alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Know the Lei of the Land:

How To Make Sure Your Leis Can Come Back to the 

U.S. Mainland

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

prohibits certain items, including some flowers 

used in Hawaiian leis, from entering the U.S. 

mainland to protect against harmful plant 

pests. If you wish to bring Hawaiian leis back 

to the U.S. mainland, you’ll want to make sure 

all the components in your lei are allowed to 

return with you.

Ask the seller to confirm that it does not 

include fresh botanical fruits, such as berries 

and pandunus fruit, or any of the following 

prohibited items: any citrus or citrus-related

flowers, leaves, or other plant parts, as well 

as jade vine or Mauna Loa. Leis with these 

items cannot enter the U.S. mainland. Please 

be aware that citrus-related plant parts include 

mock orange flowers and leaves, which are 

sometimes used in making leis. See figures 1 

and 2 for examples of mock orange used in leis.

USDA enforces a Federal quarantine to prevent 

the spread of the Asian citrus psyllid, a gnatsized insect capable of transmitting one of the 

world’s most serious citrus diseases—citrus 

greening disease. This harmful pest feeds on all 

citrus and closely related plants. Some kukuinut and other types of leis often contain citrus 

or citrus-related leaves. USDA inspectors will 

examine your leis for prohibited items and any 

signs of plant infestation or infection. 

Help protect America’s citrus and other 

agricultural industries. Before you buy a lei 

to take back to the U.S. mainland, ask the 

seller to confirm that it does not contain 

prohibited materials. 

For More Information

Learn more about what you can bring to 

the U.S. mainland from Hawaii on USDA’s 

“Traveler Information” Web page at 

www.aphis.usda.gov/travel.

For questions or for more information, call the 

USDA office in Hawaii at (808) 834-3240 or 

(808) 834-3241.

USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider, 

employer, and lender.

Program Aid No. 2105 

Issued January 2012

Slightly revised July 2017

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service

Plant Protection and 

Quarantine

Figure 1. Leis containing mock orange leaves 

(Murraya paniculata)

Figure 2. Leis made of mock orange leaves and sea 

grape fruits*

* Most fresh fruits and vegetables from Hawaii are not allowed to enter the continental United States due to the risk of introducing 

certain invasive plant pests and diseases. However, fresh pineapple and coconut are permitted after inspection. Fresh papaya, abiu, 

atemoya, banana, curry leaf, dragon fruit, longan, lychee, mangosteen, rambutan, starfruit, and sweet potato are permitted, but 

must be treated at a USDA-approved facility and packed in boxes that are properly marked and stamped.

Plant Protection and Quarantine TRAVEL

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture
EXHIBIT 21


                 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES


                                  SUBSIDIARIES



                                            State or Country          Percent
            Name of Subsidiary              of Incorporation           Owned

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation                 Delaware                100%
Kerr-McGee China Petroleum Ltd.                 Bahamas                 100%
Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation                     Delaware                100%
Kerr-McGee Credit Corporation                   Delaware                100%
Kerr-McGee Oil (U.K.) PLC                       England                 100%


        A number of additional subsidiaries are omitted since, considered in the
aggregate  as a single  subsidiary,  they  would not  constitute  a  significant
subsidiary as of December 31, 1996.
#### § 501.38 Notice of docketing.

Upon receipt of an Order of Reference, the Chief ALJ shall appoint an ALJ to hear the case. The ALJ shall promptly notify all interested parties of the docketing of the matter and shall set the time and place of the hearing. The date of the hearing shall be not more than 60 calendar days from the date on which the Order of Reference was filed.
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 Allstates  WorldCargo,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Craig D. Stratton, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
      Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
      operations of the Company for the periods presented.


Dated: August 12, 2005


/s/ Craig D. Stratton
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
iD STq 7.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

‘L PHQ 75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 951 05-3901

OFFICE OF THE

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

Mr. Marc Macarro DEC 0 1t 2014

Tribal Chairman

Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians

P.O. Box 1477

Temecula. Calithrnia 92593

Dear Chairman Macwro:

I am pleased to announce that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the

Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians (Pechanga) is eligible for treatment in the same manner as a

state (TAS) with respect to those provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) Sections 110 and 175A necessary

to submit and implement a maintenance plan in support of a redesignation request under CAA section

107(d) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

I would like to commend Pechanga’s effiwt in working collahoratively with EPA to produce the

application which resulted in tinal approval. We look forward to continuing our work together to protect

and enhance air quality on the Pechanga Reservation.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call, or have your staff contact Ken Israels

of the Air Division at (415) 947-4102.

Sincerely,

Jared Blumenfeld

cc: Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of California

Mary Nichols, Chair, California Air Resources Board

Matt Rodriquez, Secretary, California EPA

Kelcey Stricker, Environmental Director, Pechanga Band

Barry R. Wallerstein, APCO, South Coast AQMD

Robert Kard, APCO, San Diego APCD

i3jorn Fredrickson, Recreation and Lands Officer, Palomar Ranger District.

Cleveland National Forest

Printed on Recycled Paper
#### § 776.0 Subpart limited to individual employee coverage.

This subpart, which was adopted before the amendments of 1961 and 1966 to the Fair Labor Standards Act, is limited to discussion of general coverage of the Act on the traditional basis of engagement by individual employees “in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce”. The 1961 and 1966 amendments broadened coverage by extending it to other employees on an “enterprise” basis, when “employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” as defined in section 3 (r), (s), of the present Act. Employees covered under the principles discussed in this subpart remain covered under the Act as amended; however, an employee who would not be individually covered under the principles discussed in this subpart may now be subject to the Act if he is employed in a covered enterprise as defined in the amendments. Questions of “enterprise coverage” not answered in published statements of the Department of Labor may be addressed to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210 or assistance may be requested from any of the Regional or District Offices of the Division.

[35 FR 5543, Apr. 3, 1970]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T GU I LL ER M O M ARTINEZ RODRI GU EZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70286 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 660- 347 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G ui l l e rm o M art i ne z R odr i gue z , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r o m an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) o r d e rg r an tin g h im v o lu n taryd e p artu r e . W e h av e j u ri sd i ct i o n u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e rev i ew d e n o v o cl ai m s o f du e p ro cess 

# FI LED JU N 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70286 2 v io latio n s in im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g s . Co lm e n a rv . I NS , 2 1 0 F .3 d9 6 7 , 9 7 1 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e a g r e e w ith th e B I A ’s c o n c lu s io n th at M artin e z R o dr ig u e z f a ile dto de m ons tr a t e pr e

j udi c e f r om the I J ’ s r e f

us a lt o c ons i de ra ddi t i ona le vi de nc e of h ar d s h ip , an dh is du e p r o c e s s c la im th e r e f o r e f a ils . Se e id . ( r e qu ir in g p r e ju d ic e to prevai lon a due process chal l enge). In li g h t o f o u r d isp o siti o n , w e d o n o t co n sid erM arti n ez R o drig u ez ’s rem ai n i n g co n t en t i o n s. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
****Exhibit 32.4****

****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 on Form 10-K of Madison  Gas and Electric Company for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"),  I, Terry A. Hanson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Terry A. HansonVice President, Chief Financial  Officer and SecretaryDate: March 15, 2004
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-40146 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JUAN GABRIEL ARIZPE, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:10-CR-1828-1
Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Gabriel Arizpe appeals from his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute c o c aine. H e c h a l lenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress withou t holding an evidentiary hearing. He argues that the contentions he raised in his motion implicitly challenged the state trooper’s reason for stopping his vehicle and that his implicit, conclusional statement was suff i c i e n t ly specific and detailed to warrant an evidentiary hearing. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 27 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40146 Document: 00511768469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2012No. 11-40146

The motion to suppress contained no detailed factual allegations suggesting that the reason for the vehicle stop was invalid or that the length of the stop was unjustified. The district court’s failure to hold an evidentiary h e a ri ng was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of the motion w a s n o t

error. See U

n ited States v. Lopez-Moreno , 420 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2005) ; Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530-31 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Harrelson , 705 F.2d 733, 737 (5th Cir. 1983). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-40146 Document: 00511768469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2012
EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Advanced Technical Products, Inc.

      We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-19759, 333-52885 and 333-66817) on Form S-8 of Advanced Technical
Products, Inc. of our report dated April 28, 2000, except as to Note 7, which is
as of May 16, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Advanced
Technical Products, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss),
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1999, which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K
of Advanced Technical Products, Inc.

Atlanta, Georgia
May 22, 2000
Exhibit 23.1


                       INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Arrow-Magnolia International, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (No. 333-47709 and 333-01511) on Forms S-8 of Arrow-
Magnolia International, Inc. of our report dated February 6, 1998,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Arrow-Magnolia
International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and
1996, and the related consolidated statements of income,
shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in
the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-K of Arrow-Magnolia
International, Inc.



                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP




Dallas, Texas
March 30, 1998
----

----

I Informācija

Komisija

----

Eiro maiņas kurss (1)

2004. gada 16. septembris

(2004/C 232/01)

1 eiro= 

----

(1)

Datu avots: atsauces maiņas kursu publicējusi ECB.

----

III Paziņojumi

Komisija

----

Labojumi FP6-2003-SME-1

(Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis C 307, 2003. gada 17. decembris)

(2004/C 232/02)

Atsaucoties uz aicinājumu FP6-2003-SME-1, kas ir publicēts 2003. gada 17. decembraEiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī (1), ar slēgšanas datumu 2004. gada 21. oktobrī, priekšlikumu iesniegšanas noteikumi netiešajām PTA (RTD) akcijām tiek laboti sekojošā veidā:

Projektu iesniedzēji, kuri tehnisku iemeslu dēļ nevar lietot priekšlikumu elektronisko iesniegšanas sistēmu (EPSS), var pieprasīt vēlākais līdz 2004. gada 5. oktobrim Eiropas Komisijā tiesības iesniegt savus pieteikumus pa pastu, saskaņā ar aicinājuma 6. punktu. Šāda veida lūgumus jāadresē:

----

(1)OV C 307, 17.12.2003., 15. lpp.

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6244** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ERNEST LEE SMITH , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 7:07

- cr - 00123

- FL

- 1; 7:12

- cv - 00211

- FL )

Submitted : May 29 , 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ernest Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Katherine Cooley, Michael Gordon James, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Edward D. Gray, Assistant United Stat es Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ernest Lee Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion and denyin g Smith’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district cou rt’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demons trate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not ma de the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Louis Feinbaum, Appellant.

Argued April 29, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*Eli Kriger*for appellant.

*William Copeland Dodge, District Attorney (LeRoy Mandle*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
**Michigan Supreme Court** 

**Lansing, Michigan**

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

August 5, 2014 

# Order

Clerk August 5, 2014

147758 ( 6 1 )

MICHIGAN COALITION OF STATE

EM PLOYEE UNIONS, INTERNATIONAL

UNION UAW AND LOCAL 6000, MICHIGAN

CORRECTIONS ORGANIZATION/SEIU,

MICHIGAN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES/SEIU

LOCAL 517M, MICHIGAN STATE

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME

LOCAL 5, MICHIGAN AFSCME COUNCIL 25,

ANTHONY MCNEILL, RAY HOLMAN,

ANDREW POTTER, ED CLEMENTS, AMY

LIPSET, WILLIAM RUHF, KENNETH MOORE,

RUSSELL WATERS, MARK MOZDZEN, and

KATHLEEN WINE/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY

SITUATED,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

SC: 147758

v COA: 314048

C t of Claims : 12

- 000017

- MM

STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM BOARD, DEPARTMENT

OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET, DEPARTMENT/DIRECTOR

OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,

DIRECTOR OF RETIREMENT SERVICES OFFICE,

and STATE TREASURER,

Defendants

- Appell ants.

________________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants

- appellants for leave to file

a brief in response to the amicus curiae brief filed by the Michigan Civil Service

Commission is GRANTED. The responsive brief submitted on July 23, 2014, is accepted

for filing.
##### 



EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
  WITNESSETH
      th th th
 th
 Termination Date
    
    
    Number of Retention UnitsLess than 1 year after Effective Date
    
    
    
    01 year after Effective Date but less than 2 years after Effective Date
    
    
    
    3,0002 years after Effective Date but less than 3 years after Effective Date
    
    
    
    5,0003 years after Effective Date but less than 4 years after Effective Date
    
    
    
    7,000




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



th
  th
  4




---



##### 



EMPLOYEE
    
    
    
    LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC.By:President
 5
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0489 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0489

**2000/489/EC: Commission Decision of 18 July 2000 amending Decision 1999/217/EC adopting a register of flavouring substances used in or on foodstuffs (notified under document number C(2000) 1722) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 197 , 03/08/2000 P. 0053 - 0056 *

Commission Decision

of 18 July 2000

amending Decision 1999/217/EC adopting a register of flavouring substances used in or on foodstuffs

(notified under document number C(2000) 1722)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/489/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 1996 laying down a Community procedure for flavouring substances used or intended for use in or on foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96, the Commission through Decision 1999/217/EC(2) adopted a register of flavouring substances used in or on foodstuffs.

(2) It is necessary, in order to proceed with their evaluation, to integrate a number of substances that have not yet been entered in the above register, and to amend a number of entries in the light of new findings.

(3) For a number of substances, in application of Commission Recommendation 98/282/EC of 21 April 1998 on the ways in which the Member States and signatory States to the European Economic Area should protect intellectual property in connection with the development and manufacture of flavouring substances referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council(3), the notifying Member State has indicated that they do not require protection and can therefore be moved to the open parts of the Register.

(4) Decision 1999/217/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 1999/217/EC is hereby amended as shown in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 July 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 299, 23.11.1996, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 84, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 127, 29.4.1998, p. 32.

ANNEX

1. Part 1 is amended as follows:

(a) The following entries are inserted:

>TABLE>

(b) For the following substances entries in the "Comments" column shall be amended as follows:

>TABLE>

(c) For the CAS No 36413-60-2 the entry in the "Comments" column shall be deleted.

(d) The two entries shown below are deleted:

>TABLE>

(e) The entry for CAS No 13184-86-6 is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>

(f) The entry for CAS No 132344-97-9 is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>

2. In Part 2 the entry for CoE 10038 is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>

3. Part 4 is amended as follows: (a) The following entry is inserted:

>TABLE>

(b) The following entries are deleted:

>TABLE>