alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ANIMAL CARE AID

Questions? Email us at CenterforAnimalWelfare@usda.gov 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Animal Care • AC-19-006

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Issued June 2019 • Reviewed February 2024

Early Rearing Environment 

A supportive environment during the first 3 weeks 

of life is important for normal puppy development. 

This Animal Care Aid is part of a series developed to provide information about behavioral development in dogs. 

Refer to the other topics in the series for more information on socialization and maternal stress.

PRACTICAL TIP

Handling 

puppies daily is 

a good way to 

monitor their health, 

provide prompt 

veterinary care when 

necessary, and begin 

to socialize them. 

At birth, the puppy’s brain, spinal cord, and nerves are 

not fully developed. The early weeks are a period of rapid 

change, both physically and behaviorally. 

How Can I Improve the 

Early Rearing Environment?

Gently handle young puppies for short periods each 

day. Monitor children’s interaction with puppies to 

ensure the handling is gentle, positive, and of short 

duration (a few minutes at a time). Reduce maternal 

stress; the less she experiences, the better she will be 

able to care for her puppies. 

NEONATAL PERIOD (0 –13 DAYS) 

l Puppies are sensitive to touch, temperature, certain tastes (milk),

and smells (mother and littermates).

l Hearing, sight, and motor skills are still developing.

l Behavior consists mainly of suckling, sleeping, and seeking care

from the mother.

l Learning is limited to simple associations with touch, taste, or smell.

TRANSITION PERIOD (~13 –18 DAYS)

l The eyes and ears open, and the puppy begins to see and

hear better.

l Behavior changes quickly. The puppy starts to:

– crawl backwards, stand, and walk

– eliminate outside of the whelping box

– show interest in solid food

– play with littermates and display social signals

(tail wag, growl)

l Puppies’ learning ability improves to include tasks

that are more complex such as observational

learning by watching others, especially their mother.

DID YOU KNOW?

Brief separations from 

their mother and gentle 

handling are good 

for puppies. These 

experiences produce 

positive changes in 

how puppies respond to 

stress throughout their 

lives. This may be due to 

an increase in maternal 

care (licking, nursing) 

when the puppy is 

reunited with her.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Anton io, Texas

June 27, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00253

- CV

JC FODALE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC and Mickey Hunt

, Appellants

v.

Jenny HENNES

, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CI12710 Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Jud ge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellants’ response to this court’s May 25, 2018 order has been filed. The response shows appellants have paid, and the trial court clerk has received appellants’ payment, for the preparation of the clerk’s record. We therefore order Bexar County District Clerk, Donna Kay McKinney, to file the clerk’s record by July 12, 2018

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Chapter 2.4.4. – Infection with Marteilia refringens

**Annex 34. Item 8.2.4. – Section 2.2.1. and 2.2.2. of Chapter 2.4.5. Infection with *P. marinus***

**USA COMMENTS IN RED FONT**

CHAPTER 2.4.5.INFECTION WITH *PERKINSUS MARINUS*

[...]

2.2.	Host factors

2.2.1.	Susceptible host species

~~Eastern oyster, *Crassostrea virginica*; Pacific oyster, *C. gigas*; suminoe oyster, *C. ariakensis;*mangrove oyster,*C. rhizophorae*; Cortez oyster, *C. corteziensis*(Andrews 1996; Calvo *et al.,* 1999; Calvo *et al.,* 2001; Villalba *et al.,* 2004; Cáceres-Martínez *et al.,* 2008); softshell clam, *Mya arenaria*; Baltic macoma, *Macoma balthica* (Dungan *et al.,* 2007).~~

Species that fulfil the criteria for listing as susceptible to infection with *Perkinsus marinus* according to Chapter 1.5. of the *Aquatic Animal Health Code* (*Aquatic Code*) are: American cupped oyster (*Crassostrea virginica*), Ariake cupped oyster (*Magallana* [Syn. *Crassostrea*] *ariakensis*), Cortez oyster (*Crassostrea corteziensis*) and palmate oyster (*Saccostrea palmula*).

~~2.2.2.~~~~Susceptible stages of the host Species with incomplete evidence for susceptibility~~

~~All stages after settlement are susceptible.~~

~~Species for which there is incomplete evidence to fulfil the criteria for listing as susceptible to infection with *P. marinus* according to Chapter 1.5. of the *Aquatic Code* are: Gasar cupped oyster (*Crassostrea tulipa*), mangrove cupped oyster (*Crassostrea rhizophorae),* and Pacific cupped oyster (*Magallana*[Syn. *Crassostrea*] *gigas*).~~

~~In addition, pathogen-specific positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results have been reported in the following species, but no active infection has been demonstrated: Columbia black oyster (*Crassostrea columbiensis*), soft shell clam (*Mya arenaria*), and stone oyster (*Striostrea prismatica*).~~

**RATIONALE:**The U.S. does not support the listing of species for which there is "incomplete susceptibility" as to date this is subjective since WOAH has not published any criteria for determining that a species meets "incomplete susceptibility" criteria. If a given specifies does not meet the WOAH criteria for listing as susceptible, then it should not be included in the WOAH chapter. 

The inclusion of species which do not meet the criteria for listing as susceptible, may have adverse trade impacts due to member countries feeling like they should be regulating the movement of these species to protect their health status, when in fact there is insufficient scientific rational to do so, and this could be seen as a non-scientific barrier to trade (which is against WTO standards).

[...]

WOAH *Aquatic Manual* 2025	8
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered su bmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### NOV 7 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
MARK D. RICE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. PRISCILLA HELM, OKC Police Detective, Defendant - Appellee. No. 03-6226 (D.C. No. 03-CV-252-R) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. **
Defendant-Appellant Mark D. Rice, an inmate appeari ng pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure t o state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The district court counted the dismissal as a prior occasion- 2 -

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The parties are f amiliar with the facts and we will not repeat them herein. The district court co rrectly held that (1) this successive § 1983 action cannot be used as a discov ery tool for a collateral attack on Mr. Rice’s convictions, and (2) the official cap acity claim against the individual defendant fails to allege a constitution al violation caused by a custom or policy of the municipality. See Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 488-90 (1973) (claim for injunctive relief is only cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Kutzner v. Montgomery County , 303 F.3d 339, 341 (5th Cir. 2002) (§ 1983 action may not be used for discovery when remedy lies with§ 2254); Collins v. City of Harker Heights , 503 U.S. 115, 120-22 (1992) (constitutional violation must be product of official custom or policy to hold munici pality liable). We affirm for substantially the reasons relied upon by the distri ct court. R. Doc. 14. AFFIRMED. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and immediate payment of the unpaid balance of the appe llate filing fee is due.

Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
SCPW-18-0000426
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
HERMAN-LEE KAOPUA, SR., Petitioner,

vs. MELINDA K. MENDES, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. NO. 12-1-0007)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Herman-Lee Kaopua, Sr.’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on May 21, 2018, court-appointed counsel Melinda Mendes’ responses, filed on July 9, 2018 and July 17, 2018, the respective supporting documents, and the record, it appears that, on September 19, 2017, the circuit court entered its “Findings of Fact; Conclusion of Law; Order Denying Petitioner Herman-Lee Kaopua, Sr.’s Writ of Habeas Corpus” in S.P.P. No. 12-1-0007, in which the circuit court denied petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed on September 21, 2012, including the supplemental pleadings. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to an extraordinary writ. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-18-0000426 02-AUG-2018 03:07 PMSee Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999)

(a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, August 2, 2018. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Utah Field Station

Last Modified: 

Print

Scientists at the National Wildlife Research Center Logan, UT, field station are

studying the ecology and behavior of predators in an effort to identify new

management techniques and strategies, especially nonlethal tools.

Research efforts are directed towards reducing livestock depredations and damage

caused by coyotes, bears, and wolves, resolving conflicts in urban areas, and

mitigating impacts of predators on wildlife populations. Station research

incorporates a variety of techniques that integrate novel engineering approaches

and basic knowledge of the biology of predator species.

The station was established in 1972, and operates in close collaboration with Utah

State University (USU). In fact, some of the biologists maintain offices on campus.

The station's most prominent feature, however, is the Millville Predator Research

Facility. The 165-acre site, also on USU land, allows employees to care for up to 100

adult coyotes involved in learning, behavior, and physiology studies. Examples of

current and recent studies based at the Millville facility include the following:

Coyote behavior in captive environments

Coyote reproduction

Coyote wariness of humans

Coyote foraging and learning

Urban conflicts with black bears
Coyote movements

Coyote and elk interactions

Fladry to prevent wolf depredation

Conditioning bears from campgrounds

Wolf damage to livestock.

Coyote interactions with bobcats, kit fox, and cougars

Sterilization of coyotes to reduce predation on pronghorn and livestock

Non-invasive mark-recapture of Mexican wolves

Coyote food habits and prey fluctuations

International Collaborations

Because of the scientific expertise and facilities available at the Logan, UT, field

station, it draws many national and international collaborators to work on a wide

variety of predator issues. For example, station researchers have hosted several

interns from Agrocampus Rennes, France, advised graduate students working with

carnivores in other countries, and sponsored graduate students from the University

of Exeter, UK.

Further information on the research conducted at the Logan, UT Field Station can be

found on the Developing Control Methods, Evaluating Impacts, and Applying

Ecology, Behavior, Genetics, and Demographics to Manage Predators Research

Project page.

Contact

Utah Field Station

Dr. Dustin H. Ranglack, Field Station Leader

Email: dustin.ranglack@usda.gov

Phone: 435-938-8643

Alt-Phone: 435-245-6091 ext 3114

USDA APHIS National Wildlife Research Center
Predator Ecology and Behavior Project

4200 S 600 E Cache County Road

Millville, UT 84322-5295

or

PO Box 816

Millville, UT 84326

Field Station Research Staff

Dr. Eric M. Gese

Dr. Stewart Breck (Located in Fort Collins, CO)
September 22, 2000

20853

#### Schmalz v. Goldblatt

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 24 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a reading 

of the names of members of the Armed Forces who died in the previous 

month as a result of combat. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2015 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself, Mr. STIVERS, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. 

CRAMER, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of 

New York, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. VEASEY, Ms. NORTON, Mr. 

PETERS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. GIBSON, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. CASTRO of Texas, Mr. ROTHFUS, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GUINTA, Mr. HONDA, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. JONES, Mr. KING of 

Iowa, Mr. NEAL, Mr. POE of Texas, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. STEWART, Mr. 

GOWDY, Mrs. LOVE, Mr. ZELDIN, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, 

Mr. WOODALL, Mr. BARLETTA, and Mr. FITZPATRICK) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require a reading of the names of members of the Armed 

Forces who died in the previous month as a result of 

combat. 

1 Resolved, That (a) clause 1 of rule XIV of the Rules 

2 of the House of Representatives is amended by adding 

3 after the third item the following new item: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 24 IH 

1 ‘‘Fourth. On the first legislative day of each 

2 month, a reading of the names of members of the 

3 Armed Forces who died in the previous month as a 

4 result of combat.’’. 

5 (b) Clause 1 of rule XIV is amended by redesignating 

6 the fourth through the ninth items as the fifth through 

7 the tenth items. 

8 (c) Rule XIV of the Rules of the House of Represent9 atives is amended by adding at the end the following new 

10 clause: 

11 ‘‘7. The Speaker shall not read the name of any mem12 ber of the Armed Forces under clause 1 if any family 

13 member informs the Speaker that the family member does 

14 not wish to have the name of that individual read.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-0346

LT Case No. 2018-306083-CFDB

____________________________

ADAM J. RAITS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________ 

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. 

Leah R. Case, Judge. 

Matthew R. McLain, of McLain Law, P.A., Longwood, for 

Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock 

McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee. 

August 20, 2024 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

JAY, EISNAUGLE, and HARRIS, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
Exhibit 32.2

                           Section 1350 Certification

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DynTek, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that based on my knowledge:

(1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully complies
with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act;
and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 16, 2005                                      /s/ Robert I. Webber
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Robert I. Webber
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### Lotte H. Carter, Plaintiff, *v.*Paul K. Carter, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

March 11, 1959.

*Alex Rubin*for defendant.

*Madder Brothers*for plaintiff.

Samuel Rabin, J.

This is a motion by the defendant made pursuant to subdivision 1 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the complaint on the ground that this court has not jurisdiction of the subject of the action.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment for separate maintenance in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County. Therein the defendant was directed to pay permanent alimony in the total sum of $3,600 a year for the support of the plaintiff and the infant child of the parties, in equal instalments of a total of $150 “ twice monthly.” The defendant was also directed to pay the sum of $800 arrears in temporary alimony, taxable costs, together with the sum of $500 counsel fees. The instant action is to recover the total sum of $7,805 alleged to be due under the foregoing provisions of the New Jersey decree and for incidental relief by way of security, sequestration and injunction.

It is the contention of the defendant that this action may not be maintained until the plaintiff has first procured an order from the rendering court in New Jersey definitely fixing the amount of the arrears.

It is well settled that where the rendering court has the power to modify its decree with retroactive effect and thus reduce the amount of unpaid arrears or extinguish them entirely, *963no action may be maintained in this State to recover them until the amount thereof has first been definitely fixed by the rendering court. When that is done, the original decree and the order fixing the amount of arrears together constitute the final decree of that court as to such arrears. *(Malts*v. *Malts,*279 App. Div. 52.) The foreign decree, itself, may not be made the judgment of our courts. Only the arrears due thereunder may be the subject of a domestic judgment.

There is no question that arrears of alimony which have accrued under a matrimonial decree rendered in the State of New Jersey *“*do not become vested * * * or take on the attributes of a judgment for the payment of a fixed sum until this [New Jersey] court so orders.” *(Madden*v. *Madden,*136 N. J. Eq. 132, 136; *Rossi*v. *Rossi,*187 Misc. 543, affd. 269 App. Div. 821; *Phelps*v. *Phelps,*68 N. Y. S. 2d 650.) Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot maintain an action in this court to recover the arrears which have accrued under the New Jersey judgment of separate maintenance until the rendering court has made an order fixing the amount thereof.

The motion is, therefore, granted and the complaint dismissed without prejudice.

Submit order.
September 16, 1996

18504

#### State v. Chi

Affirmed
25914

#### State v. Legro

Affirmed
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 5, 2014

No. 04-13-00338-CR

Elias Esequiel VASQUEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-CRS-270

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due on April 9, 2014. Appellant has been granted three

extensions of time—for a total of 110 days—in which to file the brief. Our last order stated that 

no further extensions of time would be granted. Despite this admonition, appellant has filed a 

fourth motion for extension of time requesting an additional 14-day extension. 

The motion is GRANTED. We ORDER appellant’s attorney to file the appellant’s brief 

on or before August 13, 2014. No further extensions of time will be considered. If appellant’s 

brief is not filed by that date, we will abate this appeal to the trial court for an abandonment 

hearing. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). Contempt proceedings may also be initiated against 

appellant’s attorney. Id. 38.8(b)(4). 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Tablada v. Coward.

27161

03/25/2008

Affirmed in part/ reversed in part
# APPENDIX F

2008 RFP and 2009 Attainment Year Mobile Budget Methodology and Documentation

Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared By: Maryland Department of the Environment M ARYLAND 

### D EPARTMENT OF THE 

### E NVIRONMENT 

### A IR AND 

### R

ADIATION 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### A DMINISTRATIONState Implementation Plan1 Maryland Department of the Environment 2008 & 2009 Mobile Budget Methodology
 Maryland Department of the Environment Air and Radiation Management Administration 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730 Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Phone 410.537.3240 • Fax 410.631.3202
COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12547, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2547

(512) 463-1733

Date: May 3, 2013

Case Numbers: 03-12-00610-CV & 03-12-00715-CV

Trial Court No.: D-1-GN-12-000798

Style: Nancy C. Perez and Jose A. Perez v. Texas Medical Board

The enclosed opinion and judgments were sent this date to the following persons: 

Ms. Nancy C. Perez

10223 Broadway, Suite P317

Pearland, TX 77584-8417

Mr. Ted A. Ross

Assistant Attorney General

Administrative Law Division

P. O. Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

Mr. Jose A. Perez

10223 Broadway, Suite P317

Pearland, TX 77584-8417

The Honorable Scott H. Jenkins

Judge, 53rd District Court

Travis County Courthouse

P. O. Box 1748

Austin, TX 78767

The Honorable Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza

District Clerk

Travis County Courthouse

P. O. Box 1748

Austin, TX 78767
##### 



Exhibit 32
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  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 as of
and for the periods covered in the Report.
 /s/ MICHAEL L. BENNETT

Michael L. Bennett
    
    
    
    /s/ FRANCIS G. MEYER

Francis G. MeyerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial andDirector (Principal Executive Officer)
    
    
    
    (Principal Financial Officer)Dated: May 9, 2006
    
    
    
    Dated: May 9, 2006
Exhibit 21.1
 DRI Corporation
Subsidiaries
 Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationRTI, Inc.
    
    TexasDigital Recorders, Inc.
    
    North CarolinaTwinVision® of North
America, Inc.
    
    North CarolinaDRI-Europa AB
    
    SwedenMobitec AB
    
    SwedenMobitec GmbH
    
    GermanyMobitec Brasil Ltda
    
    BrazilMobitec Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaCastmaster Mobitec India Private Limited
    
    IndiaMobitec Empreendimientos e Participações Ltda.
    
    BrazilMobitec Far East Pte. Ltd.
    
    Singapore