alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2 April 14, 2020

National Veterinary Services Laboratories

American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians 

(AAVLD) Internal Bacteriology Quality Assurance Survey

Panel Summary

1. Composition of panel: The panel consists of 4 to 5 samples containing pure or mixed 

cultures. Contents of the panel vary each year and are chosen by the AAVLD Bacteriology

Committee.

2. Cost of panel: Click here to view current NVSL Catalog of Reagents

3. Storage conditions: Kits are stored at -70°C or lower before shipping and 

should be stored at -70°C or lower after receipt if not used immediately.

4. Sample preparation/selection criteria: Most isolates are veterinary or human biosafetly 

level 2 pathogens, but may also include common contaminating organisms. Laboratories 

should adhere to BSL-2 safety practices. The organisms to be included in the test are 

determined by the AAVLD Bacteriology Steering Committee each year. Members of the 

committee write case histories to go with each sample.

5. Panel quality control: At least two vials of each sample are tested prior to kit assembly. 

Following assembly but prior to shipment, ten kits or 10% of kits are tested for homogeneity. 

Three kits are subjected to simulated normal shipping for stability testing. One is tested 

immediately and two are stored as directed and tested on or after the results due date. One 

additional kit is subjected to extended stressed shipping conditions, stored, and tested on or 

after the results due date.

6. Timing of the panel distribution and data collection: The AAVLD Bacteriology Survey 

is offered annually. It is usually shipped in the late spring or early summer and results are sent 

to AAVLD in time for them to be presented at the AAVLD/USAHA meeting in the fall.

7. Test method: Laboratories are instructed to test a heavy loopful or 50 microliters of 

sample per plate or broth. Individual laboratories are free to test this panel by their method 

of choice. These samples should be treated as normal diagnostic samples would be in the 

participating laboratory.

8. Submitting test results: Participating laboratories submit their data as instructed in the 

announcement letter. The AAVLD Bacteriology Committee is responsible for summarizing 

and presenting results.

9. Scoring of individual panel samples: This panel is not scored. Individual laboratory results 

are compiled and summarized and the results presented at the AAVLD/USAHA meeting in 

the fall.

10. Laboratory pass/fail criteria: N/A
Page 2 of 2 April 14, 2020

11. Reporting laboratory test scores: N/A

12. Remedial actions required for failing laboratories: N/A.

13. Special requirements: A valid USDA transport permit is required to receive the panel. 

The permit is form 16-6A, United States Veterinary Permit for Importation and Transportation of 

Controlled Materials and Organisms and Vectors. If you do not have a permit you can apply for one at 

https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov. It can take several weeks to receive your permit so apply early. A 

copy of the permit must be provided to NVSL prior to shipment.
# C_2019432EN.01003901.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 —Mahr v EUIPO — Especialidades Vira (Xocolat)

(Case T-58/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Xocolat - Earlier EU word mark LUXOCOLAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Reasoned statement in the notice of opposition - Rule 15(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 2(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

(2019/C 432/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ramona Mahr (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: T. Rohracher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Especialidades Vira, SL (Martorell, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 541/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Especialidades Vira and Ms Mahr.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Ramona Mahr to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Ramona Mahr to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00210-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.B.K.-R., a child

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-00852

Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 11, 2013

AFFIRMED

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. 

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of 

the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel 

concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 

21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order) (applying Anders procedure in appeal 

from order terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2003, no pet.).

Counsel certified that a copy of appellant’s brief was delivered to appellant who was 

advised of her right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief was filed. After 
04-13-00210-CV

reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The order of the trial 

court is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

PER CURIAM

- 2 -
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2011- 00^ 5 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED 

DOCKETOST- Z*U . ^Of S ACTIO!.' DATE ^"^^^ 1 ( 

This approval r''". ;' 

to conditions I: 

Tiris action i^ j-i . 

14CP!<385,ii, • ;: 

in view ol tnc a<;i\;.. 

the above proccduiv. 

BY: 

iject, where applicable. 

. '•• i:. tiled under 

./.:.':: ritiicnt's own motion. 

..^ .;;•.;, ilie availability of 

il i^3A2 is waived. 

6 May 2011 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

International Air Transport Association 

1776 K.St.N.W. #12* Floor 

Washington DC 20006
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 MISONIX, INC. (the "Company") on
Form  10-Q/A  for  the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"), I, Michael A.
McManus,  Jr.,  Chief  Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted pursuant to ss. 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;  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/  Michael A. McManus, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
September 18, 2003




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 MISONIX, INC. and will be retained
by  MISONIX, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff  upon  request.


<PAGE>
IV 

House Calendar No. 96 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 639 

[Report No. 114–457] 

Authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the House 

of Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, 

et al., No. 15–674. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2016 

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Rules 

MARCH 16, 2016 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the House of Representatives in the matter of 

United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15–674. 

1 Resolved, That the Speaker is authorized to appear 

2 as amicus curiae on behalf of the House of Representa3 tives in the Supreme Court in the matter of United States, 

4 et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15–674, and to file a brief in 

5 support of the position that the petitioners have acted in 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 639 RH 

1 a manner that is not consistent with their duties under 

2 the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

3 SEC. 2. The Speaker shall notify the House of Rep4 resentatives of a decision to file one or more briefs as ami5 cus curiae pursuant to this resolution. 

6 SEC. 3. The Office of General Counsel of the House 

7 of Representatives, at the direction of the Speaker, shall 

8 represent the House in connection with the filing of any 

9 brief as amicus curiae pursuant to this resolution, includ10 ing supervision of any outside counsel providing services 

11 to the Speaker on a pro bono basis for such purpose. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 96 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 639 

[Report No. 114–457] 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae 

No. 15–674. matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., on behalf of the House of Representatives in the 

MARCH 16, 2016 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(June 17, 1991)

#### Abstract Enterprises, Inc., Appellant, v Samsol Homes, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

—Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated November 13, 1989.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, for reasons stated by Justice Shaw at the Supreme Court. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

 Exhibit 10(v) - Amendment dated May 23, 2000 to the MAF Bancorp, Inc. 1993
             Amended and Restated Premium Price Stock Option Plan.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10(v)


                           CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION


     I, Carolyn Pihera, do hereby certify that I am the duly elected and acting
Secretary of MAF Bancorp, Inc. and that the following is a true and correct copy
of certain Resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of said Company at
their regular meeting held May 23, 2000, at which meeting a quorum of the
members of said Board were present and acting throughout:

     WHEREAS, the definition of Fair Market Value in the Company's stock option
plans determines the methodology under which the exercise price of stock option
grants is determined; and

     WHEREAS, the definition of Fair Market Value in the Company's 1990
Incentive Stock Option Plan (the "Incentive Plan") and 1993 Amended and Restated
Premium Price Stock Option Plan (the "Premium Plan") is not the same as the
definition contained in the MAF Bancorp, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan (the "2000
Option Plan"); and

     WHEREAS, the Company desires to conform the definition of Fair Market Value
in each of its stock option plans;

     NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the definition of Fair Market
Value contained in the Incentive Plan and the Premium  Plan is hereby amended to
read as follows:

     "Fair Market Value" means the average of the highest and lowest trade
     prices of the Stock as reported by the Nasdaq Stock Market on a particular
     date. In the event that there are no Stock transactions on such date, the
     Fair Market Value shall be determined as of the immediately preceding date
     on which there were Stock transactions.

     I do further certify that the foregoing Resolutions have not been altered
or amended, but remain in force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certificate and affixed the
Company's seal this 31st day of May, 2000.


MAF BANCORP, INC.
<PAGE>

/s/ Carolyn Pihera
------------------------------------
Carolyn Pihera, Corporate Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
condensed consolidated financial statements for the six months ended June 30,
1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                      62,309,722
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               49,657,663
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,132,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           124,500,816
<PP&E>                                     410,583,220
<DEPRECIATION>                              78,375,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             697,366,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       71,769,531
<BONDS>                                    281,697,049
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,087
<OTHER-SE>                                 273,136,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               697,366,506
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           151,838,019
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               96,479,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,206,432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             21,606,028
<INCOME-TAX>                                 8,739,293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         12,866,735
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,866,735
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Company effected a two-for-one stock split on June 18, 1996.  Previously
filed financial data schedules have not been restated for this
recapitalization.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0600 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ASHLEY MARIA HOWARD ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 13, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brie f on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 4 2022

05/04/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0600
Gormas, Michael (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Follow Up Flag: 

Due By: 

Flag Status: 

Gormas, Michael (OST) on behalf of EAS (OST) 

Friday, April 03, 2015 3:17PM 

Gormas, Michael (OST) 

FW: Great Lakes letters · 

Letters regarding Great Lakes (1).pdf 

Follow up 

Monday, April 06, 2015 10:00 AM 

Flagged 

From: Levi Tappan [mailto:ltappan@citvofpage.org] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 5:19PM 

To: EAS (OST) 

Subject: Great Lakes letters 

To Whom it may concern, 

The attachment contains City of Page citizens experiences with Great Lakes. Please do Page a service and bring in an airline that 

wants to service the community. 

Thank you for taking the time to read. 

Levi Tappan 

City Councilor 

P.O. Box 1180 

697 Vista Ave. 

Page, Arizona 86040 

928.660.8868 

1 

.I
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60277

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAHIM WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:17-CR-13-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rahim Williams appeals the 120-month, guidelines sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, contending 

that the district court committed procedural error by applying the first degree 

murder cross-reference through U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(B). Williams argues 

that the testimony adduced at the sentencing hearing failed to sufficiently 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-60277 Document: 00515336238 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2020
No. 19-60277

2

establish that he used the gun in question to shoot and kill Stephanie Mejia 

three days prior to his arrest. 

In light of forensic evidence linking the gun recovered from Williams to 

Mejia’s murder, evidence placing Williams in the vicinity of Mejia’s murder at 

the relevant time, and the recorded police statement of Mercedez McCarty, 

Williams’s ex-girlfriend, detailing his admission to shooting and killing Mejia, 

the district court’s finding that a preponderance of the evidence established

Williams’s guilt is plausible in light of the record as a whole. See United States 

v. Nava, 624 F.3d 226, 229 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 

699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010). While Williams points to his and his sister’s alibi 

testimony as well as McCarty’s testimony that her inculpatory police 

statement was coerced, the court found all three witnesses’ courtroom 

testimony wholly lacking in credibility, and “[w]e will not second guess the 

district court’s factual findings as to the credibility of witnesses.” United States 

v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 283 (5th Cir. 1997). In any event, “[w]here there are 

two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them 

cannot be clearly erroneous.” United States v. Hebert, 813 F.3d 551, 560 (5th 

Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United 

States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (rejecting 

“equipoise rule” in criminal cases addressing guilt or innocence (and, thus, 

having a higher burden than at sentencing)).

Williams fails to show error in applying the § 2K2.1(c)(1)(B) crossreference in this case. See United States v. Carey, 589 F.3d 187, 196 (5th Cir. 

2009). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-60277 Document: 00515336238 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2020
WBSCM Help-Tips and Tricks

AMS Industry Meeting 2017

1.) Our website with procedures that are available: https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/wbscm

• Procedures include: system settings and requirements, reports, submitting an offer, creating an 

ASN, creating an invoice and many more...

2.) If ever you experience the iView error when attempting to perform a task in WBSCM use the following 

link to access WBSCM: https://portal.wbscm.usda.gov/

3.) The following link lists all points of contact in Commodity Procurement:

https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/cp-contacts

4.) If you experience any issues with WBSCM, you can either:

• Contact WBSCM.servicedesk@CACI.com or call 877-927-2648. 

• Or, create your own incident through: https://cacifedramp.service-now.com/wbscm/

o First time users, enter your email address for both User ID and Password on the 

Service Desk Portal login screen – all lower case. Change password when prompted.

5.) Additional help resources are available on the AMS website at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sellingfood/wbscm or in WBSCM under: HelpTraining

6.) If you wish to receive notifications on upcoming solicitations on our website:

https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/, please click on the red envelope as shown below and sign up 

for the email notifications you wish to receive.

7.) eAuthentication forgotten password and/or user ID: 

https://www.eauth.usda.gov/mainPages/eauthHelp.aspx\

• Phone: 1-800-457-3642

• Update your account and security questions

8.) If encountering a “CCR Expired” error when trying to submit a bid, invoice, etc., this means your SAM 

(System for Award Management) registration has expired and it will need to be updated through: 

https://www.sam.gov/portal/SAM/#1#1
9.) If needing a disbursement statement, contact WBSCMAMSHelpDesk@ams.usda.gov and provide the 

following:

• DUNS number

• Payment amounts

• Payment dates

10.) Reports that can be run in WBSCM:

• Advance Shipping Notification (ASN) Report

• List of Invoices—below are the different status’ that can appear on this report:

i. In Process—must complete the submission of the invoice as it has not be submitted to 

WBSCM for review 

ii. Document Sent—invoice received by USDA and pending review

iii. Rejected by Customer—USDA has rejected the invoice and invoice must be resubmitted 

for review.

iv. Accepted by Customer—USDA has approved the invoice and payment should be 

received in 5-7 business days.

• PO Item Report

• Goods Receipt (GR) Report

• Vendor Business Partner Relationship Report—will need to know your companies BP number 

and must have the Corporate Vendor Admin role assigned with their WBSCM ID.

11.) The AMS Master Solicitation for Commodity Procurements provides general guidance to potential 

bidders and/or offerors and can be found: https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/solicitations

Still have questions? E-mail us at: 

WBSCMAMSHelpDesk@ams.usda.gov

Team: Wayne Brewer, Heather Calhoon, Darla Sydnor & Patty Wagner
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Louis R. Tomasetta, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.

Date: August 11, 2003

 

|   |   |      |
|--------|--------|-----------|
|   |   | By:  | /s/ LOUIS R. TOMASETTA |
|   |   |      |  |
|   |   |      | **Louis R. Tomasetta****Chief Executive Officer** |