alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

October 17, 2013

AMENDMENT NO. 2

SUPPLEMENT 704 TO THE AMS MASTER SOLICITATION

FOR THE PURCHASE OF CANNED MEAT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO FEDERAL 

FOOD AND NUTRITION PROGRAMS

This Amendment revises Section VIII.A., FAR Provisions. It removes the “Note” 

and clarifies the variation in quantity allowable on final purchase units.

Section VIII is revised to read as follows (changes in blue):

A. FAR Provisions

5. 52.252-3 Alterations in Solicitation (APR 1984)

52.211-16 Variation in Quantity (APR 1984)

(a) A variation in quantity of canned products under this contract will not 

be accepted unless the variation has been caused by conditions of loading, 

shipping, or packaging, or allowances in manufacturing processes, and only 

to the extent, if any, specified in paragraph (b), below.

(b) A variation of plus or minus 15 shipping containers of product shall 

be allowed only on the final shipment for each type on each purchase order.

This variation is permissible for canned beef, canned pork and canned chili 

products; no variation is permitted for canned beef stew or canned bison 

stew.

This increase or decrease shall apply to the total quantity on the final 

delivery unit without regard to destination. To receive consideration for the 

variation, the contractor must submit a written request to the Contracting 

Officer prior to the final shipment and submission of the invoice in WBSCM. 

The request should reference the affected sales order number, sales order 

item number, ship-to, purchase order number, and purchase order item 

number.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. This amendment is effective for 

solicitations issued on or after October 17, 2013.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for 

employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where 

applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income 

is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity 

conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form 

(PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to 

request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed 

complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov.

Agricultural Marketing 

Service

Commodity 

Procurement Staff

1400 Independence 

Ave., SW, 

Room 3522-S, 

STOP 0239

Washington, DC 

20250-0239

Voice 202.720.4517 

Fax 202.720.5871
(June 7, 1991)

#### In the Matter of Norman Nouskajian, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

—Respondent, a California attorney who was admitted to the practice of law on motion by this court in 1983, has tendered his resignation as an attorney and counselor-at-law in accordance with section 806.8 of this court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.8).

The impetus for respondent’s resignation is his recent conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on two counts of selling unregistered securities (15 USC § 77e [a] [1]). On March 19, 1991, respondent was sentenced to 30 months in prison on the first count. On the second count, imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on supervised probation for a period of five years consecutive to the sentence on the first count, with certain conditions, including performance of 1,200 hours of community service during the first three years of his probation. Respondent was also ordered to pay a $10,000 fine.

Respondent has submitted the resignation affidavit required by section 806.8 of this court’s rules *(see, e.g., Matter of Hoffman,*130 AD2d 839) and his application to resign is not opposed by petitioner, which had begun an investigation into his misconduct.

In view of the above circumstances, respondent’s resignation is accepted and he is disbarred, effective immediately.

*835Application to resign granted and resignation accepted; respondent ordered disbarred as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effective immediately. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
Clerk

Cathy S. Lusk

Chief Justice

James T.Worthen

Twelfth Court of Appeals

Justices

Brian Hoyle

Greg Neeley

April 7,2015

Ms. Karen Phillips

Smith County Clerk

200 East/Ferguson

Suite 300

Tyle/TX 75702

SLIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Case Number:

Trial Court Case Number:

Style: Connie Frazier

v.

Irineo Garcia

12-14-00308-CV

63,495-B

Chief Staff Attorney

Margaret Hussey

FILED IN COL RT OF APPEALS

12th Court "; Appeals District

2Gi5

CATHY S.'LUSK, CLEMC^

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

Mandate issued in the above cause. 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: MmIba. HoM

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

CC: Connie Frazier

,/lrineo Garcia

Mandate executed on u

Brief explanation of action take

\0. District/County Clerk

1517 West Front Street • Suite 354 • Tyler, TX75702 • Tel: 903-593-8471 • Fax:903-593-2193

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

Zandtand Wood Counties

www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LANDRY'S SEAFOOD HOUSE- )

FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-1223

)

FRANK DE LA GRANA, an individual, )

and SIMON CANASI, an individual, )

)

Appellees. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed September 23, 2020.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Paul L. Huey,

Judge.

John H. Pelzer of Greenspoon Marder

LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Murray B.

Silverstein, Brian R. Cummings, and 

Jacob L. Boehner of Greenspoon

Marder LLP, Tampa , for Appellant.

David M. Caldevilla of de la Parte &

Gilbert, P.A., Tampa, and Kenneth G.

Turkel, Shane B. Vogt, and Anthony

Severino of Bajo, Cuva, Cohen & Turkel,

P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
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 Quarterly  Report of Wireless  Telecom Group,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending  September 30, 2004 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Periodic
Report"),  I, Paul Genova,  Chief  Financial  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 Periodic  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 Periodic Report fairly  presents,  in
all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of operations of the
Company.



                                       /s/ Paul Genova
                                       ---------------
                                       Paul Genova
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       November 5, 2004









The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.
Opinion issued April 21, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00099-CV

———————————

KARIN ELIZABETH SIMS-LOWERY, Appellant

V.

DAMION ANTHONY LOWERY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2011-18283

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Karin Elizabeth Sims-Lowery, attempts to appeal from the trial 

court’s final decree of divorce signed on November 17, 2011. We dismiss the 

appeal.
2

Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is 

signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended 

to ninety days after the date the judgment is signed if, within twenty days after the 

judgment is signed, any party files a request for findings of fact and conclusions of 

law. Id.; see TEX. R. CIV. P. 296. The time to file a notice of appeal also may be 

extended if, within fifteen days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a 

party properly files a motion for extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. A 

motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in 

good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within 

the fifteen-day extension period provided by rule 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 

26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (Tex. 1997).

Here, the trial court signed the final judgment on November 17, 2011. 

Lowery timely filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law on 

December 6, 2011. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 296. Therefore, Lowery’s notice of appeal 

was due by February 15, 2012, or by March 1, 2012, with a fifteen-day extension. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(4), 26.3. Lowery, proceeding pro se, untimely filed her

notice of appeal on January 30, 2015.

1 Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this 

Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1.

 1 Lowery’s notice of appeal also states that she appeals from a judgment or order 

signed on July 26, 2012. The clerk’s record filed in this Court does not include a 

trial court judgment or order signed on July 26, 2012, This Court’s records 
3

On March 10, 2015, we notified Lowery that her appeal was subject to 

dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by March 24, 2015, she filed a written 

response showing how this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a). Lowery failed to file an adequate response.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.

 

indicate that the judgment or order signed on that date refers to this Court’s 

opinion and judgment issued on July 26, 2012. See In the Matter of Z.E.K.B.L. aka 

A.S.L., No. 01-11-01097-CV, 2012 WL 3060097 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

July 26, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for failure to pay fees or 

establish indigence).
No. 07-17-00026-CR

Victor Anthony Cruz

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County

August 1, 2017

Opinion by Chief Justice Quinn

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated August 1, 2017

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court is modified as set forth in the

opinion and affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have already been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82387-82388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25937]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which

[[Page 82388]]

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; NHLBI Contract Review.
    Date: December 13, 2023.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge I, 6705 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Michael P. Reilly, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge 
Drive, Room 208-Z, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-7975, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e694838f8a8a9f8b96a6888e8a848fc8888f8ec8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3745525e5b5b4e5a4777595f5b555e19595e5f19505841">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 20, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-25937 Filed 11-22-23; 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>
Edward A. Clouse and Helen 

R. 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 20, 2015

No. 04-14-00151-CV

Tanita F. KEHOE, Scott Kehoe, and Thomas David White, Jr.,

Appellants

v.

Edward A. CLOUSE and Helen R. Clouse,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-627-CCL

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason K. Pulliam, Justice

The court has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cornelius Gaines, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Viewing the evidence in this wholly circumstantial evidence case in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495; *People v Marin,*65 NY2d 741, 742), and "to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence” *(People v Vasquez,*131 AD2d 523; *see also, People v Riddick,*130 AD2d 780). The trial evidence established that entry into the burglarized dwellings was accomplished in each case by forced entry through windows and that the fingerprints found on or near the points of entry matched those of defendant. There was no indication that the fingerprints were placed there innocently *(see, People v Klein,*156 AD2d 385, *lv denied*75 NY2d 920, *cert denied*— US —, 112 L Ed 2d 86; *People v Riddick, supra).*The only explanation of the presence of defendant’s fingerprints under *1050such circumstances was that the prints were made by him in the process of gaining entry in order to burglarize the dwellings *(see, People v Vasquez, supra).*

We reject defendant’s argument that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender *(see, People v Gonzalez,*61 NY2d 586, 589). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Opinion issued August 22, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00917-CV

———————————

ZE RUN, NEW APARTMENT (USA) BUSINESS RESORT 

MANAGEMENT, LTD., HARMONY GROWTH CULTURE MEDIA (US) 

LLC, AND QING QING LI, Appellants

V.

JUNSHUO XU AND CNUS LINKING LTD., Appellees

On Appeal from the 129th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2019-42834

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Ze Run, New Apartment (USA) Business Resort Management, 

Ltd., Harmony Growth Culture Media (US) LLC, and Qing Qing Li, and appellees, 

Junshuo Xu and Cnus Linking Ltd., have filed a joint motion to reverse and render, 
2

stating that the parties have settled and to effectuate that settlement, the parties ask 

this Court to reverse and render a take-nothing judgment under Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A). 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A) (permitting appellate court to render judgment in 

accordance with settlement agreement). Because this Court lacks a copy of the 

settlement agreement, we construe the motion as requesting reversal and remand to 

the trial court.

Construing the parties’ joint motion as a joint motion to reverse and remand, 

we grant the motion. We reverse the trial court’s judgment of September 12, 2023 

and remand the cause to the trial court to render judgment in accordance with the 

parties’ settlement agreement. Any other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Rivas-Molloy.
# C_2016202EN.01035001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/350 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/350

---

39.   Declaration on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Declaration on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference takes note of the Commission's intention to continue to consult experts appointed by the Member States in the preparation of draft delegated acts in the financial services area, in accordance with its established practice.

---
Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: December 2, 2011

Subject: Petition to add Indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) to the National List §205.601

Chair: Tracy Miedema

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X

Guidance Statement 

Other 

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

The Board determined that the material is synthetic (Motion: John Foster, Seconded:

Colehour Bondera- No: 0, Yes: 14) and rejected the petition to add the material to 205.601

of the National List. (Motion John Foster, Second Tina Ellor- No 12, Yes 2). 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

The petition failed evaluation criteria 2 (essential) and criteria 3 (compatibility) and the 

environmental impacts may be greater than indicated raw depending on materials used, 

manufacturing process and method of use.

NOSB Vote:

Moved: John Foster Second: Tina Ellor

Yes: 2 No: 12 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0
#### City Streets Realty Corp. et al., Appellants-Respon*409dents, v Larry Resner et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Herbert Wetanson, Also Known as Herbert Wetson, Respondent.

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered September 27, 1989, which *inter alia*granted summary judgment to defendants dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, is unanimously affirmed, with costs payable to Resner by plaintiffs.

The record establishes that plaintiffs’ complaint was properly dismissed. Defendant Wetanson assigned his interest in certain real property to defendants Resner, who in turn sold the property to a third party. While plaintiffs admittedly loaned defendant Wetanson the funds with which Wetanson acquired his interest in the property, plaintiffs’ names never appeared on either the original contract of sale or the assignment. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ assertions that they in fact had an interest in the property must fail, as insufficient facts are alleged to satisfy the requirement of General Obligations Law § 5-703 (2) that a contract for the sale of an interest in real property be evidenced by a writing executed by the party to be charged. *(See, e.g., Weisner v Benenson,*275 App Div 324, *affd*300 NY 669.)

We also find that the Resners’ counterclaims for abuse of process, malicious prosecution and punitive damages were properly dismissed. There was no allegation of actual or special damages. Mere institution of a civil action is insufficient. *(See, Allen v Murray House Owners Corp.,*130 AD2d 356.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
# C_2016202EN.01035601.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/356 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/356

---

55.   Declaration by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Declaration by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Treaties apply to Gibraltar as a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. This shall not imply changes in the respective positions of the Member States concerned.

---