alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Safeguarding American Agriculture

Federal Relay Service

APHIS is an agency of USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Voice/TTY/ASCII/Spanish)

 An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 1-800-877-8339

 

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service

Veterinary Services 

Strategy and Policy 

Live Animal Imports

4700 River Road

Riverdale, MD 20737

(301) 851-3300, opt. 2 

INFORMATIONAL SHEET: Return of declared pet birds to Mexico

refused entry to United States

Issuance Date: June 1, 2020

Effective Date: June 1, 2020

Revised Date: November 1, 2023

This information is for individuals who declare pet bird(s) at the U.S. /Mexico land border 

ports of entry and will not be able to meet U.S. import requirements.

Please be aware of the following, which is required to return to Mexico:

1. Veterinary Services (VS) form 17-8, which states the pet bird(s) was refused entry, 

provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection or USDA.

2. The official veterinarian of Mexico or Third Authorized Specialist (TEA) will 

perform a physical inspection and document review of refused pet bird(s). They 

will:

a) Verify that the ID or description of the pet bird(s) correlates with the documents 

presented.

b) Verify that the pet bird(s) seems in good health, with no evidence of 

communicable disease, and free of ectoparasites.

c) Inform the individual of the procedure and requirements to export pet bird(s) to 

the United States of America. 

If the individual is interested in returning the pet bird(s) to an address located beyond the 

port in Mexico, requirements and any restrictions imposed will be explained for moving the 

pet bird(s) into Mexico. The individual will pay expenses for this process.

General requirements: 

1. Return of any dead bird(s) must undergo a necropsy examination, and if required, 

samples will be taken and sent to the official laboratory in Mexico.

2. If a pet bird becomes sick, while waiting for clearance to return to Mexico, the 

Commission for the Prevention of Foot and Mouth Disease and other Exotic 

Diseases (CPA) must be informed at phone number 01-800-7512100 or 55 

59051000 Ext. 51236, or Ext. 51242. Testing to determine the cause of 

death/disease may be completed, as well as, cleaning and disinfection to protect 

human and avian health. 

NOTE: 

Meeting the requirements established in this document does not preclude the individual 

from meeting requirements dictated by other agencies. Expenses generated to meet the 

requirements stated in this document are the responsibility of the individual defined as the 

importer, legal representative, or owner of the pet bird(s).
#### Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. F. A. Shadinger and J. N. Osteen, *Defendants in Error.*

Opinion Filed February 3, 1915.

Where judgment is obtained against only two or four joint makers of a note, the other two appearing but no default was taken for failure to plead, a writ of error taken by the plaintiff will be dismissed, where the purpose of the writ of error is to open up the judgment to later' take action so as to include an adjudication against the two as to whom the plaintiff in error has shown no right to a judgment, and such two are not parties to the judgment or to the writ of érror.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court for Dade County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge:

Writ dismissed.

*Hudson*& *Cason,*for Plaintiff in Error.

No Appearance for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

An action was brought by the Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company against W. H. Burn-ham, C. H. Slifer, F. A. Shadinger and J. N. Osteen on a *61joint note made by them. W. E. Burnham and C. H. Slifer appeared.- A default was entered against F. A. Sliadinger and J. N. Osteen, who were served with process. It does not appear that Burnham and Slifer filed any pleading, or that a default was entered against them. On an *ex parte*hearing a verdict was returned against all four of the defendants. Judgment was entered only against F. A. Sliadinger and J. N. Osteen. The plaintiff took writ of error. The writ of error was dismissed, but was afterwards reinstated by the court.

The plaintiff in error does not show by the transcript that the trial court had authority to enter judgment against Burnham and Slifer, they having appeared but no default being entered against them for failure to plead. The plaintiff in error is not entitled to a review here of the judgment merely for the purpose of opening up the judgment to later take action so as to include an adjudication against Burnham and Slifer in .the judgment, since the plaintiff does not show a right to a judgment against Burnham and Slifer, even if such a review would be permitted here when Burnham and Slifer are not parties to the judgment obtained or to the writ of error brought to review the judgment.

The Writ of Error is dismissed.

Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
APRIL 1, 2021

APRIL 4, 2021

APRIL 5, 2021

2021 

Transi�on to 

APHIS eFILE

• Applicants must use APHIS eFile to 

submit permit applica�ons

• Applicants can use APHIS eFile to 

request confirma�on of exemp�on 

from regula�on

BRS is preparing to transi�on from ePermits to APHIS eFile in 2021. BRS currently has 45 pilot applicants 

par�cipa�ng in tes�ng and early adop�on of APHIS eFile. Applicants can apply for permits and no�fica�ons, 

and submit compliance reports in APHIS eFile. All BRS applicants are invited to use the new system. Beginning 

April 5, 2021, APHIS eFile will be the only electronic system applicants can use to submit permit applica�ons. 

Applicants will also be able to use APHIS eFile to request confirma�on of exemp�on from regula�on. At that 

�me, BRS will not accept any new applica�ons through ePermits.

APHIS eFILE 

PROGRAM UPDATES

Contact Us

efile.communica�ons@usda.gov

BIOTECHNOLOGY REGULATORY SERVICES

WANT TO GET

A HEAD START?

• Visit h�ps://efile.aphis.usda.gov/

• Register with your eAuthen�ca�on account

• Submit your first applica�on!

• Last day to submit no�fica�ons in 

APHIS eFile 

• Last day to submit any permit and 

no�fica�on applica�ons in 

ePermits 

Early adoption enables applicants to: 

• Get acquainted with the user interface

• Submit mul�-year permit applica�ons

• Take advantage of “Previously Submi�ed Constructs”

• Set up sharing accounts for their teams

Early Adop�on

of APHIS eFile
# C_2021471EN.01003801.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2021 — Ryanair and Others v Commission

(Case T-448/18) (1)

(State aid - Agreements concluded by Kärntner Flughafen Betriebsgesellschaft with Ryanair and its subsidiaries Airport Marketing Services and Leading Verge.com - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Whether imputable to the State - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard)

(2021/C 471/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), FR Financing (Malta) Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and by B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck, A. Bouchagiar and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/628 of 11 November 2016 on State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ryanair DAC, Airport Marketing Services Ltd and FR Financing (Malta) Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ryanair DAC, Airport Marketing Services Ltd and FR Financing (Malta) Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, James A. Winne III, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the 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 controls 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) 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 (c) 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
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the 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: August 2, 2005
    By:
    /s/ James A. Winne IIIJames A. Winne III, Chief Executive Officer,Chairman of the Board of Directors and Director
 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PAULA BIRD, et al.

,

Plaintiff s

,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR

,

Defendant. Civil Action No. 19

- 1581 ( JMC )

O RDER

Upon consideration of Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended

Complaint, ECF 51; Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion, ECF 52; Defendant’s Reply, ECF 54;

and all relevant filings; and for the reasons stated in the forthcoming Memorandum Opinion, to be

issued soon, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant ’s Partial Motion to Dismiss , ECF 51, is

DENIED

.

SO ORDERED.

DATE: April 15 , 2022

Jia M. Cobb

U.S. District Court Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                    OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             785                     978
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,615                   3,505 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        47                      57
<INVENTORY>                                      6,505                   4,621  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,414                   9,736    
<PP&E>                                           7,972                   6,193 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,912                   2,324    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,613                  15,955    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,251                   8,721    
<BONDS>                                          2,678                   1,523    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              775                     835
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            20                      19
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,825                   4,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,613                  15,955
<SALES>                                         31,249                  19,602
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,249                  19,602
<CGS>                                           23,057                  14,332
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,057                  14,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   211                     265
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 507                     405
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,105                     346
<INCOME-TAX>                                        22                       9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,083                     337
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,083                     337
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17                    0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17                    0.07
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.02**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Dennis E. Bunday, certifythat:

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

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

     4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure control and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; 

     b) Designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financialreporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation offinancial statements in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples. 

     c) Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

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

     5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors: 

     a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

     b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
22500

#### State v. Lyons

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 525 

Urging the Administration to work with North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

member states to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty in 

response to the Paris attacks. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2015 

Mr. POE of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Urging the Administration to work with North Atlantic Treaty Organization member states to invoke Article 5 of 

the North Atlantic Treaty in response to the Paris attacks. 

Whereas terrorist attacks in Paris, France, killed an estimated 129 civilians at 7 different locations on November 

13, 2015; 

Whereas ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attacks and 

vowed to carry out additional attacks against Western 

targets and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

member states; 

Whereas Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at 

Washington, April 4, 1949, states that ‘‘The Parties 

agree that an armed attack against one or more of them 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 525 IH 

in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all . . . .’’; 

Whereas France is a signatory of NATO and the November 

13, 2015, attack qualifies as an ‘‘armed attack’’ against 

a member country in Europe; and 

Whereas NATO members, including France, invoked Article 

5 less than 24 hours after the September 11, 2001, attacks in solidarity with the people of the United States: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls on 

2 the President to work closely with other North Atlantic 

3 Treaty Organization members to invoke Article 5 of the 

4 North Atlantic Treaty in response to the Paris attacks. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
October 18, 1999

21969

#### State v. Benicta

Reversed
# C_2019413EN.01006601.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/66

---

Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA

(Case T-675/18) (1)

(2019/C 413/78)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
SERVED SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 

JcRARTMENTOF 

' OCKET OPERATIONS 

?m ^:EP-2 A ^^ 38 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION 

OFPICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHFNGTON, DC 

FN THE MATTER OF 

RUSHMORE HELICOPTERS 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10GL0002 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

UMSNO. FAA-2010-0023 

ORDER CORRECTING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 

The following corrections are hereby made in the transcript ot'the hearing held 

April 27,2011: 

PAGE LINE READS 

24 

45 

46 

9 

19 

18 

3 

5 

6 

12 

14 

air witness 

air witness 

tech 

tech 

SDC 

unworthy 

tech 

tech 

SHOULD READ 

airworthiness 

airworthiness 

type 

type 

STC 

unairworthy 

type 

type 

50 tech type 
s o ORDERED. 

Administrative Law Judge 

Altiichmcnt - Service l^ist 
FAA Docket No. CP10GL0002 

{Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000^ 

ONE COPY 

Michael Jacob, Respondent 

President or CEO 

Rushmore Helicopters, Inc. 

24564 Highway 16/385 

Custer, SD 57730 

Briana Martino, Complainant's Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use tlic following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-4075MN

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Jesus Ramirez-Castillo, also known as *

Hector Vinicio Arias, also known as *

Jesus Ramirez, also known as Jesus *

Cortez, also known as Pedro Meyer, *

also known as Jose Luis Cortes, *

*

Appellant. *

Appeals from the United States

_____________ District Court for the District

of Minnesota.

No. 97-1352MN

_____________ [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Izaida Villaneuva-Ramirez, also known *

as Izaida Cortez-Villaneuva, Izaida *

Cortez, Izaida Ramirez, Izaida Ramirez- *

Cortez, Charol Matos, *

*

Appellant. *
-2-

_____________

 Submitted: October 21, 1997

Filed: October 30, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Jesus Ramirez-Castillo and Izaida Villaneuva-Ramirez appeal their drug-related

convictions. Ramirez-Castillo and Villaneuva-Ramirez contend the evidence was

insufficient to establish that Ramirez-Castillo carried a firearm during and in relation

to a drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Ramirez-Castillo also

raises a plain error contention that the district court improperly admitted evidence that

Ramirez-Castillo shot an intruder during a drug-related robbery. Additionally,

Villaneuva-Ramirez raises contentions related to the admissibility of evidence of

uncharged drug dealing offered by the government, the sufficiency of the evidence, and

the district court's plain error instruction about the section 924(c) firearm count. A

review of the record shows the parties' claims are without merit. Because the appeal

involves the straightforward application of settled principles of law, a discussion of the

issues will serve no useful purpose. We thus affirm the convictions of Ramirez-Castillo

and Villaneuva-Ramirez without an extended opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.