alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Revised Finding of No Significant Impact 

for 

Quarantine and Interstate Movement of Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus Psyllid 

August 2012 

This revised finding of no significant impact (FONSI) was prepared due to movement restrictions 

and sanitation measures imposed on applicable grove owners, harvesters, transporters, 

packinghouses or processors in areas where citrus greening (CG) has been identified, resulting in a 

quarantine. The environmental assessment (EA) and associated analysis prepared in 2009 is still 

applicable, and this revision explains how the proposed changes result in no significant impact to 

the environment. 

In July 2009, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS), prepared an EA that analyzed potential environmental consequences of proposed 

actions related to the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) and CG quarantine and interstate movement 

regulations. The EA and FONSI are available at 

http://www.aphis.usda.goyLP_l;mt health/ea/citrusgreening.sh.tml. 

The EA addressed the potential environmental impacts of proposed ACP and CG safeguard 

measures related to interstate movement and quarantine of regulated articles, primarily in nursery 

stock. A recently published Federal Order (FO) regarding movement restrictions for CG regulated 

articles in Texas, also prescribes sanitation and safeguard measures for moving regulated articles 

associated with commercial citrus production from quarantined areas. The FO is available at 

http://www.aphis.usd<:L.gq.Yill.lant healt.I1/plant pest info/citrus greenindregs.shtml. Measures 

prescribed in the FO are related to compliance agreements and handling of regulated materials that 

are within a CG quarantine area by various entities involved in commercial citrus production. The 

regulated materials have been previously defined in earlier ACP/CG Federal Orders. Following a 

review of the proposed actions in the FO, APHIS has determined that no significant impacts to 

human health and the environment are anticipated for the area defined in the recent FO, or in other 

areas defined in the 2009 EA where a CG quarantine may be established. 

An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared if implementation of the proposed 

action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Based on the above 

information, I have determined that the proposed change will not impact the quality of the human 

environment; therefore, no EIS needs to be prepared. 

Prakash 

~~ H. Hebbar 

National Coordinator, Citrus Health Response Program (CHRP) 

Emergency and Domestic Programs 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Agency
THOMAS B. BROWN

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 4676

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed October 3, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Hulsey III , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK

, WETHERELL

, and MAKAR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### Virginia Naisbitt NIELSEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Harold L. NIELSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13692.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. 17, 1974.

David E. Littlefield of Salt Lake County Bar Legal Services, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Theodore S. Perry, Logan, for plaintiff and respondent.

CALLISTER, Chief Justice:

Plaintiff filed an action, seeking a divorce on October 26, 1973; the complaint and summons were served on defendant at that time. When defendant failed to file a responsive pleading, plaintiff’s counsel had the clerk enter defendant’s default on November 16, 1973, as provided in Rule 55(a)(1) U.R.C.P. On March 14, 1974, defendant filed an answer and counterclaim. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendant’s pleadings on the ground that defendant’s default had been entered and had not been set aside. Plaintiff further sought a stay of all proceedings until she was released from the Utah State Hospital.

The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s pleadings on the ground that the previously entered default had not been set aside.1 The trial court further ordered a stay of all proceedings. Defendant appeals therefrom and contends that the entry of default was void ab initio on the ground that the 20 day period in which a defendant must answer as provided in Rule 12(a), U.R.C.P. is not applicable in a divorce action.

The order of the trial court granting plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s pleadings was not a final order or judgment and was not appealable under Rule 72(a), U.R.C.P. The defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

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

1

. Rule 55(c), U.R.C.P. provides that an ent good cause shown. of default may be set aside by the court for
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-11163 Conference Calendar

RICARDO FRANCO, also known as Ricardo Franco-Morales, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus EDWIN V. KING, Honorable, Former Attorney, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CV-1760-R

- - - - - - - - - - February 14, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Ricardo Franco, a Texas prisoner (# 850944), appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Franco asserted that, after he was convicted of a criminal offense in Texas state court, he hired as his appellate attorney Edwin King, who has since been appointed as a state judge. Franco stated that King failed to file an appellate brief on his behalf and failed to refund the $5000 feeNo. 00-11163 -2- he had paid the attorney. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Franco had failed to state a cognizable constitutional claim, because a defense attorney does not act “under color of state law” for § 1983 purposes when he performs a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding. Polk County v. Dodson , 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal and the dismissal as frivolous by the district court each count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Franco that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 11
   Three Months Ended
    
    
    Six Months EndedJune 30,
    
    
    June 30,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008Basic Earnings Per ShareNet income
    
    $
    706,051
    
    
    $
    877,762
    
    
    $
    1,601,994
    
    
    $
    1,879,522Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,432,793
    
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,438,695Basic Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.26
    
    
    $
    0.36
    
    
    $
    0.59
    
    
    $
    0.77Diluted Earnings Per ShareNet income
    
    $
    706,051
    
    
    $
    877,762
    
    
    $
    1,601,994
    
    
    $
    1,879,522Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,432,793
    
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,438,695Weighted average effect of
assumed stock options
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0Total
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,432,793
    
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,438,695Diluted Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.26
    
    
    $
    0.36
    
    
    $
    0.59
    
    
    $
    0.77
#### Application of Oren David MORGAN, for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12440.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 10, 1957.

Oren David Morgan, petitioner, pro se. Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

POWELL, Judge.

.This is an original action in habeas corpus instituted by -Oren David Morgan to secure his release from confinernent in-the State Penitentiary.

We have before us an unverified petition. Petitioner has failed to attach a certified copy of the information complained of, together with a certified copy of the judgment and minutes of the court.

*1090Petitioner says that at 'the July, 1955 term of the district court of Garfield County he was convicted on a charge of second degree forgery, second and subsequent offense, and sentenced to serve 15 years in the state penitentiary.

As grounds for release, petitioner alleges ' that the preliminary, complaint first charged him simply with second degree forgery, but that later a second charge of “second and subsequent offense” was added, and he says such invalidated the warrant which was authority for his arrest. He says that at his trial he was deprived of the opportunity of obtaining witnesses whose testimony would have been pertinent. He does not set out the names of the witnesses and their addresses, and what they would have sworn to. He also claims that his attorney was incompetent.

The petition was insufficient. Ex parte Hines, Okl.Cr., 289 P.2d 972; In re Richardson, Okl.Cr., 283 P.2d 855; Ex parte Hall, 91 Okl.Cr. 11, 215 P.2d 587.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the inquiry is limited to whether the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, jurisdiction of the person, and authority under the law to pronounce judgment and sentence rendered. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal. Ex parte Noble, 89 Okl.Cr. 231, 206 P.2d 226.

The Attorney General has furnished this court with a photostatic copy of the judgment and sentence from the district court of Garfield County in case No. 2733, dated December 1, 1955 which shows that petitioner at trial was represented by counsel, and was convicted of the crime of giving a false and bogus check, and sentenced to serve 15 years in the State Penitentiary. The record further shows that defendant is now serving his tenth term after conviction for crime.

The jury found the defendant guilty “as charged in the information”. From the sentence interposed, it necessarily was for a second and subsequent offense.

The writ is denied.

BRETT, P. J., and NIX, J., 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 Annual Report of Lapis Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/Afor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Miron
Markovitz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





January
      12, 2009
                  /s/
      Miron MarkovitzMiron
      MarkovitzPrincipal Accounting
      Officer
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.7


AMENDMENT TO THE ASHLAND INC.
NONQUALIFIED EXCESS BENEFIT PENSION PLAN


WHEREAS, Ashland Inc. (“Ashland”), maintains the Ashland Inc. Nonqualified Excess Benefit Pension Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of employees eligible to participate therein; and


WHEREAS, Ashland is the sponsor of the Plan; and


WHEREAS, pursuant to Article IV, Section 5, of the Charter of the Personnel and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Ashland Inc., said Personnel and Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) has retained authority to amend or transfer any of the benefit plans of Ashland and its subsidiaries and affiliates that are more than 50% owned by Ashland; and


WHEREAS, the Committee has approved the transfer of the sponsorship of the Plan from Ashland to Valvoline LLC; and


WHEREAS, the Chief Financial Officer of Ashland Inc. has been delegated the authority by the Committee to prepare and execute any and all amendments necessary to give effect to this decision of the Committee.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Plan is amended, effective September 1, 2016, as follows:


I.      The following sentence is added after the first sentence of Section 1:


“In accordance with a corporate reorganization, effective as of September 1, 2016, sponsorship of the Plan was transferred from Ashland Inc. to Valvoline LLC.”


II.     All references to “Ashland” and “Ashland Inc.” in the Plan after the recitals are hereinafter  
            changed to “Valvoline” and “Valvoline LLC” respectively.


III.    In all other respects the Plan shall remain unchanged.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Chief Financial Officer has caused this amendment to the Plan to be executed this _____day of ____________, 2016.


                        
                        	
		
	By:
	/s/ J. Kevin Willis

	 
	Chief Financial Officer, Ashland Inc.
## NUMBER 13

- 1 5

- 00015

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

IN RE ALFREDO SOBREVILLA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition

.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes , and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1

Relator
, Alfredo Sobrevilla, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and writ of
prohibition in the above cause on January 7, 2015, contending that the trial court abused

its discretion in granting a new trial following a jury verdict without specifically stating its

reasons for doing so. The Court requested and received a response to the petition from

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so . When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case

. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

the real party in interest, Brownsville Independent School District. Relator now seeks to
dismiss this original proceeding with prejudice on grounds that the parties have resolved
their dispute.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion to dismiss, is of the
opinion that it should be granted. Accordingly, the stay previously imposed by this Court

is LIFTED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting
temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). We GRANT the motion to
dismiss and we DISMISS this original proceeding with prejudice.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 18th day of February, 201 5

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,650,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              528,328,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   664,000
<INVENTORY>                                203,716,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           738,030,000
<PP&E>                                      19,837,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,070,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             750,797,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      183,226,000
<BONDS>                                    286,990,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 280,553,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               750,797,000
<SALES>                                     77,912,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            77,912,000
<CGS>                                        5,797,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,797,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            29,844,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             8,570,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,098,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             23,603,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                10,522,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,081,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
|   | (i) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the                Company. |
|--------|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       |   |   |                                                             |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   |   | /s/ Thomas              C.              Dearmin   |
|                            |   |   | Thomas              C. Dearmin                                   |
|                       |   |   | Chief              Executive              Officer                |
|                       |   |   |                                                             |
|                       |   |   |                                                             |
| Date: August 7, 2006  |   |   |                                                             |

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 13

- 00163

- CR Jerry VILLARREAL , Appellant

v. The State of The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CR10521W Ho norable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 15, 2013
DIS MISSED Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant pled nolo contendere to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

. T he trial court imposed sentence and signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). After appellant filed his notice of appeal, the court clerk sent a cop y of the certification to this court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record contains a written plea barga in agreement, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the State and agreed to by the04

- 13

- 00163

- CR

- 2

- appellant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that appellant’s case is a plea bargain case and he does not hav e a right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d ). Accordingly, on Ma rch 25 , 20 1 3 , this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. See Daniels v. State ,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d); 37.1. No amended trial court certification has been filed; therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM
Do not publish
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-43242, No. 33-49856, No. 33-76910 and No. 33-80456 of Healthsource, Inc. and
Subsidiaries on Form S-8 of our report dated February 16, 1996, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Healthsource, Inc. and Subsidaries for the
year ended December 31, 1995.


/s/ DELIOTTE & TOUCHE LLP

Boston Massachusetts
February 28, 1996
July 7, 1999

21511

#### Makaneole v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.

Affirmed
# C_2019035EN.01002302.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/23

---

Action brought on 19 November 2018 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Intercontinental Great Brands (gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH)

(Case T-677/18)

(2019/C 35/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullón, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intercontinental Great Brands LLC (East Hanover, New Jersey, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH — Application for registration No 13 877 543

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2018 in Case R 2378/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, along with the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, along with the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---