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

Permit Conditions for 

APHIS-BRS Permits

March 8, 2018
Welcome to BRS’ Webinar on:

Improving Supplemental Permit Conditions 

for APHIS-BRS permits
7 CFR part 340.4:

Permits for the Introduction of a 

Regulated Article

(f) Permit conditions.

A person who is issued a permit and his/her employees or 

agents shall comply with the following conditions, and any 

supplemental permit conditions which shall be listed on the 

permit, as deemed by the Administrator to be necessary to 

prevent the dissemination and establishment of plant pests
7 CFR part 340: Information Collection

• BRS updated its information collection, with 

approval from OMB, in February 2017.

• Information collections have a 3-year life cycle

• The APHIS-BRS Information Collection, formally 

known as OMB 0579-0085, is in place until 

February 2020
7 CFR part 340: Information Collection

• APHIS-BRS’ information collection allows for all 

information collection under current regulatory 

authority of 7 CFR 340

• Specifically, any stated regulatory requirement to 

authorize permitting, acknowledge notifications, 

analyze petition submissions, or for compliance 

assurance (as detailed in OMB 0579-0085)
Number and Type of Permits, FY 2017

MicroorganismsArthropods Plants TOTAL

Import 15 7 25 47

Interstate 

Movement

78 9 66 153

Interstate/ 

Release

1 0 78 79

Release 5 1 55 61

TOTAL 99 17 224 340

Potential Breakdowns

 Permit conditions not clear to:

 Permittees and cooperators

 APHIS inspectors

 Inconsistency across permits

 Leading to

 Inadvertent noncompliance

 Oversight & enforcement challenges
All permit

conditions are:

 Clear

 Consistent

 Commensurate 

with risk

BRAP/ROP Project on Permit Conditions
Two Phase Roll-Out

• Phase 1

• Updates that don’t involve changes in record 

keeping or reporting

• Planned start date June 30, 2018

• Phase 2

• Updates that do or may involve changes in record 

keeping or reporting

• Planned start date January 1, 2019

• The discussion today does not include all 

updates to conditions for PMPI plant releases
Questions?

To reach us after today’s webinar, please 

email us at: 

biotechquery@aphis.usda.gov
#### Nakasone v. Nakasone

23460

04/05/2002

Granted
#### State v. Kuamoo (Amended)

15480

4/13/92

Vacated and Remanded
Exhibit 10.41
 SECOND AMENDMENT
TO
LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
 SECOND AMENDMENT
 Recitals
 A.
 B.
 C.
 Agreement
 Now, Therefore,
 1. Definitions.
 2. Amendments to Loan Agreement.
 2.1 Section 6.9(a) (Tangible Net Worth)
 Tangible Net Worth (Minimum Tangible Net Worth)
 -1-




---



##### 



Tangible Net Worth (Minimum Tangible Net Worth)
 2.2 Section 13.1 (Eligible Accounts)
    2.3 Section 13.1 (Eligible Accounts)
    -2-




---



##### 






2.4 Section 13.1 (Permitted
Indebtedness)










3. Limitation of Amendments.


3.1 Section 2


3.2


4. Representations and Warranties.


4.1


-3-



---



##### 



4.2
 4.3
 4.4
 4.5
 4.6
 4.7
 5. Counterparts.
 6. Effectiveness.
  -4-




---



##### 



In Witness Whereof,
 BANK
    
    
    
    BORROWERSSILICON VALLEY BANK
    
    
    
    XATA CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Chris Ennis
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Jay CoughlanName:
    
    Chris Ennis
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Jay CoughlanTitle:
    
    Relationship Manager
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ Mark E. TiesName:
    
    Mark E. TiesTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerGEOLOGIC SOLUTIONS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Jay CoughlanName:
    
    Jay CoughlanTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ Mark E. TiesName:
    
    Mark E. TiesTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
 -5-
143 P.3d 49

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI‘I

September 20, 2006

27021

#### Vanstory v. State

Affirmed
# C_2019044EN.01000701.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/7

---

Appeal brought on 22 June 2018 by Anthony Andrew King against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2018 in Case T-810/17: King v Commission

(Case C-412/18 P)

(2019/C 44/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Anthony Andrew King (represented by: P. McKenna, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 22 November 2018 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
193 P.3d 456

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

October 3, 2008

28364

#### Coleman v. State

Affirmed
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27286]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, December 14, 2023, at 10:30 a.m.

PLACE: Hybrid Meeting: 1050 First Street NE Washington, DC 12th and 
Virtual.

    Note:  For those attending the meeting in person, current COVID-
19 safety protocols for visitors, which are based on the CDC COVID-
19 hospital admission level in Washington, DC, will be updated on 
the Commission's contact page by the Monday before the meeting. See 
the contact page at https://www.fec.gov/contact/. If you would like 
to virtually access the meeting, see the instructions below.


STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the above-
referenced guidance regarding the COVID-19 hospital admission level and 
corresponding health and safety procedures. To access the meeting 
virtually, go to the Commission's website www.fec.gov and click on the 
banner to be taken to the meeting page.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2023-08: Cowboy Analytics, LLC
REG 2021-01 (Candidate Salaries)--Draft Final Rules and Explanation and 
Justification
REG 2013-01 (Technological Modernization)--Draft Final Rules and 
Explanation and Justification
Draft Legislative Recommendations 2023
Election of Officers for 2024
Management and Administrative Matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
    Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at 
(202) 694-1040 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#addec8cedfc8d9ccdfd4edcbc8ce83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="394a5c5a4b5c4d584b40795f5c5a175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>, at least 72 hours prior to the 
meeting date.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Laura E. Sinram,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-27286 Filed 12-8-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
107 P.3d 1213

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

#### Dacanay v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

25424

02/28/2005

Denied

106 Hawai'i 540, 107 P.3d 1213
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ernest Admoren-Nweke v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-19-01001-CR

Trial court case number: 1648314A

Trial court: 179th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s motion to “modify judgments” is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: Richard Hightower

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hightower, and Countiss.

Date: December 31, 2020
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 Quarterly Report of MISONIX, INC. (the “Company”) on Form
          10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
          and
          Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael A. McManus,
          Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
          to
          18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
          Act of
          2002, that:
 
 (1)
                The
                    Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
                    or 15(d) of
                    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
                The
                    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                    respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
                    the
                    Company.
 
 Dated:
          February 13, 2007
  /s/
                  Michael A. McManus, Jr.Michael
                    A. McManus, Jr.
                  President
                    and Chief Executive Officer
  A
          signed
          original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
          authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
          appears
          in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
          by Section 906, has been provided to MISONIX, INC. and will be retained
          by
          MISONIX, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
          its
          staff upon request.
#### State v. Sakai

22475

11/27/2000

Reversed
* 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 27, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41308 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARIO REYES-SOTELO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-668-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mario Reyes-Sotelo (Reyes) appeals his conviction and 41- month sentence for attempted illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Reyes argues that under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), his sentence must be vacated and his case remanded for resentencing. He asserts that the district court sentenced him pursuant to mandatory Sentencing Guidelines and that the error was not harmless. Reyes asserts, in addition, that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional.No. 04-41308 -2- The district court’s sentence pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme constitutes Fanfan error. See United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2005). The sentencing transcript is silent regarding whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence had the Guidelines been advisory. Thus, the Government has not met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under mandatory Guidelines. See United States v. Zamora-Vallejo , 470 F.3d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 2006)(internal quotations and citation omitted)

. Reyes argues that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. Reyes’s constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Reyes properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent and raises it here only to preserve it for further review. Accordingly, we AFFIRM Reyes’s conviction, VACATE his sentence, and REMAND the case for resentencing.
# C_2018134EN.01001701.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 19 February 2018 — SM v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section

(Case C-129/18)

(2018/C 134/23)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SM

Applicant:

Defendant: Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section

Defendant:

Interveners: Coram Children’s Legal Centre (CCLC) and Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE)

Interveners:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a child who is in the permanent legal guardianship of a Union citizen or citizens, under ‘kefalah’ or some equivalent arrangement provided for in the law of his or her country of origin, a ‘direct descendant’ within the meaning of Article 2.2(c) of Directive 2004/38 (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a child who is in the permanent legal guardianship of a Union citizen or citizens, under ‘kefalah’ or some equivalent arrangement provided for in the law of his or her country of origin, a ‘direct descendant’ within the meaning of Article 2.2(c) of Directive 2004/38 (1)?

1

| 2. | Can other provisions in the Directive, in particular Articles 27 and 35, be interpreted so as to deny entry to such children if they are the victims of exploitation, abuse or trafficking or are at risk of such? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can other provisions in the Directive, in particular Articles 27 and 35, be interpreted so as to deny entry to such children if they are the victims of exploitation, abuse or trafficking or are at risk of such?

| 3. | Is a Member State entitled to enquire, before recognising a child who is not the consanguineous descendant of the EEA national as a direct descendant under Article 2.2(c), into whether the procedures for placing the child in the guardianship or custody of that EEA national was such as to give sufficient consideration to the best interests of that child? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is a Member State entitled to enquire, before recognising a child who is not the consanguineous descendant of the EEA national as a direct descendant under Article 2.2(c), into whether the procedures for placing the child in the guardianship or custody of that EEA national was such as to give sufficient consideration to the best interests of that child?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).

1

---
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### Maipi v. Azueta

17035

4/7/97

Vacated and Remanded
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00350- CV

F loyd Pleasant Tarvin IV, Appellan t

v. Texas Depart m ent of Crim inal Ju stice, A ppellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 250 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-0 9-0 0235 1, H ONO RAB LE JO HN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R A ND U M O PI N I O N
On September 30, 2010, the trial court signe d an order dismiss ing appellant’ s case , amongmany

others, for want of prosec ution. Howeve r, appellant did not file his notice of appe al
u n til J une 23, 2011. Although appellant has informed us that he had filed a motion to reta in the
cause befor e the dismiss al order was signe d and that he filed a motion to reinstate the cause afte r its dismiss al, beca

use the notice of appea l was filed outside the possible deadlines for appea l, see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over the cause , see Texas Emp’rs Ins. Ass’n v. Martin , 347 S.W .2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1961) (bec ause a ppeal wa s not perfe cted within t hirty day s of judgme nt, court of appea ls “did not acquir e jurisdiction”). We there fore must dismiss the appea l for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore Justices Puryear , Rose and Goodwin Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: De cembe r 30, 2011

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 3333 HOLDING
CORPORATION'S MARCH 31, 1997, FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000818762
<NAME> 3333 HOLDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         677
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,648
<SALES>                                          1,664
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,664
<CGS>                                            1,458
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    206
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                206
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       206
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
     EMERALD CAPITAL INVESTMENT INC.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
     ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     7,200
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         7,200
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,200
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       6,608,698
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (700)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        



</TABLE>
NORTHERN SIERRA AIR QUAL ITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GRETCHEN BENNITT, 

### APCO

D ISTRICT H EADQUARTERS T RUCKEE F IELD O FFICE Q UINCY F IELD O FFICE 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
December 30, 2003

25008

#### State v. Marzan

Affirmed
February 2, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with AF & PA

FROM: Brian Shrager

OAQPS/SPPD/Energy Strategies Group (D243-01)

TO: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058

The EPA met with AF & PA on January 23, 2012. This discussion included projects including the 

Boiler MACT rule and the impact of the vacatur of the stay of the effective date of the rule.

Attendee list attached.

Attachment