alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Kelly Spurlock, * From the 29th District

as legal representative for the Court of Palo Pinto County,

Estate of J.O. Spurlock, Trial Court No. C43924.

Vs. No. 11-12-00357-CV * January 29, 2015

Beacon Lloyds Insurance Company and * Opinion by Bailey, J.

Grantham-Adkins Insurance Agency, (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the orders below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the orders of the trial court are in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by 

reason of this appeal are taxed against Kelly Spurlock, as legal representative for 

the Estate of J.O. Spurlock.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 24, 2011 

d0516 

Order 

 

May 24, 2011 

142623 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142623 

 COA: 295432 

Wayne CC: 09-014229-FC 

TANISHA A. HOLLIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Merrill B. ANDERSON et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants and Cross-Respondents, v. CAPITOL THRIFT AND LOAN COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents, Mid Valley Investment, Defendant, Respondent and Cross-Appellant.

No. 14144.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 2, 1976.

Graham Dodd, Kirton, McConkie, Boyer & Boyle, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs, appellants and cross-respondents.

Robert D. Merrill, Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, Salt Lake City, for Capitol Thrift and Loan.

Ralph Mabey, Salt Lake City, for Mid Valley Investment.

*611HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a judgment unfavorable to Andersons in a suit involving a foreclosure sale scheduled and executed on January 16, 1975, against property owned but mortgaged by them, which they lost by default on their mortgage obligation. Affirmed with no costs awarded.

The sale went through, everyone seemed happy about it, save for a small item of removal of personal res mobiles, — which conflict was resolved *after*the sale, at which no one, including Andersons, created any waves, save by ex post facto assertions.

It appears that this appeal was prompted as an afterthought and because of a change of heart, after the plaintiffs rather unequivocally and effectively precluded their prayer for relief by a rather clear es-toppel in pais when they signed a document prepared by their own attorney on January 17, 1975, the day after the foreclosure sale, which they now attack as being chronologically and statutorily abortive, clearly said they might remain in possession of part of the property until January 31, with no rent to be charged, and in possession of the other part of the property until midnight of April 17, 1975, agreeing to pay $150 rental starting on January 18, 1975, “until date of move,” reserving the right to remove a greenhouse and consenting to leave the dishwasher.

This being simply a factual case up until that date, no legal complications raised by appellants need be indulged, — and the question of whether the purchaser at sheriff’s sale met his bid price the next day or not is moot, — most particularly by virtue of the fact that Andersons tried and failed to redeem the property on that very next same day — presumably to have been privileged legally to have done so while claiming here to deny the same privilege to a similar bidder, — respondent here.

ELLETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

MAUGHAN, J., concurs in the result.

CROCKETT, J., having disqualified himself, does not participate herein.
<PAGE>

                                                                         Page 26

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-96283 on Form S-8 pertaining to The Cato Corporation 1999 Incentive
Compensation Plan, in Registration Statement No. 33-41314 on Form S-8 pertaining
to The Cato Corporation 1987 Incentive Stock Option Plan, in Registration
Statement No. 33-41315 on Form S-8 pertaining to The Cato Corporation 1987
Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, and in Registration Statement Nos. 33-69844 and
333-96285 on Forms S-8 pertaining to The Cato Corporation 1993 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, of our report dated April 21, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of The Cato
Corporation included in and incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended February 1, 2003.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina

April 8, 2004
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00092-CR

Gustavo Nicholas FLORES-MANCHA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR7678

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 15, 2015

DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, appellant Gustavo Nicholas FloresMancha pleaded guilty to the offense of sexual assault. The trial court imposed sentence in 

accordance with the plea agreement and signed a certificate stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, 

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed 

a notice of appeal. The clerk’s record, which includes the plea bargain agreement and the trial 

court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). This court must 
04-15-00092-CR

dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been 

made part of the record.” Id. 

On February 24, 2015, this court gave appellant notice that the appeal would be dismissed 

unless an amended trial court certification showing he has the right to appeal was made part of the 

appellate record by March 26, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 

S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 

WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). No amended certification 

has been filed. We therefore dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

- 2 -
National Organic Standards Board

Handling Subcommittee Proposal

Ancillary Substances Permitted in Pectin

August 4, 2015

Ancillary substances are intentionally added to a formulated generic handling substance on the National 

List. These substances do not have a technical or functional effect in the finished product, and are not 

considered part of the manufacturing process that has already been reviewed by the NOSB. While some of 

these substances are removed or consumed in their processing, many may remain in the final product in 

tiny amounts.

Many public commenters for the first posting were concerned about a process for amending the ancillary 

substances included in this review between sunset periods. The Handling Subcommittee believes that this 

captures all of the functional classes in use for pectin products. Additional ancillaries that fall within one of 

the functional classes below do not need to be reviewed further to be used. Any new functional class of 

ancillaries however will have to be petitioned.

1. Identity of Ancillary Substances Permitted for use in Pectin

Functional class Substance name 

Stabilizers/standardizing 

agent.

Sugars (including dextrose)

Buffering agents Trisodium citrate and other salts

2. Identify any ancillary substances, or categories of substances prohibited for use in Pectin:

 None Known

3. Describe need for the ancillary substances, review of materials, discussion, and subcommittee vote.

Ancillary substances for pectin consist only of sugars to standardize the amount of pectin in a product, and 

buffering salts to stabilize the product.

Evaluation Criteria (provide narrative responding to each question, repeat as necessary for additional 

ancillary substances or groups)

1. Impact on Humans and Environment: Is there any evidence the substance(s) may be harmful to 

human health or the environment?

No

2. Essential & Availability: Is the substance necessary to the handling of the product because of

unavailability of wholly natural substitute products, or essential for the handling of an organic 

product?
The pectin from natural sources is not a consistent product as many variables will influence the 

concentration and pH of pectin extracted from fruit. Therefore the stabilizing sugars and salt are 

absolutely necessary to use in processing so that a consistent result is achieved with each batch.

3. Compatibility & Consistency: Is the substance’s use consistent and compatible with organic 

handling practices?

Yes.

Subcommittee Action & Vote:

Motion to approve the functional classes of ancillary substances in the chart above for use with Pectin.

Motion by: Zea Sonnabend 

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar

Yes: 7 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0 

Approved by Tom Chapman, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 4, 2015
# EUR-Lex - 12012M016 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12012M016

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE III: PROVISIONS ON THE INSTITUTIONS - Article 16 **

*
Official Journal C 326, 26/10/2012, p. 0024 - 0024 *

Article 16

1. The Council shall, jointly with the European Parliament, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall carry out policy-making and coordinating functions as laid down in the Treaties.

2. The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.

3. The Council shall act by a qualified majority except where the Treaties provide otherwise.

4. As from 1 November 2014, a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union.

A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.

The other arrangements governing the qualified majority are laid down in Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. The transitional provisions relating to the definition of the qualified majority which shall be applicable until 31 October 2014 and those which shall be applicable from 1 November 2014 to 31 March 2017 are laid down in the Protocol on transitional provisions.

6. The Council shall meet in different configurations, the list of which shall be adopted in accordance with Article 236 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The General Affairs Council shall ensure consistency in the work of the different Council configurations. It shall prepare and ensure the follow-up to meetings of the European Council, in liaison with the President of the European Council and the Commission.

The Foreign Affairs Council shall elaborate the Union's external action on the basis of strategic guidelines laid down by the European Council and ensure that the Union's action is consistent.

7. A Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States shall be responsible for preparing the work of the Council.

8. The Council shall meet in public when it deliberates and votes on a draft legislative act. To this end, each Council meeting shall be divided into two parts, dealing respectively with deliberations on Union legislative acts and non-legislative activities.

9. The Presidency of Council configurations, other than that of Foreign Affairs, shall be held by Member State representatives in the Council on the basis of equal rotation, in accordance with the conditions established in accordance with Article 236 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

--------------------------------------------------
H. R. 1449 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3033 203rd 

Street in Olympia Fields, Illinois, as the ‘‘Captain Robert L. Martin Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN ROBERT L. MARTIN POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 3033 203rd Street in Olympia Fields, Illinois, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Captain Robert L. Martin 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Captain Robert L. Martin Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          35,322
<SECURITIES>                                     3,621
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,050<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,789
<PP&E>                                          27,256<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,241
<BONDS>                                          7,389
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,824
<SALES>                                         66,546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,511
<CGS>                                           67,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  90
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,101)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,319)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,782)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
<FN>
<F1>THE ASSET VALUES FOR RECEIVABLES AND PP & E REPRESENT AMOUNTS NET OF
ALLOWANCES AND DEPRECIATION, RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Order filed December 12, 2013. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00823-CV

____________

THE VERTICAL TRADING GROUP, LLC, CURT KRAMER, AND

CARLOS ALBERTO MAYO, Appellants

V.

ZICIX CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-50613

O R D E R

On September 13, 2013, the three appellants named above filed notices 

of appeal from the trial court’s orders denying their special appearances. Curt 

Kramer and Carlos Alberto Mayo jointly filed their appellants’ brief on 

October 17, 2103. The Vertical Trading Group, LLC did not file a brief. On

October 31, 2013, counsel for The Vertical Trading Group, LLC filed a 
2

motion to withdraw, which this court granted. New counsel for The Vertical 

Trading Group, LLC filed an appearance on December 3, 2013. 

On December 5, 2013, The Vertical Trading Group, LLC filed a motion 

to dismiss its appeal from the order signed August 26, 2013, denying its special 

appearance. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. Appellants Curt Kramer and Carlos Alberto 

Mayo are appealing a separate order signed August 28, 2013, denying their special 

appearance. Therefore, this proceeding is severable without prejudice to the 

remaining parties. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(b). The motion is granted.

Accordingly, The Vertical Trading Group, LLC’s appeal is ordered 

DISMISSED. The Vertical Trading Group, LLC is ordered to pay all costs 

incurred by its appeal. The appeal filed by Curt Kramer and Carlos Alberto Mayo

remains pending before this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Wise.
Update on 

Produce Safety Activities

Leanne L. Skelton

on detail from USDA, AMS

Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition,

Office of Food Safety, Produce Safety Staff 

USDA, FVIAC Meeting, Alexandria, VA, September 13, 2010
Agenda / Topics

• Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011

• Engagement of Federal & State agencies

• Produce Safety Alliance

• Memorandum of Understanding between FDA & 

AMS relative to produce
Why is the FSMA law needed?

• Globalization

– 15 percent of U.S. food supply is imported

• Food supply more high-tech & complex

– More foods in the marketplace

– New hazards in foods not previously seen

• Shifting demographics

– Growing population (about 30%) of individuals are 

especially “at risk” for foodborne illness
Main Themes of the Legislation

Prevention

Inspections, Compliance, 

& Response

Import Safety

Enhanced Partnerships
Implementation: FDA is prepared

• Experience in preventive controls 

• Implementation process in place

• Much work already underway

But, many challenges

• Enormous workload 

• Tight deadlines 

• Changes won’t appear overnight 

• Resources
Priorities

• Prevention

– Mandatory preventive controls for facilities (FR 18 months)

– Produce safety standards (FR 24 months + comment period)

– Intentional contamination (FR 18 months)

• Inspection, Compliance, & Response 

– Administrative detention (IFR 120 days)

– Recall (Upon enactment)

– Suspension of registration (180 days)

• Imports

– Foreign supplier verification program (Guidance & FR 1 year)

– Accredited third-party certification program (FR 2 years)

– Mandatory certification for high risk foods (Upon enactment)
For more information on FSMA

• www.fda.gov

• www.foodsafety.gov

FDA Engagement with State Partners

• Planning for Workshop mid-March with State 

Partners

• Regulation Development Process

• Compliance & Enforcement Activities

– Current Activities State & Federal

– Input & Feedback on Implementation Strategy

– Education, Outreach & Training
Produce Safety Alliance

• Executive Committee

• Developing website March launch

• “Call for Participation” on Working 

Groups for curriculum 

development

– Working Groups to flesh-out 

curriculum for each topic

• Populate Steering Committee

• Educational Conference

– June 29-30

• Beta Test materials/methods
Memorandum of Understanding

Between FDA & AMS

“Concerning Information Sharing & Other Activities Related to 

the Auditing, Inspection, & Grading of Food Products”

Subtitle: Collaboration, Cooperation & Engagement Relative to Produce
Farming looks mighty easy 

when your plow is a pencil & 

you’re a thousand miles from the 

corn field.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

sweet
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00116-CV

Lee WEIR, Mike Weir and Al Weir,

Appellants

v.

Holt Texas, LTD. d/b/a Holt CatAppellee

HOLT TEXAS, LTD. d/b/a Holt Cat,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-00097

Honorable Gloria Saldaña, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2015

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

The clerk’s record was originally due on March 2, 2015. The trial court clerk filed a 

Notification of Late Record, stating the clerk’s record has not been filed because appellants have

failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and that 

appellants are not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. Accordingly, on March 13, 2015, this 

court ordered appellants to provide written proof to this court no later than March 23, 2015 that 

either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or 

(2) appellants are entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. Our order cautioned appellants 
04-15-00116-CV

that if they failed to file such written proof within the time provided, this appeal would be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). Appellants have not responded to 

our order.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 

PER CURIAM

- 2 -
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ULYSSES RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 69 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
| 1.     | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of A. M. Castle & Co. (the “Company”); 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:  | June 25, 2013 |   |   |   |
|   |   |   | /s/ Scott J. Dolan |
|   |   |   | Scott J. Dolan |
|   |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |