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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSA CENICEROS

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 080

- C R

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 3

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20130C07236 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the b rief until October 10

, 201 8

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE APPELLANT ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Veronica Teresa Lerma

, the Appellant ’ s attorney,

prepare the Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before October 10 , 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 th day of September

. , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### State v. Jhun

22477

01/09/2001

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000854663
<NAME> RMI TITANIUM
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          30,211
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,064
<INVENTORY>                                    120,732
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,555
<PP&E>                                         148,193
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,159
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 291,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,731
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           210
<OTHER-SE>                                     220,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   291,309
<SALES>                                        318,530
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               318,530
<CGS>                                          245,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  261,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,246)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   240
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 57,317
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,768)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             60,085
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    60,085
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.92
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements for the quarterly period ending June 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,406
<SECURITIES>                                        12
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,859
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,067
<INVENTORY>                                        384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,011
<PP&E>                                           3,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,765
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,586
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,483
<SALES>                                          9,645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,645
<CGS>                                            8,615
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,274
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,285
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,068
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,068
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,068
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39


</TABLE>
1Rule 10 Court of Appeals - (a) Affirmance Without Opinion. The Court, with the

concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by

order without rendering a formal opinion when an opinion would have no precedential value and

one or more of the following circumstances exist and are dispositive of the appeal:

(1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary implication by the

FILED

Feb. 4, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, WESTERN SECTION

AT JACKSON

_______________________________________________________

)

BRADLEY MARK BUTLER, ) Chester County Chancery Court

) No. 8796

 Plaintiff/Appellee. )

)

VS. ) C. A. NO. 02A01-9608-CH-00188

)

PRINCE E. SPRADLIN and wife, )

SYLVIA S. SPRADLIN, )

)

 Defendants/Appellants. )

)

_____________________________________________________________________________

OPINION AND ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________________

The purpose of this litigation was to establish the boundary line between property

owned by the Plaintiff, Bradley Mark Butler, and the defendants, Prince E. Spradlin and Sylvia S.

Spradlin. Each party presented several witnesses and exhibits including the testimony of their

respective surveyors. Upon completion of the evidence, the chancellor made findings of fact

including a finding that the plaintiff had established his title by a clear preponderance of the

evidence. The court accepted the survey of Eddie Coleman, the surveyor who testified in behalf of

the plaintiff, and established the property line according to the Coleman survey.

Our review of this matter is de novo on the record, with a presumption that the trial

court’s findings of fact are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Rule 13(d)

T.R.A.P. The trial court, having had the opportunity to see and observe the witnesses, is accorded

deference in determining their credibility.

Having reviewed this record in its entirety, we do not find the evidence to

preponderate against the trial court’s finding and therefore affirm in accordance with Rule

10(a)(1)(3)1 of the Court of Appeals. Costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellants, for which
trial court.

. . . .

(3) no reversible error of law appears.

execution may issue if necessary.

_______________________________

FARMER, J.

______________________________

CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S. (Concurs)

______________________________

LILLARD, J. (Concurs)
p130047.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0047 Focus Ready Draft 11/19/2012 ENGINEER: Choudhary \ JAS PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER: USE:

OTHER USES:

Page 1p130047.eng

SAT (concerns) (11/06/2012): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox Related Cases: Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P2B3T2 Linear: P1B2T2 // Branched: P2B3T2. Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb.) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

Page 2p130047.eng

Page 3p130047.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0047

Page 4p130047.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0047

Page 5p130047.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0047

Page 6p130047.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0047

Page 7p130047.eng

Page 8p130047.eng

Page 9
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Draft Guidance Documents for

Comment

Last Modified: 

Print

The following list contains drafts of proposed guidance documents.

In an effort to get fair and balanced input from the veterinary biologics industry prior

to finalizing guidance documents, the Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) posts

selected draft guidance documents for a 3-week comment period. See CVB Notice 5-

16.

How To Submit Comments

If you wish to have your comments on any of the draft documents listed below

considered by the CVB, use the following procedure:

1. Submit comments by email addressed to cvb@usda.gov.

2. Format the subject line of the email to read "Comments on draft notice/memo

[insert ID number]."

3. Submit comments by 12:00 p.m. (central time) on the due date indicated for

each document.
4. The CVB will acknowledge receipt of the comments by return email. Responses

to email comments will not be provided.

For past documents, view VS 800 Series Memoranda and CVB Notices—Historical

Summary of Proposed Documents (February 1, 2024).

Documents Open for Comment

CVB Notices

There are no documents for comment at this time.

Veterinary Services Memoranda

Title ID Due Date

Veterinary Services Memorandum 800.121:

Autologous Therapeutic Biologics

DT

106580

March 21, 2024

Extended to April

22, 2024

Other Documents

There are no documents for comment at this time.

Related Links

Commenting Opportunities: Animal Health

APHIS: All Federal Register Posts
#### Clyde Boyde GIFFORD, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 17425.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1963.

Clyde Boyde Gifford, pro se.

F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court dismissed on motion of appellee.
# C_2018319EN.01001301.xml

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2018 — IO, other party: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

(Case C-420/18)

(2018/C 319/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: IO

Other party: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

Question referred

Does a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation, who is in a subordinate position in regard to that Board for his employment and remuneration conditions, but who is otherwise not in a subordinate position in regard to the Supervisory Board or the foundation, carry out his economic activities independently within the meaning of Article 9 and Article 10 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 26 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
#### Winter & Giordano Landscape Contracting Corp., Respondent, *v.*Frank Colaizzo et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

January 20, 1959.

*Joseph Ettinger*for appellants.

*George H. Hamilton*and *A. E. Nowack*for respondent.

*451
      *Per Curiam.*

While it is true that defendants in their answer should have denied the allegation of due performance with particularity, as required by rule 92 of the Rules of Civil Practice, it is also true that plaintiff could not plead a cause of action founded on due performance and recover a judgment on the theory of defendants’ waiver of performance. *(Gorman*v. *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*158 App. Div. 682; *Martens*v. *General Foods Corp.,*276 App. Div. 1053.) In the interests of justice there should be a new trial, after the parties have amended their pleadings.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs of this appeal to the defendants to abide the event. It is intended hereby that the entire case inclusive of the complaint and the counterclaim be retried.

Concur — Pette, Di G-iovanna and Brown, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Xstream Beverage Network, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Theodore
Farnsworth, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer and
principal financial and accounting officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


                                       /s/ Theodore Farnsworth
                                       -----------------------
                                       Theodore Farnsworth
                                       Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,
                                       President, principal executive officer
                                       and principal financial and accounting
                                       officer
April 17, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### State v. Mars

27977

02/06/2008

Denied

116 Hawai'i 125, 170 P.3d 861
June 25, 2004

25083

#### Abordo v. State

Affirmed
Exhibit 11

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                                                                         |  |                              |          
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- | ---------
|                                                                                         |  | Year Ended December 31, 2006
|Income available to common stockholders                                                  |  | $                            | 6,541,867
|Weighted average shares outstanding                                                      |  |                              | 4,975,542
|Basic earnings per share                                                                 |  | $                            | 1.31     
|Income for diluted earnings per share                                                    |  | $                            | 6,541,867
|Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding for diluted computation |  |                              | 4,980,708
|Diluted earnings per share                                                               |  | $                            | 1.31
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

November 21, 1997

19689

#### Doe v. Doe

Vacated
### Fw: Re: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172 Susan Stone

to: crabtree.tricia 03/11/2010 08:04 PM Show Details

For the docket.

Susan Lyon Stone Ambient Standards Group l US EPA (C504-06 ) l Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-1146 l Fax: 919-541-0237 l HSD Phone 919-966-6226

-----Forwarded by Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/11/2010 08:03PM -----

To: <Susie.McKithan@ bakerbotts.com> From: Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US Date: 03/11/2010 08:03PM Subject: Re: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172

Dear Ms. McKithan:

We have received several requests for an extension of the public co mment period. We are considering these requests. As soon as a decisi on is made I will let you know.

Sincerely,

Susan Stone

Susan Lyon Stone Ambient Standards Group l US EPA (C504-06) l Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-1146 l Fax: 919-541-0237 l HSD Phone 919-966-6226

-----<Susie.McKithan@bake rbotts.com> wrote: -----

To: Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA From: <Susie.McKithan@bakerbotts.com> Date: 03/11/2010 06:46PM Subject: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172

<<TIP Request for Extension.pdf>>

Susie McKithan Senior Paralegal Baker Botts L.L.P. & 910 Louisiana Street Houston Texas 77002-4995 Phone: 713-229-2047 Fax: 713-229-7947 Mobile: 832-373-8094

[attachment "TIP Request for Extension.pd f" removed by Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US] 

## Page 1 of 1

3/18/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\tcrabtre\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web1218.h

...
Chapter 2.4.4. – Infection with Marteilia refringens

Annex 38. Item 6.9. – Article 10.11.2. of Chapter 10.11. ‘Infection with tilapia lake virus’

CHAPTER 10.11.

INFECTION WITH TILAPIA LAKE VIRUS

[...]

Article 10.11.2.

Scope

The recommendations in this chapter apply to the following species that meet the criteria for listing as susceptible in accordance with Chapter 1.5.:  ~~[blue-Nile tilapia hybrid (*Oreochromis aureus* x *Oreochromis niloticus*), mango tilapia (*Sarotherodon galilaeus*), Mozambique tilapia (*Oreochromis mossambicus*), Nile tilapia (*Oreochromis niloticus*) and red hybrid tilapia (*Oreochromis niloticus* x *Oreochromis mossambicus*)blue tilapia (*Oreochromis aureus*), Malaysian red hybrid tilapia (*Oreochromis niloticus* x *Oreochromis mossambicus*), Mango tilapia (*Sarotherodon galilaeus*), Mozambique tilapia (*Oreochromis mossambicus*), Nile tilapia (*Oreochromis niloticus*), redbelly tilapia (*Tilapia zilli*), tinfoil barb (*Barbonymus schwanenfeldii*), Tvarnun simon (*Tristramella simonis*) and blue-nile tilapia hybrid (*Oreochromis niloticus* X *Oreochromis aureus*)] (under study)~~.

[...]

____________

WOAH *Aquatic Manual* 2025	8
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

773 

KA 11-00975 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JASON M. MEDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J.

Murphy, III, J.), rendered April 12, 2011. The judgment revoked

defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of

imprisonment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as

modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to

Niagara County Court for resentencing in accordance with the following

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence

of probation previously imposed and convicting him of violating the

terms and conditions of his probation. He was sentenced to a

determinate term of incarceration of three years, to be followed by

three years of postrelease supervision. We reject defendant’s

challenge to the severity of the sentence, but we conclude that the

sentence imposed is illegal and cannot stand despite the failure of

either defendant or the People to raise the issue in County Court or

on appeal (see People v Davis, 37 AD3d 1179, 1180, lv denied 8 NY3d

983). Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the second

degree, a class E felony and, although he was convicted of rape in the

second degree in 2007, there is no indication in the record that he

was adjudicated a second felony offender. Defendant therefore faced

an indeterminate term of incarceration ranging from a minimum of 1 to

3 years to a maximum of 1a to 4 years (see Penal Law § 70.00 [2] [e];

[3] [b]). However, the court erroneously imposed a sentence of a

determinate term of three years. The certificate of conviction

correctly reflects that defendant was convicted of attempted assault

in the second degree but it also reflects the illegal sentence. We

therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed, and we 
-2- 773 

KA 11-00975 

remit the matter to County Court for resentencing. 

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### STATE of Utah, In the Interest of Nathan David MORGAN, a person under 18 years of age, Nathan David Morgan, Appellant.

No. 13542.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. 17, 1974.

David B. Havas, Ogden, for Nathan David Morgan.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., M. Reid Russell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for State of Utah.

CALLISTER, Chief Justice:

Juvenile Morgan was issued a traffic citation for exceeding the speed limit. His parent was notified of a hearing in the Juvenile Court for this traffic violation. Legal counsel representing the minor invoked the statutory procedure provided in Section 77-45-13, U.C.A.1953, to secure the attendance of an out of state witness, namely, Eugene Begay of Arizona, who allegedly was present in the vehicle and observed the speedometer at the time of the alleged violation. Defense counsel further sought the State to pay the travel expenses of the witness to and from Arizona. The Juvenile Court issued the certificate for the attendance of the witness but denied the authorization of payment of the fees by the State. Juvenile Morgan appeals therefrom and urges that under Section 77-45-14, U.C.A. 1953, the State must pay the witness his per diem and mileage fees.

Section 77-45-14, U.C.A.1953, upon which Morgan relies concerns by its specific provisions, the tender and payment of fees “to obtain the attendance of a *witness for the prosecution.”*(Emphasis added.) Furthermore, Sections 77-45-13 and 14, U.C.A.1953, are confined to criminal prosecutions in a court of record. Although the Juvenile Court is a court of record, the legislature has provided a separate procedural structure for cases involving violation of motor vehicle laws.1 When the Juvenile Court adjudicates a violation of a traffic law, its function is analogous to a city court, which has been held to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Juvenile Court.2 The provisions of Sections 77-45-13, 14 U.C.A.1953, are not applicable in a Juvenile Court proceeding involving a traffic violation. The judgment of the Juvenile Court is affirmed.

HENRIOD, ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

1

. See Sections 55-10-83(3) ; 55-10-96; 55-10-105(2), (3), (4), (5), U.C.A.1953, as amended 1965.

2

. Dimmitt v. City Court of Salt Lake City, 21 Utah 2d 257, 444 P.2d 461 (1968).
Item_5.2_Glossary definition for “Poultry” / page 1

 Item_5.2_Glossary definition for “Poultry” / page 1 

Annex 23

GLOSSARY

***ANIMAL PRODUCT***

means any part of an *animal*, and raw or manufactured products containing any material derived from *animals*, excluding germinal products, biological products and *pathological material*.

***COMMODITY***

means live *animals*, animal products~~of animal origin~~,~~animal genetic material~~ germinal products, biological products and *pathological material*.

***GERMINAL PRODUCTS***

means animal semen, oocytes, embryos and *hatching eggs*.

___________________________

Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2023	1

Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / February 2023	1

Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / February 2023	1