alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
function avadaUpdateToTopPostion(){var o=avadaToTopVars.totop_position.split("_");o=2===o.length?"to-top-"+o[0]+" to-top-"+o[1]:"to-top-"+o[0],jQuery(".to-top-container").attr("class","to-top-container"),jQuery(".to-top-container").addClass(o)}jQuery(document).ready(function(){var o=0,a=jQuery("html").hasClass("ua-edge")||jQuery("html").hasClass("ua-safari-12")||jQuery("html").hasClass("ua-safari-11")||jQuery("html").hasClass("ua-safari-10")?"body":"html";jQuery(".fusion-top-top-link").on("click",function(o){o.preventDefault(),(cssua.ua.mobile&&-1!==avadaToTopVars.status_totop.indexOf("mobile")||!cssua.ua.mobile)&&jQuery(a).animate({scrollTop:0},1200,"easeInOutExpo")}),jQuery(window).on("scroll",function(){var a=jQuery(this).scrollTop();200<a&&(a>=o||1!==parseInt(avadaToTopVars.totop_scroll_down_only))?jQuery(".fusion-top-top-link").addClass("fusion-to-top-active"):jQuery(".fusion-top-top-link").removeClass("fusion-to-top-active"),o=a}),jQuery(window).on("updateToTopPostion",avadaUpdateToTopPostion)});
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0746 Directorate ID: 2008-SW-35-AD

Helicopter Model: MD Helicopters, Inc., Model 500N, 600N, and MD900 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 111 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of a tension-torsion strap, loss of 

directional control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. 

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $1,340 per T-T strap

Labor per Helicopter

(40 x $85/work-hour for the 

required actions for Model 

500N and Model 600N 

helicopters)

(32 x $85/work-hour for the 

required actions for Model 

MD900 helicopters)

$3,400

$2,720

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $

Total US Fleet Cost $543,180 for the entire fleet, assuming all T-T 

straps would be marked, and assuming 11 

helicopters would need T-T strap replaced (13 T-T 

straps per helicopter)

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: John Cecil
#### CHARLES OBERLEY, Appellant, *v.*MARCENA M. DICKINSON AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, directed by the court.

Upon the trial of this action, brought by the plaintiff as indorsee of a promissory note, it appeared that he had taken the note from his indorser as security for a debt which had been repaid; the court charged that he could only recove: the difference between what he paid the bank on the protest of the note and what he received from his indorser, to which no exception was taken; the plaintiff’s counsel requested the court to charge that he was entitled to recover the amount of the note, with interest, which charge the court refused; subsequently the jury, under the direction of the court, found a verdict for $4.31, to which no exception was taken, The General Term *held,*that the plaintiff could not recover the full amount of the note, and that if the verdict was too small, the error *660was not presented by any exception taken, and affirmed the judgment.

*Wm. H. Nafis,*for the appellant.

*C. P. Hoffman,*for the respondents.

Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.
{"id":27212,"date":"2022-02-16T15:32:41","date_gmt":"2022-02-16T20:32:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/?page_id=27212"},"modified":"2022-02-16T16:36:40","modified_gmt":"2022-02-16T21:36:40","slug":"part-v-adr-particulars","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/part-v-adr-particulars\/","title":{"rendered":"Part V – ADR Particulars"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"fusion-fullwidth fullwidth-box fusion-builder-row-1 nonhundred-percent-fullwidth non-hundred-percent-height-scrolling\" style=\"background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0);background-position: center center;background-repeat: no-repeat;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-bottom: 0px;margin-top: 0px;border-width: 0px 0px 0px 0px;border-color:#eae9e9;border-style:solid;\" ><div class=\"fusion-builder-row fusion-row\"><div class=\"fusion-layout-column fusion_builder_column fusion-builder-column-0 fusion_builder_column_1_1 1_1 fusion-one-full fusion-column-first fusion-column-last\" style=\"margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;\"><div class=\"fusion-column-wrapper fusion-flex-column-wrapper-legacy\" style=\"background-position:left top;background-repeat:no-repeat;-webkit-background-size:cover;-moz-background-size:cover;-o-background-size:cover;background-size:cover;padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;\"><style type=\"text\/css\"><\/style><div class=\"fusion-title title fusion-title-1 fusion-title-text fusion-title-size-two\" style=\"margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:31px;margin-left:0px;\"><h2 class=\"title-heading-left\" style=\"margin:0;\">Part V – ADR Particulars<\/h2><span class=\"awb-title-spacer\"><\/span><div class=\"title-sep-container\"><div class=\"title-sep sep-double sep-solid\" style=\"border-color:#e0dede;\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"fusion-text fusion-text-1\"><p>Part V discusses the practical aspects of ADR like confidentiality, ADR agreements, settlement forms, interest-based negotiation, creating problem-solving, etc. Many of these topics apply equally to protests, disputes, or appeals, regardless of the agencies involved.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"fusion-clearfix\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"parent":27194,"menu_order":5,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27212"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27212\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27194"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAFRON HUOT,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 35128

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 00045

- BMM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018 **

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Safron Huot appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to the termination of her parental

rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113 , 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 35128

28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Noel v. Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal

under the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine); Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194

(9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) ) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Huot ’s action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction under the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine because Huot ’s claims constitut ed

a forbidden de facto appeal of a prio r state court judgment or were inextricably

intertwined with that judgment. See Noel , 341 F.3d at 11 63

- 65 (9th Cir. 2003)

(discussing proper application of the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs

v. Valley View Dev. , 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9 th Cir. 2007) ( Rooker

- Feldman doctrine

barred plaintiff’s claim because the relief sought “would require the district court

to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

AFFIRMED.
§ 334.20 Gulf of Maine off Cape Small, Maine; naval aircraft practice mining range area. ( a ) *The danger zone.* Within an area bounded as follows: Beginning at latitude 43°43′00′′, longitude 69°46′00′′; thence to latitude 43°38′30′′, longitude 69°46′00′′; thence to latitude 43°38′30′′, longitude 69°49′30′′; thence to latitude 43°42′10′′, longitude 69°49′30′′; thence to the point of beginning.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) Test drops from aircraft will be made within the area at intermittent periods from noon until sunset local time and only during periods of good visibility.
( 2 ) Testing will not restrict any fishing, recreational, or commercial activities in the testing area.
( 3 ) Aircraft will patrol the area prior to and during test periods to insure that no surface vessels are within the area. No test drops will be made while surface vessels are transiting the area.
( 4 ) No live ammunition or explosives will be dropped in the area.
( 5 ) The regulations of this section shall be enforced by the Commandant, First Naval District, Boston, Mass., or such agencies as he may designate.
[36 FR 5218, Mar. 18, 1971. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985]
adriana martin lopez 2816833855

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 115-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2023 Page 1 of 1
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 0746 Directorate ID : 2008 - SW - 35 - AD Helicopter Model: MD Helicopters, Inc., Model 500N, 600N, and MD900 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 111 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of a tension - torsion strap, loss of directional control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 1,340 per T - T strap Labor per Helicopter ( 40 x $ 8 5 /work- hour for the required actions for Model 500N and Model 600N helicopters ) (32 x $85/work- hour for the required actions for Model MD900 helicopters ) $ 3,400 $2,720 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ Total US Fleet Cost $ 5 43,180 for the entire fleet, assuming all T - T straps would be marked, and assuming 11 helicopters would need T - T strap replaced (13 T - T straps per helicopter) Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project En gineer : 

### John Cecil
§ 23.10 Coast Guard emblem. ( a ) The distinctive emblem of the Coast Guard shall be as follows: On a disc the shield of the Coat of Arms of the United States circumscribed by an annulet edged and inscribed “UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 1790” all in front of two crossed anchors.
( b ) The emblem in full color is described as follows: White anchors and white ring all outlined in medium blue (Coast Guard blue), letters and numerals medium blue (Coast Guard blue), white area within ring, shield with medium blue (Coast Guard blue) chief and 13 alternating white and red (Coast Guard red) stripes (7 white and 6 red) with narrow medium blue (Coast Guard blue) outline.
( c ) The Coast Guard emblem is intended primarily for use as identification on Coast Guard ensigns, flags, pennants, vessels, aircraft, vehicles, and shore units. It may also be reproduced for use on such items as stationery, clothing, jewelry, etc.
( d ) Any person who desires to reproduce the Coast Guard emblem for non-Coast Guard use must first obtain approval from theCommandant (CG-092), Attn: Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7103, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7103.
(Sec. 6(b)(1), 80 Stat. 937; 49 U.S.C. 1655(b)(1); 49 CFR 1.46(b))
[CGFR 67-26, 32 FR 6577, Apr. 28, 1967, as amended by CGFR 70-95, 35 FR 12541, Aug. 6, 1970; USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36278, June 25, 2010; USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38427, July 7, 2014]
[Exhibit 23.1]


                           RANDY R. SIMPSON CPA, P.C.
                            11775 South Nicklaus Road
                                Sandy, Utah 84092
                                 (801) 572-3009




                                  July 20, 2004


International Star Inc.
Attn:  Robert L. Hawkins, President
2266 Chestnut Bluffs
Henderson, NV  89052

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

     We hereby consent to the incorporation in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
of International Star Inc., for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2002, of our
report dated March 26, 2002 for the year ended December 31, 2001.

Sincerely,


/s/ Randy R. Simpson
---------------------------------
Randy R. Simpson, CPA, P.C.
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-22787-SCOLA/GOODMAN

LIORA SAMANDAROVA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HOOKAH EXOTIX LLC, JEANCHRISTOPHE PITTMAN, AND 

ALEXANDRE ARKHIPOV,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CLERK’S DEFAULT 

AGAINST DEFENDANT, ALEXANDRE ARKHIPOV

Plaintiff, Liora Samandarova, through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 55 and other applicable Rules and laws, moves the Clerk of Court to enter a Default against 

Defendant, Alexandre Arkhipov, based on the following good cause:

1. Plaintiff, Liora Samandarova, served the Summons and Complaint on Defendant, 

Alexandre Arkhipov, on October 5, 2022. [ECF No. 8.]

2. Mr. Arkhipov filed his Answer to the Complaint with the Court on October 26, 

2022. [ECF No. 10.]

3. Mr. Arkhipov proceeded to then ignore the Court’s authority to the point that he 

violated three Orders from the Court. [ECF No. 24.]

4. The Court ultimately struck Mr. Arkhipov’s Answer and directed Plaintiff to 

request the entry of a Clerk’s Default due to the absence of any response to the Complaint. [ECF 

No. 24.]

Case 1:22-cv-22787-RNS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 1 of 2
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

“In the courts, there is room for only so much lenity. The district court must consider the 

equities not only to plaintiff and his counsel, but also to the opposing parties and counsel, as well 

as to the public, including those persons affected by the court's increasingly crowded docket.” Young 

v. City of Palm Bay, Fla., 358 F.3d 859, 864 (11th Cir. 2004). 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Liora Samandarova, requests the Clerk of Courts to issue a 

Default against Defendant, Alexandre Arkhipov, due to the absence of a response to the 

Complaint, and to award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on this 24th

day of January 2023 through filing in CM/ECF, and by email on Defendant, Alexandre Arkhipov, 

pro se, by email at bonamicoalex@gmail.com, 8028 N.W. 11th Ave., A, Miami, FL 33150, on this 

17th day of January 2023.

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Miami, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22787-RNS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Preface","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5raVKxd7Ub\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/preface\/\">Preface<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/preface\/embed\/#?secret=5raVKxd7Ub\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Preface” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"5raVKxd7Ub\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 52013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21090]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Continuation of Visitor Services--Yosemite National 
Park

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the terms of the existing concession contract, the 
National Park Service intends to request a continuation of visitor 
services in Yosemite National Park for a period not to exceed one year 
from the expiration date of the current contract.

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Hecox, Acting Chief, Commercial 
Services Program, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW., 11th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20005; Telephone: 202-513-7156.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the National Park Service, have extended 
the contract listed below for the maximum period allowable under 36 CFR 
51.23. We authorize continuation of visitor services for a period not 
to exceed one year under the terms and conditions of the current 
contract as amended. We make this authorization under the provisions of 
current concession contracts and pending the completion of the public 
solicitation of a prospectus for a new concession contract. The 
continuation of operations does not affect any rights with respect to 
selection for award of a new concession contract.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Concession ID No.          Concessioner name         Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOSE004-93......................  DNC Parks &         Yosemite National
                                   Resorts, Inc..      Park.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jo A. Pendry,
Acting Associate Director, Business Services.
[FR Doc. 2011-21090 Filed 8-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-53-M
§ 3.40-1 Eighth district. ( a ) The District Office is in New Orleans, La.
( b ) The Eighth Coast Guard District is comprised of North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama; that part of Pennsylvania south of 41° N. latitude and west of 79° W. longitude; those parts of Ohio and Indiana south of 41° N. latitude; Illinois, except that part north of 41° N. latitude and east of 90° W. longitude; that part of Wisconsin south of 46°20′ N. latitude and west of 90° W. longitude; that part of Minnesota south of 46°20′ N. latitude; those parts of Florida and Georgia west of a line starting at the Florida coast at longitude 084°04′34′′ W. (30°05′45′′ N., 084°04′34′′ W.) proceeding northerly along the boundary between Wakulla and Jefferson counties to position 30°15′00′′ N., 084°04′33′′ W.; thence due west to 30°15′ N. latitude, 84°45′ W. longitude; thence due north to the southern bank of the Jim Woodruff Reservoir at 84°45′ W. longitude; thence northeasterly along the eastern bank of the Jim Woodruff Reservoir and northerly along the eastern bank of the Flint River to Montezuma, GA.; thence northwesterly to West Point, GA.; and the Gulf of Mexico area west of a line proceeding due south from the intersection of the Florida coast at longitude 084°04′34′′ W. (30°15′45′′ N., 084°04′34′′ W.) to position 29°23′09′′ N., 084°04′34′′ W., then bearing 199°T to the extent of the EEZ. [DATUM NAD83]
[CGFR 67-15, 32 FR 5270, Mar. 29, 1967, as amended by CGD 77-167, 43 FR 2372, Jan. 16, 1978; CGD 96-025, 61 FR 29959, June 13, 1996; USCG-2015-0433, 80 FR 44278, July 27, 2015]
Pou 1-1 (1-99)

Chickens

and Eggs
Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 2 NASS, USDA
Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 3 NASS, USDA


Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 6 NASS, USDA

Eggs and Layers: Layers on Hand and Eggs Produced by Type, and Forced

Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board
Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board
Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 10 NASS, USDA

Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board
Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 13 NASS, USDA

Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 15 NASS, USDA
Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 16 NASS, USDA

Chickens and Eggs Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 18 NASS, USDA