alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00493-CV

V. R., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

NO. C210010CPS, THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH WATKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

V.R. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order of termination following a bench 

trial.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence 

that statutory grounds for terminating his parental rights existed and that termination was in his 

child M.R.’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (M), (Q), (2).

On appeal, Father’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that his 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); 

Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental

rights). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of 

1 We refer to appellant by his initials or as Father and his child by the child’s initials. 

See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. The parental rights of the child’s mother 

also were terminated in the order of termination, but she has not appealed.
2

the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See

386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646–47. Father’s attorney has certified to this Court that 

he provided a copy of the Anders brief to Father and informed him of his right to examine the 

appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, Father has not filed a pro se brief.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the 

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on Father’s 

behalf, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. Our review included the 

trial court’s endangerment finding, see Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E), and we have found 

no issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to this finding, see In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 

237 (Tex. 2019). We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we 

affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

2

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Affirmed

Filed: October 18, 2022

2 We deny Father’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record. See In re P.M., 

520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). If Father, after consulting with counsel, desires to 

file a petition for review, his counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition

for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,955,642
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    126,514
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         345,306
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       216,387
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,643,849
<COMMON>                                        48,003
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      683,686
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            257,749
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 989,438
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           92,000
<PREFERRED>                                    123,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,160,223
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              75,941
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  50,500
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  100,667
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        2,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,050,080
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,643,849
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,628,503
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            68,276
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,332,827
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,401,103
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        227,400
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               (575)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 226,825
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       114,515
<NET-INCOME>                                   112,310
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     15,571
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   96,739
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        86,399
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,481
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         310,658
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

NO. WR-89,397-01

EX P ARTE BIL LY JOE T HOMP SON, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1358558-A IN CR IMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1

F ROM TARRA NT COUNTY

Per curiam

.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the

cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte

Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g rava ted sexual

assault of a child under 14 y ear s of ag e and inde cenc y with a child by

contac t and sentenc ed to 75
and 20 y ear s’ imprisonment, respec tively , to run conc urre ntly

.
On J anuar

y 4, 2019, the trial court made finding s of fac t and conclusi o n s o f l aw reje cting

Applicant’s alleg ations of ineffe ctive assistance o f co u n s el and false expert testimony

. T h e t r i a l

c o u r t d i d n o t h o l d a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t a d o p t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s p r o p o s e d2

f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w r e c o m m e n d i n g t h a t t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t b e d e n i e d

.

T h i s C o u r t h a s r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s m a d e b y a p p l i c a n t

.

W e a g r e e w i t h t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d a d o p t t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s f i n d i n g s a n d

c o n c l u s i o n s w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e p t i o n s : F i n d i n g s p a r a g r a p h 2 0 a n d C o n c l u s i o n s

p a r a g r a p h 1 6

. There fore
, based on the trial court’s finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as well

as this Court’s independent r eview of the re cord, w e deny

relief

.

I T I S S O O R D E R E D T H I S T H E 1 3 t h D A Y O F F E B R U A R Y , 2 0 1 9

.

Filed: F ebrua

ry 13, 2019 Do not publish
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: ____6-06-06____________________

Subject: Sunset Deferral Vote for Colors, non-synthetic under 205.605a 

Chair: Kevin O’Rell 

 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: _XXXXX_ 

Guidance Statement: ________ 

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation (including Recount of Vote):

Recommendation to Defer Colors, non-synthetic 205.605a. 

Moved: Julie Weisman Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

Yes – 11 

No – 1 

Abstain – 0 

Absent – 2 

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

Sunset Material Vote 

Response by the NOP:
National Organic Standards Board 

Handling Committee 

Final Recommendation for Colors, Non-synthetic 

April 20, 2006

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

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

food groups.” 

(a) Nonsynthetics allowed 

II. Committee Summary: 

There were many comments recommending the continued allowance of non-synthetic colors in 

organic handling. The federal register notice regarding Sunset Review asked the public to provide 

evidence and address concerns for any substance they believed should be discontinued. 

There was a comment addressing the concern that colors and flavors were added to the National 

List without a technical review by the NOSB. The Handling Committee requested and received a 

technical overview of food color additives on October 14, 2005. This technical review offered no 

information that would suggest that either non-synthetic colors or flavors are inconsistent with 

organic practices. 

There were numerous comments opposing the renewing the listing of non-synthetic colors. A few 

commenters requested that they be moved to 205.606, an action which cannot be taken as part 

of Sunset. Several commenters cited that non-synthetic colors had been placed on the National 

List without being petitioned and without the recommendation of the NOSB. The Board finds merit 

in this observation. Colors, non-synthetic requires a petition, a full TAP review before the Board 

can entertain a recommendation to renew. 

III. Board Recommendation 

The Board recommends deferring the vote on the following materials until a petition and full TAP 

review are received. The materials to be deferred are: 

Colors, nonsynthetic sources only 

NOSB vote: 

Moved: Julie Weisman Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

 Board vote: Yes – 11 No – 1 Abstain – 0 Absent - 2
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: ___November 30, 2007_____________________

Subject: __Agar-agar, Animal Enzymes, Calcium Sulfate and 

 Carageenan for re-listing on § 205.605a______________ 

Chair: ____Andrea Caroe_________________________________________ 

 (sign) 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: ___XXX_____ 

Guidance Statement: ________ 

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation (including Recount of Vote):

The Board Recommends the continuation of Agar-Agar, Animal Enzymes, Calcium Sulfate and 

Carageenan on the National List under section 205.605a Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances 

allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeld as “organic” or “made with organic 

(specified ingredients or food group(s)).” 

Motion: Julie Weisman Second: Joe Smillie 

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

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

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

Response by the NOP:

Updated 2/25/05 
National Organic Standards Board 

Final Recommendation for Sunset Review of Materials on § 

205.605a 

November 30, 2007 

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

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

ingredients or food groups.” 

(a) Nonsynthetics allowed 

II. Committee Summary: 

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

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

the continued use of these materials. One substance, agar-agar had been erroneously 

included in an earlier ANPR and numerous comments were elicited at that time 

supporting it’s continued use in handling. 

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

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

information contradicting the original TAP reviews which were the basis for the previous 

NOSB decisions to list these substances.

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

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

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

In the eight weeks prior to the Board meeting, numerous comments have been received 

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

opposing their continued use in organic handling. 

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

seconded.

III. Board Recommendation(s): 

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

published in the final rule: 

Agar-Agar 

Animal Enzymes 

Deleted: ¶
Calcium Sulfate

Carageenan 

Moved: Julie Weisman Second: Joe Smillie 

Yes: 15 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Sun Network Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, T. Joseph Coleman, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

         Dated:  May 20, 2003



                                        /s/ T. Joseph Coleman
                                        -----------------------
                                        T. Joseph Coleman
                                        Chief Executive Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-68,348-03

EX PARTE JUAN LIZCANO

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM CAUSE NO. W05-59563-S(A) IN THE 282 DISTRICT COURT

nd

DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam. ALCALA, J., filed a dissenting statement in which JOHNSON, J.,

joined. NEWELL, J., dissents.

O R D E R

This is an initial application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the

provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071.

1

In October 2007, a jury found applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder

committed on November 14, 2005. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant

Ex parte Lizcano, No. WR-63,348-01, was an application for a writ of

1

prohibition. We denied leave to file on September, 11, 2007. Ex parte Lizcano, No. WR63,348-02, was an application for a writ of mandamus. We denied leave to file on

October 5, 2011.
Lizcano - 2

to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set

applicant’s punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant’s conviction and sentence

on direct appeal. Lizcano v. State, No. AP-75,879 (Tex. Crim. App. May 5, 2010).

Applicant presents nine allegations in his application in which he challenges the

validity of his conviction and resulting sentence. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing.

The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that the relief

sought be denied.

This Court has reviewed the record with respect to the allegations made by applicant.

We agree with the trial judge’s recommendation and adopt the trial judge’s findings and

conclusions except for Findings and Conclusions nos. 78 through 82 and 261 through 269.

Based upon the trial court’s findings and conclusions and our own independent review, we

deny relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 15 DAY OF APRIL, 2015.

th

DO NOT PUBLISH
Subsidiary
    
    Registered in
    
    AcquiredA. M. Castle & Co. (Canada) Inc.
    
    Ontario
    
    July 31, 1990Advanced Fabricating Technology LLC.
    
    Delaware
    
    May 1, 2000Castle Metals de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
    
    Mexico
    
    February 27, 2004A. M. Castle & Co. (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    Singapore
    
    October 13, 2006Keystone Tube Company
    
    Delaware
    
    June 2, 1997Oliver Steel Company
    
    Delaware
    
    July 15, 1998Paramont Machine Company, LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    April 1, 1999Total Plastics, Inc.
    
    Michigan
    
    January 2, 1996Transtar Intermediate Holdings #2, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    September 5, 2006Transtar Metals Holdings
    
    Delaware
    
    September 5, 2006Transtar Inventory Corp.
    
    Delaware
    
    September 5, 2006Transtar Metals Corp.
    
    Delaware
    
    September 5, 2006Transtar Marine Corp.
    
    Delaware
    
    September 5, 2006A.M. Castle Metal Materials (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
    
    Pu Dong Province,
Peoples Republic of
China
    
    November 22, 2007Metals U.K. Group
    
    United Kingdom
    
    January 3, 2008
 70
d.tjr,s**a_ (^^£2'ap^ A/f), t*/-/3-D/)//j>5'CA APR 17 2015

M* ffk , L v__~- Abe'Acosta,Qerk >^/&JEdMM/A/$>*M &t77feQ,^71£ijjr

7&£ 5/tf£M7£fc& SmzoA/J Cai/jffirfo

$>£ ^as/kA DA AzA&jka? /fezA/k//jd6o MJk/jt

*6±y £&//

RECEIVED IN m

APR 15 2015

Ab®SAcosta,CI®rk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Celestino Rodriguez, Appellant.

—Motion by the defendant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this court dated May 21, 1990 *(People v Rodriguez,*161 AD2d 737), which determined an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered October 6, 1986, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Ordered that the motion is denied.

Upon reviewing the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, we find that the defendant’s appellate counsel satisfied the constitutional standard of effective assistance by capably presenting nonfrivolous issues for this court’s consideration *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745; *People v Purcell,*160 AD2d 900; *People v Settembre,*152 AD2d 681). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CARLOS D. WALKER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-848 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed August 22, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Christine Greider, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Carbajal v. State, 75 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2011); State v. King, 426 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1982); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Mosely v. State, 688 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Desmond v. State, 576 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Budd v. State, 477 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Foss v. State, 834 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); McMillan v. State, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

BLACK, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1217 

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to prohibit a State 

from registering an individual to vote in elections for Federal office 

held in the State unless the individual provides documentary proof that 

the individual is a citizen of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Mr. GIBBS (for himself, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. WEBER of Texas, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to 

prohibit a State from registering an individual to vote 

in elections for Federal office held in the State unless 

the individual provides documentary proof that the individual is a citizen of the United States. 

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 ‘‘Ensuring American 

5 Voters Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1217 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING REGISTRATION TO VOTE OF INDIVID2 UALS WHO FAIL TO PROVIDE PROOF OF 

3 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8 of the National Voter 

5 Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20507) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsection (j) as sub7 section (k); and 

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (i) the fol9 lowing new subsection: 

10 ‘‘(j) PROHIBITING REGISTRATION OF INDIVIDUALS

11 NOT PROVIDING PROOF OF UNITED STATES CITIZEN12 SHIP.— 

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

14 provision of this Act, a State may not register an in15 dividual to vote in elections for Federal office held 

16 in the State unless, at the time the individual ap17 plies to register to vote, the individual provides docu18 mentary proof that the individual is a citizen of the 

19 United States, which shall consist of any of the fol20 lowing (or a photocopy thereof): 

21 ‘‘(A) A certified birth certificate issued by 

22 a State or unit of local government in a State. 

23 ‘‘(B) A valid United States passport. 

24 ‘‘(C) A Consular Report of Birth Abroad 

25 issued by the Secretary of State. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1217 IH

1 ‘‘(D) A Naturalization Certificate or Cer2 tificate of Citizenship issued by the Secretary of 

3 Homeland Security. 

4 ‘‘(2) APPLICABILITY.—Paragraph (1) applies 

5 with respect to an individual who applies to register 

6 to vote under section 5, 6, or 7 (including an indi7 vidual who submits the mail voter registration appli8 cation form prescribed by the Election Assistance 

9 Commission pursuant to section 9), or who applies 

10 under any other method of voter registration avail11 able in the State.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to applications for 

14 voter registration which are submitted on or after the date 

15 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
TS-EUTM01

Attachment #5

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 2

Worker/Occupational Exposure Informatio n on the New Chemical Substance at

Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter – Manufacture and Processing
Exhibit 10.12
 A.M. CASTLE & CO.
 PERFORMANCE SHARE AWARD AGREEMENT
 A.M. CASTLE & CO.
2008 RESTRICTED STOCK, STOCK OPTION
AND EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN
 
 
 
 NUMBER OF PERFORMANCE SHARES:
    
    -0-
    
    (THRESHOLD AWARD)(TARGET AWARD)(MAXIMUM AWARD)
 
  Performance Vesting.
 Corporations PerformanceMeasures
    
    Weighting
    
    Threshold
    
    Target
    
    Max
  Delivery of Shares.




---



##### 



Employment Termination
 Transferability .
 Adjustments
 Withholding.
 Miscellaneous
 Disclaimer of Rights.
 Rights Unsecured.
 No Adjustment for Dividends.
 Offset.
 Terms of Plan.
 Amendment.
 2




---



##### 



Severability.
 Controlling Law.
 Code Section 409A Compliance.
 Definitions .
 Award 
 Board 
 Code 
 Committee 
 Common Stock 
 Grant Date 
 Maximum Award 
 Performance Period 
 Performance Share 
 Target Award 
 3




---



##### 



A. M. CASTLE & CO.By:Its:Grantee
 4