alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sunset 2015 Review 

Meeting 2 - October 2014

NOSB Final Review

Crops Substances

As part of the National List Sunset Review process, the NOSB has evaluated the need for the continued 

allowance for or prohibition of the following substances for use in organic production and/or handling. 

CROPS SUBSTANCES

Sulfurous Acid Synthetic

Use: As a plant or soil amendment

Listing: Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782-99-2) - for on-farm generation of substance utilizing 99% purity elemental 

sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section

Reference: 7 CFR 205.601(j)(9)

Subcommittee preliminary review

NOSB Review

The NOSB evaluated the continuing need for this material and found that it is compatible with organic 

production systems since it is used to improve poor quality irrigation water and adjust the pH of water to 

improve the soils in which it is used.

Motion to remove Sulfurous Acid from §205.601(j)(9) of the National List

Motion by: John Foster 

Seconded by: Harold Austin

Yes: 3 No: 11 Abstain: 1 Recuse: 0 Absent: 0

Outcome: Motion to remove failed. The NOSB completed its sunset review.

CROPS SUBSTANCES

Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate Synthetic

Use: as an algaecide

Listing: Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (CAS # 15630-89-4) - Federal law restricts the use of this substance 

in food crop production to approved food uses identified on the product label.

Reference: 7 CFR 205.601(a)

Subcommittee preliminary review

NOSB Review

The NOSB found no concerns regarding the continued listing of Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate. However,

all agreed that the current annotation is unnecessary as all pesticide use must follow label instructions. 

Therefore, in a future action, the NOSB will recommend removal of the annotation. 

Motion to remove Sodium Carbonate Peroxyhydrate from §205.601(a)(8) of the National List

Motion by: Zea Sonnabend

rev: October 2014
Seconded by: Harold Austin

Yes: 5 No: 10 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 0

Outcome: Motion to remove failed. The NOSB completed its sunset review.

CROPS SUBSTANCES

Aqueous Potassium Silicate Synthetic

Use: As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control). As plant disease control

Listing: Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium 

silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand

Reference: 7 CFR 205.601(e)(2), and 7 CFR 205.601(i)

Subcommittee preliminary review

NOSB Review

The NOSB found no concerns regarding the continued listing of Aqueous Potassium Silicate. It appears to be 

compatible with organic production.

Motion: to remove Aqueous Potassium Silicate from §205.601(e)(2) and 205.601(i)of the National List

Motion by: Harold Austin

Seconded by: Carmela Beck

Yes: 6 No: 9 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 0

Outcome: Motion to remove failed. The NOSB completed its sunset review.

rev: October 2014
tilU/AM

(Jjutr

t, Texas •■-:t

,- '>

^1"

• ■

en -i-

-■

■■■;■

co ''

Kern £.

RE:

V,

■(£ ofTexts

OF W&W/WftL l/otJmE\fMorABBt OF

0f fh&es gf

'J
VitUtAM U. <JotiU50U

Of TUB

AmtmPkteq

Ar °HIT Texas

BtECoreb om 7Kis I(P MY Of

in THE fete Z5HFT

doHtsisoAi
SANDEEBRYAN

MARION

CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGEUNI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECAC MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

I.UZ ELENA 1). CHAPA

JASON PU1.L1AM

JUSTICES

COURT OF APPEALS FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER

.100 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037

WWW.TXCOUIiTS.GOV/4TIICOA.ASP>;

February 2, 2015

KEITH !: HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210)335-2635

FACSIMIUNO.

(210)3.15-2762

Oscar O. Pcna

P.O.1324

Laredo, TX 78042-1324

DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL

David L, Reuthinger, Jr.

Webb County District Attorney's Office

1110 Victoria, Suite 403

Laredo, TX 78040

DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL

William Henry Johnson #01895419

Stiles Unit

3060 FM 3514

Beaumont, TX 77705

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-13-00912-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 2012CRN199 D1

Style: William Henry Johnson

v.

The State of Texas

The Appellant's request for copies in the above styled and numbered use has

this date been received. The cost for ihe complete appellate record is $81.5.00 with the

fee for postage included. Please include copy of your request and make check or

money order payable to: Fourth Court of Appeals.

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTI E, CLEKK

Jona

Depul Clerk, Exl.:
B)

%=

£>

0\

];:.
Order entered December 27, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00870-CV

BLACKSTONE MEDICAL, INC. D/B/A ORTHOFIX SPINAL IMPLANTS, Appellant

V.

PHOENIX SURGICALS, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-00902-D

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s December 19, 2013 unopposed third motion for an extension of 

the briefing deadlines. Appellee/cross-appellant shall file its brief on or before January 10, 2014. 

Appellant/cross-appellee shall file its reply brief on or before February 28, 2014. We caution the 

parties that no further extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
#### Laura N. Kronenberg et al., Appellants, v Robert Morris et al., Respondents.

—In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated November 2, 1989, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and a new trial is granted.

The record reveals that, over timely defense objection, the trial court permitted the injured plaintiff to testify regarding a hearsay statement made to her by a Dr. Fisher. The court allowed the testimony only after the plaintiffs’ counsel assured the court that Dr. Fisher would appear as a witness for the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs did not call Dr. Fisher as a witness, and the trial court consequently granted a defense motion for a missing witness charge with respect to the uncalled witness.

*611We discern no improvident exercise of discretion in the court’s granting of the application for a missing witness charge, inasmuch as the damaging hearsay testimony was only permitted upon the plaintiffs’ false representation that Dr. Fisher would be called as a witness, and the plaintiffs failed thereafter to demonstrate a legitimate basis for not calling the witness *(see, Siegfried v Siegfried,*123 AD2d 621; *see generally, People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424). However, we agree with the plaintiffs’ contention that reversal is necessary because the text of the missing witness instruction given by the court was unfairly prejudicial to them. Indeed, the trial court incorrectly instructed the jurors that they were *required,*rather than permitted, to draw the strongest inferences against the plaintiffs by reason of their failure to call Dr. Fisher *(cf.,*PJI 1:75). Moreover, the court’s supplemental missing witness instruction failed to correct this error. Accordingly, a new trial is granted. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.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

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE VI

TRANSPORT

TRANSPORT

Article 93

(ex Article 73 TEC)

(ex Article 73 TEC)

Aids shall be compatible with the Treaties if they meet the needs of coordination of transport or if they represent reimbursement for the discharge of certain obligations inherent in the concept of a public service.

---
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/23/2010 09:29 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US                                                                                                                   
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov                                                                                                                 
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Nagelhout/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ 
Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA           |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |07/16/2010 09:02 AM                                                                                                                         
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |RICE emissions data - indicating which data is new                                                                                          
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|




Hi Cortney,
Per the request from SBA, we've indicated in the spreadsheet which tests are 
the ones we received post-proposal.  The new test data are in italics.
(See attached file: Existing SI RICE NESHAP MACT Floors 7-16-10 with new data 
marked.xls)


Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:  (919) 541-2469
Fax:       (919) 541-5450
king.melanie@epa.gov
<PAGE>   1

                           BRIDGFORD FOODS CORPORATION

                                  EXHIBIT 22.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
                           --------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

             Name of Subsidiary                                 State in which 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6433

ROBERT JOSEPH SLAVEK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE HINKLE, Warden Greensville Correctional

Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-03-1439)

Submitted: December 28, 2005 Decided: February 24, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Joseph Slavek, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Joseph Slavek seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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 both

that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings

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

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Slavek

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Slavek’s

motion for 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
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000477

17-APR-2015

08:15 AM
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. FA8818-06-D-0002 ) 

FA9451-04-D-0210 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 58775, 58776 

Thomas A. Lemmer, Esq. 

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 

Denver, CO 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Douglas R. Jacobson, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Bloomington, MN 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 7 April 2015 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 58775, 58776, Appeals of Ball 

Aerospace & Technologies Corp., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00735-CR

Justine Francesca Hernandez

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

399th District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2014CR4246

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 16, 2015
#### People v Efrain DeJesus, Defendant.

—Motion to extend time to take appeal granted upon condition that a notice of appeal is filed and served on or before July 8, 1991. Memorandum: The failure to comply with 22 NYCRR 1022.11 constitutes improper conduct of counsel. Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### Johnny Joseph JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, State of Oklahoma, Honorable Jack R. Parr, District Judge and Honorable Special District Judge William Allen, Respondents.

No. O-79-191.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 25, 1979.

ORDER DENYING WRIT

On April 6, 1979, the above petitioner filed his application and petition in this Court seeking issuance of the alternative writ of mandamus or prohibition to require the Oklahoma County District Court to order the District Attorney to enter upon the preliminary information the names of all the State’s witnesses in Oklahoma County District Court cases CRF — 78—4144 and CRF-77-4145, prior to the time the preliminary examination is to be held, or in the alternative to prohibit the holding of a preliminary examination and dismissing the information. The application and petition were set down for hearing in this Court to be had on April 18, 1979, at 1:30 p. m. At that hearing petitioner was represented by Mr. Robert Ravits and Mr. Theodore Haynes of the Oklahoma Public Defender’s office and the respondents were represented by Mr. James Laurence of the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s office. After hearing argument, this Court assumes jurisdiction.

NOW THEREFORE, after hearing oral argument and after considering the briefs filed, and being fully advised in the premises, this Court finds that it is not required by the Statutes for the prosecutor to list all witnesses on the preliminary information. *Beaird v. Ramey,*Okl.Cr., 456 P.2d 587 (1969), and *Martinez*v. *State,*Okl.Cr., 496 P.2d 416 (1972), stand for the proposition that the defendant is entitled to cross-examine all witnesses called by the prosecution and to call all witnesses on his own behalf necessary for the defense bearing *794upon the question of probable cause. Neither of those decisions provide that the prosecutor must list all witnesses on the preliminary information. We observe also the provision of 22 O.S.1971, § 469, which provides: “It shall *not*be necessary to file an information after the preliminary examination where the complaint or preliminary information satisfies the requirements for an information.” The preliminary information is comparable to the “complaint” that was required to be filed prior to the reorganization of the Oklahoma Judicial System in 1969. We therefore conclude that the alternative writ of prohibition or mandamus should not issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS, AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT, this 25th day of April, 1979.

TOM R. CORNISH, P. J.

TOM BRETT, J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.
No. 03-14-00737-cv

_____________________________________

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

_____________________________________

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER, APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF v. DAVID

MATTAX IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF

INSURANCE, AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,

APPELLEES/DEFENDANTS

APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF OTHER LITIGATION

From Cause D-1-GN-13001957 In The 250th District Travis

County, Texas, The Honorable John K. Dietz Presiding

Chase Carmen Hunter, pro se

340 S. Lemon Ave. #9039

Walnut, CA 91789

Telephone: 707-706-3647

Facsimile: 703-997-5999

Chase_Hunter@yahoo.com

ACCEPTED

03-14-00737-CV

4881019

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/14/2015 1:17:48 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 RECEIVED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/14/2015 1:17:48 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
TO: THE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT

On April 14, 2015, Appellant filed with this Court a

petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the clerk

of the Travis County Texas District Court, Velva Price

(“Price”) because she has refused to provide the record

requested and required for this appeal pursuant to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(c)(1) and Texas

Gov’t Code Section 522 ET SEQ. Hunter filed her request

of Price with this court on April 6, 2015, and served

it upon Price via efile.

WHEREFORE, notifies this court of this other litigation

that affects this appeal. The record in this appeal is

not complete, Price knows it is not complete, and Price

has refused to perform required duties pursuant to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(c)(1) and Texas

Gov’t Code Section 522 et seq.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Chase Carmen Hunter

Chase Carmen Hunter

Appellant, pro se

340 S. Walnut Ave. #9039, Walnut, CA 91789

Tel: 707-706-3647, Fax: 703-997-5999

Email: Chase_Hunter@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATION

I, Chase Carmen Hunter, swear under penalty of perjury

that the foregoing statements are true and correct.

__________________ 4/14/2015

Chase Carmen Hunter

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the

foregoing was served upon the parties shown below as

indicated:

Cynthia A. Morales

Assistant Attorney General

By Efile on April 14, 2015

Cynthia.Morales@texasattorneygeneral.gov

Facsimile: (512) 477-2348

Chase Carmen Hunter
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 8145]

(U) Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Deputy Secretary of State, including by section 7086(b)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74, Div. I), as carried forward by the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, the Delegation of Authority in the President's Memorandum of July 21, 2010, and Department of State Delegation of Authority No. 245-1, I hereby determine and certify that the Palestinians have not, since the date of enactment of that Act, obtained in the UN or any specialized agency thereof the same standing as member states or full membership as a state outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians, and waive the provisions of section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, Public Law 100-204, Title X.

(U) This waiver shall be effective for a period of six months.

                    (U) This determination shall be reported to the Congress promptly and published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: October 8, 2012.

William J. Burns,

Deputy Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2013-00168 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-31-P