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

v.

RE: Case No. 15-0170

COA #: 12-14-00343-CV

CAROLE ANN WALLACE

BARBARA LOUISE HERNANDEZ

TC#

DATE

2014C-01

Today the Supreme Court of Texas denied 

petition for review in the above-referenced 

MS. CATHY S. LUSK

CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF 

1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 

TYLER, TX 75702
#### Dean Kocher et al., Respondents, v Roland Baird et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated at Supreme Court, Purple, J. We add only that we do not address issues raised for the first time on appeal by defendants. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Purple, J.—Partition and Sale.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
USDA United States Agricultural 1400 Independence Ave., SW. 

Department of Marketing Stop 0225, South Building 

Agriculture Service Washington, DC 20250-0231 

Action Plan on Proposed Amendments 

to the Pricing Provisions of all Federal Milk Marketing Orders 

June 1, 2023 

USDA received a formal proposal on May 2, 2023, to amend the pricing provisions of all eleven 

Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMOs). The proposal requests USDA consider amending five 

provisions related to increasing manufacturing (make) allowances, returning to the “higher of” as 

the mover for Class I milk prices, updating the milk composition factors, removing barrel cheese 

from the Class III price formula, and updating the Class I price surface. The proposal was 

submitted by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and its 25 cooperative members 

who represent approximately two-thirds of the 28,000 U.S. commercial dairy farmers. NMPF 

contends the dairy marketplace has changed substantially since the current FMMO pricing 

system was adopted in 2000, and pricing provisions should be updated to reflect current market 

conditions. 

Based on the information submitted, USDA is considering initiation of a rulemaking proceeding 

that would include a public hearing to collect evidence regarding proposed changes to pricing 

provisions effective in all eleven FMMOs. 

The following table outlines the initial timeframe of the formal rulemaking process, should the 

Secretary of Agriculture choose to proceed, to ensure the hearing concludes within 120 days of 

the publication of this Action Plan: 

Pre-Hearing Steps Anticipated Timeframe 

Additional Proposals Requested Additional proposals must be received by 5:00 p.m. (ET), 

Wednesday, June 14, 2023 

Virtual Pre-hearing Information 

Session 

Friday, June 16, 2023 – 10:00 a.m. (ET) 

Modified Proposals Due Tuesday, June 20, 2023 – 5:00 p.m. (ET) 

Hearing Notice Published in Federal 

Register 

Late July 2023 

Tentative Hearing Start Date August 23, 2023 

If issued, a Notice of Hearing detailing the date, time, and location of the hearing, and the 

proposals under consideration would be published in the Federal Register. The Notice of 

Hearing also would detail the deadline for all data requests of the Dairy Program to ensure the 

requested data is available at the start of the hearing. 

A copy of the submitted proposal can be found on the Dairy Program’s website: 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/dairy/petitions 

Contact Person: Erin Taylor, (202) 720-7311, Erin.Taylor@usda.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1492 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1492

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
   To update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage available for 
            inclusion in, the Yucca House National Monument.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Yucca House National Monument 
Expansion Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
    In this Act:
        (1) National monument.--The term ``National Monument'' means 
    the Yucca House National Monument in Cortez, Colorado, established 
    by Presidential Proclamation 1549.
        (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Yucca House 
    National Monument Proposed Boundary Addition'', numbered 318/
    105,085A, and dated February 27, 2019.
        (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
    the Interior.
SEC. 3. YUCCA HOUSE NATIONAL MONUMENT LAND ACQUISITION.
    (a) Acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire by donation the 
approximately 160 acres of land and any interests in the land that is 
identified on the map.
    (b) Boundary.--On the acquisition of the land authorized under 
subsection (a), the Secretary shall adjust the boundaries of the 
National Monument to include the acquired land.
    (c) Administration.--The land and any interests in land acquired 
under subsection (a) shall be administered as part of the National 
Monument.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
§ 

MARISSA ANN GONZALES § 

Appellee § AUSTIN, TEXAS 

APPELLEE'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL APPELLEE'S BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

COMES NOW Appellee Marissa Ann Gonzales, and files her Unopposed 

Motion to Seal Appellee's Brief and respectfully shows the Court as follows: 

I. 

MOTION FOR A COPY OF THE RECORD 

By order dated September 15, 2011, the trial court ordered the clerk's record 

and reporter's record in this case to be sealed. In order to obtain a copy of the 

clerk's record and the reporter's record, Appellee was required to file a motion 

with this Court. On February 6, 2015, Appellee filed her Unopposed Motion to 

Obtain a Copy of the Record. 

By letter dated February 9, 2015, the Court of Appeals ordered that 

Appellee's motion was granted in part. As requested, the Clerk was ordered to 

provide a copy of the record to Appellee. However, regarding Appellee's request 

to "cite to and/or include portions of the clerk's record and reporter's record in 

Page 1 
Appellee's Brief and in the Appendix" the Court granted Appellee's request 

subject to Appellee's preservation of the confidentiality contemplated by the 

sealing order and Rule 9.2(c)(3) ofthe Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Appellee's Brief cites to, quotes from and contains information and records 

in its Appendix that are sensitive and confidential as contemplated by the sealing 

order. Therefore, in compliance with the Court's letter dated February 9, 2015 and 

in order to preserve the trial court's sealing order dated September 15, 2011, 

Appellee respectfully requests that the Court order Appellee's Brief be sealed. 

Appellee's Brief is due on Friday, April17, 2015. 

II. 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 

For the reasons discussed above, Appellee Marissa Ann Gonzales 

respectfully requests that the Court grant her Motion to Seal Appellee's Brief and 

order that Appellee's Brief be sealed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SAVRICK, SCHUMANN, JOHNSON, MCGARR, 

KAMINSKI & SHIRLEY, LLP 

ilson Shirley II 

e Bar No. 00795647 

Jessica Marcoux Hall 

State Bar No. 24046348 

The Overlook at Gaines Ranch 

4330 Gaines Ranch Loop, Suite 150 

Page2 
Austin, Texas 78735 

512-347-1604 

512-347-1676 Facsimile 

Email: 

Email: 

wilson@ssjmlaw.com 

jessica@ssjmlaw.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

I certify that I conferred with Thomas Cowart, counsel for Appellants, by 

email on April 16, 2015, and he indicated he does not oppose the relief requested 

in this motion. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a true and correct copy of this Motion for Substitution of 

Counsel has been served on the following via the Efile system on this 16th day of 

April, 2015: 

Thomas B. Cowart, Via email: tom@tcowart. com 

W ASOFF & COWART, PLLC 

100 North Central Expressway, Suite 901 

Richardson, Texas 75080 

Page 3
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00176]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel, Chemosensory 
Fellowships Review Meeting.
    Date: February 22, 2013.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Blvd., 
Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Kausik Ray, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 
National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-402-3587, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ceefde5f7dcf2f5f8fff8b2f2f5f4b2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9bba8b0a289a7a0adaaade7a7a0a1e7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders Special, Emphasis Panel, NIDCD P30 Review 
Meeting.
    Date: March 8, 2013.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Kausik Ray, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 
National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-402-3587, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eb998a9280ab85828f888fc5858283c58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f5d4e56446f41464b4c4b0141464701484059">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: January 3, 2013.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-00176 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>          1000

<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>          DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                         367
<SECURITIES>                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                  302
<ALLOWANCES>                   100
<INVENTORY>                    622
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1258
<PP&E>                        3818
<DEPRECIATION>                3639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         3382
<BONDS>                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      0
<COMMON>                      1108
<OTHER-SE>                   (6715)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1474
<SALES>                       3402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              3402
<CGS>                         1422
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             173
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (662)
<INCOME-TAX>                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (662)
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                758
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                    96
<EPS-BASIC>                 0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.01


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION2 

FEB 2 8 2011 

Honorable Luis Fortufio Burset 

Governor of Puerto Rico 

BMB 110202 

Calle San Gustos 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901-1711 

Dear Governor F ortuiio Burset: 

290 BROADWAY 

NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866 

On June 3, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the healthbased National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (S02) by establishing 

a new 1-hour standard at a level of75 parts per billion (ppb). This new 1-hour standard will 

protect public health by reducing people's exposure to high short-term (5-minutes to 24-hours) 

concentrations ofS02. An area meets the new standard when the 3-year average of the 99th 

percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb. 

Section 1 07(d)(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) describes the process EPA follows for 

designating areas as meeting or not meeting a new or revised NAAQS. Within one year of 

establishing a new or revised standard, each governor must recommend a designation of 

attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable, with appropriate boundaries, for areas within their 

jurisdiction. Therefore, we ask that your state provide designation recommendations, including 

appropriate area boundaries, for all areas by June 3, 2011, with respect to the 1-hour S02 

NAAQS. 

The enclosed memorandum provides guidance to state and local air pollution control 

agencies and tribes on the timeline and process for designating areas under the revised S02 

standard. We plan to announce our intended designations no later than 120 days prior to 

promulgating final designations. Follov.ring the annmmcement of intended designations, states 

and tribes will have the opportunity to comment on any modifications EPA proposes to their 

recommendations. EPA intends to complete designations by no later than June 3, 2012. 

Establishing area designations is a key step in the process of providing the health 

protection intended by the CAA. Should you have questions regarding this matter, please do not 

hesitate to contact me or have your staff contact Raymond Werner, Chief Air Programs Branch, 

at 212-637-3706. 

Sincerely, 

Judith A. Enck 

Regional Administrator 

lntemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • PTtnted wlh Vegetable 01 Based Inks on R&eycled P ape!" (M.,O!um 30% Postconsumer) 
Enclosure 

Cc: Mr. Pedro Nieves Miranda. President 

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Plant Variety Protection - 25 Certificates Issued on Feburary 16, 2022

APPLICATION 

NUMBER

VARIETY NAME CROP APPLICANT / OWNER *CERTIFIED 

SEED ONLY?

202100043 Lacross PEA DL Seeds Inc. Yes

202100046 WMJ63 APPLE Willashben Pty Ltd No

202100049 SV7401QH PEA, GARDEN Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. No

202100133 16R042 COTTON Monsanto Technology, LLC No

202100138 20R010 COTTON Monsanto Technology, LLC No

202100139 20R045 COTTON Monsanto Technology, LLC No

202100140 20R027 COTTON Monsanto Technology, LLC No

202100141 20R035 COTTON Monsanto Technology, LLC No

202100142 20R032 COTTON Monsanto Technology, LLC No

202100143 20R033 COTTON Monsanto Technology, LLC No

202100144 20R013 COTTON Monsanto Technology, LLC No

202100145 20R030 COTTON Monsanto Technology, LLC No

202100150 OCALA GARDEN BEAN Crites Seed, Inc. No

202100187 Y2033307 FIELD BEAN Archer-Daniels-Midland Company No

202100207 May 455 COTTON MAY-AGRO Tohumculuk San. Ve Tic. A.S. Yes

202100208 May 505 COTTON MAY-AGRO Tohumculuk San. Ve Tic. A.S. Yes

202100210 11PNQF08 COTTON Phytogen Seed Company, LLC. No

202100211 11PVVV09 COTTON Phytogen Seed Company, LLC. No

202100216 Bullet TOMATO Marion Todd No

202100220 FDR9Q150298 TOMATO Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. No

202100221 LONGBOAT TOMATO Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. No

202100225 Gleam FIELD BEAN Archer-Daniels-Midland Company No

202100232 AAC Chrome PEA, FIELD Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada No

202100342 AAC Asher PEA Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada No

202100343 Stellar 4GL RYEGRASS Peak Plant Genetics, LLC & Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey No

* Certified seed - seed which has been determined by an official seed certifying agency to conform to standards of genetic purity and identity as to variety, 

which standards have been approved by the Secretary.

USDA, AMS, Science and Technology, Plant Variety Protection Office (202) 260-8983 Page 1 of 1
(June 20, 1991)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Jahelka, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered November 28, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of two counts of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him as a predicate felon to concurrent terms of imprisonment of from 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

In this prosecution for burglary, a photograph showing the window through which defendant entered the premises, which also depicted a window gate which had been enlarged following the commission of the crime, was properly admitted into evidence. Although the photograph was not an exact depiction of the gate on the night of the crime, insofar as additional fencing was added by the time that the photograph was taken, this difference was properly explained and was not prejudicial *(see, Saporito v City of New York,*14 NY2d 474).

The trial court properly balanced the probative value of defendant’s prior convictions for burglary and criminal mischief against the risk of undue prejudice *(People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371). We find no abuse of discretion in permitting inquiry into the convictions, without inquiry into the underlying facts. The mere fact that defendant specializes in a certain type of crime does not insulate him from impeachment *(see, People v Rahman,*62 AD2d 968, *affd*46 NY2d 882). The present juxtaposition of theft related crimes did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Perez,*166 AD2d 166, *lv denied*76 NY2d 989).

Finally, we find no error in the prosecutor’s rhetorical *489comment on summation that defendant’s theory of the case was tantamount to a “fairy tale” *(see, People v Stokes,*165 AD2d 763, *lv denied*76 NY2d 991). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
# C_2016202EN.01011901.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/119 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/119

---

Article 163

(ex Article 147 TEC)

(ex Article 147 TEC)

The Fund shall be administered by the Commission.

The Commission shall be assisted in this task by a Committee presided over by a Member of the Commission and composed of representatives of governments, trade unions and employers' organisations.

---
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-235-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 08-08-00135-CVK, styled Tracey W. Murphy v. Hugh Green,

et al., pending in the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas, the Honorable Donna S. Rayes presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00064-CV

IN RE Tracey W. MURPHY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 25, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On February 2, 2009, relator Tracey W. Murphy filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his “Motion to Compel Sheriff [or] Constable to

Serve Process and Return All Defendant’s Citations.” To obtain a writ of mandamus compelling the

trial court to consider and rule on a motion, a relator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal

duty to perform a non-discretionary act; (2) was asked to perform the act; and (3) failed or refused

to do so. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding).

When a properly filed motion is pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and

ruling upon that motion is ministerial, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act. See
04-09-00064-CV

-2-

Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig.

proceeding). However, mandamus will not issue unless the record shows that a properly filed

motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. See id. It is relator’s burden

to provide this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827

S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a). 

The record before us fails to establish relator is entitled to the relief requested. Although

relator alleges he filed his motion on November 19, 2008, relator has not provided this court with

a file stamped copy of the motion, a copy of the trial court’s docket, or any other proof that he filed

the motion and that it is pending before the trial court. In addition, if a motion is properly filed, a

trial court has a reasonable time within which to perform its ministerial duty. See Safety-Kleen, 945

S.W.2d at 269. Even if relator’s motion was properly filed, the record does not show that relator’s

motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. 

Accordingly, because relator has not met his burden of providing a record establishing that

a motion was properly filed and has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time, he has

not provided this court with grounds to usurp the trial court’s inherent authority to control its own

docket. See In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM