alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Submission of Samples for Testing of Horses for Equine Piroplasmosis Prior to 

Interstate or Intrastate Movement 

How to submit a sample to NVSL-Ames 

1. Submit clear serum on ice packs. 

2. Submit a minimum of 2 mls of serum. 

3. Testing of samples will be delayed if samples are submitted on the clot. 

Submission procedures for NVSL 

1. Use VS Form 10-4 to submit samples. 

a. The Internet location to download the VS Form 10-4 is: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/lab_info_services/forms_publications.shtml

b. Include your fax number 

c. Include your email address. 

d. Include the date you need the test results. 

2. Indicate the specific test(s) requested. For interstate movement, you need to check with the 

State Veterinarian’s Office of the destination state to determine the tests required. 

a. Serological tests for equine piroplasmosis include: 

i. cELISA (competitive ELISA) for Babesia (Theileria) equi 

ii. cELISA for Babesia caballi 

b. Testing may be delayed if the test(s) requested is not listed on the VS Form 10-4 

because NVSL personnel will need to call the submitter. Phone calls will be made as 

time permits. 

i. Cost 

See the current NVSL Diagnostic Testing Catalog 

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/lab_info_services/downloads/AmesDiagnosticTestingCatalog.pdf) for current 

prices. 

c. Payment for services must be made in advance unless you have an account already 

established with USDA: 

i. Payment may be made in the form of a check, money order, or bank draft in U.S. 

dollars and made payable to USDA. 

ii. Visa, MasterCard, and American Express are acceptable methods of payment. If 

paying with a credit card, please include the credit card number and expiration date 

on your submission form. 

iii. If you have a USDA account and would like the services billed to that account, 

please write your account number on the submission form. If you do not have an 

account and would like one, please contact the APHIS Business Services in 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, at 877-777-2128. 

iv. If you have any questions regarding payment of user fees, contact the National 

Veterinary Services Laboratories’ User Fee Help Line at 515-337-6200. 

Requests for results 

1. The primary method for reporting results is via e-mail or fax. 
2. The length of time for completion of the testing depends upon the number of tests 

performed and when the sample(s) arrive. Every effort is being made to test samples as 

quickly as possible and results can be expected in 2-3 days. Keep in mind that testing may 

take longer if samples arrive on a Friday or just before a holiday. 

3. Results are reported as soon as completed. The results are reported only to the submitter 

and to the AVIC of the state in which the animal is located. Results are not reported to the 

animal owner. 

4. The NVSL laboratory section is very busy testing large numbers of samples and processing 

results for reporting. Requests for results by telephone cannot be accommodated, as this 

delays the testing and reporting of everyone’s results.
February 27, 2004

25499

#### Freitas v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

Affirmed
OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

222) ll-K- (I) -35 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:56 AM Sheet 222 of 325 

P.1 
P.2 

/A\=f| 

II-K-(I)-35 

INDUSTRIAL SECTOR TECHNOLOGY USE MODEL (ISTUM) 

INDUSTRIAL ENERGY USE IN THE U.S. 1974-2000. 

EEA, Inc . 

October 1979. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-35
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21. Subsidiaries of the Registrant


  The Company has two wholly-owned subsidiaries. All others listed are either
direct or indirect subsidiaries of the Bank.


SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY                    STATE OF INCORPORATION
---------------------------                    ----------------------

Mid America Bank, fsb                          Illinois
MAF Developments, Inc.                         Illinois



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE BANK                       STATE OF INCORPORATION
------------------------                       ----------------------

Mid America Investment Services, Inc. (1)      Illinois
Mid America Insurance Agency, Inc.             Illinois
Mid America Finance Corporation                Illinois
Mid America Mortgage Securities, Inc.          Illinois
N.W. Financial Corporation                     Illinois
Ambria Development Corporation                 Illinois
Randall Road Development Corporation           Illinois
Centre Point Title Services, Inc.              Illinois
Reigate Woods Development Corporation          Illinois
MAF Realty Co., L.L.C. - I   (2)               Delaware
MAF Realty Co., L.L.C. - II  (2)               Delaware
MAF Realty Co., L.L.C. - III                   Delaware
MAF Realty Co., L.L.C. - IV                    Delaware


(1) formerly known as Mid America Development Services, Inc.
(2) dissolved on September 14, 1999
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

APHIS Announces Funding for Tribal

Partners Supporting Farm Bill Animal

Disease Preparedness and Response

Activities

Print

Contact:

APHISPress@usda.gov

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) is awarding $566,626 to support four new cooperative agreements

with tribal partners through the National Animal Disease Preparedness and

Response Program (NADPRP). These projects will enhance these Tribes’ – and our

nation’s - animal disease response capabilities and strengthen APHIS’ relationships

with these partners.

In October 2022, APHIS announced the availability of funding for proposals in the

first-ever NADPRP Tribal Funding Opportunity.

This critical funding will help advance animal disease preparedness in this country

by supporting 4 projects that:

Help Tribal nations develop and practice plans to quickly control highconsequence disease outbreaks;

Increase producers’ use of effective and practical biosecurity measures;
Support animal movement decisions that prioritize continuity of business during

disease outbreaks; and

Provide outreach and education to livestock owners to help them prevent,

detect, and prepare for animal disease outbreaks.

NADPRP addresses the risk of introduction and spread of high-consequence animal

pests and diseases through cooperative or interagency agreements between APHIS

and States, universities, livestock producer organizations, Tribal organizations, landgrant universities, and other eligible entities. Together, APHIS and its partners carry

out high-value projects that enhance prevention, preparedness, detection, and

response to the most damaging emerging and foreign animal diseases that threaten

U.S. agriculture.

A full list of NADPRP-funded projects is available on the NADPRP website here:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-diseaseinformation/farm-bill/nadprp/ad-preparedness-response-program.

The 2018 Farm Bill provided funding for these programs as part of an overall

strategy to help prevent animal pests and diseases from entering the United States

and reduce the spread and impact of potential disease incursions through advance

planning and preparedness.

More information about these programs is available at:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/resources/farmbill.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of OEC Compression Corporation, (formerly Equity Compression Services
Corporation, formerly Hawkins Energy Corporation, the "Company") on Form S-8
(File Nos. 33-74640 and 333-23925) of our report dated March 30, 1998 on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of December
31, 1997 and for the years ended December 31, 1997 and 1996 which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.
 
                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 29, 1999
Order filed August 16, 2018

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00710

- CV

____________ SUZANNE SONDRUP RON, ON BEHA LF OF HERSELF AND AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF THE SUZANNE RON 2 012 FAMILY TRUST , Appellant

V.

AVISHAI RON, ET AL , Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 19071



### ORDER
On August 14, 2018, appellant filed a motion as asking this court to stay an anti

- suit injunction and a temporary restraining order both dated August 3, 2018 and
entered i n trial court number 2017

- 19071 by the Honorable Kyle Carter , Judge of the 125th District Court, in Harris County, Texas

. See Tex. R. App. P. 29.3.
We gra nt the motion as to the anti

- suit injunction but deny the motion as tothe temporary restraining order. We ORDER the anti

- suit injunction STAYED until

a final decision by this court on the appeal or until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Busby, and Brown.
#### Benjamin Schwartz, Petitioner, *v.*North Salem Board of Education, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Westchester County,

January 18,1971.

*James J. Leibman*for petitioner. *Kunts é DonogJme*for respondent.

Egbert E. Dempsey, J.

By motion, petitioner seeks to confirm what he urges is an award to him made in the arbitration hearing. He states that by virtue of the award he is entitled to a sabbatical leave or alternatively the sum of $8,000 representing one half of his annual salary. Petitioner is employed by respondent as a science teacher. He submitted a request for such leave pursuant to his contract. The request was denied. Ultimately the parties agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration and respondent in a letter of September 16, 1969 manifested its consent thereto by the following language: ‘ ‘ Our contract with the teachers calls for the submission of all disputes to *advisory*arbitration ” and names the American Arbitration Association as administrator. The contract between the school and the North Salem Teachers Association specifically provides that: “ The decision of the Arbitrator shall be advisory on the parties”. (Art. IX, subd. 04, par. [a].) In article XII of the same contract, “Powers of Board”, the board’s powers were not to be abridged, etc., by the arbitration procedure.

Although petitioner’s attorney declaims in his affidavit that the argument of respondent “ flouts the principles of arbitration which the Courts have favoured ”, the assertion overlooks the equally fundamental principle that arbitration cannot be *473judicially mandated unless by clear and unequivocal language the parties involved have agreed thereto. *(Matter of Lehman*v. *Ostrovsky,*264 N. Y. 130.) “No one is under a duty to arbitrate unless by clear language he has agreed to do so ’ ’ *(Matter of Eagar Constr. Corp. [Ward Foundation Corp.],*255 App. Div. 291, .293). The school board did arbitrate in fulfilment of the contract provision but by that same provision, the arbitration was *advisory*only. What petitioner seeks is not possible to grant in the light of the precise language used in the contract. He would have the court write into the contract a clause that the findings of the arbitrator are binding on the parties when, in fact, the express provision of the contract is that the decision is advisory only. This the court may not do. *(Matter of Milton L. Ehrlich, Inc. [Unit Frame & Floor Corp.],*5 A D 2d 272, 275; *Matter of Brookfield Clothes [Rosewood Fabrics],*4 A D 2d 458, 461.) The court determines that no enforceable right was given petitioner from the findings of the arbitrator. The motion is in all respects denied and the proceeding for confirmation is dismissed. No other questions are passed upon.
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 Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K/A for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael W. Rogers, 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 to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company.



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /S/ MICHAEL W. ROGERS  
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer

January 26, 2009
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER ON M OTION TO R ECUSE

Appellate case name: B.H. v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 1

- 00 704

- C V

Trial court case number: 9823370

Trial court: 309th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: February 14 , 2014

Party filing motion: Appellant

To the extent appellant’s February 14, 2014 motion requests recusal, i t is ordered that

the motion to recuse is denied.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

Acting for the Court

The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Bland, Sharp,

Massengale, Brown , and Huddle

.

Date: March 11, 2014
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014- Directorate Identifier: 2014-NE-05-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

RB211 Trent 500 

EEC update 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): ASE Estimate

pulled from aircraft registry
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

PCN Regulated Field Description April

20 2022

Last Modified: 

Print

Since the last update to the pale cyst nematode regulated Area on November 29,

2021, approximately 2 acres have been released from regulation after determining a

portion of a field did not meet the definition of an ‘associated field’ in accordance

with the Federal PCN Final Rule, subpart 301.86-3(c)(2) Criteria for designation of

fields as infested fields and associated fields – Associated fields. The field is located

in Bingham County; T 01 S, R 37 E, section 5. 

With this change, the current regulated area is 6,568 acres, of which 3,542 acres are

infested fields and 3,026 acres are associated fields.  

Regulated Quarantine Map (984.17 KB)

Loading...
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Gray Wolf in the Western Great Lakes

Last Modified: 

Print

Wolves occur naturally in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the 2012-2013

population estimate was 3,686 animals. WS personnel work closely with the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the State wildlife agencies to respond to requests for

assistance from livestock producers, and WS may trap and relocate wolves,

sometimes attaching radio-collars.

Click here to learn more about wolves and wolf management in the Great Lakes

area.

In Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin...

WS partners with State Departments of Natural Resources and the FWS to address

wolf concerns and livestock losses. WS conducts an integrated wolf damage

management program that includes investigations into reported incidences of wolf

depredations, provision of fladry and other nonlethal management methods to

farmers and removal of wolves under certain circumstances. WS also works with

Native American Tribes where appropriate to address wolf concerns on tribal lands,

assists researchers in wolf capture and monitoring, and verifies losses for State

compensation programs.

View Lines of Defense - Coping with Predators in the Rocky Mountain Region

How WS Works with Livestock Producers

Protecting Livestock from Predators Factsheets
Wildlife Services Program by State
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 648 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives respecting budgetrelated points of order. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2016 

Mr. RENACCI (for himself, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. BRAT, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. 

WESTERMAN, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. 

BARLETTA, Mr. BARR, and Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives 

respecting budget-related points of order. 

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new clause: 

4 ‘‘12.(a) It shall not be in order to consider a resolu5 tion reported by the Committee on Rules providing for the 

6 consideration of a bill or joint resolution that waives, or 

7 has the effect of waiving, any budget-related point of order 

8 unless the resolution specifies each such point of order. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 648 IH 

1 ‘‘(b)(1) Upon consideration of a resolution reported 

2 by the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration 

3 of a bill or joint resolution, it shall be in order to offer 

4 a motion to strike or amend any provision of the resolution 

5 that waives, or has the effect of waiving, the application 

6 of a budget-related point of order in order to eliminate 

7 any such waiver from the resolution. 

8 ‘‘(2) A motion made pursuant to subparagraph (1)— 

9 ‘‘(A) shall be privileged; 

10 ‘‘(B) shall be debatable for 20 minutes, divided 

11 evenly between those in favor of the motion and 

12 those opposed to the motion; and 

13 ‘‘(C) may not be amended. 

14 ‘‘(3) At the conclusion of any debate on a motion 

15 made pursuant to subparagraph (1), the previous question 

16 shall be considered as ordered. It shall not be in order 

17 to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion is 

18 agreed to or disagreed to. 

19 ‘‘(c) In this clause, the term ‘budget-related point of 

20 order’ means— 

21 ‘‘(1) in the Congressional Budget and Impound22 ment Control Act of 1974— 

23 ‘‘(A) section 302(f); 

24 ‘‘(B) section 303; 

25 ‘‘(C) section 306(b); 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 648 IH 

1 ‘‘(D) section 311; or 

2 ‘‘(E) section 401; and 

3 ‘‘(2) clause 10 of rule XXI.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(pursuant to Rule 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc.;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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), 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 changes in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants third fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrants board of directors:
 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.
 Date: January 8, 2007
    /s/ Thomas C. OBrienThomas C. OBrien, Chief Executive Officer
21935

#### Pacific Bldg. Corp. v. County of Maui

Affirmed