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

Injury

IMPORTED

FIRE ANT (IFA)

Adult

Blisters from IFA 

stings covering a 

victim’s arm

IFAs crawling on wood

Reddish-brown 

or black color

Highly aggressive 

when disturbed

One-eighth to one-quarter 

of an inch long
THEHARM IT CAUSES

IFAs will feed on the buds and fruits of numerous crop 

plants, especially corn, soybean, okra, and citrus. They 

can also girdle young trees. Large nests located in 

fields interfere with and damage equipment during 

cultivation and harvesting. IFAs respond rapidly and 

aggressively to disturbances, and ant attacks inhibit 

field-worker activities. A single fire ant can sting its 

target repeatedly; young and newborn animals are 

especially susceptible to the stings’ venom.

WHAT YOU CAN DO • Find out if you’re in an IFA quarantine area. Visit 

www.aphis.usda.gov, type "zip code" into the search 

box, and click the "Go" button.

• Know the restrictions on baled hay, soil, plants, soilmoving equipment, and other items moving out of IFA 

quarantine areas. Visit www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_

health/plant_pest_info/fireants for this information.

• Report any sightings of this pest to your local Extension 

office (use the map at www.nifa.usda.gov/Extension).

For more information, visit: 

HUNGRYPESTS.COM

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

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

 Program Aid No. 2125-IFA Issued March 2013

WHAT TO LOOK FOR • Ants that are one-eighth to 

one-quarter of an inch long 

and reddish-brown or black

• Ants that respond rapidly and 

aggressively when disturbed 

(they clamp onto their victims 

with powerful jaws and sting 

repeatedly while injecting 

painful venom)

• Hard, mound-shaped nests that can get quite large, 

posing risks to field workers and farm equipment

IFA nests near outdoor 

electrical equipment
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Name of Entity

State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or OrganizationMultilink Technology Corporation Israel Ltd.

IsraelMultilink Technology GmbH

GermanyVitesse International Holdings, SRL

BarbadosVitesse International, Inc.

BarbadosVitesse Manufacturing & Development Corporation

DelawareVitesse Semiconductor Canada Corporation

CanadaVitesse Semiconductor Corporation A/S

DenmarkVitesse Semiconductor GmbH & Co. KG

GermanyVitesse Semiconductor Japan Corporation

JapanVitesse Semiconductor S.r.l.

ItalyVitesse Semiconductor Sales Corporation

DelawareVitesse Semiconductor (India) PVT Ltd

IndiaVitesse Semiconductor (India) Beteilig & Verw.GmbH

Germany


---



QuickLinks
# C_2019155EN.01001601.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/16

---

Appeal brought on 3 August 2018 by Prada SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 June 2018 in Case T-111/16: Prada v EUIPO

(Case C-510/18 P)

(2019/C 155/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Prada SA (represented by: C: Mazzi, G. Guglielmetti, P. Tammaro, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, The Rich Prada International PT

By order of 14 February 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
#### Maurice W. SMITH and Anita L. Smith, his wife, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Beth PEARMAIN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14163.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April 19, 1976.

*1270Arthur H. Nielsen & Randall L. Rom-rell, Nielsen, Conder, Henriod & Gottfred-son, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Graham Dodd, Kirton, McConkie, Boyer & Boyle, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and respondents.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a judgment rescinding a real estate contract for representations made by defendant seller through a real estate agent, that proved not to be factual.1 Affirmed, with no costs.

The property, situate in Salt Lake City, was listed with a real estate agent. It was being used as a duplex, which, after sale, was found to be violative of the local zoning ordinances, and structures to the rear were used by tenants in violation of the ordinances, all without any evident complaint and no doubt without knowledge of local authorities. The real estate agent listed the property in a newspaper, representing that these unauthorized uses were available and valuable assets in assessing the sale price. Plaintiffs, California residents, read the ad and on the strength of such representations, bought it, and thereafter the plaintiffs were notified of the unlawful use and the tenants were notified by the city to vacate the portions of the property they were renting. This suit followed and rescission was granted and defendant’s counterclaim to foreclose dismissed.

The variances (which on paper seemed to be minor but actually substantial at the time), and the use of the residence as a duplex, stemmed from events commencing in 1930, which provoked this court to comment as it does in footnote 1, supra.

Appellant’s counsel urges that the facts here 2 are insufficient to satisfy the necessary grounds for rescission, and the quality of proof interdicted in *Pace v.*Parrish,3 (to which we refer without necessity to repeat its language here), — with which urgence we are compelled to disagree.

Without detailing the facts any further than has been done above, we are of the opinion that anything recited from the record in addition would be supportive of our conclusion that the trial court’s judgment was not in error, and that it was arrived at correctly by the application of sound equitable principles, — and we so hold.

CROCKETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

ELLETT, J., concurs in the result.

1

. This is a case where relief was justified, perhaps, also on the ground of mistake because of a long period of time during which there was an unauthorized use of the property created by a couple of variances that were granted, but exceeded, because of changes in title and use of the property by tenants without prudent inquiry. Bad faith does not seem to have been indulged by anyone.

2

. Which understandably were chosen and mentioned in the brief in a light more favorable to appellant’s contention.

3

. 122 Utah 141, 247 P.2d 273 (1952).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Centennial
Communications Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ended November 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
such officer's knowledge:

            (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.

Date: January 7, 2005

/s/ Thomas J. Fitzpatrick
-------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Fitzpatrick
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

PCN Regulated Field Description

January 11, 2023

Last Modified: 

Print

Since the last update to the pale cyst nematode regulated Area on April 20, 2022,

approximately 32 acres have been released from regulation. The locations of the

fields, deregulated after completing a release protocol comprised of a sequence of

surveys with negative laboratory results for PCN, and in accordance with 7 CFR

§301.86, subpart 3(d)(2) Removal of fields from quarantine – Associated fields, are

as follows: Bingham County, Idaho – T01N, R37E, section 26. 

With this change, the current regulated area is 6,535 acres, of which 3,542 acres are

infested fields and 2,993 acres are associated fields.  

Regulated Quarantine Map (710.11 KB)

Loading...
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7053

BENJAMIN HENDERSON JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. SARGENT REYNOLDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, its

Teachers, Officers, Agents, Attorneys,

Proxies, Employees, Affiliates; D. GUILLORY;

EDWARD MURRAY; RON ANGELONE; JAMES S. GILMORE,

III; DOUGLAS WILDER; GEORGE F. ALLEN,

Governor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief

District Judge. (CA-95-616-AM)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Henderson Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Jones appeals from a district court order dismissing

his complaint without prejudice for failure to amend and particularize his complaint and denying his motions for default judgment

and a temporary restraining order. We dismiss the appeal.

The district court's dismissal order makes clear that Jones

may save his complaint by amendment. Thus, this appeal of that

order is interlocutory. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local

293, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Regarding the portion of

the order denying Jones's request for a temporary restraining

order, a request regarding facts unbound to the substance of the

initial complaint, we find no extraordinary circumstances that

would merit allowing an interlocutory appeal. Virginia v. Tenneco,

Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976).

Thus, we dismiss Jones's appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

                  STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ian M. Herman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Global Aircraft
Solutions, Inc. formerly Renegade Venture (Nev.) Corporation (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 Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
          31, 2005 (the "Report"), which this statement accompanies, 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 present, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: April 5, 2006                             /s/  Ian M. Herman
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Ian M. Herman
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23



Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-3446) pertaining to the 1994 Stock
Option Plan and 1994 Stock Option Plan for Directors of Matthews Studio
Equipment Group and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report
dated December 29, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Matthews Studio Equipment Group included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 1998, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.



                                               S/Ernst & Young LLP


Los Angeles, California
January 12, 1999
#### David LITMON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen MAYBERG; et al., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-15625. D.C. No. CV-01-20711-RMW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

*214David Litmon, Jr., Union City, CA, pro se.

Susan J. King, Deputy Atty. Gen., AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

David Litmon, Jr., a former California state inmate, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that employees of the California Department of Mental Health violated his due process rights by falsely certifying that he met the criteria for a sexually violent predator under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *see Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants May-berg and Finnberg because Litmon’s claims against them were barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. *See Jones v. Blanas,*393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir.2004). We will not entertain Litmon’s equitable tolling argument raised for the first time on appeal. *See Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc.,*140 F.3d 1313, 1321 (9th Cir.1998).

The district court did not err in failing to order service of Litmon’s complaint on defendants Inman and Shafer because Litmon’s claims against those defendants were also barred by the one-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); *Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (an in forma pauperis complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”).

Although Litmon’s claims against Thies were not time-barred, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Thies was entitled to absolute immunity for his role in Litmon’s continued commitment. *See Franklin v. Terr,*201 F.3d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir.2000) (extending absolute immunity to psychiatrist for testimony at trial); *Burns v. County of King,*883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir.1989) (extending absolute immunity to a state social worker for an affidavit submitted at a post-conviction proceeding where due process protections were present).

Litmon’s remaining contentions lack merit.

Appellees’ motion for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                       JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               9,163,685
<SECURITIES>                                         3,039,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                        5,132,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                           108,557
<INVENTORY>                                          3,195,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    21,375,599
<PP&E>                                               5,180,594
<DEPRECIATION>                                       2,117,587
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      27,991,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                3,887,109
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                59,575
<OTHER-SE>                                          22,115,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        27,991,099
<SALES>                                              6,482,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     6,482,971
<CGS>                                                3,665,684
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        5,634,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      43,539
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        950,472
<INCOME-TAX>                                           345,144
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                           605,328
<EPS-BASIC>                                                .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              .09



</TABLE>
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 574 

Calling for a restoration of civil government in Thailand established by fair, 

free, democratic, and open elections and expressing solidarity with the 

people of Thailand in their desire for democracy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2015 

Mr. ROHRABACHER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Calling for a restoration of civil government in Thailand 

established by fair, free, democratic, and open elections 

and expressing solidarity with the people of Thailand 

in their desire for democracy. 

Whereas King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand has been a 

stabilizing leader in his commitment to democracy, economic development, and prosperity for the Thai people; 

Whereas the people of Thailand seek the same freedoms and 

hold the same democratic values as the people of the 

United States; 

Whereas Thailand has been a long-time friend and valued 

ally of the United States; 

Whereas, on May 2014, in response to a crisis within Thailand and with the support of most Thai people, the miliVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:30 Dec 19, 2015 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR574.IH HR574

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 574 IH 

tary assumed power temporarily to restore civil order and 

safety; 

Whereas the military leader of the National Council for Peace 

and Order (NCPO), General Prayuth Chan-ocha, exercises authority to issue constitutional reform and call for 

democratic elections; and 

Whereas the Constituent Committee completed the drafting 

of a new constitution on August 29, 2015, which was rejected by the National Reform Council on September 6, 

2015: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) calls for a restoration of civil government in 

3 Thailand established by fair, free, democratic, and 

4 open elections; and 

5 (2) expresses solidarity with the people of Thai6 land in their desire for democracy. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
TGA before and after

This information is confidential.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(b)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard C. Christopher,
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:

      3)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: August 3, 2005                      /s/ Richard C. Christopher
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Richard C. Christopher
                                          Vice President, Finance and Chief
                                          Financial Officer (principal financial
                                          officer and principal accounting
                                          officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.