alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
539 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIdl 

M2norable Frank 3. Euinn, 

ExeO&-iVb %OZ?etWy 

‘fsxar State Park8 Board 

betin 11, Tel*8 

Re: Proper die&ftion‘~t pro- 

.,. GWI rrom sale ‘bf s\ata 

,..I’ p.roPWtY. ‘\J 

70 have your letter’ rrrrai whioh we quote: 

Y?:noloaed rind a OOIXD~bt&~i~“Or correspoodenoe between Xon. ,iiM*er A.’ Saksf; Chairman OS the 

%erd of Contro$‘--ana this 3apartItent regarding 

the sale of so- LQfighoru oalvee end whether or 

not the proosdds,cher~rom oould’~be/lsod to purohaae a thoreu&red to0ghor.p bull: 

-. 

“Our pro&em'Jg thid‘j l&s herd Or Longhorns wse. donatd ti..,tha,;Teus State Parka Board, 

an a&enoy of th titbor mxaa. ?a reoogaizo 

. thm fact. t&t the ra,le ofB’~oelves should bo handled by the State 306~Yof Control, but would it 

not be permlaa~ble to depoeit the proobcda to the 

oredlt ‘or 0~. 3poolsl Park Pun3 rather than to 

ths,~Genoral iUnd i purohaslng the bull whloh we 

deal&e 12o=.the,~peoial Pfirk Fund? 

. . .-* , 

*It the money receive4 from the sala of the 

oalves is-a&posited in the General Fund, it till 

be no bbnafit aoorulng to the TeXer State Parks 

3oard, and we rill aul’fer the loss of whatb~er 

money it la neoeear.ry to pay to sooure a sood 

bull. 

Y’s woilll thank you to advise ~8 if there 

Is’ any’way possible to use the money obtained 

fr3= the sale ot the oalves for the purchase of 

n bull. . . . 

II 
.:onorable Frank 9. quiml, 

Among others la the oorreapondenor 111s enolossd 1s 

n latter a;tdrbssed to you by Chairman Baker ln whloh he ed- 

-~lses that ii the oalves are sold bT the Board of ContrcQ, mthe 

money must be deposited to the orsdlt of the Qeneral Rsrenue 

hnd or the State.* 

3s agree with Judge Baker. Article 666, on thl8 

?olnt, 1s too olear and unequlrooal to admit of w other’oonStruotlon. In pleln term 10 prorldes that when the property 

or a state agsoy is sold by the Board of Control “thr ammy 

I'roa the mle or auah property . . . shall bo deposited lo the 

-tats Trsarury to the oredlt of tho General Revenue Fund.* 

Very truly youre, 

ATTORNST UMJBRAL O? TEXAS 

APPROVE1 

OPINION 

c 

COYYIlzr0I 

%2%9
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.6
                           SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS, INC.

                                 RETIREMENT PLAN




        Pursuant to ARTICLE XV Amendment and Termination, the Plan is hereby
        amended as follows:

        Dorinda K. Culp and Janet Hoffman are removed as Trustees.

        The Trustees under this Plan are Joseph R. DeSanto and Deirdre
        Blackburn.

        The effective date of this amendment is July 1, 2001.






                                              Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.

-------------------                           --------------------------------
Date                                          Trustee


                                              --------------------------------
                                              Trustee
Exhibit 21

SPANSION INC.

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

as of December 30, 2007



|                                                |  |                                                          |  |           |  | 
|----------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------- |  | 
|Name of Subsidiary                              |  | State or Jurisdiction in Which Incorporated or Organized
|Domestic Subsidiaries                           |  |                                                          |  |           |  | 
|Spansion Technology, Inc.                       |  |                                                          |  | Delaware  |  | 
|Spansion LLC(1)                                 |  |                                                          |  | Delaware  |  | 
|Spansion International, Inc.(2)                 |  |                                                          |  | Delaware  |  | 
|Cerium Laboratories LLC(2)                      |  |                                                          |  | Delaware  |  | 
|                                                |  |                                                          | 
|Foreign Subsidiaries                            |  |                                                          |  |           |  | 
|Spansion (China) Co. Limited(3)                 |  |                                                          |  | China     |  | 
|Spansion (EMEA) SAS(2)                          |  |                                                          |  | France    |  | 
|Spansion Japan Limited(2)                       |  |                                                          |  | Japan     |  | 
|Spansion (Penang) Sdn.Bhd.(2)                   |  |                                                          |  | Malaysia  |  | 
|Spansion (Kuala Lumpur) Sdn. Bhd.(2)            |  |                                                          |  | Malaysia  |  | 
|Spansion Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.(2)      |  |                                                          |  | Singapore |  | 
|Spansion Asia Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.(2) |  |                                                          |  | Singapore |  | 
|Spansion (Thailand) Limited(2)                  |  |                                                          |  | Thailand  |  | 



|(1) | Subsidiary of Spansion Inc. (60%) and Spansion Technology, Inc. (40%)
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Subsidiary of Spansion LLC
|--- | --------------------------

|(3) | Subsidiary of Spansion Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We  consent  to  the  references  to  our  firm  under  the  captions "Financial
highlights"  in each Prospectus and "Independent  Registered  Public Accounting
Firm", and "Financial Statements" in the Statement of Additional Information and
to the incorporation by reference of our reports, dated February 14, 2014, on
the financial  statements  and  financial  highlights  of  Pioneer Bond VCT
Portfolio, Pioneer Disciplined Value VCT Portfolio, Pioneer Emerging
Markets  VCT  Portfolio, Pioneer  Equity  Income  VCT  Portfolio, Pioneer
Fund VCT Portfolio, Pioneer High Yield VCT Portfolio, Pioneer Ibbotson
Growth Allocation VCT Portfolio, Pioneer Ibbotson Moderate Allocation
VCT Portfolio, Pioneer Mid  Cap Value VCT Portfolio, Pioneer Real Estate
Shares VCT Portfolio, Pioneer Select Mid Cap Growth VCT Portfolio,and
Pioneer Strategic Income VCT Portfolio included in the Annual Report to
the Shareowners for the year ended December 31, 2013  as  filed  with
the  Securities and Exchange Commission in Post-Effective Amendment
Number 56  to the Registration Statement (Form N-1A, No. 33-84546) of
Pioneer  Variable  Contracts  Trust.

                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 24, 2013
DRAFT 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 03-0197 ENGINEER: Blouin/JB/JFC 

PV (kg/yr): 30,000 (Import only) 

SUBMITTER: Marubeni Specialty Chemicals, Inc. 

USE: 

OTHER USES: 

MSDS: No Label: No 

General Eqp.: splash-proof or dust-resistant goggles; 

impervious clothing; gloves 

Respirator: respirator should be chosen based on 

workplace exposure level, the specific 

operation, and the working limits of the 

respirator. 

Health Effects: No information available 

TLV/PEL (PMN or raw materials): Not established 

CRSS: 

Chemical Category: 

VP: torr @25EC 

S-H2O: 

MW: % < 500 % < 1000 

Phys State: 

Consumer Use: No 

SAT (concerns): RELATED CASES: 

Migration to Groundwater = slow 

PBT Potential = P3B1T2 

Health: 1-2 (inhalation) 

Eco: 3 (all releases to water) 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3 

ASSUMPTIONS: 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 03-0197 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 03-0197 

PROC: 

Site/Location: 10 sites 

Days/yr: 250 (CEB standard default) 

Process Description: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.): 

WATER: 0.48 kg/site-day over 250 Days/year 

from: 

to: 

Basis: 

AIR: Negligible 

Basis: 

INCINERATION: <PV 

LANDFILL: Not required, per SAT 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE 

 Tot. # of workers: 30 (CEB standard default = 3 

workers/site) 

 Days/yr: 250 (CEB standard default) 

Inhalation: Negligible 

Basis: VP < 0.001 torr 

 

Dermal: Not required, per SAT 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 03-0197 

USE 1&2: 

Site/Location: up to 500 sites 

Days/yr: 250 (gen. scen.) 

Process Description: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.): 

WATER: Not expected 

Basis: 

AIR: Negligible 

Basis: VP < 0.01 torr 

INCINERATION: <PV 

LANDFILL: Not required, per SAT 

NOTE: 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE 

 Tot. # of workers: up to 10,000 

 Days/yr: 250 (gen. scen.) 

Inhalation: Mist (Class I respirator): up to 1.3 mg/day 

Basis: 

 Number of workers with inhalation exposure: up to 10,000 

Dermal: Not required, per SAT 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 03-0197 

USE 3: 

Site/Location: 3 sites 

Basis: 

Days/yr: 350 (generic scenario) 

Process Description: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.): 

WATER: Not expected 

Basis: 

AIR: Negligible 

Basis: VP < 0.01 torr 

INCINERATION: <PV 

LANDFILL: Not required, per SAT 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE 

 Tot. # of workers: 36 

 Days/yr: 350 

Inhalation: Mist (Class I respirator) 

Worst: 3.1 mg/day over 350 Days/yr 

Typical: 0.23 mg/day over 350 Days/yr 

Basis: 

 Number of workers with inhalation exposure: 36 

 Dermal: Not required, per SAT 
 CONTACT REPORT 

 (Telephone Log) 

PMN: 03-0197 

CALL BY: John Carter (ERG) for EPA/OPPT/CEB 

CALL TO: D. Kuter 

SUBMITTER: Marubeni Specialty Chemicals Inc. 

DATE: January 8, 2003 

TIME: 10:00am
United States District Court FILED

Western District of Texas Mar 5 2020

El Paso Division Clerk, U.S. District Court

Western District of

Texas

By: CR

Deputy

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

(1) SEGUNDO FRANCISCO

YASACA-ALVAREZ

§

§

§

§

§

§

No: EP:20-M -01695(1)

 Defendant

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL

 The above Defendant has testified under oath, or has otherwise satisfied this Court

that he or she is financially unable to employ counsel, and does not wish to waive counsel.

 Therefore, in the interests of justice, Federal Public Defender 534-6525, is hereby

appointed, pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, to represent said Defendant in

this case.

 This appointment shall remain in effect until further order of the Court.

 It is, accordingly, so ORDERED this the 5th day of March, 2020.

______________________________

ANNE T. BERTON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-mj-01695-ATB Document 3 Filed 03/05/20 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 21.01

Subsidiaries of Diamond Foods, Inc.



|                                          |  |                          
|----------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Subsidiary                                |  | Jurisdiction of Formation
|                                          | 
|DFKA Acquisition Ltd                      |  | United Kingdom           
|                                          | 
|DFKA Holdings Ltd                         |  | United Kingdom           
|                                          | 
|DFKA Intermediate Ltd                     |  | United Kingdom           
|                                          | 
|DFKA Investment Ltd                       |  | United Kingdom           
|                                          | 
|DFKA Ltd                                  |  | United Kingdom           
|                                          | 
|DFKA UK Holdings Ltd                      |  | United Kingdom           
|                                          | 
|Diamond of Europe GmbH                    |  | Germany                  
|                                          | 
|Kettle Foods Holdings, Inc.               |  | Delaware                 
|                                          | 
|Kettle Foods Ltd (UK operating company)   |  | United Kingdom           
|                                          | 
|Kettle Foods, Inc. (US operating company) |  | Oregon                   
|                                          | 
|Lion / Stove Luxembourg Investment 2 Sarl |  | Luxembourg               
|                                          | 
|Wimbledon Acquisition LLC                 |  | Delaware
#### DANSBY v. STATE.

No. 25650.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 16, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., ol Austin, for the State.

*254GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Tlie conviction is for sodomy; the punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. All matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION, § 

§ 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

v. § 1:20-CV-273-RP

§ 

META 1 COIN TRUST, et al., § 

§ 

Defendants. § 

ORDER

Before the Court is the report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge 

Mark Lane concerning Plaintiff’s Motion for Monetary Remedies and for Entry of Final Judgment, 

(Dkt. 133). (R. & R., Dkt. 134). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the 

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Lane issued 

his report and recommendation on February 7, 2023. (Id.). As of the date of this order, no party has 

filed objections to the report and recommendation. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a party may serve and file specific, written objections to a 

magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served 

with a copy of the report and recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the 

district court. When no objections are timely filed, a district court can review the magistrate’s report 

and recommendation for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (“When no 

timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 

face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).

Because no party has filed timely objections, the Court reviews the report and 

recommendation for clear error. Having done so and finding no clear error, the Court accepts and 

adopts the report and recommendation as its own order. 

Case 1:20-cv-00273-RP Document 137 Filed 03/14/23 Page 1 of 2
2 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. 134), is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Monetary Remedies and 

for Entry of Final Judgment, (Dkt. 133), is GRANTED. 

Final Judgment will be entered in a separate order. 

SIGNED on March 14, 2023. 

ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00273-RP Document 137 Filed 03/14/23 Page 2 of 2
#### Serena J. Clark, Appellant, v Dean Campbell, Individually and Doing Business as Dean Campbell Custom Homes, et al., Respondents.

Harvey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Brown, J.), entered April 26, 1990 in Saratoga County, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

This action stems from an incident occurring in April 1987 when Howard Clark was injured in the course of certain logging operations being performed for defendants. As a result, Clark commenced two actions against defendants which were subsequently consolidated and set for trial in February 1990. Before trial commenced, however, Clark stipulated to a settlement of his claim in the amount of $665,000 and the settlement was placed on the record in open court. A stipulation of discontinuance was also executed by the attorneys for the various parties. Thereafter, plaintiff, Clark’s wife, com*751menced this action against the same defendants named in her husband’s suit, seeking damages for loss of consortium. Following joinder of issue, defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the prior settlement of Clark’s action allegedly barred plaintiffs claim. Summary judgment was granted to defendants and this appeal by plaintiff followed.

We affirm. Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs complaint because, in our view, her loss of consortium action could only be maintained if it were interposed in her husband’s action for personal injury *(see, Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co.,*22 NY2d 498, 507-508; *see also, Daniels v Zelco, Inc.,*159 AD2d 538; *Forte v Kaneka Am. Corp.,*110 AD2d 81, 86; *Young v St. Joseph’s Hosp.,*51 AD2d 869, 870; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, C1001:4, at 371). Plaintiff has presented no special circumstances such as illness or disablement which would have explained her failure to prosecute her claim before her husband’s action was settled. Accordingly, because policy reasons such as the interest of judicial economy and the potential for double recoveries dictate the dismissal of derivative claims brought for the first time after the main action has terminated *(see, Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co., supra,*at 501-502; *Deems v Western Md. Ry. Co.,*247 Md 95, 231 A2d 514; *Ekalo v Constructive Serv. Corp.,*46 NJ 82, 215 A2d 1), we must disagree with the contrary view apparently held by the First Department *(see, Siskind v Norris,*152 AD2d 196, *lv denied*76 NY2d 772).*

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

*

 We note that plaintiff incorrectly cites the case of *Neeson v City of Troy*(29 Hun 173 [1883]) as a Third Department case purportedly binding on this court. Not only was *Neeson*decided long before *Millington,*but it is not in actuality a Third Department case as this court was not created until 1896 *(see,*L 1895, ch 376; 2 Chester, The Legal and Judicial History of New York, at 320-321).
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350) I, Robert J. Sprowls, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:  1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2004 of American States Water Company and of Southern
California Water Company (both referred to as the Registrant);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;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4)
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
Registrant and have:  a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting.  5)
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of
Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants
internal controls over financial reporting. Dated: August 9, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Robert J. SprowlsRobert J. SprowlsSenior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer,Corporate Secretary and Treasurer
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|North Dakota Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|North Dakota Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 12    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 29     | 14     | 9      | 4      | 3      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023