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

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Country Acceptance List for VEHCS

Last Modified: 

Print

The Veterinary Export Health Certification System (VEHCS) is APHIS' online system

used to create, issue, submit, and endorse live animal health certificates for export.

It helps APHIS certify compliance with importing countries' requirements for live

animal exports and makes the process of gaining health certificate endorsement

from APHIS faster.

All export health certificates for live animals for any destination country can now be

issued electronically in VEHCS. A USDA-accredited veterinarian issues (completes

and signs) the certificate and submits it to the APHIS Veterinary Export Trade

Services Endorsement Office in VEHCS.

This page lists which countries accept APHIS’ electronic endorsement of the

certificate in VEHCS for either (1) all animals exported to that country or (2) only

certain animals. The page also lists specific situations where VEHCS is the only

option for obtaining endorsement. For the countries and species listed below,

VEHCS can be used for the entire health certification process, including

issuance, submission, endorsement, and certificate return.

For countries or animals not listed below, the APHIS endorsement office will print the

health certificate submitted in VEHCS by the USDA-Accredited Veterinarian,

physically endorse it (ink-sign and emboss), and return the certificate by mail or hold

it for in-person pickup. For certificates that will be returned by mail, please ensure
the USDA-Accredited Veterinarian uploads a prepaid address label into VEHCS

before they submit the certificate to APHIS for review and endorsement.

Loading...

Country Acceptance List

Stay up to date

For the latest news about VEHCS, sign up for email updates on our "Veterinary

Services-IREGS" topics.

Subscribe

VEHCS Help and Guidance 

Browse VEHCS help and guidance resources.

Travel With a Pet 

If you want to travel with your pet to another State or country, you'll need to meet

these requirements whether you're traveling by plane, car, train, or boat.

Live Animal Exports (Not Including Pets) 

Find information on exporting hatching eggs, germplasm, and live animals other

than pets from the United States to a foreign country or territory.
**Exhibit 31.3**

 

**RULE 13(a)-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**(AMENDMENT NO.  1)**

 

I, Donald L. Unger, certify that:

 
|   | 1. | I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K of Premier Community Bankshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006; |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|   | 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; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| Date:  April 30, 2007 | /s/ Donald L. Unger          |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | Donald L. Unger, President and CEO                                        |
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          JUN-30-2000
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-2001
[CASH]                                               0
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                        0
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                     0
[PP&E]                                               0
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                       0
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                                0
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                             0
[OTHER-SE]                                           0
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                         0
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                     0
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                        0
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                      0
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                  0
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                         0
[EPS-BASIC]                                          0
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
#### Nihipali v. Akina

20026

9/3/98

Reversed
Order entered October 22, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01125
- CR
BILLY RAY PERKINS JR ., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. F10
- 00206
- T



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether ap pellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial co urt shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effect ive representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Exhibit No. 99.1Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



The following certification is provided by the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of MAF Bancorp, Inc. on the basis of such officers knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





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 Annual Report of MAF
Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2003, (the Report), I, Allen H. Koranda, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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/    ALLEN H.
KORANDAName: Allen H. Koranda Title: Chairman of the Boardand Chief Executive Officer Date: March 10, 2003
#### Fjaeran v. Sandhoff

17260

10/17/94

Affirmed
# C_2019399EN.01005301.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/53

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (washing sponge)

(Case T-532/18) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a washing sponge - Earlier designs - Grounds for invalidity - Examination by the Board of Appeal of its own motion of the facts constituting disclosure - Burden of proof on the invalidity applicant - Requirements relating to the reproduction of the prior design)

(2019/C 399/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aroma Essence Ltd (Kazanlak, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Nastev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, Agents,)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Refan Bulgaria OOD (Trud, Bulgaria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2018 (Case R 1197/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aroma Essence and Refan Bulgaria.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aroma Essence Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aroma Essence Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

---
10609

#### Klein v. City and County of Honolulu

Dismissed
18012

#### State by Doi v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright

Affirmed
#### Jane PAPPAS, dba J. P. & Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GATEHOUSE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 13787.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 31, 1975.

*882William A. Stegall, Jr., Jerman & Dart, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Kay M. Lewis, Jensen & Lewis, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a no cause of action judgment. Affirmed, with costs to defendant.

Plaintiff, an interior decorator, allegedly agreed to perform services and supply materials for and to the defendant in the latter’s construction of a house. She also claimed that in an oral discussion at a luncheon, defendant agreed to insure the materials furnished by her because he had a “Homeowner’s Policy.” Upon hearing this case, the court sitting without a jury, found as a fact that plaintiff fabricated some evidence in support of her claim. Suffice it to say that the trial court’s refusal to give her a judgment under such circumstances, and under the entire record here, was supported by admissible competent evidence, which impels this court to support the decision of the trial judge.

CROCKETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

ELLETT, J., concurs in the result.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leanne M.
Kelly, Senior 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/ Leanne M. Kelly                              
|Leanne M. Kelly                                  
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 14, 2008                                

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 430 

Calling upon the President to declare a National Day of Prayer to end 

targeted violence against law enforcement officers and schedule appropriate public events in support of such a day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2015 

Mr. FLEMING (for himself, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. MOONEY of West 

Virginia, Mr. POSEY, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. ROTHFUS, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. 

FLORES, and Mr. CULBERSON) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Calling upon the President to declare a National Day of 

Prayer to end targeted violence against law enforcement 

officers and schedule appropriate public events in support 

of such a day. 

Whereas all human lives have dignity and worth and are deserving of protection under the law; 

Whereas a pattern of violence is emerging against police officers in which officers are targeted for wearing a police 

uniform and performing their legitimate duties under the 

law; 

Whereas, on August 28, 2015, Deputy Sheriff Darren H. 

Goforth was targeted and assassinated in Harris County, 

Texas, while wearing his police uniform; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 430 IH 

Whereas gunfire was directed at police officers during protests in Ferguson, Missouri, on March 12, 2015, and August 9, 2015; 

Whereas New York City Police Department officers Rafael 

Ramos and Wenjian Liu were targeted and assassinated 

in New York, New York, while they sat in a patrol car 

on December 20, 2014; 

Whereas law enforcement is a dangerous profession under 

any circumstances, but this pattern of attacks makes the 

job even more dangerous; 

Whereas the number of police officers killed by firearms increased by 56 percent between 2013 and 2014; and 

Whereas ‘‘ambush killings’’ were the leading cause of police 

officer fatalities in firearm-related deaths in 2014: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls 

2 upon the President to declare a National Day of Prayer 

3 to end targeted violence against law enforcement officers 

4 and schedule appropriate public events in support of such 

5 a day. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Antonio J. McKENDALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. STALDER; C.M. Lensing, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-30945.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 16, 2005.

*891Antonio J McKendall, St. Gabriel, LA, pro se.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Antonio J. McKendall, Louisiana state prisoner # 234949, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) upon an appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. By moving for IFP status, McKendall is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

McKendall has faded to challenge specifically the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his claim that the defendants have a duty to notify him regarding chemical releases at area chemical plaints. Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see *Haines v. Kerner,*404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), the court requires arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993). Because McKendall has failed to address this ruling, he has abandoned the issue on appeal. *See id.*He also has failed to show that the district court erred by dismissing his other four claims without prejudice for not having exhausted his administrative remedies relative to them. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1997(e); *Wendell v. Asher,*162 F.3d 887, 890-92 (5th Cir.1998).

Therefore, McKendall’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). McKendall therefore has two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), including one based on the district court’s dismissal. McKendall is warned that if he accumulates three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Society of Professional Journalists-UH Chapter v. SHOPO

18095

5/30/95

Affirmed
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Annual Report of ECO2 Plastics,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), Rodney S. Rougelot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does
hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §
1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Rodney S.
Rougelot


By:
Rodney S. Rougelot


Its:
Chief Executive Officer, Director


Interim
Financial Officer





April 14,
2008





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
ECO2
Plastics, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
May 31, 2000

22280

#### Torres v. Northwest Engineering Co.

Affirmed
# C_2019423EN.01003701.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-301/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2019/C 423/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley QC, E. Dean and J. Marjason-Stamp, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---