alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
APHIS Veterinary Services

National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program (NADPRP)

FY 2023 Tribal Funding Opportunity 

Awarded Projects

Recipient Title Funding Level

Southwest Indian 

Agricultural Association

Southwest Tribal Farmer/Rancher Animal Disease Response 

Outreach and Education Program

$99,988

Kalispel Tribe Kalispel Tribe CWD Management Plan $21,638

InterTribal Buffalo Council Assessing the Future of Live Translocations from 

Mycoplasma bovis-exposed Buffalo Herds Through Serial 

Testing: A Research Collaboration

$345,500

Indian Nations Conservation 

Alliance (INCA)

INCA, NADPRP, APHIS Cooperative Outreach and Education 

Project

$100,000
#### State v. Octavio

22757

06/26/2000

Vacated & Remanded
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

TRUGREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

FOR PUBLICATION

July 29, 2021

v No. 344142

Court of Claims

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 17-000141-MT

Defendant-Appellee.

ON REMAND

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and GLEICHER and SWARTZLE, JJ.

SHAPIRO, P.J. (concurring).

I join Judge Gleicher’s opinion in full. In our previous review of this case, I authored a 

concurrence in response to Judge Swartzle’s dissent. TruGreen Ltd Partnership v Dep’t of 

Treasury, 332 Mich App 73, 89-96; 955 NW2d 529 (2020) (SHAPIRO, P.J., concurring). As Judge 

Swartzle has elected to adopt that dissent by reference, I will do the same by adopting my prior 

concurrence by reference rather than repeating it here. 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

# TIME AND DATE: 

4:01 p.m. on Friday, December 8, 2023.

# PLACE: 

The meeting was held via video conference on the internet.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The Special Review Committee of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met to consider matters related to the Corporation's corporate activities within its authority to act on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. In calling the meeting, the Special Review Committee determined, by the unanimous vote of Director Jonathan P. McKernan and Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2) and (c)(4) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (c)(4)).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.

Dated: December 8, 2023. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

James P. Sheesley,

Assistant Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-27428 Filed 12-11-23; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
##### 



Three Months Ended
    
    
    Nine Months EndedSeptember, 30,
    
    
    September 30,2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Basic Earnings Per ShareNet income
    
    $
    689,373
    
    
    $
    746,828
    
    
    $
    1,969,930
    
    
    $
    1,8,74,769Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,644,957
    
    
    
    2,644,656
    
    
    
    2,644,963
    
    
    
    2,644,453Basic Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.26
    
    
    $
    0.28
    
    
    $
    0.74
    
    
    $
    0.71Diluted Earnings Per ShareNet income
    
    $
    689,373
    
    
    $
    746,828
    
    
    $
    1,969,930
    
    
    $
    1,874,769Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,644,957
    
    
    
    2,644,656
    
    
    
    2,644,963
    
    
    
    2,644,453Weighted average effect of
assumed stock options
    
    
    4,933
    
    
    
    6,701
    
    
    
    3,813
    
    
    
    4,474Total
    
    
    2,649,890
    
    
    
    2,651,357
    
    
    
    2,648,776
    
    
    
    2,648,927Diluted Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.26
    
    
    $
    0.28
    
    
    $
    0.74
    
    
    $
    0.71
 21.
20200

#### State v. Jarneski

Affirmed
#### In the Matter of 2284 Second Ave. Corp., Petitioner, against Robert C. Weaver, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 25, 1958.

*Samuel Yudell*for petitioner.

*Nathan Heller*and *Emory Gardiner*for respondent.

Felix C. Benvenga, J.

This article 78 (Civ. Prac. Act) proceeding is brought by a landlord to annul orders of the State Bent Administrator modifying over-all increases previously granted to compensate the landlord for substantial capital improvements installed to rehabilitate an old-law tenement (State Eent and Eviction Eegulations, § 33). The right of the Administrator to modify such prior rent increases after the *80landlord has applied to and received from the City of New York an abatement of real estate taxes pursuant to Local Law No. 118 of 1955 of the City of New York (Administrative Code, § J41-2.4) has repeatedly been upheld. It suffices to cite the more recent decisions *(Matter of Aronson*v. *Temporary State Housing Rent Comm.,*17 Misc 2d 71; *Matter of Andrea Realty Corp.*v. *Weaver,*17 Misc 2d 78; *Matter of Todar Realty Corp.*v. *Weaver,*N. Y. L. J., Oct. 27, 1958, p. 12, col. 7). While the factual situation in the instant case may not be the same as that presented in some of the decided cases, the underlying principle is the same — a landlord may not receive duplicate and multiple relief from the State as well as from the City of New York. The petition is therefore denied and the proceeding dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judge McClan ahan, Senior Judges Co leman and Annunziata

MATTHEW WILLIAM NEWBERGER MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2265-04-4 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 8, 2005 TRAVILIAN HOMES, INC. AND ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Dean E. Wanderer; Dean E. Wand erer & Associates, on brief), for appellant.

(Daniel E. Lynch; John T. Cornett, Jr.; Willia ms & Lynch, on brief), for appellees.

Matthew William Newberger (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’

Compensation Commission finding that he failed to prove that his condi tion/disability after

December 9, 2002, was causally related to his co mpensable October 31, 2002 injury by accident.

We have reviewed the record and the commi ssion’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stat ed by the commission in its final opinion. See

Newberger v. Travilian Homes, Inc. , VWC File No. 214-56-01 (Aug. 23, 2004). We dispense

with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal conten tions are adequately

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid th e decisional process.

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 1

Affirmed.

1 Claimant also argues on appeal that he was entitled to a de facto award and the burden of proof should have shifted to employer to show that his condition had changed from that of total or partial disability. Claimant did not raise th is argument or theory of recovery before the commission. Accordingly, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See Rule 5A:18;

see also Kendrick v. Nationwide Homes, Inc. , 4 Va. App. 189, 192, 355 S.E.2d 347, 349 (1987). Moreover, the record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Perfumania Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 1, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael W. Katz, Chief Executive
Officer and President 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, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    Michael W. KatzMichael W. KatzPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDecember 15, 2008
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

** **

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 and in connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q forthe period ended March 31, 2006 that is being filed concurrently with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned officers of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies that:

 

1.     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  Clayton W. Williams |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Clayton  W. Williams     |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | May 9,  2006             |
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/  Mel G. Riggs        |
|   | Mel G.  Riggs            |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   | May 9,  2006             |

 

----
# C_2018341EN.01002401.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/24

---

Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

(Case T-465/18)

(2018/C 341/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration in the European Union of the word mark ‘EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology’ — Application for registration No 16 180 879

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 in Case R 1358/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | hold this action to be admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold this action to be admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold in its entirety the application No 16 180 879 for trade mark registration in the European Union with respect to all the claimed goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold in its entirety the application No 16 180 879 for trade mark registration in the European Union with respect to all the claimed goods;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---
# C_2018161EN.01006501.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/65

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Boshab v Council

(Case T-171/18)

(2018/C 161/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 8 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 8 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

Amisi Kumba

Council

---
1 From: Chris Howard [ mailto:choward@gbuapcd.org ] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 5:21 PM To: Duane Ono < dono@gbuapcd.org >; Ken Richmond < krichmond@ramboll.com > Cc: Phill Kiddoo < pkiddoo@gbuapcd.org > Subject: Background PM10 is 10.5 μg/m3


### See attached worksheet. Using the TEOM monitors included in the 2002 background calculation ...

 

### Dirty Socks

 

### Keeler (#2 and #3)

 

### Flat Rock

 

### Shell Cut

 

### Olancha

 

### Lone Pine (FDMS AND TEOM) ...I determined the calm days, when hourly average wind sp eed did not exceed 6m/s at any of the said monitors. (A cutoff of 5m/s seemed to cut out too many days.) For the same monitors, I determined the average daily PM10 on these calm days. These averages are shown in the attached pivot. The right-most column shows the average PM10 of the monitors for each day. Between March 1993 and October 2015, the average of the daily av erages (ie background concen tration) is 10.5 μg/m3.
-Chris
Exhibit 23.01

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of DirectorsWilliams
Controls, Inc.:

We consent
to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-43006, 333-59397, and 333-90565, on Form S-3 and No. 333-56591 on Form S-8)
of Williams Controls, Inc. of our report dated December 14, 2007, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheet of Williams Controls, Inc. as of September 30,
2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders
equity, cash flows, and comprehensive income (loss) for the year then ended,
which report appears in the September 30, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of
Williams Controls, Inc.

/s/ Moss Adams LLPPortland,
OregonDecember 14, 2007

71

---
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES RECEIVING INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS

Erline Belton
Larry A. Cates
Philip R. Crimmins, Sr.
D. Patrick Curran
John C. Cywinski
Randolph P. Davis
Tamy T. Duplantis
Beverly O. Elving
David L. Goebel
Kurt Hankins
Eric L. Hansen
Mark S. Hansen
Jack P. Helms
Lloyd L. Hill
Janell Jones
Louis A. Kaucic
James W. Kirkpatrick
Steven K. Lumpkin
David R. Parsley
Mark A. Peterson
Burton M. Sack
George D. Shadid
Robert T. Steinkamp
Julia A. Stewart
Harry B. Stroup
Carin L. Stutz
Douglas D. Waltman
#### State v. Park

17672

5/23/95

Vacated, Remanded and Affirmed in part
##### 



CSB BANCORP, INC.
EXHIBIT 32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION In connection with the quarterly report of CSB Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
J. Limbert, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ John J. Limbert
John J. Limbert
President and
Chief Executive Officer *This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to
the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.   23.
ARM09042020

Criteria for Test Negative Status from Specific Pathogens in Aquatic Animal 

Cohorts*

APHIS VS is the Competent Authority for aquatic animal health, and provides oversight and 

approval regarding this cohort test negative status for a subpopulation on a site. 

To qualify for cohort test negative status for specific pathogens of concern in aquaculture 

settings, all the following must be met:

1. A representative sample, appropriate for the purpose of testing and pathogen(s) of 

concern, must be collected and tested within the past 45 days, and test negative for the

pathogen(s) of concern.

2. Samples must be collected by or the under supervision of an accredited veterinarian. 

3. At the time of sample collection, the cohort was visually examined, and found to be free 

of signs of infection and disease. If moribund animals are present they must be included 

in the sample.

4. Biosecurity practices must be in place for the tested cohort population at the time of 

sample collection through to time of movement or shipment.

a. Once samples have been collected, no animals may be introduced into the 

sampled population.

b. Cohorts must remain isolated OR in the same system in which they were tested 

with no change in risk of exposure to pathogen(s) of concern.

c. During the time of segregation there is no unexplained morbidity or mortality.

d. Record-keeping for the time of isolation including if animals are removed from 

the population that the reason is documented.

e. Only water from this site of the same health status as shipment is used in this 

shipment.

* Cohort may be a sub-population of the farm, life stage or species.
#### William J. MORGAN and Antonia B. Morgan, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 9035.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 6, 1963.

Decided Nov. 11, 1963.

William J. Morgan, pro se.

Alan D. Pekelner, Atty., Dept, of Justice (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joseph M. Howard, Atty., Dept, of Justice, on brief), for respondent.

Before HAYNSWORTH and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Careful consideration of this petition for review of a decision of the Tax Court of the United States brings us to the conviction that the Tax Court correctly found that the contested tax deficiencies had been properly assessed by the Commissioner. The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion filed November 28, 1962.

Affirmed.
# C_2019093EN.01002902.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 30 November 2018 — Bulgarian Air Charter Limited v NE

(Case C-758/18)

(2019/C 93/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Bulgarian Air Charter Limited

Respondent: NE

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 5(3) and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an operating air carrier which asserts the existence of extraordinary circumstances as the cause of a long delay may rely on the ground for exemption from liability under Article 5(3) of the Flight Compensation Regulation only if it can also assert and demonstrate that the delay suffered by the individual passenger could also not have been prevented by re-booking onto alternative transport? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 5(3) and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an operating air carrier which asserts the existence of extraordinary circumstances as the cause of a long delay may rely on the ground for exemption from liability under Article 5(3) of the Flight Compensation Regulation only if it can also assert and demonstrate that the delay suffered by the individual passenger could also not have been prevented by re-booking onto alternative transport?

| 2. | Must a re-booking required under Question 1 meet more specific temporal or qualitative criteria, in particular the criteria set out in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) or in Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of the Flight Compensation Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must a re-booking required under Question 1 meet more specific temporal or qualitative criteria, in particular the criteria set out in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) or in Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of the Flight Compensation Regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

---