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

Biotechnology Regulatory Services July 2012

Questions and 

Answers: Pioneer’s 

Herbicide Tolerant 

(HT) Canola (Event 

DP-073496-4)

 APHIS received a petition from Pioneer Hi-Bred 

International, Inc. (Pioneer), in March 2011, seeking 

a determination of nonregulated status for canola 

DP-073496-4 developed for tolerance to the 

herbicide glyphosate. 

Q: What is Glyphosate?

A: Glyphosate is a commonly used herbicide used 

to kill weeds. When applied to glyphosate resistant 

crops, it helps control weeds without damaging the 

crop.

Q: Has canola DP-073496-4 been field tested in 

the U.S.?

A: Yes, it has been field tested since 2007 in the 

major canola-growing regions of Canada and the 

United States. All field tests in the United States were 

under permits, including strict movement controls, 

granted by APHIS.

Q: Why is APHIS making this petition available to 

the public?

A: This first comment period provides the public an 

opportunity to review the petition for nonregulated 

status and provide input that will be carefully 

considered by APHIS as it develops its ensuing 

environmental assessment (EA) and plant pest risk 

assessment (PPRA). APHIS will accept written 

comments regarding the petition for a determination 

of nonregulated status from interested or affected 

persons for a period of 60 days from the date of the 

Agency’s notice in the Federal Register. 

Q: What is the next step following the comment 

period?

A: After the comment period closes, APHIS will 

carefully consider all written comments received 

during the comment period and any other relevant 

information; any substantive issues identified by 

APHIS based on our review of the petition and 

our evaluation and analysis of comments will be 

considered in the development of the Agency’s draft 

plant pest risk assessment and draft environmental 

assessment. 

Q: Under APHIS’ process, what does the Agency 

do after it prepares its draft assessments?

A: After the Agency prepares these documents, it 

makes them publicly available, providing a second 

30-day opportunity for public input. The Agency then 

carefully reviews comments before any determination 

becomes final. 

For more details on the petition process, go to:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/pet_proc_

imp_info.shtml 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture
August 6, 2015

Mr. Charles Eide

Partner

Eide Communications, Inc. dba EideCom

8401 73rd Avenue North, Suite 77

Brooklyn Park, MN 55428

Dear Mr. Eide:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 

91.203(a) and (b), 91.215(a) and (b), 91.131(d), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 

91.417(a) and (b), and part 21 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains 

why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your June 1, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Eide Communications, Inc. 

dba EideCom into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−2226), but we are unable to process 

your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
**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 Mannatech, Incorporated (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen D. Fenstermacher, Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 andresults of operations of the Company. 

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO MANNATECH,INCORPORATED AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
No. 42096.

#### Protests 963727-G, etc., of G. Ascione, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
# C_2013026EN.01007203.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/72

---

Action brought on 3 November 2012 — ZZ v OHIM

(Case F-125/12)

2013/C 26/149

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicant’s 2011 appraisal report and of the decision imposing the objectives, and application for damages

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the appraisal report concerning the applicant for 2011 in the version of 1 February 2012 and the e-mails of the defendant of 2 February 2012 at 14:51 and of 2 February 2012 at 15:49, in so far as OHIM’s imposition on the applicant of objectives to be achieved for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 is contained therein; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appraisal report concerning the applicant for 2011 in the version of 1 February 2012 and the e-mails of the defendant of 2 February 2012 at 14:51 and of 2 February 2012 at 15:49, in so far as OHIM’s imposition on the applicant of objectives to be achieved for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 is contained therein;

| — | order OHIM to pay to the applicant damages of an appropriate amount at the discretion of the Tribunal for the non-material damage suffered by him; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay to the applicant damages of an appropriate amount at the discretion of the Tribunal for the non-material damage suffered by him;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Former DLA Aviation systems analyst led fight for equality of all employees 

By Beth Reece

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Hall of FameEEOCivil RightsawardsHOF2018
# C_2014078EN.01001803.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/18

---

Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — EDF v Commission

(Case T-389/12) (1)

1

2014/C 78/37

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

1

---
**Exhibit
      23.2**








**ARMANDO
      C. IBARRA**


**Certified
      Public Accountants**


**A
      Professional Corporation**


Armando
      C. Ibarra, C.P.A. Member of the California Society of Certified Public
      Accountants


Armando
      Ibarra, Jr., C.P.A., JD Member of the American Institute of Certified Public
      Accountants


Registered
      with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board











June
      14,
      2006








**To
      Whom It May Concern:**





The
      firm
      of Armando C. Ibarra, Certified Public Accountants, APC consents to the
      inclusion of our report of August 16, 2005, on the audited consolidated
      financial statements of Seychelle Environmental Technologies, Inc., as of
      February 28, 2005 in the annual filing of form 10KSB for the fiscal year ended
      February 28, 2006 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.











Very
      truly yours,








_ /s/
      Armando C. Ibarra ________


ARMANDO
      C. IBARRA, C.P.A.
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 The McClatchy Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick J.
Talamantes, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                              |  |                                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Dated: March 2, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    PATRICK J. TALAMANTES
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                              |  | Patrick J. Talamantes Chief Financial Officer
#### In re Eric Wayne WAGNER and Heather Elizabeth Wagner, Debtors.

Bankruptcy No. 97-30482.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho.

Oct. 20, 1998.

Robert L. Brower, Jones, Brower and Callery, Lewiston, Idaho, for Potlatch No. 1 Credit Union.

Christy A. Kaes, Moscow, Idaho, for the debtors.

S. David Swayne, Moscow, Idaho, chapter 7 trustee.

SUMMARY ORDER

TERRY L. MYERS, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter came before the Court on the Stipulation for Relief from Automatic Stay submitted by Potlatch No. 1 Credit Union, Debtors, and the chapter 7 Trustee. By virtue of the correspondence to the Court from Potlatch’s counsel, the Stipulation filed September 30,1998 is WITHDRAWN.
No. 96-1146.

#### Vemco, Inc. *v.*Federal Insurance Co.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order entered March 13, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01693-CV

RXEDO CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Appellant

V.

AMERIPLAN CORPORATION, A TEXAS CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-04146-2009

ORDER

By unopposed motion filed March 6, 2014, appellant informs us that the parties are 

engaged in settlement negotiations and requests the period for pursuing ADR be enlarged and the 

appeal be abated pending the negotiations. We GRANT the motion to the extent we ABATE 

the appeal for a period of forty-five days. The appeal will be reinstated April 28, 2014 or upon 

motion by the parties, whichever occurs sooner. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
(V. D. 80)

#### The American Import Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2825.

(Decided June 11, 1958)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle, Jr.,*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This matter comes before me pursuant to a remand from classification proceedings *(The American Import Co.*v. *United States,*37 Cust. Ct. 433, Abstract 60402), wherein judgment was entered, ordering that the matter be “remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for the determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided bylaw (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).”

At the trial, the following stipulation was entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> Me. Ttjttle: Also, I offer in evidence the papers in this entry, and particularly, the invoice showing the separate values of the cases and the binoculars.

> Me. FitzGibbon: There is no objection to that.

> Judge Wilson: They may be received.

> Me. Tuttle: We further offer to stipulate that the dutiable value of the cases is the value shown on the invoice identified as number 2163.

> Me. FitzGibbon: That is agreed to.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper value of the binoculars and leather cases here in question is the value as set forth in each instance on the invoice identified herein as number 2163.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of EarthFirst Technologies, Incorporated (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge and belief, that:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Form 10-KSB) of the Company 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 Form
10-KSB fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: October 19, 2006 |  | /s/ John D. Stanton                  
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer and President

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
#### Daryl WALTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 72777.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 21, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 30, 1998.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Barbara K. Chesser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Darryl Walton, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis wherein it denied his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing after he pled guilty to the class B felony of sale of a controlled substance, RSMo section 195.211 (1994). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and legal file and find the judgment is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we *31affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Distribution commanding officer hosts Bahrain town hall

                BAHRAIN  –              
DLA Distribution commanding officer Navy Supply Corps Rear Adm. Kevin Jones recognizes outstanding employees during a town hall at DLA Distribution Bahrain.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADistributionDLA DistributionDLA Distribution BahrainPeople & Culture
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Trinidad VILLASENOR-VALDEZ, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-30221.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 16, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 28, 2005.

Aaron N. Lucoff, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Richard S. Rubin, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, ALARCON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Trinidad Villasenor-Valdez pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been deported following his conviction for an aggravated felony. At sentencing, he received a sixteen-level enhancement because of a prior conviction for statutory rape, but was granted an eight-level downward departure from the enhancement. The Government appeals from the court’s sentencing decision to grant a downward departure. It maintains that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) mandates the imposition of a sixteen-level enhancement. We affirm the sentencing decision, because the sentencing guidelines are not mandatory under *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 757, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Mr. Villasenor-Valdez pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been deported following his conviction for an aggravated felony. At sentencing, he received a sixteen-level enhancement based on his prior conviction for statutory rape, a crime of violence. Mr. Villasenor-Valdez moved for a downward departure under U.S.S.G § 5k2.0. The Government opposed this motion, but the District Court granted an eight-level reduction. The Government challenges this reduction. “The interpretation and construction of statutes are questions of law reviewed de novo.” *Soltani v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co.,*258 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir.2001).

The Government argues that the District Court “render[ed] moot the sixteen level enhancement mandated by U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) ...” when it departed *912downward eight levels in this case. The Supreme Court ruled in *Booker*that the Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory. *Booker,*125 S.Ct. at 756-57. Because this matter was pending on appeal when *Booker*was decided, this Court must apply that decision to this appeal. *Griffith v. Kentucky,*479 U.S. 314, 322, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). Therefore, the Government’s argument that a higher sentence was “mandated” by the Guidelines has no merit after *Booker.*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.