alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31(iii)

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, James E. Huston, certify that



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of Camco Financial Corporation; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                       
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 27, 2012 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ James E. Huston                                                   
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | James E. Huston, Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Laverra E. BURKS, Appellant, v. Richard C. BURKS, Appellee.

No. 2945.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

May 18, 1977.

Jacob H. Allmaras and Kenneth 0. Jarvi, Anchorage, for appellant.

William H. Fuld, Anchorage, for appellee.

Before BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice, RA-BINOWITZ, CONNOR and BURKE, Justices, and DIMOND, Justice Pro Tern.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, Laverra E. Burks, contends that the Superior Court erred in respect to the alimony and property awarded to her in its decree of divorce.

We have carefully reviewed the record in light of the arguments presented in the briefs and have concluded that the Superior Court did not err in either its award of alimony or in its division of the parties’ property. In *Schoning v. Schoning,*550 P.2d 373, 374 (Alaska 1976), we said in part:

> This court’s prior decisions have firmly established the rule that the superior court is vested with broad discretion in such matters as award of alimony and property division, and that we will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion absent clear evidence of an unjust property division.1

AFFIRMED.

1

. In support of the text we cited *Burrell v. Burrell,*537 P.2d 1, 4 (Alaska 1975).
# 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 FOUR

ASSOCIATION OF THE OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

ASSOCIATION OF THE OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

Article 202

(ex Article 186 TEC)

(ex Article 186 TEC)

Subject to the provisions relating to public health, public security or public policy, freedom of movement within Member States for workers from the countries and territories, and within the countries and territories for workers from Member States, shall be regulated by acts adopted in accordance with Article 203.

---
# \ot%-m ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA # 03-13-00701-CR OFFENSE: 38.04 Johnny Ferris aka Johnny Wayne 

### STYLE: Ferris v.Thestate ofTexas COUNTY: Tom Green COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 51st District Court DATE: 06/24/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: A-13-0162-SB



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Johnny Ferris aka JohnnyWayne STYLE: Ferris v. The State ofTexas CCA#: 

# lQ2t-/¥ ?*nsz Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# ^P^ DATE: N<?jesh'fi0l Jlj 2orf JUDGE: 

### CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
| 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   | /s/ Scott J. Dolan |
|   |   |   | Scott J. Dolan |
|   |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   | June 25, 2013 |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   | /s/ Scott F. Stephens |
|   |   |   | Scott F. Stephens |
|   |   |   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   | June 25, 2013 |
Exhibit 32(b)








CERTIFICATION
FURNISHED 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 on
Form 10-K of Progress Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December
31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Mark F. Mulhern, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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











/s/ Mark F.
Mulhern


Mark F.
Mulhern


Senior
Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer


March 2,
2009








This
certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
**Exhibit 32.2****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 Bowne & Co.,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, C. Cody Colquitt, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 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.     /s/ C. Cody Colquitt           C. Cody Colquitt *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*March 16, 2005
#### Judith L. Thrasher, Appellant, v Genesee County Civil Service Commission et al., Respondents.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme *1023Court properly dismissed the subject petition, which sought a judgment directing respondents to restore petitioner to her former position as Probation Officer or a judgment annulling the determination to terminate her employment as Child Care Social Worker. As a provisional employee, petitioner could be discharged from the position of Child Care Social Worker at any time without a statement of reasons or a hearing *(see, Matter of Preddice v Callanan,*69 NY2d 812; *Ranus v Blum,*96 AD2d 1144). An employee discharged from a provisional position is not entitled to reinstatement or back pay *(Matter of Preddice v Callanan, supra; Matter of Ruggeri v Hall,*101 AD2d 934). Further, once an employee has resigned voluntarily from a position in the classified civil service, there is no right to be reinstated to that position *(Matter of Doering v Hinrichs,*289 NY 29, 33; *Matter of McGill v D’Ambrose,*58 AD2d 604). Absent some statute or regulation to the contrary, an employee seeking reinstatement to the position from which she has resigned is deemed to be seeking an initial appointment, and the appointing authority has complete discretion whether to reinstate (or employ) the applicant *(Matter of Turel v Delaney,*287 NY 15; *Matter of McGill v D’Ambrose, supra).*Petitioner was neither transferred nor promoted within the meaning of statutory law or regulations *(see,*Civil Service Law §§ 61, 63; 4 NYCRR 4.5 [d]; *Matter of Engoren v County of Nassau,*163 AD2d 520, *lv denied*77 NY2d 805), and, thus, was not entitled to be restored to her former position as Probation Officer. Finally, to the extent that petitioner now seeks to challenge whether her initial resignation was voluntary, that challenge, raised more than four months after the effective date of the resignation, is time-barred *(see,*CPLR 217). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Wolf, Jr., J.—Article 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 21
  SUBSIDIARIES
    OF THE COMPANY
    Name of Subsidiary

OrganizationBowne & Co., Inc.

DelawareBowne Business Communications, Inc.

New YorkBowne Enterprise Solutions, LLC

New YorkBowne International de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoBowne International, LLC

DelawareBowne International, Ltd.

United KingdomBowne International, SAS

FranceBowne Japan & Co, Inc.

JapanBowne MBC, LLC

DelawareBowne of Atlanta, Inc.

GeorgiaBowne of Boston, Inc.

MassachusettsBowne of Canada, Ltd.

Ontario, CanadaBowne of Chicago, Inc.

DelawareBowne of Cleveland, Inc.

OhioBowne of Dallas Limited Partnership

DelawareBowne of Europe, B.V.

NetherlandsBowne of Los Angeles, Inc.

CaliforniaBowne of New York City, LLC

New YorkBowne of Phoenix, Inc.

ArizonaBowne of South Bend, Inc.

DelawareBowne Solutions, LLC

DelawareBowne Technology Enterprise, LLC

New York
# 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 FOUR

ASSOCIATION OF THE OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

ASSOCIATION OF THE OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

Article 203

(ex Article 187 TEC)

(ex Article 187 TEC)

The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, shall, on the basis of the experience acquired under the association of the countries and territories with the Union and of the principles set out in the Treaties, lay down provisions as regards the detailed rules and the procedure for the association of the countries and territories with the Union. Where the provisions in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament.

---
1517 WEST FRONT STREET SUITE 354 TYLER, TX 75702 TEL: 903-593-8471 FAX: 903-593-2193

Serving Anderson, Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Houston, Nacogdoches, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Smith, Trinity, Upshur, Van 

Zandt and Wood Counties

www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us

CHIEF JUSTICE

JAMES T. WORTHEN

JUSTICES

BRIAN HOYLE

GREG NEELEY

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

CLERK

CATHY S. LUSK

CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

MARGARET HUSSEY

April 7, 2015

Ms. Lois Rogers

District Clerk, Smith County

Courthouse, Suite 204

100 North Broadway Avenue

Tyler, TX 75702-7201

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 12-13-00345-CR, 12-13-00346-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 241-0592-13, 241-0593-13

Style: LaQuentin Washington

v.

The State of Texas

Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, enclosed herewith is the 

Mandate issued in the above causes. When the District or County Clerk has executed the 

Mandate in accordance with the opinion of this Court, the Clerk is requested to fill in the 

information below and to return the attached copy to this office.

Very truly yours,

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

CC: Mr. Clement Dunn (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mr. Michael J. West (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mandate executed on __8TH _ day of ____APRIL___________, 2015.

Brief explanation of action taken: ___SCANNED___________________________________

_____________________LINDA RHYMES_________________________District/County Clerk

FILE COPY

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 4/8/2015 2:14:00 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30703 Summary Calendar

__________________
PHILLIP WASCOM, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KENYON JACKSON, Sergeant; JOHN LOLLIS, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 93-CV-895 A M2

- - - - - - - - - - January 8, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenyon Jackson and John Lollis appeal the district court's order denying their summary-judgment motion which asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity from Phillip Wascom's state-law claim of negligence. According liberal construction to Wascom's complaint and subsequent filings, we conclude that Wascom has not raised a state-law claim supplemental to his civil rights claims. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying summary judgment on this claim.No. 95-30703 -2- The denial of summary judgment is AFFIRMED. This case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:The attached files are the following docket-related documents:
?  U.S. DOT/FAA -  Final rule; request for comments
LWk., ^!,033-O')62-

ppo-<*r ^o wowL u*r To; MEU"*^-rv*^ ^ ^^

-Ttzis *=&*• -merit Dwii^wO.T^**'^ Pir -rwesr .(wnw»

fee -ate iZ^ojeo. ^ * ^ns& ^ ^5^°*^ ^^

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR IS 2015

Abel Acosta,Clerk
•£?m&: of Ttx&& § !/° "^ couter

V^>. % OF (UiPU//OAo ApptAfcb

Sl^WAMtC (bOOT/UtTf) f OF "HrXAcS MOTIOM DISMISSED

cA\Atfw$ ayoi- cam* o^^ ^JSIZZ ~"

(OOLO Corner (SfepfWUUT (W)ZAi£Tt> , ^DpiLCA^r AjOO iHoue^ Tt-v^s

A.) THcr'^) pieces of imr c^u3 e?oFogcjane>orr ^wp^r aOo

-iv-ter r^e^b fb^-c^ Q^po^T with T-te toMryiet> OF Ttter

llOpbp^^roT THAT vUtrJLtT MM^EDU/ MAIUT/O lt> AppUO*<Or

-£>.) Tt) pv&dio^ ^ioo pjzoouur Au Ttter e>m-Tws iapittOc^cs iD^/oriTy tiW M^&r t^^XeBDuj dives wMnitoeio aoo

-Vfcz UMPfc*4£V6j2. Office iui^o Mfco rt^nfierp AT~

C/')-td peoQ^or Dotamt^ rs (( that Moy op nter• t^rt^
.UP" THc duWT Of tityvvi/jAt.. ^A^^vc/^'^5--^-^^>^C^>-/4

A«ppcMi=> Of- TfcEAS^

iMOp VUOIALIO U^fcT TD W/OI^&vVx yon THAT o*-> iU^^cirf 23

'2oi6 X yZ€cei\Aed a no-hco Wi. "Vke, ^ Dis>T72(cr ole/k

Of l^vrZVC^ CoYuoTy riX THAT 'T^r H^^A^c- Juofctj^p^ae^ r-dviewjed -Hoe^e. fwrno/o^ no c^ut^TioO A^O

|F I)J<crr\2MJLVZC>- To DO eo R>y THt<£> Oia|£T boma-f

[Jb^gV-eV, X A/OCTA.UO J^VlfeO UlCcr T2> IaJT^DJ^K yo^

tvvat -rvhe? davi^r or aeiivu/uA-o Appose* w\o al£&p*om

2^e^TTvvuu^ t^^^oit^-r tva^t th^ Co*m*t wiw> &/2/wr6^' &/*72^MUt\7>? 7^^H.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1310 

To amend the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 to include the rural 

development voucher program as a covered housing program, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 19, 2019 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas (for himself, Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH, Ms. GARCIA of 

Texas, and Mrs. WAGNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 to 

include the rural development voucher program as a covered housing program, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘VAWA Protections for 

5 Rural Women Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COVERED HOUSING PROGRAMS. 

7 Paragraph (3) of section 41411(a) of the Violence 

8 Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12491(a)(3)) is 

9 amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1310 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as sub4 paragraph (K); and 

5 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (I) the fol6 lowing new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(J) rural development housing voucher 

8 assistance provided by the Secretary of Agri9 culture pursuant to section 542 of the Housing 

10 Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490r), without regard 

11 to subsection (b) of such section, and applicable 

12 appropriation Acts; and’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
FEE TABLE – UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT (Effective 10/1/2019) 

NUTS

License 

Action Fee 

Service 

License 

Fee 

Inspection Fee 

Annual User Fees 

Licensed Capacities 

(in short tons) 

Annual fee for 

each 

warehouse

location with a 

CCC storage 

agreement 

Annual fee for 

each warehouse 

location without 

a CCC storage 

agreement 

$ 90 $40 $9.35 for each 

100 short tons of 

Peanuts 

MIN $ 190 

MAX $1900 

and 

$17 for each 

1,000 

hundredweight 

of other nuts 

MIN $ 190 

MAX $1900 

1 - 4,500 $ 275 $ 550 

4,501 - 7,500 450 900 

7,501 - 15,000 640 1,280 

15,001 - 22,500 820 1,640 

22,501 - 30,000 995 1,990 

30,001 - 36,000 1,165 2,330 

36,001 - 45,000 1,340 2,680 

45,001 - 60,000 1.515 3,030 

60,001 - 75,000 1,690 3,380 

75,001 - 150,000 1,860 3,720 

150,001 - 225,000 2,025 4,040 

225,001+ *2,195 **4,390 

* Plus $12 per 100 short tons above 225,000 short tons, 

or fraction thereof. 

** Plus $21 per 100 short tons above 225,000 short 

tons, or fraction thereof.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


                                                                     


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 27

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF BRUNO'S, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,888
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (517)
<INVENTORY>                                    180,274
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,921
<PP&E>                                         710,039
<DEPRECIATION>                                 332,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 622,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          195,530
<BONDS>                                        400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           255
<OTHER-SE>                                    (485,304)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   622,965
<SALES>                                      2,560,271
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,560,271
<CGS>                                        1,992,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,992,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               625,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              88,659
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (146,211)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,792
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (154,003)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (1,900)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (155,903)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (6.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (6.15)
        

</TABLE>
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CAMCO FINANCIAL CORPORATION
2002 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
  RECITALS
    AMENDMENT
  1.
    
    Section 1.8(iii) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the
following
  2.
    
    New Section 1.8(iv) is hereby added to the Plan as follows:
  3.
    
    Article XII of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end
thereof:Any adjustment pursuant to this Article XII shall be made in accordance with the
requirements of Section 409A of the Code, to the extent applicable.




---



##### 



CAMCO FINANCIAL CORPORATIONBy:Its:
 -2-
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW. Policy Memo 11-10

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2646-South Building

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250

PM 11-10 Certification of Grower Groups Rev02 10 31 11 Authorized Distribution: Public 

Page 1 of 1 

Policy Memorandum

To: Stakeholders and Interested Parties 

From: Miles McEvoy, Deputy Administrator 

Subject: Certification of Grower Groups 

Date: Original Issue Date – January 21, 2011 

Grower group certification refers to the certification of a group of producers whose farms are 

uniform in most ways, and who are organized under one management and marketing system. 

Grower group certifications have historically been used for the certification of cooperatives 

located in geographical proximity, whose crops are marketed collectively. Primary crops

produced by grower groups include coffee, cocoa, tea, spices, and tropical fruits. 

The National Organic Program (NOP) is drafting guidance regarding certification of grower 

groups and will be requesting public comment before publishing final guidance and possible 

regulation change. In the interim, accredited certifying agents should use the National Organic 

Standards Board (NOSB) recommendations of October 2002 and November 2008 as the current

policies. 

References: 

NOSB Recommendations 

October 20, 2002, “Criteria for Certification of Grower Groups”. 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Rec%20Criteria%20for%20Certification%

20of%20Grower%20Groups.pdf

November 19, 2008, “Certifying Operations with Multiple Production Units, Sites, and Facilities under 

the National Organic Program” 

 https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%20Final%20Rec%20Certifying%

20Operations%20with%20Multiple%20Sites.pdf

Document Control: 

This document supersedes “NOP and NOSB Collaboration on Grower Group 

Certifications” dated May 02, 2007, which is now obsolete.