alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Listing of Approved State CWD Herd Certification Programs (HCPs) – September 2018

A current list of Approved and Provisional Approved State CWD HCPs is provided below with an explanation of the 

terms ‘Approved State’ and ‘Provisional Approved State’ for clarification of these statuses. Status updates will be 

posted as additional Approved State CWD HCPs are determined. 

Approved State – A state that the Administrator has determined has an Approved State CWD Herd Certification 

Program (HCP) that meets the minimum requirements of the national CWD HCP.

Provisional Approved State – A state that the Administrator has determined has a State CWD HCP that does not 

meet all the national CWD HCP minimum requirements upon application to the program. APHIS and the State will 

work to develop a plan with appropriate time frame to meet all program requirements.

Approved States

Alaska

Colorado

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

West Virginia

Wisconsin
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER
27, 1997 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000 

       
<S>                            <C>                      <C>     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  4-MOS                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1997             APR-12-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             APR-11-1997             SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                             0                     498
<SECURITIES>                                       0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0                  38,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0                  33,441
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0                  76,495
<PP&E>                                             0                   9,203
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     0                 134,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              0                  31,053
<BONDS>                                            0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                        0                       0
<COMMON>                                           0                      65
<OTHER-SE>                                         0                  72,523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       0                 134,751
<SALES>                                       25,539                  66,773
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              25,539                  66,773
<CGS>                                         16,007                  39,797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 16,007                  39,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              19,072                  18,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               114                   2,503
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (9,654)                  6,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                      32                     293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (9,686)                  5,907
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               58,726                       0
<CHANGES>                                          0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  49,040                   5,907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0                    0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0                       0
                                       
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Position at July 31, 1999 and the Statement of Operations
for the year ended July 31, 1999 and is in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000880121
<NAME>                        Market America, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Apr-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              May-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               Jul-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      32,612,838
<SECURITIES>                                12,100,930
<RECEIVABLES>                                  931,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,770,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            47,840,311
<PP&E>                                       5,274,357
<DEPRECIATION>                                 736,289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,059,235
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,573,297
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,485,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,059,235
<SALES>                                     30,828,703
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,828,703
<CGS>                                        8,009,354
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,009,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,160,925
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,867,107
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,312,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,658,424
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,555,107
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18



</TABLE>
EX-32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


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 Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008, 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.





By: /s/ Rodney S. Rougelot


Rodney S. Rougelot


Director and Chief Executive Officer





August 18, 2009





[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.]
#### Melody G. JORDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-50878.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 2, 2005.

Rebecca Leona Fisher, Rebecca L. Fisher *&*Associates, McGregor, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Susan B. Biggs, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Reviewing the evidence de novo, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary *859judgment in favor of the defendant for the following reasons:

> 1. Jorden has not established the fourth element of a prima facie case of age discrimination. She has produced no evidence supporting her assertions that defendant has targeted older workers for termination to avoid paying retirement benefits or that the conduct for which she was fired did not warrant termination under the Last Chance Agreement. *Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp.,*754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir.1985) (stating that unsupported allegations are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment). Defendant’s decision not to discipline the younger employee involved in the incident does not lead to an inference of discrimination because Jorden and the younger employee were not in nearly identical circumstances. *Bryant v. Compass Group USA Inc.,*413 F.3d 471, 478 (5th Cir.2005). The evidence before the employer suggested that Jorden instigated the incident and the younger employee was not employed subject to a Last Chance Agreement.

> 2. The district court’s award of costs to defendant was appropriate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides for an award of costs to the prevailing party. “[Tjhere is a strong presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded costs.” *Schwarz v. Folloder,*767 F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir.1985). “[0]ur review of a district court decision regarding costs is narrow, and we will reverse only if an abuse of discretion is shown.” *Id.*Jorden has not established an abuse of discretion by the district court.

Affirmed.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *859the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Varroa mite (left) and Tropilaelaps mite (right)

 Photo by I.B. Smith Jr./ USDA-BRL 

•Tropilaelaps, an exotic parasitic mite found in Asia and Indonesia, is one of the 

primary targets for this study 

•This mite feeds on honey bee brood (both larvae and pupae) causing deformed 

bees, death and absconding, but unlike Varroa, it does not feed on adult bees 

•Because Tropilaelaps mites have a quicker reproductive cycle, they can out 

produce Varroa mites 

•Adult mites move very quickly on brood combs and can be seen moving in and 

out of cells; they are about 1/3 the size of Varroa mites, so they are just visible to 

the naked eye 

National Honey Bee 

Pest and Disease Survey
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         125,017
<SECURITIES>                                   133,271
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               428,870
<PP&E>                                         130,795
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,006,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          365,164
<BONDS>                                        247,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,380
<OTHER-SE>                                     379,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,006,900
<SALES>                                      1,713,963
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,738,268
<CGS>                                        1,202,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,730,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,606)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (666)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,940)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,940)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2018392EN.01003401.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/34

---

Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)

(Case T-521/18)

(2018/C 392/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BGC BROKERAGE — European Union trade mark No 3 812 195

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2186/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

| — | alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
10422

#### Maluia v. Maluia

Dismissed
#### State v. Hamel

21143

9/8/98

Affirmed
# n ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
RAYMONDHOLMES,

Petitioner, v. OP 23-0688

JAMES SALMONSEN, Warden, Montana State Prison,

Respondent. 

# FILED DEC 5 2023 Bowen Greenw000 Clcrk cf Supreme Court State of Montane ORDER

Raymond Holmes has filed a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus, explaining that the YellowstoneCounty District Court intended torunhis sentence concurrently with both ofhis sentences from Mineral County (Cause Nos. DC-2015-14 and DC-1987-546). He adds that only one cause number from the Mineral District Court, however, was included in the written judgment. Upon review, we deem it appropriate to require a response. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Attorney General or counsel for the Department of Corrections is GRANTEDthirty days from the date ofthis Order in which toprepare, file, and serve a written response togetherwith appropriate documentary exhibits. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel of record and to Raymond Holmes personally. DATED this 

# 5'

11 - day ofDecember, 2023. Justice 12/05/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0688
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATEOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18United States Code**

The undersigned, being thePrincipal Financial Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”),hereby certifies that the Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in suchQuarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retainedby the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.
| Date: July 31, 2006 |                            |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                     | /s/ MARK A.  MAKI               |
|                     | Mark A. Maki                    |
|                     | *Vice President, Finance*       |
|                     | *(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

May 14, 1997

18339

#### Azabu USA Corp. v. Leong

Affirmed
<page>


										  EXHIBIT 31.01

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President of Demeter Management Corporation
("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-
15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by other within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and


<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of Demeter's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.




Date:   March 30, 2004         /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman
                                     Jeffrey A. Rothman
                                  President,
			                       Demeter Management Corporation,
                                  general partner of the registrant
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT DE C 6 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N os. 05- 1507 2 & 05- 1581 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 37 2 C V-ORL-3 1- JGG BUSINESS RADIO, INC., a W as hin gto n c or

por at ion , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION, a Fl or ida c or por at ion , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 6, 200 6) Before AN DE RSO N and BARKET T, Circuit Judges, and GO LD BE RG, * Judg e.

____________________ *Honora ble Richard W. Goldber g , J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , sitti ngby desig nation.2

PE R CU RIA M: A ft er or al arg um en t and c ar ef

ul c onsi de ratio n, a nd f

or the r ea sons f

ull y dis cu sse d a t or al arg um en t, w e co nc lud e that the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIR MED.