alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       102,065,000
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                264,433,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 531,000
<INVENTORY>                                  143,259,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             509,226
<PP&E>                                       11,767,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,880,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               517,113,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        250,890,000
<BONDS>                                      138,000,000
<COMMON>                                     16,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                   128,207,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 517,113,000
<SALES>                                      65,859,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             65,859,000
<CGS>                                        7,474,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,474,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             54,994,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,444,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (4,053,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 571,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (4,624,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.17)

        

</TABLE>
Exotic Wood Borer / 

Bark Beetle (EWBBB)

2024 Quick Reference

Program: Exotic Wood Borer / Bark Beetle (EWBBB)

Application: ArcGIS Field Maps

Host: USDA-MRP GIS Enterprise (portal)

Map Title: PPQ EWBBB Trapping 2024 Field Map

CHECK URL! https://maps.mrp.usda.gov/arcgis/

IMPORTANT!! You must synchronize your map at the beginning/end of each workday.*

1. Open ArcGIS Field Maps. Confirm the correct ArcGIS Enterprise URL.

2. Open previously downloaded map area.

3. Stand at the point you wish to collect.

4. From the menu bar at the top of the page, tap the Layers icon to toggle ON the

layers you wish to view/edit.

EWBBB Schedule Status 

When this layer is enabled, a symbol is displayed over the existing trap symbol on the map to show the 

status of the trap – Current, Due, or Inactive. Trap status is updated through a nightly automated script 

to show as “Due” every 14 days.

EWBBB Trap Sites

1. Tap the blue plus sign in the lower-right corner of the map to add data. 

2. Choose a trap type from the list on the left.

3. Complete the data form (Verify the Install Date field is Today.)

4. Tap the Submit button in the upper right corner.

EWBBB Trap Activities

1. Tap the trap symbol on the map to select it. The data form opens on the left.

2. Scroll down and tap EWBBB Trap Activities 2024 or tap the link icon. 

3. Tap the blue Add button. 

4. Complete the data form. (Verify the Activity Date field is Today.)

5. Tap the Submit button in the upper right corner.

EWBBB Map Notes Points

1. Tap the blue plus sign in the lower-right corner of the map to add data. 

2. Choose from EWBBB Map Notes (Info or Hazard) from the list on the left.

3. Complete the data form. (Verify the Note Date is Today.)

4. Tap the Submit button in the upper right corner.

If the Submit button fails, you have not completed all required fields or GPS accuracy failed.

To preserve battery power, put the device to sleep between surveys. 

*For more details, refer to the PPQ EWBBB Trapping User Manual.

ArcGIS Field Maps 

Mobile Application

Add data button

Layers icon

Activity link icon

Gyorgy Csoka, Hungary Forest Research 

Institute, Bugwood.org
Cuerpo amarillo y 

anaranjado pálido

Adulto

MOSCA 

MEXICANA

DE LA FRUTA

Huevos Larva Pupa

CICLO DE VIDA

Las larvas 

no tienen 

extremidades y 

varían en color 

de blanco a 

anaranjado 

amarilloso.

La hembra de la 

mosca mexicana 

de la fruta puede 

depositar de 3 a 5 

huevos cada vez 

y poner hasta 100 

huevos durante 

su vida. 

Una mosca 

mexicana de la 

fruta sale de su 

pupa

La hembra se distingue por tener 

un órgano largo y delgado por el 

que pone los huevos.

Más grande 

que una mosca 

doméstica

Alas transparentes 

con varias rayas 

amarillas y marrones
Fruta cubierta de moscas mexicanas 

de la fruta

BACK

Para obtener más información, visite: 

Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos

Servicio de Inspección Sanitaria de Animales y Plantas

El Departamento de Agricultura de EEUU es un proveedor y empleador que ofrece igualdad de 

oportunidades. Material del programa núm. 2125-MXF-S Publicado en septiembre de 2012

PLAGASHAMBRIENTAS.COM

FÍJESEEN LO SIGUIENTE

• Las moscas adultas visibles 

son más grandes que una 

mosca doméstica y tienen 

un cuerpo amarillo y 

anaranjado pálido.

• Las alas son transparentes 

con varias rayas amarillas 

y marrones.

• La hembra se distingue por tener un 

ovipositor que usa para depositar los 

huevos debajo de la fruta.

ELDAÑO QUE CAUSA

La mosca mexicana de la fruta es dañina para el medio 

ambiente y puede resultar en la pérdida de billones de 

dólares para la economía agrícola estadounidense ya que 

un gran número de cultivos producidos a nivel comercial, 

incluidos los de toronjas, mangos, naranjas, melocotones 

y mandarinas, dejan de ser comestibles si son atacados 

por las larvas de esta plaga. 

LO QUE USTED PUEDE HACER

• No traiga o envíe por correo frutas frescas, vegetales o 

plantas a su estado o a cualquier otro a menos que sean 

autorizadas por los inspectores agrícolas con anterioridad.

• No remueva productos frescos de su propiedad si se 

encuentran bajo cuarentena.

• Permita que los trabajadores agrícolas autorizados 

entren a su propiedad para inspeccionar si hay mosca 

mexicana de la fruta.

• Reporte cada vez que vea esta plaga en

PlagasHambrientas.com.
#### State v. Rodgers

24462

07/17/2002

Denied
# C_2019230EN.01004701.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/47

---

Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — ABLV Bank v ECB

(Case T-281/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Parent company and subsidiary - Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Preparatory measures - Acts not open to judicial review - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 230/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: G. Marafioti and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents, and J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decisions of 23 February 2018 by which the latter declared that the applicant and its subsidiary, ABLV Bank Luxembourg SA, were failing or were likely to fail within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | ABLV Bank AS shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

ABLV Bank AS shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---
Exhibit 31.02




CERTIFICATION




I, Dennis E. Bunday, certify that:




1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Williams Controls Inc.;




2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure control and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.




c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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




d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:




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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.




Date: December 22, 2010
/s/ DENNIS E. BUNDAYDennis E. BundayChief Financial Officer


60




---
# C_2018182EN.01001101.xml

| 28.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 1 March 2018 — HQ, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her minor child IP, JO v Aegean Airlines SA

(Case C-163/18)

(2018/C 182/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HQ, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her minor child IP, JO

Applicants:

Defendant: Aegean Airlines SA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 8(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who, under Directive 90/[314]/EEC (2) on package travel (as implemented in national law), has the right to hold his tour organiser liable for reimbursement of the cost of his ticket, can no longer claim reimbursement from the air carrier? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 8(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who, under Directive 90/[314]/EEC (2) on package travel (as implemented in national law), has the right to hold his tour organiser liable for reimbursement of the cost of his ticket, can no longer claim reimbursement from the air carrier?

1

2

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, can a passenger nevertheless hold the air carrier liable for reimbursement of the cost of his ticket if it is to be assumed that his tour organiser, if it were to be held liable, would be financially incapable of actually reimbursing the cost of the ticket and that tour organiser has also not taken any safeguard measures to guarantee reimbursement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, can a passenger nevertheless hold the air carrier liable for reimbursement of the cost of his ticket if it is to be assumed that his tour organiser, if it were to be held liable, would be financially incapable of actually reimbursing the cost of the ticket and that tour organiser has also not taken any safeguard measures to guarantee reimbursement?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).

2

---
#### Sharon C. PERKINS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D. Kendall PERKINS, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13425.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May 21, 1974.

D. Kendall Perkins, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Robert VanSciver, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

CALLISTER, Chief Justice:

Plaintiff-wife was granted a decree of divorce from defendant-husband in August of 1972. At the time of the divorce there was a minor child of the couple and two minor children of the wife by a previous marriage. The wife was granted custody of all three children with right of visitation to the husband of his natural child. The trial court specifically denied husband any visitation rights to the other two children.

Defendant did not appeal from the divorce decree, but, approximately eleven months after its entry, petitioned the court for a modification of the decree seeking the same visitation rights with respect to his two stepchildren that he had for his natural child.

The trial court properly dismissed the petition. In Anderson v. Anderson1 this court stated:

> the generalization of Title 30-3-5, Utah Code Annotated 1953, contemplates an opportunity for divorced litigants to come into court for modification of the original decree based on *changed conditions,*and that any dissatisfaction with such decree is a matter of *709appeal. Absent an appeal, it is not subject to modification except where such changed conditions are demonstrated.

The husband did not appeal from the original decree and did not allege any-changed conditions or circumstances in his petition for modification.

Affirmed. Costs to respondent (wife).

HENRIOD, ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ.

1

. 13 Utah 2d 36, 368 P.2d 264 (1962) citing Cody v. Cody, 47 Utah 456, 154 P. 952 (1916).
#### Jerome L. GRIMES, Plaintiff, v. SIZZLENGER, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 17-1561 (UNA)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed 8/25/2017

Filed 8/29/2017

Jerome L. Grimes, Sykesville, MD, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Amy Berman Jackson, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs- application to proceed *in forma pauperis*and *pro se*civil complaint. The Court will grant, the application, and dismiss the complaint.

*88The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “ ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]’ ” *Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting *Conley v. Gibson,*355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Further, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting *Twombly,*550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” *Id.*(quoting *Twombly,*550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Although a *pro se*complaint is “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” *Erickson v. Pardus,*551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), it too, “must plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct,’ ” *Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor,*567 F.3d 672, 681-82 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting *Iqbal,*556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937).

It appears that plaintiff brings a civil rights action against his former defense counsel. Although plaintiff makes concluso-ry statements as to defendants’ alleged violations of rights protected under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, there are no factual allegations in the complaint describing the circumstances under which plaintiffs claims arose. As drafted, the complaint fails to state a plausible claim, and the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
9 . 7. 2016

Contact CVB Program and Information Management and Security 

(PIMS) at: CVB.PIMS@aphis.usda.gov

Introducing the NCAH Portal News for CVB Newsletter

NCAH Portal News for CVB is a newsletter that we’ll use to share information with our users about the NCAH Portal 

as it relates to the Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB). You are receiving this newsletter because you have been 

identified by your firm as a NCAH Portal user. Some things that may be included in future issues are user guide and 

training video updates, lessons learned by other users, upcoming system updates and other useful items to enhance 

your experience. This newsletter will be distributed to the email address we have on file for you in the Licensing, Serial 

Release and Testing Information System (LSRTIS), but feel free to pass it along to others. 

We will continue this newsletter for as long as it proves useful for NCAH Portal users. The frequency of the newsletter 

issues will depend largely on the feedback we get from users (aka you!). Since you’ve only been using the NCAH Portal 

for a couple months we’ve got a lot of things to share now, but as the learning curve levels out we may not need to 

release issues as often.

If you have an item you would like to see discussed in a future issue or if you want to share your thoughts on this 

newsletter, please email us at CVB.PIMS@aphis.usda.gov.

Helpful Tips for using the 

Portal

You Asked, We Answered What to Expect From the 

Next Phase of the Portal

What we’re working on for future issues...

Vol. 1 ISSUE 1

NCAH PORTAL news for CVB
EXHIBIT 32.2



GENAERA CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Skolas, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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, as amended; 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. SKOLAS                               
|John A. Skolas                                      
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 9, 2005