alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NORTHERN SIERRA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GRETCHEN BENNITT, APCO 

DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS TRUCKEE FIELD OFFICE QUINCY FIELD OFFICE

200 Litton Drive, Suite 320 13450 Donner Pass Rd., Ste. B, Truckee, CA 96161 264 Hospital Rd. 

P.O. Box 2509 P.O. Box 9766, Truckee, CA 96162 P.O. Box 3981, Quincy, CA 95971 

Grass Valley, CA 95945 (530) 550-7872 / FAX: (530) 587-2623 (530) 283-4654 / FAX: (530) 283-0699 

(530) 274-9360 / FAX: (530) 274-7546 email: ryan@myairdistrict.com email: george@myairdistrict.com 

email: office@myairdistrict.com or www.myairdistrict.com 

April 13, 2011 

Sean Hogan, Chief 

Air Quality Section 

US EPA Region IX 

75 Hawthorne St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

ANNUAL SLAMS DATA CERTIFICATION for CY 2010 

In accordance with 40 CFR Part 58.26, this letter certifies that the ambient 

concentration data and the quality assurance data for the Northern Sierra Air 

Quality Management District contained in the Aerometric Information and 

Retrieval System/Air Quality Subsystem (AIRS/AQS) for the calendar year 2010, 

is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge taking into consideration 

the quality assurance findings. AQS AMP450 reports for ozone and NO2 are 

attached. 

I also authorize Norma Douglass to do anything with my data that she needs to 

do, in any way that she might choose to do it, for any reason that she might 

deem appropriate should she choose to do so (because I trust Norma). 

SLAMS PM2.5 (88501 - when reported at local conditions) data, though not 

reflected in a SLAMS Data Generation Report, were also complete and are 

accurate to the best of my knowledge. 

Joseph Fish 

Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer 

SERVING THE COUNTIES OF NEVADA, SIERRA AND PLUMAS
26939

#### State v. Espaniola

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    227,061
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,411
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 275,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        150,444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   275,893
<SALES>                                        199,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,228
<CGS>                                          170,595
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  170,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,016
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,617
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,703
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,914
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,914
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019131EN.01001703.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/17

---

Appeal brought on 27 October 2018 by Adis Higiene, S.L. against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 August 2018 in Case T-309/18 Adis Higiene v EUIPO — Farecla Products (G3 Extra Plus)

(Case C-669/18 P)

(2019/C 131/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Adis Higiene, S.L. (represented by: M.J. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 27 February 2019, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Adis Higiene, S.L. to pay its own costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7707

CARDELL LAMONT AVENT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RANDALL C. MATHENA, Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:11-cv-00605-JAG)

Submitted: February 20, 2013 Decided: February 28, 2013 

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cardell Lamont Avent, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cardell Lamont Avent seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. Parties in a civil action in which the United States 

is not a party have thirty days following entry of a final order 

in which to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(A). These time periods are mandatory and 

jurisdictional. Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 

264 (1978); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) 

(“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.”). However, if a party moves for an 

extension of time to appeal within thirty days after expiration 

of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect 

or good cause, a district court may extend the time to file a 

notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Washington v. 

Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900–01 (4th Cir. 1989).

The district court entered judgment against Avent on 

August 6, 2012; Avent had until September 5, 2012, to file a 

timely notice of appeal. Avent filed his notice of appeal on 

September 6, 2012, one day late.∗

 Avent separately filed a

 ∗ Avent’s notice of appeal is deemed filed when he delivered 

it to the prison mailroom on September 6, 2012, with a notarized 

statement setting forth the date of deposit and a certificate of 

service. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The 

fact that Avent mistakenly mailed his notice of appeal to this 

(Continued)
3

motion for extension of time on the same day and within the 

thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because this motion 

remains pending in the district court, we remand for the limited 

purpose of determining whether Avent has demonstrated excusable 

neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the thirty-day 

appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be 

returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED

 

court is inconsequential. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d) (a notice of 

appeal mistakenly filed in the court of appeals is considered 

filed in the district court on the date so noted).
U.S. DEPARTMENT ANIMAL AND PLANT VETERINARY NATIONAL VETERINARY SERVICES LABORATORIES 

OF AGRICULTURE HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICES 1920 DAYTON AVENUE 

 SERVICE P.O. BOX 844 Phone (515) 337-7475/7300

 AMES, IA 50010 FAX: (515) 337-7716

 Email: NCAH.training@aphis.usda.gov

NVSL APPLICATION FOR LABORATORY TRAINING 

1. Name and Address of Applicant (Please type or print)

(Dr., Mr., Mrs., Ms.) (Last) (First) (M.I.)

Office Address

City State Zip Code

 Country

Telephone: Office: ( ) 

FAX: ( ) 

E-Mail Address: 

2. Training Desired

 Course Name Date (If known) Cost

3. Employer

Organization 

Division/Unit 

Local Address

City State Zip 

Code

4. Professional Status

Occupation Position Title Speciality

Brief description of your previous experience or training in conducting the requested test(s) 

5. Signatures

Applicant’s Signature

Date

(If nomination is for EIA training, AVIC must sign here) 

Authorizing Official’s Signature

Date

Name/Title of Authorizing

Official (Print or Type) 

Phone Number
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

USDA Invests more than $1.5 Million

in Tribal Communities to Fund Plant

Protection Projects

Print

WASHINGTON, January 6, 2024 - The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is

investing more than $1.5 million to support 12 plant protection projects focusing on

Tribal Nations’ infrastructure for pest detection, surveillance, threat mitigation, and

outreach. These funds aim to help indigenous communities safeguard our food

supply and natural resources from invasive pests. Projects include surveys for

weeds, emergency responses to pests, and outreach in Tribal communities.

“USDA is dedicated to protecting natural resources and ensuring food security in

indigenous communities,” said USDA Under Secretary Jenny Moffitt. “These funds

will empower Tribal Nations to protect agriculture and forests from invasive plant

pests and diseases by providing them with the tools essential to fight these threats.”

These funds will support projects covering a range of plant health and pest

mitigation activities, including, but not limited to:

$329,889 to support the Nez Perce Tribe’s effort to survey for invasive, noxious

weeds, and produce and release biological controls on their lands as part of

their integrated weed management strategy;

$306,270 to support the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s emergency response to

the emerald ash borer in New York to minimize the pest’s impacts to ash trees
and habitat;

$351,161 to develop and release a biological control for common crupina, in

two states and Tribal lands;

$65,972 to support an Ash and Hemlock protection project on Maine’s Tribal

lands; and

$40,000 to support the Wisconsin Tribal Conservation Advisory Council’s survey

for forest pests in the state.

Since 2009, USDA has supported more than 5,520 projects and provided nearly $870

million in PPA 7721 funding. These projects help USDA, and its partners quickly

detect and respond to invasive plant pests and diseases. They also help our country

maintain the essential infrastructure in place that enables U.S. specialty crop

producers to have access to healthy, certified disease-free plants.

In addition to the PPA 7721 annual funding opportunities, USDA offers a variety of

programs and services that are available to Tribal governments, communities and

organizations, and individual Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. Visit the Office

of Tribal Relations (OTR) website for information on USDA programs and services

available to Tribal communities.

View the fiscal year 2024 Plant Protection Act’s Section 7721 spending plans online:

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppa-projects.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                        INTEGRATED SILICON SOLUTION, INC.
                 STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Years Ended
                                                                    September 30,
                                                          1997           1996          1995
                                                        --------       --------      --------
<S>                                                     <C>            <C>           <C>

Net income (loss) ................................      $ (7,686)      $  1,015      $ 29,653
                                                        ========       ========      ========

Computation of weighted average common and common 
    equivalent shares outstanding:

     Weighted average common shares
          Outstanding ............................        17,748         17,457        12,128

     Common equivalent shares from dilutive
          preferred stock ........................             -              -         2,805

     Common equivalent shares from dilutive
          common stock options and warrants ......             -            899         1,470

     Common equivalent shares from stock and stock 
          options granted during the
          twelve-month period prior to the
          Company's initial public offering .........         -              -           131
                                                        --------       --------      --------

Shares used in per share calculations ............        17,748         18,356        16,534
                                                        ========       ========      ========

Net income (loss) per share ......................      $  (0.43)      $   0.06      $   1.79
                                                        ========       ========      ========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   62,934,147
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 43,336,274
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       9,918,777
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               3,662,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             119,851,818
<COMMON>                                    21,473,975
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                   20,420,005
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         21,179,536
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>              63,073,516
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 12,780,170
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                        27,218,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  831,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>              15,949,132
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              119,851,818
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   42,898,943
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         5,853,421
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  28,853,210
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     14,063,733
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           1,539,559
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              15,603,292
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1,297,226
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,505,814
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    336,217
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                8,169,597
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     5,032,933
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                    1,297,226
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                      13,379,052
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.91
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 579 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 6, 2016. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

3762) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 

of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 

2016, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in 

the House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Budget or 

his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour 

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees. The previous question shall be considered 

as ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion. 
2 

•HRES 579 EH 

SEC. 2. Section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 5 is amended by striking ‘‘the first session of’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

I, Stephen R. Morrey, President and Chief Executive Officer of Dayton Superior
Corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

       The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the period ending
       December 31, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the
       requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
       1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

       The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Company.

Dated: December 12, 2003

                                /s/ Stephen R. Morrey
                                -------------------------
                                Stephen R. Morrey
                                President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       87
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10478 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
BRIAN BERNARD WILLIN , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:12

- CR

- 42

- 1

Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Brian Bernard
Willin has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Willin has file d a response and requests the appointment of substitute counsel . We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Willin ’ s response . We concur

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 16, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10478 Document: 00512599044 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2014No. 13

- 10478

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no n onfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Willin’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-10478 Document: 00512599044 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


This Certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of Hanover Foods
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 2, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002. To the best of his knowledge, the undersigned, in his capacity as
set forth below, hereby certifies 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.




  /s/   John A. Warehime                                Date: January 14, 2003
-------------------------------------------------
John A. Warehime, Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 21.1****SUBSIDIARIES OF CERADYNE, INC.**     **State or other Jurisdiction of****Name of Subsidiary** **Incorporation or Organization**Ceradyne ESK, LLC Delaware   •    ESK Ceramics Geschäftsführungs GmbH Germany   •    ESK Ceramics GmbH and Co. KG Germany   •    ESK Ceramics France S.A.S.U. France   Ceradyne Canadian Holdings, Inc. Delaware   •    Ceradyne Canada ULC Alberta, Canada   Ceradyne Armor Systems, Inc Delaware   Minco, Inc. Tennessee   Ceradyne Cayman Holdings, Inc. Cayman Islands   •    Ceradyne Hong Kong Co., Ltd. Hong Kong   •    Ceradyne (Tianjin) Technical Ceramics Co., Ltd. China   Ceradyne EPB, Inc. Delaware   •    Boron Products, LLC Delaware
# C_2019406EN.01003001.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT)

(Case T-288/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT - Earlier national figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 406/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebe Marin, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Natural Instinct Ltd (Southwark, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Yates, Solicitor, and N. Zweck, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2018 (Case R 1658/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Natural Instinct and M.I. Industries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
MicroTel International, Inc.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Nos. 333-74281, 333-71035, 333-69571, 333-12567, 33-22518, 33-27454,
33-77926, 33-32271 and 33-32771) on Form S-8 of our report dated March 3, 2001,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial
statement schedule of MicroTel International, Inc. appearing in Amendment
No. 1 to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2000.



                                      /S/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Orange County, California
April 6, 2001