alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USDA, APHIS, PPQ

2150 Centre Ave

Fort Collins, Co 80526

These data, and all the information contained therein, have been collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or by its cooperators on APHIS’ behalf, for restricted government purposes only and is

the sole property of APHIS. See full disclaimer: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/help/data-disclaimer

PLANT PROTECTION AND QUARANTINE

2024 Rangeland Grasshopper Hazard

Grasshoppers per sq. yd.

Based on 2023 Adult Survey

0 - <3 194.1 million acres

3 - <8 130.4 million acres

8 - <15 69.7 million acres

15+ 44.5 million acres

0 130 260

Miles

0 130 260

Kilometers

Date Created:

10/25/2023

[ Data Source: The data summarized in this map were

furnished by the respective state, county, university, and/or

federal agency using a variety of survey methods and

analytical techniques. Due to funding considerations, states

may not have continuous survey coverage. This map was

prepared by USDA APHIS PPQ.

Preparation Notes: Adult and treatment survey densities of

adult specimens were interpolated to a maximum buffer

distance using an empirical Bayesian kriging model. Areas

were then filtered by major water features to produce final

acreage estimates. Acreages are approximated based on

rounding to millions of acres.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DECLARATION OF DENNIS BURLING 

Lancaster County ) 

) ss 

State of Nebraska ) 

I, Dennis Burling, declare under penalty of perjury that the following statement is 

true and correct: 

1. The facts stated herein are based on my personal knowledge unless stated 

otherwise. 

2. I am employed by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality as the 

Information Technology Manager. In my capacity as Information Technology Manager 

for the Department, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below. I am 

familiar with the Department of Environmental Quality and Information Technology 

Section's procedures for submitting and placing public notices of significant events on 

the Department's webpage, www.deq.ne.gov. 

3. The Information Technology Section, under my supervision and direction, has 

developed an online public notice process. This process allows Department staff to 

submit public notices and related documents to appear within the Public Notice portion of 

the agency web pages. A record of this information, including the person initiating the 

public notice, the date submitted, date the public notice appeared on the website, and the 

date on which the public notice will be automatically removed from the website are 

indicated in Attachment 1 to this declaration, including a copy of the information that 

appears on the website. 

1 
4. Public notice of the Infrastructure SIP, Comment Period from February 19, 

2015 to March 23, 2015, has been placed on the Department's website in accordance with 

the procedures described above for 30 days. 

DENNIS BURLIN 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15 day of March 2015, in Lincoln, 

Nebraska. 

~ GENERAlIlOTARY·State of Nebraska 

~ 

I1Ij KERRIE CARPENTER 

My Comm. Exp. Feb. 19, 2016 

2
**Exhibit23**

 

# **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

# ** **

To Board of Directors

Williams Controls, Inc:

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-42232,333-43006, 333-59397, and 333-90565, on Form S-3 and No. 333-56591 on Form S-8)of Williams Controls, Inc. of our report dated December 3, 2004, with respectto the consolidated balance sheets of Williams Controls, Inc. as of September30, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations,shareholders’ equity (deficit), cash flows, and comprehensive loss for each ofthe years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2004, which reportappears in the September 30, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of WilliamsControls, Inc.

 

In fiscal year 2003, theCompany adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 150, asdiscussed in Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements.  In addition, as discussed in Note 7 to theconsolidated financial statements, in fiscal year 2002, the Company adoptedearly application of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 145.

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP      |   |   |
|-------------------|--------|--------|
|              |   |
| Portland, Oregon  |   |
| December 22, 2004 |   |

 

1

----
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 JANUARY 7, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11616

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A95-242-230

JEAN HERBERT JOSEPH,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(January 7, 2009)

Before ANDERSON, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jean Herbert Joseph petitions this Court for review of the decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals that denied his applications for asylum and

withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United

Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b), (c).

Both the Board of Immigration Appeals and immigration judge denied Joseph’s

applications based on a finding that Joseph was not credible. We deny the petition.

We review credibility determinations under the substantial evidence test.

Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230–31 (11th Cir. 2006). Adverse

credibility findings will be reversed “‘only if the evidence “compels” a reasonable

fact finder to find otherwise.’” Id. at 1231 (quoting Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,

401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005)). An adverse credibility determination may

be based on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and falsehoods in the applicant’s oral

and written statements. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Joseph was not credible, see

Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283–84 (11th Cir. 2001), and the

immigration judge and Board provided specific and cogent reasons to support that

finding. Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231. There were several inconsistencies between

Joseph’s application for asylum and his testimony. Joseph omitted from his

original application for asylum that he fled Haiti after he was severely beaten with

bats and a razor-tailed whip. Joseph wrote in his application that he was “very

2
unpopular” with supporters of the Mochrena party in Haiti, but Joseph testified at

his removal hearing that he was popular among supporters of the party. Joseph

also made inconsistent statements at his removal hearing regarding the failure of

his wife to testify on his behalf and the location of a letter allegedly written by his

employer that had warned Joseph to leave Haiti. Joseph offers no explanation for

his inconsistencies that would “‘compel’ a reasonable fact finder” to reverse the

adverse credibility finding and conclude that he established eligibility for asylum

and withholding of removal. Id.

Joseph’s petition for review is DENIED.

PETITION DENIED.

3
SMASH 

Spotted Lanternflies!

Spotted lanternflies are bad for

U.S. farms and forests. 

Learn how to spot and report them.

If you see this invasive pest, take 

a picture, note the location, and 

smash it.

Report sightings to your State department of agriculture.

Actual Size 1”
Just one spotted lanternfly egg 

mass can have 30–50 eggs. Use 

this scraper card to smash the 

eggs and then scrape them off 

the surface.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. | APHIS-22-021 | Issued June 2022

Learn More: www.aphis.usda.gov/hungrypests/slf

SMASH and SCRAPE

Egg Masses
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-28-1997
<CASH>                                         183,935
<SECURITIES>                                    10,068
<RECEIVABLES>                                  238,165
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,689
<INVENTORY>                                    115,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               563,148
<PP&E>                                         256,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 758,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          359,264
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           956
<OTHER-SE>                                     364,615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   758,346
<SALES>                                      1,955,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,955,783
<CGS>                                        1,618,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,819,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (7,896)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                144,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                    57,092
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    87,262
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.92
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020399EN.01002802.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Bauer Radio v EUIPO — Weinstein (MUSIKISS)

(Case T-421/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MUSIKISS - Earlier United Kingdom word and figurative marks KISS - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Euratom - Transition period - Decision of the Board of Appeal to remit the case to the Opposition Division - Admissibility - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 399/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bauer Radio Ltd (Peterborough, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Messenger, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Simon Weinstein (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M.-R. Petsche and M. Grötschl, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 510/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bauer Radio and Mr Weinstein.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bauer Radio Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bauer Radio Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---
# C_2019220EN.01003701.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (LIEBLINGSWEIN)

(Case T-55/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark LIEBLINGSWEIN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Misleading character - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 220/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 291/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign LIEBLINGSWEIN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Team Beverage AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Team Beverage AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.

---
#### In the matter of the petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by Kenneth Lee CHAMBERS, Petitioner.

No. A-12300.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 19, 1956.

Kenneth'Lee-Chambers, petitioner pro se.‘

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

*170BRETT, Judge.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus whereby petitioner, Kenneth Lee Chambers, seeks his release from imprisonment in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester, Oklahoma. The petitioner alleges that he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty by Hon. H. C. McLeod, Warden of the State Penitentiary, and further alleges that the cause of said unlawful restraint is by virtue of a judgment and sentence made and entered in the District Court of Oklahoma County on or about the 8th day of June, 1954, wherein he was sentenced to serve five years in the State Penitentiary. Petitioner also alleges that he was unlawfully held in the county jail of Oklahoma County for a period of four months subsequent to being sentenced before being transferred to the penitentiary causing the sentence to be four months in excess of the judgment.

It has been repeatedly held that where an inmate of- the penitentiary wishes to challenge the judgment and sentence pronounced against him, he should attach to his petition a certified copy of the information, and a certified copy of the judgment and sentence pronounced against him. Forbes v. Burford, 92 Okl.Cr. 440, 224 P. 2d 269; Ex parte Jones, 92 Okl.Cr. 443, 224 P.2d 280. Ex parte Gower, 92 Okl. Cr. 315, 223 P.2d 154, 155 holds:

> “We are of the opinion that an unverified petition for habeas corpus with allegations such as are herein set forth, there being no certified copy of the information or judgment and sentence of the lower court attached to the petition, is insufficient to question the validity of the commitment by which the person is incarcerated in the penitentiary.”

Ex parte Arnett, 76 Okl.Cr. 209, 135 P.2d 507; Ex parte Conway, 97 Okl.Cr. 1, 256 P.2d 189, certiorari denied Conway v. Waters, 345 U.S. 967, 73 S.Ct. 955, 97 L. Ed. 1385.

Writ denied.

JONES, P. J., and POWELL, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,123,001
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,940,920
<ALLOWANCES>                               (7,239,277)
<INVENTORY>                                     77,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               851,829
<PP&E>                                       2,707,446
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,023,740)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,437,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,584,702
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,232
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,437,429
<SALES>                                      9,755,786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,755,786
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,314,396
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             529,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,087,988)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (760,154)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,327,834)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,327,834)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.78)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 836 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 836

Expressing the disapproval of the House of Representatives of the final 
rule of the Department of Labor relating to defining and delimiting the 
exemptions for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, 
                        and computer employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2016

Mrs. Love submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the disapproval of the House of Representatives of the final 
rule of the Department of Labor relating to defining and delimiting the 
exemptions for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, 
                        and computer employees.

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the rule 
published by the Department of Labor in the Federal Register on May 23, 
2016, relating to defining and delimiting the exemptions for executive, 
administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees 
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (81 Fed. Reg. 32391 et 
seq.).
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      10.49**







Incentive
      Compensation Plan




The
      Company’s annual incentive compensation plan is intended to assist the Company
      in rewarding and motivating key employees, focuses strongly on Company and
      individual performance, and provides a fully competitive compensation package
      to
      plan participants. As a pay-for-performance plan, cash incentive awards are
      paid
      annually based on the achievement of performance objectives for the year. Under
      the plan, each plan participant is provided a range of potential annual
      incentive awards based on competitive award levels in the marketplace. Actual
      awards paid under the plan are based on the Company’s corporate performance.
      Individual performance is also considered in determining actual award levels,
      but is assessed in a non-formulaic fashion. The incentive compensation plan
      performance objective is earnings per share performance against plan. The
      maximum incentive awards that could be awarded to the Company’s named executive
      officers pursuant to the incentive compensation plan are as follows: chairman
      and chief executive officer - (150% x annual base salary); president and chief
      operating officer - (100% x annual base salary); vice presidents - (60% x annual
      base salary).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF FINANCIAL FEDERAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
AT JULY 31, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                            6068
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1137135
<ALLOWANCES>                                     19048
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1127785
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         884838
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          7479
<OTHER-SE>                                      164944
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1127785
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                111513
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  3450
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               52205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  43632
<INCOME-TAX>                                     16910
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              26722
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     26722
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.52
<FN>
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDE AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### O’Black, Appellant, *v.*The Ohio Steel Foundry Co. of Lima, Appellee.

(No. 31850

Decided October 19, 1949.)

*Mr. Anthony J. Bowers*and *Mr. James G. Blair,*for appellant.

*368
      *Messrs. Reid & Davison,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.