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

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Animal Welfare Contacts

Last Modified: 

Print

Not sure who to contact? We can help!

Select an option from the list below.

I want to...

get guidance on Animal Care requirements

ask about licensing and registration or inspections

speak with subject matter experts about best welfare practices for a wide range

of animal species

ask about best welfare practices for animals during transport

ask about permit requirements to import dogs for resale or adoption or get help

applying for a permit

ask about the annual report requirement or seek help submitting a report

online

Animal Care

APHIS' Animal Care program enforces the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse

Protection Act. Contact us if you have questions about Animal Welfare Act licensing

and registration or inspections under either of these laws.
Animal Care Program

Email: animalcare@usda.gov

Phone: 970-494-7478

Fax: 970-494-7461

Mailing Address:

2150 Centre Ave.

Bldg. B, Mailstop 3W11

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Center for Animal Welfare

Federal agencies, State and local officials, foreign governments, industry groups,

partner organizations, universities, and other stakeholders may contact the Center

for Animal Welfare about many topics. With expertise in a wide range of animal

species, we can provide advice and best practices for humane care and treatment,

health, and welfare.

Center for Animal Welfare

Email: centerforanimalwelfare@usda.gov

Import Permits (Dogs for Resale and Adoption)

APHIS' Animal Care program works with partners at U.S. ports of entry to make sure

dogs imported into the United States for commercial sale or adoption meet the

Animal Welfare Act's health, age, and vaccination requirements. Contact our team if

you have questions about import permit requirements for these dogs or need help

applying for a permit.

Live Dog Import Permit Team
Email: ac.dogimport.mailbox@usda.gov

Phone: 816-737-4223

Fax: 970-494-7461

Mailing Address:

2150 Centre Ave.

Bldg. B, Mailstop 3W11

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Research Facility Annual Report Hotline

Research facilities registered under the Animal Welfare Act may call our hotline with

questions about the annual report requirement or for help submitting a report online

.

Research Facility Annual Report Hotline

Phone: 970-494-7477

Animal Welfare Contacts
# United Sta tes Co urt of A ppea ls F O R T H E D I S T R

I C T O F C O L U M B I A

C I RC U I T 

# No. 21-5045 September Term, 2023 F I L E D 

### O N 

### : A U G

U S T 

### 12, 2024 D A M I E N 

### G U E D E S 

### , E T A L 

### .,

A P P E LL A N TS 

### F I R E A R M S 

### P O L I C Y 

### C O A L I TI ON 

### , I N C 

### ., A P P E LL E E



### v. B UR E A U O F 

### A L C O H O L 

### , T O B A C C O 

### , F I R E A R M S A N D 

### E X P L O S I V E S 

### , E T A L 

### ., A P P E LL E E S



### On Remand fr om the Supreme Court of the U nited States

Be fore : S R

I N I V A S A N 

### , Chief Judge , W I L K I N S 

### , Circuit Judge , and E D W A R D S 

### , Senior Circuit Judge J U D G M E N T This cause came on to be hea rd on re mand from the Supre me Court of the United States. On consideration thereof, it is ORDERED and ADJUDG ED that, in acc ordanc e with the Supreme Court’s judgme nt filed J une 24, 2024, vac ating this court’s Aug ust 9, 2022 judgment, a nd rema nding w ith inst ructions to consider this ca se in light of Garland v. Cargill , 602 U.S. 406 (2024), we here by vaca te the District Court’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt and re mand to the District Court with instructions to enter judgme nt in favor of

the Plaintiffs. The Clerk is dire cted to issue the manda te forthwith.

F OR THE COURT:

Mark J. L ang er, Cler

k BY : /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk
July 17, 2001

23188

#### State v. Tsuchiyama

Vacated and Remanded
#### Connelly’s Estate.

*Decedents’ estates*— Occupation *of real estate by widow*— Chil*dren*— Tenants *in common*— Intestate *laws.*

Under the intestate laws of Pennsylvania a widow is not a tenant in common with the heirs of land of which her husband died seized. If she occupies the real estate, her occupancy of the premises creates no obligation to account to the heirs of the husband *55for the rental value thereof; and this is especially true where the heirs are minor children of the husband, and live with the widow on the premises, and were educated, fed and maintained by her for several years.

Argued Oct. 10,1918.

Appeal, No. 178, Oct. T., 1918, by Patrick J. Anderson, from order of O. O. Beaver Co., Dec. T., 1917, No. 27, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in Estate of Mary J. Connelly.

Before Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Simpson and Fox, JJ.

Affirmed.

Exceptions to report of John A. Elliott, Esq., auditor.

The auditor found that John J. Connelly died on July 3,1913, intestate, leaving to survive Mm his widow, Mary J. Connelly, and two sons by a former wife, aged respectively eleven and thirteen years. He owned a hotel in which the widow and the two sons lived until the widow’s death on October 8, 1916. During this time the widow conducted the hotel, and supported, maintained and fed the two sons. The guardian of the sons claimed $20,800 for the widow.’s use of the hotel. The auditor disallowed the claim. On exceptions Baldwin, P. J., filed the following opinion:

We have carefully examined the auditor’s findings and conclusions in this case and are of the opinion that the auditor was right in refusing the claim presented by Patrick J. Anderson, guardian of Thomas P. and John F. Connelly.

As pointed out by the auditor, the weight of authority is that under the intestate laws of Pennsylvania the widow is not a tenant in common with the heirs. Therefore, her occupancy of the premises in question created no obligation to account to the heirs of the husband for the rental value thereof. Besides, the heirs occupied the premises jointly with her. They were fed, clothed and educated out of the profits of the business which the decedent conducted in the premises. The master’s findings show that the decedent expended in theii^ maintenance and education a sum equal to or in excess of their share *56of a fair compensation for the use- of the premises or the fair rental value thereof.

January 4,1919:

We are unable to see how the claim can be sustained, either in whole or in part, and the exceptions will accordingly be dismissed.

*Errors assigned*were in dismissing exceptions to the auditor’s report.

*Lawrence M. Sebring,*with him *George Wilson,*for appellant.

*E. C. Higbee,*of *Sterling, Higbee & Matthews,*with him *S. R. Goldsmith, Arthur McKeen,*and *W. D. Craig,*for appellees.

Per Curiam,

The decree is affirmed on the opinion of the learned president judge.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusBuildings & GroundsU.S. Capitol Building
Senate Wing
        
    
      Brumidi Corridors

These vaulted, ornately decorated corridors are named in honor of Constantino Brumidi, the Italian artist who designed the murals, directed the crew of painters and painted the major scenes and portraits.

learn more
          Senate Chamber

A rectangular, two-story room located in the center of the north wing of the U.S. Capitol. The nation's 100 senators sit at individual desks arranged on a tiered semicircular platform facing a raised rostrum. A visitor's gallery overlooks the chamber on four sides.

learn more
          Small Senate Rotunda

One of the most architecturally significant spaces in the U.S. Capitol. Fortunately, this space was not damaged when British troops burned the building in 1814, and today it is one of the oldest rooms in the U.S. Capitol.

Learn More
          Old Senate Chamber

Today the restored chamber is used primarily as a museum, recreating the scene of many significant moments in the evolution of the United States Senate and the legislative history of the nation.

Learn More
          Old Supreme Court Chamber

The was the first room constructed for the use of the nation's highest judiciary body and was used by the Court from 1810 until 1860.

Learn More Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
January 24, 2006

26142

#### First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd. v. Georgopapadakos

Affirmed
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Cody Wayne McKay, Appellant

No. 06-14-00003-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 196th District Court of 

Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 29032). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Carter and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Cody Wayne McKay, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 8, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
SERVED: OCTOBER 4, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION M^/^iTM^^'^^ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS -,1^:^:0^/;^}O^^^.. 

WASHINGTON , D C '•'' •'"'''''^-' ^'''^^-^'''•f'^-'i^'^ 

?0i| GLI -5 P 2- !i2 

IN THE MAT PER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-20n-06H0 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING UNDER OTHER FDMS DOCKET 

AND CLOSURE OF THIS FDMS DOCKET 

By notice served August 29, 2011, this proceeding—designated as Case No. 

2011NM060033 and docketed in the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) as FAA2011-0779—was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. The same 

proceeding was previously docketed in FDMS as rAA-201 N0680 but was not transmitted to this 

office. Accordingly, that docket is hereby closed. 

Rohiiie A. Yodcr 

Chief Administrative La 

Attacliment - Service List 
FDMSNo. FAA-20n-0680 

(Civil Penally Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000' 

ONE COPY 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Representative 

Director - Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWcst Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

JELL_202:366-213 9 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-:) 12-1-be'gaI'A'ssistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Tederal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Anention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430. 

- 2 -
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
126934 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 126934 COA: 247079 Wayne CC: 01-012804-01 ANDRE LEMAR JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 8, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal.

t0524 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 31, 2006

Clerk
19111

#### In re Doe (b. 3/28/94)

Affirmed
20285

#### State v. Woodard

Affirmed
**Exhibit 31.4**

 

**RULE 13(a)-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**(AMENDMENT NO.  1)**

 

I, John A. Willingham, certify that:

 
|   | 1. | I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K of Premier Community Bankshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006; |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|   | 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; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 
| Date:  April 30, 2007 | /s/ John A. Willingham                             |  
 

John A. Willingham, Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

 

  |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

467 

CA 10-02240 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

KENNETH J. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLEE C. 

FETZNER, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

LATTIMORE ROAD SURGICENTER, INC., ET AL., 

DEFENDANTS, 

JOHN D. MARQUARDT, M.D. AND LATTIMORE 

ORTHOPAEDICS, P.C., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

CARL L. FEINSTOCK, ROCHESTER, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

BROWN & TARANTINO, LLC, BUFFALO (ANN M. CAMPBELL OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme

Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered April 13, 2010. 

The order and judgment, inter alia, dismissed the complaint upon a

jury verdict. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from 

is unanimously affirmed without costs. 

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
#### Preston Morris, Plaintiff, *v.*Herman Reich, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

February 9, 1959.

*Martin A. Cream*for Herman Reich, Inc., defendant.

*John J. O’Connor*for Nathan Feffer, defendant.

*Tropp & Steinboch*for Clinway Realty Corp., defendant.

*Harry Ruderman*for plaintiff.

Louis L. Friedman, J.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss this action for lack of prosecution is denied without prejudice to an application in New York County. It appears from the papers before the court and from the oral argument, that a stipulation consenting to transfer this action to New York County was entered into in 1954 and that on November 24, 1954, an order to that effect was signed by a Justice of this court. Plaintiff’s attorney asserts that he has been unable to find either the order on file or the stipulations and that it is because of this circumstance that he has been unable to proceed with the case in New York County and to place it on the calendar there. He claims that the transfer has never actually taken place.

If that be so, then plaintiff has good reason for not having placed the case on the calendar. In any event, the order entered in November, 1954, transferring this action to New York County, deprived this court of any further jurisdiction over said action, and the motion may not be here considered, but should be made in New York County. The rule permitting motions to be heard in an adjoining county from the one in which an action is pending, is not applicable where the action is triable in the First District (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 63).

The motion is accordingly denied, as heretofore stated.

Submit order.
**Exhibit 32.1****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 DRI Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, David L. Turney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /S/ DAVID L. TURNEY        David L. Turney          Chief Executive Officer       March 31,2008  A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
**EXHIBIT23(a)**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.333-108771 on Form S-8 of First Financial Service Corporation of our reportsdated March 15, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financial statementsof First Financial Service Corporation, and management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appear inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Financial Service Corporation for theyear ended December 31, 2004.

 

 
| Crowe Chizek and Company LLC |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
| Louisville, Kentucky         |
| March 15,  2005         |

 

----
21133

#### State v. Castillo

Affirmed
April 26, 2000

22108

#### State v. Darick

Reversed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply572Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Teresa Emmick ... (not verified)PermalinkApril 19, 2019 - 4:11amVery interesting
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### State v. Brewer

18440

12/23/96

Vacated and Remanded
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40649 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ASCENCION GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-96-CR-314-6

-------------------- July 13, 2001 Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ascencion Garza appeals his conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. First, he argues that the district court erred in the amount of drugs it attributed to him at sentencing because the information upon which it relied did not possess sufficient indicia of reliability. Next, he argues that the district court erred in failing to make required conspiratorial and foreseeability findings in connection with his relevant conduct. Finally, heNo. 00-40649 -2- argues that the instant prosecution for conspiracy violated double jeopardy because it followed a conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana “arising under the same alleged conspiracy.” Garza’s arguments are unavailing. The district court did not err in considering the statements of two of Garza’s coconspirators, which are part of the record on appeal, in arriving at its drug-quantity finding. See United States v. Gaytan , 74 F.3d 545, 558 (5th Cir. 1996). In any event, the unrebutted information in Garza’s presentence report, which the district court explicitly adopted, was sufficient to support the court’s drug-quantity finding. See United States v. Vela , 927 F.2d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Mir , 919 F.2d 940, 943 (5th Cir. 1990). In light of that information, the court’s drug-quantity finding was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Davis , 76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir. 1996). Moreover, the district court made any required conspiratorial and foreseeability findings implicitly when it adopted the presentence report. See United States v. Duncan , 191 F.3d 569, 575-76 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 529 U.S. 1122 (2000); United States v. Garcia , 86 F.3d 394, 400-01 (5th Cir. 1996). Finally, Garza’s double-jeopardy claim fails because a substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are separate offenses for double-jeopardy purposes. United States v.
Brown , 29 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.