alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Item_5.2_Glossary definition for “Poultry” / page 1 

Annex 4

GLOSSARY

*ANIMAL PRODUCT~~S~~*

means any part~~s~~ of an *animal*, ~~and~~or a raw or manufactured product~~s~~ containing any material derived from *animals*, excluding *germinal products*, *biological products* and *pathological material*.

*BIOLOGICAL PRODUCT~~S~~*

means a product~~s~~ of animal or microorganism origin, used ~~as reagents~~in the diagnosis of diseases, for treatment, control and prevention of diseases, ~~and~~or in the collection and processing of *germinal products*.

*COMMODITY*

means a live *animal~~s~~*, an*animal product~~s~~*~~of animal origin~~,~~animal genetic material~~*germinal products*, a *biological product~~s~~*~~and~~or *pathological material*.

*~~DEATH~~*

~~means the irreversible permanent loss of all vital functions brain activity demonstrable by the loss of brain stem reflexes. This may be confirmed through a combination of criteria such as dilated pupil and absence of corneal reflex, cardiac activity and breathing.~~

***EUTHANASIA***

means the killing of an animal ~~act of inducing death~~~~for welfare purposes~~ using a method that causes a rapid and irreversible loss of consciousness with minimum pain and distress ~~to animal~~.

*GERMINAL PRODUCTS*

means animal semen, oocytes, embryos ~~and~~ or *hatching eggs*.

*~~GREAVES~~*

~~means the protein-containing residue obtained after the partial separation of fat and water during the process of rendering.~~

*~~ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CENTRE~~SEMEN COLLECTION CENTRE*

means an *approved* facility *~~approved~~*~~by the *Veterinary Authority* and which~~that meets the conditions set out in the *Terrestrial Code*for the collection, processing and~~/or~~ storage of semen.

*SLAUGHTER*

means the~~any~~killing~~procedure that causes the death of an animal by bleeding~~ of an animal~~s~~primarily intended for human consumption.

***STUNNING***

means any ~~mechanical, electrical, chemical or other~~ procedure that causes ~~rapid~~~~immediate~~ loss of consciousness for the purpose of killingwithout ~~minimal~~ avoidable *distress*, fear and *pain*~~and other types of~~~~and suffering for the purpose of killing~~~~; when used before slaughter, the loss of consciousness lasts until death from the slaughter process.; in the absence of slaughter, the procedure would allow the animal to recover consciousness~~**.**

___________________________

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2024	1

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2024	1

Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / February 2023	1
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

June 17, 2011

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 10

‐ 3028

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

v.
No. 1:03

‐ cr

‐ 00621

‐ 5

ERICK MARTINEZ, Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Amy J. St. Eve, Judge

.

ORDER

The slip opinion of June 16, 2011, is amended as follows:

Page 8, first full paragraph, line 1, “him” is deleted.
# (^ ^

VA^U^LcL^rV

Ydoc^v^^^^" ^

t?tf>c-^J ' 2<^o^-0^9Q , :>^RTMENTO F iJSTORTATIO N



# - E

_ ^ "i i ^E P 2 0 != > 2
- 5 5 Chippew a Valle y 

# REGIONA L AIRPOR

T

Septembe r20 , 201 1

M rDenni s J DeVan y Chief

. Essentia l Ai rServic e Divisio n Offic e of Aviatio n Analysi s 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E Washington , D C , 2059 0 Dea rM rDeVany , Th e Chippew a Valle yRegiona l Airport Commissio n ha s reviewe d th e ai rservic e proposal s submiitect b vAi rChoic e On e Sovereig n Ai ' an d Sl^yVVes t Ainino s I have bee n i n communicatio n wit h th e Cityo f Ea j Clair e an d w e agre e tha t th e Airport Commissio n w/oul d provid e ttii s lette ro n behal fofth e comrnunit v I h e Airport Commissio n i s appreciative tha t multipl e carrier s chos e t o submi t bid s fo rservic e t o (;VR A O n t>ehal f o f th e Airpor t Commissio n I woul d lik e t o expres s ou rsupport fo rth e Skywes t Airtine s proposa l Th e combinatio n o f th e lowe rfinancia l subsidy , CR J aircraft , an d th e propose d non-sto p servic e t o Chicag o O'Har e mak e th e Skywes t proposa l ou rbes t opportunit yfo rgrowrth , Tli e Airport (Commissio n i s extremel ypleased wit h th e communit yrespons e t o th e servic e provide d b y SkyWes t Airline s vi/hic h bega n
. n Marc h 2010 , SkyWes l tia s tiee n ver ycommitte d t o assistin g th e Airoort wit h it s marketin g ptogra m an d offerin g competitiv e airfare s ii i a n effort t o furthe rincreas e passenge rtraffic

. A s a result , tota l passenge rtraffi cincrease d 48 % i n 201 0 an d continue d t o increas e :hroug h th e firs t hal f of2011 , i n respons e t o thi s increase , n passenge rtraffi cth e Airport Commissior ^ i s thrille d tha t SkyWes t ha s oee n abl e t o reduc e thei rsubsid yreques t b yapproximatel yS50 0 00 0 Th e Airport an d communit ywil l continu e t o wor k

towar d furthe rreducin g rtia t subsid yove rth e next tw o year s rti e onl ydisadvantag e t o thi s SkyWes t pfooosa l versu s tfi e >as t p'-oposa i i n 200 9 i s th e los s o fa ,3' " roiinotn p fligh t Thi s fligfi l wa s stiare d wit n a neighborin g communit ybu t i t stil l provide d on e mor e dail y trave l optio n t o tti e consume ran d w cbeliev e ttn a thir d fligh t na d som e effec t o n th e doubl e digi t traffi c increase s o f th e las t yea ran d a hal fTh e Airport Commissio n anticipate s workin g wit h SkyWes t t o cxintinu e buildin g passenge rtraffi ci n orde rt o bnn g anothe rfligh t t o th e marke t i n th e nex t tvw j years
. W e Ijeliev e th e onl ywa yt o buil d a sustainabl e leve l o f passenge rtraffi ci s throug h mor e tha n tw o flight s pe rda y Than k yo u to rprovidin g thi s opportunit yt o respon d t o th e ai rsen/ic e proposals

. Sincerely , 

# (^,.fcljKxtH|-^/l^-"-^ ' Chant ySpeic h C M Airport Manage r



## 380 0 StarrAvenu e , Ea u Cioire , W l 6470 3

. 715-839-624 1

. cvra@clearjvire.nri; t vvAAfW , c h ipp e w a vo l l e voitport , co m
### Page 1of1


### John Romans From: John Romans Oohnromanslaw@optonline.netJ 

### Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 7:09 PM 

### To: 'Dayton.Lehman@ost.dot.gov'; 'carl.nelson@aa.com'; 'cefelts@fedex.com'; 'PauI.Gretch@ost.dot.gov'; 'dfisher@kellydrye.com'; 'ejm@mrecic.gov.ar'; 'EvansF@state.gov'; 'Manley, Jeffrey [DCAGV],; 'Esta.Rosenberg@dot.gov'; 'George.Wellington@ost.dot.gov'; 'Brian.Hedberg@dot.gov' 

### Cc: 'mbarrantes@aerolineas.com.ar'; 'jandreot@aerolineas.com.ar'; 'gcoto@aerolineas.com.ar' 

### Subject: RE: RE: Aerolineas Argentinas Motion for an Extension ofTime to Respond to the Motion ofthe Joint Complainants From March 11 to April 5, 2011. On March 2, 2011, Joint Complainants made a Motion foran Order Requiring Disrtibution ofthe Funds from the AerolineasArgentians Escrow Account. This is a Motion to extend the date forAerolineas to respond from, March 11, 2011 to April 5, 2011. Before making this Motion, I conferred with a memberofthe JointComplaninants who kindly contacted all ofthe other Complainants and informed me that they were not opposed to the request. Therefore, Aerolineas requests that the deadline of March 11 be extended to April 5, 2011

John N.Romans 100 MamaroneckAvenue, 3d FI Mamaroneck, N.Y. 10543 914-315-1896 FAX 914-698-6984 JOHNROMANSLAW@OPTONLlNE.NET



### 3/7/2011

### Regulations.gov Page 1of1

Print this page 

## Submit a Comment

Success! Your Comment Has Been Submitted Comment Tracking Number: 80c03333 Thankyou for submitting a comment on the following Other Document ID: DOT-OST-2D03-1S09Z-0426: AerolineasArgentinas, S.A.
When will mycomment appear online? Your comment has been sent to the appropriate agency and will be available on Regulations.gov once it has been processed. Given certain regulations may havethousands ofcomments, processing may take several weeks before it can be viewed online. We value your comment, and encourage you to contactthe agency directlyfor additional questions related to your specific comment. How do I find my comment in the future? The best way to find your comment in the future is to enteryour CommentTracking Number in the search field on the homepage. You can also search by keyword orsubmittername. What can Ido if my file was not successfully uploaded? Ifyourfile was not successfuUy uploaded, contact the Help Desk.



### http://www.regulations.gov/ 

## 3/812011
#### Therese Pearson, Plaintiff, *v.*Herbert Pearson, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

May 27, 1959.

*578
      *Lester IAchter*for defendant.

*August Zolotorofe*for plaintiff.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Defendant moves to stay execution by the plaintiff on both a judgment and an order which provide for the payment of counsel fees and costs.

Plaintiff was awarded $1,000 counsel fees as part of a judgment of separation granted to her after a lengthy trial. The order directed payment of additional counsel fees of $1,000 and printing costs to the plaintiff for an appeal from that part of said judgment which awards visitation rights and for inadequacy of the first counsel fee.

Under section 584 of the Civil Practice Act the Appellate Division could conceivably reduce, instead of increase, the award of counsel fee in the judgment of separation, as sought by plaintiff, even though no cross appeal by the defendant has been taken. Thus, there would seem to be no limitation of the power of the Appellate Division to stay execution at the instance of either party. On the other hand, the power of this court seems limited by section 615 of the Civil Practice Act, which permits it to stay execution upon appeal under certain conditions only on behalf of the appellant. The application to stay execution of the judgment should therefore be made to the Appellate Division.

As to the application for a stay, addressed to the order awarding a counsel fee, this court has the discretionary power under section 615 of the Civil Practice Act to stay execution of such order pending the appeal since in that appeal he is the appellant. Such discretion will, however, not be exercised in view of the disposition above. It should be noted that under section 615 the defendant may have a stay of execution of the order without more by giving the appropriate undertaking.

Motion denied without prejudice to a renewal before the Appellate Division.

Settle order on notice.
# C_2019139EN.01005002.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int (MEBLO)

(Case T-263/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - European Union figurative trade mark MEBLO - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use)

(2019/C 139/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Meblo Trade d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje d.o.o. (Nova Gorica, Slovenia) (represented by: A. Plesničar, lawyer)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2018 (Case R 883/2017-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Meblo Trade and Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Meblo Trade d.o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Meblo Trade d.o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
AFS-14-115-E March 14, 2014

Exemption No. 10504A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0373

Ms. Dawn Moeller Parent of Tyler Moeller 8 Captolene Avenue Bloomingdale, NJ 07403

Dear Ms. Moeller:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10504. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letters dated January 16, 2014 and February 13, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Tyler Moeller for an extension of Exemption No. 10504. That exemption from § 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Tyler to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Tyler.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10504 remains valid with respect to this exemption a nd is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, I hereby grant Tyler Moeller an extension to the exemption from § 121.311(b). Any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Tyler is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary to allow him to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard

a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Tyler’s parents or a caregiver accompanying him. Tyler Moeller may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Tyler’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10504 to April 30, 2019, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
# C_2019263EN.01004201.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Visi/one v EUIPO — EasyFix (Door hanger for vehicles)

(Case T-74/18) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a door hanger for vehicles - Earlier design - Proof of the disclosure - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2019/C 263/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Visi/one GmbH (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: H. Bourree and M. Bartz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: EasyFix GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Case R 1424/2016-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between EasyFix and Visi/one.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Visi/one GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Visi/one GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
17567

#### Benevides v. Hilo Coast Processing Co.

December 5, 1996

Order No. 96-34

Affirmed
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of XATA Corporation;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 small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuer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)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small
business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (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 small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control
over financial reporting.
  Signature: 
Name:
    
    /s/ Mark E. Ties

Mark E. TiesPrint Title:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
#### State v. Konishi

17751

4/12/95

Affirmed
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of XATA Corporation;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 small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuer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)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small
business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (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 small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
  Signature:
    
    /s/ John J. CoughlanName:
    
    John J. CoughlanPrint Title:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
23 P.3d 743

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

March 20, 2001

23392

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed