 shall affect Article 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---
1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

 Room 2642-S, STOP 0268

 Washington, D.C. 20250-0268

November 6, 2018

MEMORANDUM TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

FROM: Jennifer Tucker, Ph.D.

Deputy Administrator

National Organic Program

SUBJECT: Request to Review Use of Vaccines in Organic Livestock Production Made 

Through Excluded Methods

The National Organic Program (NOP) requests that the National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB) provide recommendations on the use of vaccines in organic livestock production made 

through excluded methods. 

The NOSB Livestock Subcommittee has requested adding to its work agenda a review of the use 

of vaccines in organic livestock production made through excluded methods. The subcommittee 

notes there may be instances when vaccines made from excluded methods are the only available 

veterinary solution. The USDA organic regulations permit use of vaccines that are produced 

using excluded methods, provided the vaccines are approved in accordance with § 205.600(a) 

(see § 205.105(e)). The subcommittee notes there are inconsistencies in the way certifying agents 

review and/or approve the use of vaccines produced through excluded methods. 

We are requesting the Board’s feedback about a variety of approaches that could address these 

inconsistencies, and your consideration of this specific instance of using excluded methods. The 

NOP can provide technical support, if needed, to assist the NOSB in your review, and looks 

forward to NOSB recommendation(s) on this topic. The NOP thanks the NOSB for proposing to 

evaluate this issue and for your continued commitment to supporting organic integrity.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division QAD 1040 C Appendix

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 September 5, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 1 

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

Grain Fed Diet Clarification

1 PURPOSE

This document is to clarify the feedstuffs acceptable to be referred to as grain for livestock or 

the meat and meat products derived from such livestock for programs submitted for USDA 

Certified or USDA Audit and Accreditation Programs administered by the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS).

2 DEFINITION

Under the United States Grain Standards Act (GSA; 57 FR 3274; January 29, 1992) and 

therefore acceptable to be included in the diet as grain are; barley, canola, corn, flaxseed, mixed 

grain, oats, rye, sorghum, soybeans, sunflower seed, triticale, and wheat, and any other food 

grains, feed grains, and oilseeds for which standards are established under section 76 of the 

GSA.

Additional feedstuffs that are acceptable to be included in the diet as grain for AMS 

administered USDA Certified or USDA Audit and Accreditation Programs are rice, millet, 

amaranth, buckwheat, and distiller’s grain (with or without solubles). 

Grain feedstuffs that vary according to stage of maturity harvesting (e.g., earlage), processing, 

and storage conditions will be considered and evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine 

the amount of grain in the feedstuff and in the total ration. 

Companies submitting rations for USDA Certified or USDA Audit and Accreditation Programs 

administered by AMS must report to AMS the as fed amounts (feed weight in feeding form) of 

various ingredients. In addition, each individual feed ingredient will be evaluated on a dry 

matter basis for nutrient composition.

___________________________________ 

David Bowden, Branch Chief

Livestock & Poultry Program
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________

)

TEXAS CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL and )

SEATTLE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civ. Action No. 14-2060 (EGS)

)

ALEX AZAR, )

Secretary, United States )

Department of Health and )

Human Services, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

________________________________ )

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum 

Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary 

judgment, ECF No. 25, is DENIED; and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary 

judgment, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED; and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that defendants are permanently enjoined 

from enforcing, applying, or implementing FAQ 33; and it is 

FURTHER ORDERDED that JUDGMENT be entered for plaintiffs 

and this case be closed. 

SO ORDERED. 

Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan

United States District Judge

June 1, 2018
,1//? 9(1 /W-J)/ RECEIVED IN 14/K. SA •I ' r "I COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_ . / , , , * / m 08 2015 «oei Acosta, Clerh 

## Tfe 7r/*l dur/ drdtfrd/Lt^-e/ A r<Ss/2>/,s/ /a 

# Atf^Vcra A*,* fifMtMcJtfr a&s&Mtf jf^Lu/ 

# ***** <* ,M£U;«~'. ** S-3--<Z0/f
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SENECA GAMING CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION OF CORPORATE OFFICERS**

(Furnished Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Seneca Gaming Corporation(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we, John Pasqualoni,President and Chief Executive Officer, and Patrick M. Fox, Chief FinancialOfficer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       The Quarterly Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended,; and

2.                                       The information contained in the QuarterlyReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operation of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented inthe Form 10-Q.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.

August 11, 2006
|  /s/ John  Pasqualoni                                           |   |    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------|
| John Pasqualoni                                                      |   |         |
| President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                                                                 |
|                                                                 |
|                                                                 |
|  /s/ Patrick  M. Fox                                            |   |    |
| Patrick M. Fox                                                       |   |         |
| Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)               |   |

 

The forgoingcertification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant toItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andis not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporationlanguage in such filing.

----
# Raw Data
#### Gerald Flynn et al., Appellants, v New York Life Insurance Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from two judgments which, on the basis of jury verdicts of no cause for action on plaintiffs’ negligence, fraud and contract claims, dismissed the complaint against defendants New York Life Insurance Company and Charles White. Plaintiffs contend that the court should have granted their motion for a directed verdict and that the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence; that the court erroneously dismissed their punitive damages claim against New York Life; and that the court erred in failing to charge Insurance Law § 4226. We conclude that plaintiffs’ contentions are lacking in merit.

The case presented a question of credibility and thus properly was submitted to the jury for its resolution, which we decline to disturb. The essence of defendants’ version of events, which the jury was entitled to credit over plaintiffs’ testimony, is that the transactions were structured as they were at plaintiffs’ request, that plaintiffs were fully aware of the nature and consequences of the transactions, and that defendants thus were not guilty of negligence, fraud or breach of contract.

Because we are sustaining the jury verdict resolving the fraud claims in favor of defendants, we must affirm the court’s granting of the insurer’s motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim. If there was no fraud, there can be no liability for punitive damages.

*1033The court properly declined to charge the jury on the "no presumption” rule of Insurance Law § 4226 (c). Plaintiffs rely on Insurance Law § 4226 (a) (2) and (4), but those paragraphs have no application to this case. This case did not involve the judicial determination of whether defendants made claims about the amount of policy dividends or the financial condition of the insurer or its reserve system. It involved a claim that defendants misrepresented the method of payment for the policies and the nature and extent of loans against the policies, a matter not within the scope of the statute. Thus, the statute was not relevant and the court did not err in refusing to charge it. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J.—Breach of Contract.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00353-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF W.B. AND O.C.B., CHILDREN

From the County Court at Law

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV13164

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant O.S. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children W.B. 

and O.C.B. following an adverse jury trial.1 After the court reporter notified us that the 

disk she used on the first day of trial was defective and did not record any of her notes 

and that the audiotape contained too many “inaudibles” for her to prepare an accurate 

reporter’s record for that day,2 we abated this appeal for the trial court to hold a hearing 

so that we could make a new-trial determination under Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.6(f). The hearing has taken place, and we have supplemental records from it.

 

1 The parental rights of C.B., the father of W.B. and O.C.B., were also terminated in the same order of 

termination, but he did not appeal.

2 According to the reporter, the first day of this two-day jury trial consisted of voir dire and the testimony 

of three witnesses (Appellant, a CPS supervisor, and a probation officer).
In the Interest of W.B. and O.C.B., Children Page 2

The trial court issued findings, including a finding that the parties agree that a 

new trial is necessary because a substantial portion of the reporter’s record is missing. 

Furthermore, the trial court’s findings and the record of the hearing indicate that the 

parties have largely resolved the underlying case because Appellant has since executed 

an affidavit of relinquishment of her parental rights to W.B. and to O.C.B. 

The parties have agreed that, based on the lost and destroyed reporter’s record, 

Appellant is entitled to a new trial. They have further agreed that we should reverse 

the trial court’s termination order as to Appellant and remand the case to the trial court 

for a new trial for termination of Appellant’s parental rights based only on Appellants’ 

relinquishment affidavit.3

Based on the parties’ recorded agreement and the trial court’s findings, we 

reverse that portion of the trial court’s October 31, 2014 termination order terminating 

only Appellant O.S.’s parental rights to the children W.B. and O.C.B. and leave the 

remaining portions of the trial court’s termination order as to the termination of C.B.’s 

parental rights to the children W.B. and O.C.B. undisturbed and in full force and effect. 

And under Rule 34.6(f) and the parties’ agreement thereon, we remand this case to the 

trial court for a new trial to be held in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

 

3 Appellant’s docketing statement identifies her appellate issue to be the insufficiency of the evidence to 

support termination. We thus agree that Appellant would be entitled to a new trial under Rule 34.6(f).
In the Interest of W.B. and O.C.B., Children Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Reversed in part and remanded

Opinion delivered and filed April 16, 2015

[CV06]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF IMRS INC. (d/b/a HYPERION SOFTWARE) FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          42,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,600
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,604
<PP&E>                                          53,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,581
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           103
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,569
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   139,501
<SALES>                                         36,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,633
<CGS>                                           12,434
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,017
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  24
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,606
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,390
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,216
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        

</TABLE>
<Page>


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the use in the Statement of Additional Information
constituting part of this Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to the registration
statement (Form N-4 No. 033-73986) (the "Registration Statement") of our report
dated February 15, 2002, relating to the financial statements of Fortis
Benefits Insurance Company, which appears in such Statement of Additional
Information. We also consent to the use in the Statement of Additional
Information constituting part of this Registration Statement of our report
dated April 6, 2001, relating to the financial statements of Fortis Benefits
Insurance Company Variable Account D, which appears in such Statement of
Additional Information. We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Independent Public Accountants" in such Statement of Additional
Information.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 17, 2002
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Marko Angel Mendoza, * From the 161st District Court

 of Ector County

Trial Court No. B-44,758.

Vs. No. 11-18-00129-CR * May 9, 2019

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
•to-O.L. UAVvr (M;V

S&aQfc3^9n2kft

"TY-yap W• vkio Vnr \/i3l) "TTm g.

5^P_C6^AL|_^Ul^A^

^JU3_^l5:

Mr-APPEJ^

i 6 2015

i^@!-A©@§f&r©teiF-K-