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








Exhibit 10.34
PROMISSORY NOTE
$65,000,000.000    November 14, 2016
KBSGI OFFICES AT GREENHOUSE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Offices at Greenhouse Borrower"), promises to pay to the order of JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a national banking association ("Lender") SIXTY FIVE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($65,000,000.00), or if less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount of all Loans made by Lender to Borrower (as defined in the Agreement defined below) pursuant to the Agreement (as hereinafter defined), together with interest on the unpaid principal amount hereof in the manner set forth in the Agreement.  Borrower shall pay the principal of and accrued and unpaid interest on the Loan in full on the Maturity Date.
This Note is one of the Notes issued pursuant to, and is entitled to the benefits of, the Term Loan and Security Agreement of even date herewith (which, as it may be amended or modified and in effect from time to time, is herein called the "Agreement"), among Offices at Greenhouse Borrower, each other Borrower from time to time a party thereto, the lenders referenced therein, including Lender, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, to which Agreement reference is hereby made for a statement of the terms and conditions governing this Note, including the terms and conditions under which this Note may be prepaid or its maturity date accelerated.  This Note is secured and guaranteed pursuant to the Loan Documents, all as more specifically described in the Agreement, and reference is made thereto for a statement of the terms and provisions thereof.  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein are used with the meanings attributed to them in the Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary in this Note, under no circumstances shall Administrative Agent or any Lender have any recourse against, nor shall there by any personal liability to, the members of any Borrower, or to any shareholders, members or partners (direct or indirect, except for the Guarantor under the Guaranty) for any obligations of any Borrower hereunder.  For purposes of clarification, in no event shall the above language limit, reduce or otherwise affect any Borrower's liability or obligations under the Loan Documents, Guarantor's liability or obligations under the Guaranty or Administrative Agent or any Lender's right to exercise any rights or remedies against any collateral securing the Loan.
[Signature Page Follows]




	
			
	SMRH:479636587.3
	1
	 

	 
	 
	 
















KBSGI OFFICES AT GREENHOUSE, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company


By:    KBSGI REIT ACQUISITION IV, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its sole member


By:    KBSGI REIT PROPERTIES, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its sole member


By:    KBS GROWTH & INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Delaware limited partnership,
its sole member


By:    KBS GROWTH & INCOME REIT, INC.,
a Maryland corporation,
its general partner




By:    __/s/Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.___
Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.,
Chief Executive Officer














	
			
	SMRH:479636587.3
	S-1
	Promissory Note 

	 
	 
	(JPMorgan Chase)
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

DOROTHY S. TOWNE, ESQUIRE, d/b/a ) 

DOTTIE TOWNE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, ) 

and DAVID WEBSTER, ) 

 ) 

 Appellants, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D16-3171 

 ) 

VAKA LAW GROUP, P.L., ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed February 22, 2017. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 

from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough 

County; Mark R. Wolfe, Judge. 

Dottie Towne, Tampa, for Appellants. 

John V. Trujillo, Jr., Tampa, for Appellee. 

VILLANTI, Chief Judge. 

 Dorothy Towne and David Webster appeal various orders underlying a 

default judgment of liability entered in favor of Vaka Law Group, P.L., in an action for 

breach of contract arising from a retention agreement. We have jurisdiction over the 

order denying Appellants' motion for order compelling arbitration and motion to stay 

judicial proceedings pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). 
- 2 -

Because Towne waived her right to arbitration, we affirm the order denying her motion 

to stay and compel arbitration. We also affirm the order denying Webster's motion to 

stay and compel arbitration.1

 Appellants also seek review of various other orders entered prior to the 

order denying their motion to stay and compel arbitration. To the extent that Towne 

seeks review of the denial of her motion for judgment on the pleadings, we must dismiss 

the appeal as we do not have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130; Zaremba v. 

Harbison, 462 So. 2d 80, 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). To the extent that Towne seeks 

review of the denial of her motion to vacate the default judgment of liability, we must 

also dismiss the appeal as we do not have jurisdiction. See Bryant v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A., 182 So. 3d 927, 929-30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Finally, to the extent that 

Towne seeks review of the issuance of the clerk's default, we affirm because the 

propriety of that default has not been preserved for review. See Shelden v. Shelden, 63 

So. 3d 78, 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). 

 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. 

KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. 

 1We are not convinced that Webster was a proper party to the action 

below, and as such, a proper party to this appeal. However, because we affirm, we do 

not reach this issue.
ハワイから合衆国本土・アラスカ・グアムへ渡航する旅行者に必要と

される手荷物検査

動植物衛生検査部

植物の保護および検疫 

合衆国農務省

合衆国農務省 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA) 

動植物衛生検査部 (Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, APHIS) では、生の果物、野菜、特定の種類の植

物・花など、さまざまな農産物のハワイから米国本土への持

ち込みを禁止または制限しています。こうした措置が実施さ

れている理由は、禁止または制限されている農産物に危険

な侵略性の害虫や疫病等が潜伏している可能性があるため

です。たった1片の危険な侵襲性の害虫や疫病等が含まれ

た果物や植物が原因となって、数百万ドルの被害が生じ、高

額な根絶作業や輸出入の収益喪失、食品価格の高騰につ

ながる可能性があります。

侵略性の害虫や疫病の伝播を防除するため、APHISでは、

ハワイから合衆国本土・アラスカ・グアムへの渡航者のバッ

グを全て検査しています。APHISの担当官が空港で出発前

に検査を実施します。 

携行しているバッグが開閉できるよう準備してください。検

査前にクーラーボックスや箱をテープで閉じないでくださ

い。生の果物・野菜・植物・花・植物や木材のほか、農産物を

原料にした土産品などを所持している場合は、検査官にそ

の旨を伝えてください。これらの物品を申告しなかった場

合、遅延が発生したり、違反1件につき100ドルから1000ドル

の民事罰金が課せられる場合もあります。

農産物の合衆国本土・アラスカ・グアムへの輸送・郵送を希

望する場合、その農産物は、航空貨物事務所、郵便局その他

の配送業者に持ち込む前にAPHISによる検査ないし認定を

受ける必要があります。 

生の果物・野菜

生の果物・野菜は、特定の侵略性害虫・疫病が持ち込まれる

危険性があるため、ハワイから合衆国本土への直接輸送・

郵送、アラスカ・グアム経由の輸送・郵送が禁じられていま

す。

しかし、いくつか例外があります。生のパイナップルとココヤ

シの実は検査後に許可されます。生のパパイヤ、アビウ、アテ

モヤ、バナナ、カレーリーフ、ドラゴンフルーツ、リュウガン、ラ

イチ、マンゴスチン、ランブータン、ゴレンシ、スイートポテト

は許可されますが、USDA認可施設で処理し、適切な表示と

マークを付け、密封した状態で梱包することが条件です。

加工された果物や野菜の輸送・郵送は許可されています。加

工方法には調理や乾燥、冷凍などがあります。冷凍加工の

場合、検査時に全ての果実が固く凍結している必要があり

ます。冷凍マンゴーは種子無しでなければなりません。

認可されている加工方法に関しては、APHISまでお問い合

わせください。ハワイ州内各地域のAPHIS事務所の電話番

号は、次のページに記載されています。

検査後にハワイから合衆国本土・アラスカ・グアムへ

の持ち込みが許可されている一般的な物品

n 海浜部の砂

n ココヤシの実

n 市販の缶入り食品

n 乾燥した種子と装飾品

n 生花、レイ、落葉 (かんきつ類またはかんきつ類植物に関

連する花、葉その他の部分、ヒスイカズラ、マウナロア)
n ヒナヒナ (サルオガセモドキ)

n アイリッシュポテトまたはジャガイモ

n 生のパイナップル

n パパイヤ、アビウ、アテモヤ、バナナ、カレーリーフ、ドラゴ

ンフルーツ、リュウガン、ライチ、マンゴスチン、ランブータ

ン、ゴレンシ、スイートポテト等の加工済みの果物1

n 植物・切り枝等2 

n 岩石

n カタツムリの殻を除く貝殻

n 種子製のレイと宝飾品

n 樹木 (流木や木製の棒を含む) とイバラ 

(乾燥させたもの)

その他ハワイからグアムへの持ち込みが許可されてい

る物品

n ビート

n スウェーデンカブ (ルタバガ)

n カブ (上部が無いもの)

その他ハワイからアラスカへの持ち込みが許可されて

いる物品 (ただし、それ以後の隣接する合衆国地域へ

の再輸送は禁止されています)

n ハヤトウリ

n グリーンバナナ

n グリーンたまねぎ

n アオイマメ

n オクラ

n エンドウ豆

n カボチャ

n サヤエンドウ

n サヤインゲン

n スイカ

n シカクマメ

n トウガン

n ジュウロクササゲ

n ズッキーニ

ハワイから合衆国本土・アラスカへの持ち込みが禁止

されている一般的なハワイ産の物品

n 生の果物・野菜 (許可されているものを除く)

n 全ての液果類 (コーヒーの実とハマベブドウを含む)

n 植物としてのサボテンまたはその一部

n 綿の木 (ワタの蒴果を含む) 

n ヒスイカズラ、マウナロアの生花

n キカニアと生鮮タコノキ (パンダーヌス) の果実

n 生きている昆虫・カタツムリ

n 実の付いた種子と種子のさや

n 土と土に植えられている植物

n サトウキビ

n ザゼンソウ (アンチョイ)

n スイートポテト (生)

n バイカウツギ

この情報は変更されることがあります。最新情報について

は、下記の地域のAPHIS事務所までお問い合わせください: 

Honolulu (808) 834-3220 

Kona (808) 326-1252

Kauai (808) 632-2511 

Hilo (808) 933-6930

Maui (808) 877-5261 

植物・切り枝等の認可取得方法については、下記のハワイ州

農務省までお問い合わせください: 

Honolulu (808) 832-0566

Hilo (808) 974-4141

Kauai (808) 241-7135

Maui (808) 872-3848

Kona (808) 326-1077

詳細情報についてはAPHISウェブサイト

(www.aphis.usda.gov/travel) をご覧下さい。

USDAは機会均等提供者兼雇用者兼貸主です。 2017年7月発行

PPQ-20-003JPN(Japanese) 2020年2月細部改訂

1 これらの果実はUSDA認可施設で処理し、適切な表示とマークを付けた

箱で梱包する必要があります。

2 根が付いた植物等の認可取得については、ハワイ農務省までお問い合

わせください。
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 71 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 71

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 2, 2015.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Ethics: Mr. Capuano, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Deutch, and 
Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-41499

_____________________

CAMERON COUNTY FRESH WATER SUPPLY 

DISTRICT NO. 1, now known as Laguna

Madre Water District; ET AL;

 Plaintiffs,

CAMERON COUNTY FRESH WATER SUPPLY 

DISTRICT NO. 1, now known as Laguna 

Madre Water District; 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NUEVACORP INC. d/b/a Sand Dollar Realty 

and Management; JOHN P. THOBE 

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 96-CV-119

_________________________________________________________________

July 6, 2001

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* 

We have considered carefully the complex and tortured record

in this case, examining its travels through the state court, then

to the district court, then to the bankruptcy court, and finally to
2

the district court once again. We conclude that the district court

did not err in dismissing the claims asserted in this appeal. This

case has been pending since South Bay Links filed its original

petition on August 9, 1995. Our consideration of the record,

briefs, and oral argument leads us to the conclusion that the only

alleged damages that the appellants have not abandoned and can

articulate relate to the cost of pre-litigation negotiations with

South Bay Links for the water contracts, the attorney’s costs and

fees for the defense of the South Bay lawsuit brought against the

Water District, and the attorneys’ costs and fees relating to

Thobe’s intervention against the Water District, all of which seem

to have been disregarded or transformed by the district court into

a request for sanctions against Thobe and Nuevacorp. Even when

these incurred costs are considered as damages alleged in the

complaint, the Water District fails to allege facts sufficient to

establish causation on the part of Thobe and Nuevacorp.

Furthermore, when these costs are treated as sanctions, we hold

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

sanctions against Thobe and Nuevacorp. The judgment of the

district court is therefore 

A F F I R M E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-26-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               63,893,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                209,102,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           311,554,000
<PP&E>                                     176,627,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             803,400,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      197,896,000
<BONDS>                                    367,163,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           918
<OTHER-SE>                                 235,963,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               803,400,000
<SALES>                                    273,059,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           273,059,000
<CGS>                                      166,380,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              166,380,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,117,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             39,263,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                15,404,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         23,859,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                23,859,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00158

- CV
In re The Commitment of Randall Mark Driggers
On Appeal from the 144th District Court of Bexar County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2018CI02134

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant , Randall Mark Driggers, although he is exempt from payment due to his inability to pay costs

. We further order this decision certified below for observa nce. December 12, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          71,721
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          51,306
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                35,013
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    233,808
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         181,275
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           179,441
<LOANS>                                      3,901,845
<ALLOWANCE>                                     17,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,658,065
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,699,242
<SHORT-TERM>                                   114,963
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,411,400
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           254
<OTHER-SE>                                     352,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,658,065
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                253,499
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               25,836
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 5,757
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               285,092
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              99,665
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,736
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          116,691
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,776
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 67,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 82,755
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      51,545
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    51,545
<EPS-BASIC>                                      2.130
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.070
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.35
<LOANS-NON>                                     14,838
<LOANS-PAST>                                       812
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                16,770
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      711
<RECOVERIES>                                       117
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               17,276
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         17,276


</TABLE>
CVB Director

Geetha Srinivas

Center for Veterinary Biologics

Staff Assistant

Elizabeth Latcham

Policy, Evaluation and 

Licensing

David White 

Assistant Director

Mark Pagala 

Inspection and Compliance

Renee Schnurr

Clerk (student)

Vacant 

Compliance

Doug Murtle 

Inspection

Kendall Graber

Virology

Vacant

Bacteriology

Melisse Schilling

Statistics

Amy Lock

Safety & Security Unit

Robert Stoker

11/19/2023

DB - 3

Global Vaccine Manager

Bruce Carter

Program Information 

Management & 

Security

Amber Peterson

Quality Assurance 

Specialist

Vacant
Cause #: 2014-63727 Court # 11TH Judgment Date: 12/8/2014

Volume: Page: Image #: 63464872

Due Date: 2/6/2015 Attorney Bar No: 2 (PRO SE)

Assigned to FIRST Court of Appeals

Date Findings of Facts/Mtn of Modify/Mtn New Trial filed? N/A

Request for Transcript Filed? NONE BC

Notice of Appeal previously filed? N C

Number of Days: 60 OA

File Ordered:

Notes:

BC Notice of Appeal filed

BG Notice of Appeal filed – Government

C Appealing Final Judgment

D - Accelerated Appeal

OA No Clerk’s Record Request filed

O – Clerk’s Record Request filed (w/Notice of Appeal)

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/29/2014 4:07:38 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk






JUFC7 (NSK#) JUSTICE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DEC 29, 2014(C1) 

INT6510 CIVIL CASE INTAKE OPT: _____ - INT 

 GENERAL PARTY INQUIRY PAGE: 1 - 1 

 

CASE NUM: 201463727__ PJN> __ TRANS NUM: _________ CURRENT COURT: 11 PUB? _ 

CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL CASE STATUS: DISPOSED (FINAL) 

STYLE: MAXUS ENERGY CORPORATION VS BROWSERWEB MEDIA AGENCY 

============================================================================= 

 **** INACTIVE PARTIES   

 PJN PER/CONN COC BAR PERSON NAME PTY ASSOC. ATTY 

 NUM NUMBER STAT 

_ 00003-0001 AGT BROWSERWEB MEDIA AGENCY BY SER 

_ 00002-0001 DEF BROWSERWEB MEDIA AGENCY PRO-SE 

_ 00001-0001 PLT 24076086 MAXUS ENERGY CORPORATION BIRELEY, JOHN 

 

 

 

==> (3) CONNECTION(S) FOUND 

1=ACTIVE 2=ATY. INQ. 3=ACT.ENTRY 4=ISS. SERV. 5=DOC. INQ. 

6=CASE INQ. 7=BACKWARD 8=FORWARD 9=PTY. ADDR. 10=REFRESH 11=HELP 

 

JUFC7 (NSK#) JUSTICE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DEC 29, 2014(C1) 

INT6510 CIVIL CASE INTAKE OPT: _____ - INT 

 GENERAL PARTY INQUIRY PAGE: 1 - 1 

 

CASE NUM: 201463727__ PJN> __ TRANS NUM: _________ CURRENT COURT: 11 PUB? _ 

CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL CASE STATUS: DISPOSED (FINAL) 

STYLE: MAXUS ENERGY CORPORATION VS BROWSERWEB MEDIA AGENCY 

============================================================================= 

 ** ** ACTIVE PARTIES **** 

 PJN PER/CONN COC BAR PERSON NAME PTY ASSOC. ATTY 

 NUM NUMBER STAT 

 

 

 

 

==> (0) CONNECTION(S) FOUND 

1=INACTIVE 2=ATY. INQ. 3=ACT.ENTRY 4=ISS. SERV. 5=DOC. INQ. 

6=CASE INQ. 7=BACKWARD 8=FORWARD 9=PTY. ADDR. 10=REFRESH 11=HELP
18988

#### 4000 Old Pali Road Partners v. Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., Ltd.

Affirmed
#### In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of Charner M. TIDWELL, Petitioner.

No. A-12517.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 6, 1957.

Charner M. Tidwell, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BRETT, Presiding Judge.

This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by Charner M. Tidwell, whereby he seeks his release from the state penitentiary, McAlester, Oklahoma, on the ground that he is entitled to credit for jail time served while he was being held in the penitentiary for safe keeping prior to trial. The same grounds as alleged in this petition were passed upon in a prior petition for habeas corpus by this petitioner styled In re Tidwell, Okl.Cr., 309 P.2d 302, rendered on March 27, 1957.

It has been repeatedly held that this Court will not entertain a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus based upon the same grounds and the same facts as a prior application. Ex parte Davis, 74 Okl.Cr,, 75, 123 P.2d 300; Ex parte Gray, 74 Okl. Cr. 200, 124 P.2d 430; Ex parte Peaker, 87 Okl.Cr. 139, 194 P.2d 893.

For this reason, this petition fails to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted herein. These matters should properly be presented to the Pardon and Parole Board. Writ denied.

POWELL, J., concurs.

NIX, J., not participating.
APHIS Statement on Animal Disease Traceability 

Last April, APHIS posted a factsheet to provide producers with information about the 

Agency’s guidelines and goals related to Animal Disease Traceability. Since the 

Factsheet was posted, APHIS has listened to the livestock industry’s feedback. In light of 

these comments and current Executive Branch policy, APHIS believes that we should 

revisit those guidelines. APHIS has removed the Factsheet from its Web site, as it is no 

longer representative of current agency policy. 

Recent executive orders have highlighted the need for transparency and communication 

on the issues set forth in the Factsheet before placing any new requirements on 

American farmers and ranchers. See Executive Orders 13891 and 13892. Consistent with 

these orders, APHIS has decided not to implement the requirements outlined in the 

April 2019 Factsheet regarding the type of identification devices that USDA-APHIS will 

regard as official eartags and the dates by which they must be applied to cattle. 

While the need to advance a robust joint Federal-State-Industry Animal Disease 

Traceability (ADT) capability remains an important USDA-APHIS objective, we will take 

the time to reconsider the path forward and then make a new proposal, with ample 

opportunity for all stakeholders to comment. 

As we undertake this reconsideration of whether or when to put new requirements in 

place, we will encourage the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) devices 

through financial incentives that are also consistent with suggestions we have received 

from cow/calf producers and others. We continue to believe that RFID devices will 

provide the cattle industry with the best protection against the rapid spread of animal 

diseases, as well as meet the growing expectations of foreign and domestic buyers. 

It is important to note that despite any future actions USDA-APHIS may take regarding 

official identification devices, the underlying ADT regulations apply only to sexually 

intact beef animals over 18 months of age moving in interstate commerce, cattle used 

for exhibition, rodeo and recreational events, and all dairy cattle. Those regulations 

permit brands and tattoos as acceptable identification if the shipping and 

receiving States agree. 

USDA’s goals to enhance Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) have not changed; our aim 

is to: 

o Encourage the use of electronic identification for animals that move interstate 

under the current ADT regulation; 

o Enhance electronic sharing of basic animal disease traceability data; 

o Enhance the ability to track animals from birth to slaughter; and 
o Increase the use of electronic health certificates
#### State v. Bui

17787

12/14/94

Affirmed, Vacated and Remanded