alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Agricultural 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Agricultural Department of Marketing Room 2646‐S, Mail Stop 0268

Marketing Agriculture Service Washington, D.C. 20250‐0268

Service

1

April 24, 2014 

MEMORANDUM TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

FROM: Miles V. McEvoy 

 Deputy Administrator 

 Agricultural Marketing Service 

 National Organic Program (NOP) 

SUBJECT: Improved Guidance on Preventing GMO Presence in Organic Products 

The NOSB Materials Subcommittee has submitted a work plan request to develop prevention 

strategy guidance for excluded methods in crops and handling. The NOP supports the work plan 

item and would like the NOSB to provide recommendations on best practices for avoiding 

contact with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in organic production and handling. 

The use of GMOs is prohibited in organic production and handling. The USDA organic 

regulations prohibit the use of GMOs as “excluded methods” under 7 CFR § 205.105, “Allowed 

and prohibited substances, methods, and ingredients in organic production and handling.” 

Excluded methods are defined as: 

A variety of methods to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and 

development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are 

not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, 

microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology 

(including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the 

positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do 

not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in 

vitro fertilization, or tissue culture. (7 CFR § 205.2-Terms defined) 

Compliance with the organic standards entails that operations have verifiable practices in place 

to avoid contact with GMOs. Since organic certification is process-based, presence of detectable 

GMO residues alone does not necessarily constitute a violation of the regulation. The NOP relies 

on organic certifiers and producers to determine preventative practices that most effectively 

avoid contact with GMOs on an organic operation. 
United States Agricultural 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Agricultural Department of Marketing Room 2646‐S, Mail Stop 0268

Marketing Agriculture Service Washington, D.C. 20250‐0268

Service

2

NOP Policy memo 11-13 describes preventive practices that can be employed with respect to 

avoiding contact with excluded methods. The organic community, NOSB and USDA would like 

to provide additional guidance and best practices for prevention of unintended GMO presence in 

organic products. Therefore, the NOP requests that the NOSB provide recommendations 

regarding best management practices for prevention of unintended GMO presence. 

The NOP thanks the NOSB for their willingness to evaluate this issue.
#### RANCHESTER STATE BANK, Appellant (Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant), v. Gary M. JOHNSON and Barbara L. Johnson, husband and wife, and George J. Barker, Robert M. Barker, Gabriel B. Barker, Philip R. Barker, Joseph E. Barker, and Eugene C. Barker, d/b/a Barker Brothers Company, Appellees (Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs).

No. 5249.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

March 5, 1980.

E. E. Lonabaugh, Lonabaugh *&*Vander-hoef, Rex 0. Arney, Redle, Yonkee and Arney, Sheridan, for appellant.

Timothy S. Tarver, Burgess & Davis, Sheridan, for appellees.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AND NOTICE THEREOF

RAPER, Chief Justice.

This appeal being predicated on a finding by the district court pursuant to Rule 54(b), W.R.C.P., that there was no just reason for delay and that a partial summary judgment should be entered, and

The claims of the several parties to the monies and property that are subject of this action being entwined in a fashion whereby the claims of Gary M. Johnson and Barbara L. Johnson cannot be equitably and rationally separated from those of the other parties, and

The stay of all proceedings to recover a claim against Gary M. Johnson and Barbara L. Johnson being automatic pursuant to Title 11, § 361, U.S.C., by virtue of a Chapter 11 proceeding having been filed by them in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico from which adversary proceedings were instituted with regard to the monies involved in this action, this court

FINDS that there was just reason for delay in entering partial summary judgment in this case and that the trial court’s finding to the contrary was not properly founded; that complete adjudication of at least the claim of one of the parties has not been certified, *Mott v. England,*Wyo., 604 P.2d 560 (1979); *Butts v. Gierse,*Wyo., 573 P.2d 1365 (1978); *Sears Roebuck and Co.*v. *Macky,*351 U.S. 427, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956), and

ORDERS that this appeal is dismissed effective March 20, 1980, without further order of the court, and that the parties are hereby notified thereof.
|Exhibit 21                    
|------------------------------
|                              
|BULOVA CORPORATION            
|Subsidiaries of the Registrant
|December 31, 2001             





|                             | Organized under | Business
|---------------------------- | --------------- | --------
|Name of subsidiary           | the Laws of     | Names   
|________________             | ______________  | _______ 
|                             |                 |         
|Bulova Watch Company Limited | Canada          | Bulova  
|                             |                 |         
|                             |                 |         
|                             |                 |         

The names of certain subsidiaries which, if considered as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a "significant subsidiary" as defined in Regulation S-X have been omitted.
Jeff Jackson, Senior Contracting Officer

DAIRY, GRAINS, AND OILSEEDS BRANCH

jeffreyf.jackson@usda.gov
Outline

• Supply Chain Issues

• Bidding to Expectations

• Responsibility

• Questions (via chat)

• jeffreyf.jackson@usda.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements for American Mortgage Investors Trust and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000878774                       
<NAME>                        American Mortgage Investors Trust
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999 
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999   
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999    
<CASH>                                         23,644,942        
<SECURITIES>                                   10,104,422        
<RECEIVABLES>                                  29,154,050        
<ALLOWANCES>                                   297,254           
<INVENTORY>                                    0                 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0                 
<PP&E>                                         0                 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0                 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 62,610,883        
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,872,574         
<BONDS>                                        0                 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                 
<PREFERRED>                                    0                 
<COMMON>                                       0                 
<OTHER-SE>                                     60,738,309        
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   62,610,883        
<SALES>                                        0                 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,009,405         
<CGS>                                          0                 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0                 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               137,620           
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0                 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0                 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,980,121         
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0                 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0                 
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0                 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                 
<CHANGES>                                      0                 
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,980,121         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.03              
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.03              
                                               

</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-23-00430-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

AVEANNA HEALTHCARE, LLC, Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL CANO AND 

MARINA CANO, Appellees.

 

On appeal from the 476th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This matter is before the Court on appellant’s motion to dismiss. Appellant no 

longer wishes to pursue their appeal. 

Having considered appellant’s motion, we are of the opinion that the motion should 

be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, appellant’s motion to dismiss is
2

GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs will be taxed against the appellant. 

See id 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the 

appellant.”). Because the appeal is dismissed at the appellant’s request, no motion for 

rehearing will be entertained.

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

4th day of January, 2024.
56%

5%

12%

6%

9%

9%

3%

United States Department of Agriculture

Organic Integrity Dashboard – 7/1/2020

 A quarterly review of National Organic Program (NOP) Enforcement activities

Investigations & Inquiries by Fiscal Year

Organic Enforcement – Protecting the Market Through the Unexpected

Despite the unanticipated restrictions this spring and summer, NOP staff and 

certifiers continue delivering robust oversight and enforcement. So far this fiscal 

year, accredited certifiers have taken action to suspend or revoke the

certification of over 430 operations found to be in violation of the regulations.

New audit protocols have enabled NOP staff to move forward safely and 

effectively, completing 23 accreditation audits of certifiers since March. These 

audits have proven to be a powerful tool for reviewing the effectiveness of the 

certifier’s control systems. We are also proceeding with enforcement actions 

resulting from earlier on-site audits and ongoing surveillance. Since June, NOP 

has taken action against three certifiers. One was issued a notice of suspension, another certifier entered into a settlement 

agreement to bring it back into full compliance quickly, and the third certifier is in the process of entering into a settlement 

agreement to voluntarily surrender its accreditation. The farms and businesses covered by the suspended certifier are in the 

process of surrendering or starting the certification process with a new certifier.

For additional details on the National Organic Program visit www.ams.usda.gov/Organic

2%

26%

2%

5%

2%

6%

57%

* Fiscal Year 2020 

numbers as of 

6/30/2020

Percentage Completed

includes cases from 

prior years

NOTES: Open cases are based on allegations, complaints and surveillance, and are not in themselves proof or wrongdoing. Administrative 

Actions are warnings/notices to businesses, often uncertified, and are critical in establishing that violators are aware of the rules, to support 

future enforcement action if needed.

419 Cases in Progress

As of 6/30/2020

329 Closed Cases by Outcome

12 Months ending 7/1/2020

Voluntary

Compliance

Referred for Criminal

Investigation

No Violation

Referred for Investigation

Settlement, Civil Penalty, Appeal

Administrative Actions

Fraudulent Certificates Posted

Uncertified 

Operations Making

Organic Claims

Labelling Error

Surveillance

Prohibited Substance

Fraud

Prohibited Practice

Pesticide Residue

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Completed Investigations 129 127 279 260 285 390 360 470 335 413 332

Resolved Inquiries 30 197 248 266

New Investigations 194 183 278 215 411 548 508 395 370 374 288

Total Incoming 194 183 278 215 411 548 508 425 567 622 554

Percentage completed 66% 69% 100% 121% 69% 71% 71% 118% 94% 106% 108%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

*

Additional funding and resources 

have made it possible for NOP staff to 

complete 34 accreditation audits in 

the first three quarters of fiscal year 

2020, significantly ahead of the same 

period last year.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 8143]

Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Mohamed Makawi Ibrahim Mohamed, also known as Mohamed Makawi, also known as Mohamed Makkawi Ibrahim Mohamed, also known as Muhammad Makkawi Ibrahim, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. 

Consistent with the determination in Section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 18, 2012.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2013-00166 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDIBERTO ALVAREZ-LOPEZ, AKA 

Edilberto Cornelio Alvarez-Lopez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73168

Agency No. A098-389-712

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2015**

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Ediberto Alvarez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73168

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 

1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, 

Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for 

review. 

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Alvarez-Lopez’s past 

experiences in Guatemala with gang members did not rise to the level of 

persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (record 

did not compel finding of past persecution); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 

340 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found [these 

incidents constituted] past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be 

compelled to do so.”) Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that 

Alvarez-Lopez failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution.

See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (fear of future harm is too speculative). In light 

of these conclusions, we reject Alvarez-Lopez’s due process contention regarding

his political opinion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). Thus, AlvarezLopez’s asylum claim fails. 
3 08-73168

Because Alvarez-Lopez’s failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his 

withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 

1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Finally, Alvarez-Lopez does not make any specific arguments challenging 

the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 

1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed 

abandoned). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE01304

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 00 9 2 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL DUNNE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 19, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 23 2022

06/23/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0092
P O S T O F F I C E B O X 1 2 5 4 8 , A U S T I N , T E X A S 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 T E L : ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 W E B : W W W . T E X A S A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L . G O V

An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer 

RANCE CRAFT 

ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

(512) 936-2872 

RANCE.CRAFT@TEXASATTORNEYGENERAL.GOV

April 7, 2015 

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Via File & Serve Xpress 

Third Court of Appeals 

P.O. Box 12547 

Austin, Texas 78711-2547 

Re: Confirmation of Oral Argument & Counsel Presenting Oral Argument

Graphic Packaging Corporation v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public 

Accounts of the State of Texas; and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the 

State of Texas, No. 03-14-00197-CV 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

 Appellees Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of 

Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, acknowledge the 

Court’s notice setting this cause for oral argument on June 3, 2015, at 9:00 A.M. 

Rance Craft of the Office of the Attorney General will present oral argument on 

behalf of Appellees. 

 Thank you for your assistance with this matter. 

 Sincerely, 

 /s/ Rance Craft 

 Rance Craft 

 Assistant Solicitor General 

 Texas Bar No. 24035655 

RLC/vlc 

cc: Amy L. Silverstein (via File & Serve Xpress e-service) 

 James F. Martens (via File & Serve Xpress e-service) 

 Amanda G. Taylor (via File & Serve Xpress e-service) 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00197-CV

4787592

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/7/2015 12:04:13 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/7/2015 12:04:13 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32-1

                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 Lexington Precision Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, the Chairman of the Board, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the undersigned's knowledge:

      (1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; 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/  Michael A. Lubin
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Michael A. Lubin
                                     Chairman of the Board
                                     (Co-Principal Executive Officer)
                                     April 14, 2004

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

This certification accompanies the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically
incorporates it by reference.