alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service | Veterinary Services | 1 

1. Disease Information

1.1 General Disease and Pathogen Information: European foulbrood (EFB) of honey

bees is caused by the bacterium Melissococcus plutonius (previously classified as 

Streptococcus pluton). Despite the name, it is found in North and South America, 

Australia, the Middle East, and Asia. Infection is considered enzootic as mechanical 

contamination is the most common cause of spread. Recurrence of the disease is 

common. 

1.2 Clinical Signs: The most characteristic clinical sign of EFB is the death of larvae 

shortly before they are due to be sealed in cells, giving a uniform appearance to the 

comb. Changes can sometimes be seen in the brood comb as well. Often the brood 

comb is left unsealed. In some of the more advanced cases, the comb may be sealed 

with discolored, sunken, or punctured capping. Dead brood are usually young, 

unsealed larvae though sometimes older sealed larvae are affected. Dead larvae are 

typically in the coiled stage with a dull white coloring that, over time, turns yellow, then 

brown, and finally dark brown or black. Dead brood develop a watery and granular 

consistency and may produce an odor ranging from slightly sour to penetratingly sour. 

They ultimately form a rubbery, dark brown scale that does not adhere tightly to the 

cell wall. 

2. Laboratory Criteria

2.1 Agent Isolation and Identification: Identification is possible through microscopic

examination of suitable preparations of clinically affected larvae for presence of 

numerous lanceolate cocci. Additionally, culture methods can be employed to identify 

the bacterium. The isolated bacterium can be identified and differentiated with a simple 

tube agglutination test. Furthermore, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and heminested PCR provide accurate identification of the causative agent. The hemi-nested 

PCR allows direct analysis of larvae, adult bees and honey bee products. 

2.2 Agent Characterization: NA

2.3 Serology: NA.

3. Case Classification

3.1 Suspect Case: honey bees with

3.1.1 consistent clinical signs; OR

3.1.2 an epidemiologic link to a confirmed case.

3.2 Presumptive Positive Case: a suspect case that has 

3.2.1 a positive result on culture; OR

Case Definition

European Foulbrood of Honey Bees (Melissococcus plutonius)

(Monitored) December 2023
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service | Veterinary Services | 2

3.2.2 a positive result through tube agglutination.

3.3 Confirmed Positive Case: a suspect case with a positive result on PCR.

4. Reporting Criteria: European foulbrood is a U.S. monitored disease that is reportable 

monthly under the APHIS National List of Reportable Animal Diseases (NLRAD).

4.1 NLRAD reporting in accordance with the NLRAD Standards for monitored diseases; 

and by APHIS to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH).
June 27, 1997

19054

#### Greff v. Machado

Affirmed
# C_2019016EN.01004402.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik v EUIPO (LITECRAFT)

(Case T-140/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark LITECRAFT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 16/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH (Ibbenbüren, Germany) (represented by: R. Plegge, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 (Case R 699/2017-2) relating to an application for registration of the word sign LITECRAFT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
#### State v. Koch

26296

05/31/2005

Denied

107 Hawai'i 215, 112 P.3d 69
#### Wang v. Cavness

14901

12/03/91

Denied
#### The State, ex rel. Ticknor et al., v. Randall, Judge.

(No. 31720

Decided July 13, 1949.)

*130
      *Mr. Francis M. Thompson,*for relators.

*131
      *Messrs. Baker & Baker*and *Messrs. Wilkins é Lloyd,*for respondent.

By the Court.

Section 12285, General Code, reads: “The writ [of mandamus] may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment, or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, but it cannot control judicial discretion.”

The Court of Common Pleas exercised its judgment, first, in overruling the motion to set the will contest for hearing only upon the issue of the interest of the contestant, and, second, in overruling the contestant’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ motion for an order of abatement and dismissal, and continuing the latter motion for determination when the will-contest case was assigned for trial.

The relators in the present proceeding, who are defendants in the will contest, seek to control the exercise of discretion by the trial court. The writ of mandamus will not be issued to control judicial discretion. *State, ex rel. McCamey, v. Court of Common Pleas,*141 Ohio St., 610, 49 N. E. (2d), 761; *State, ex rel. Cook, Supt.,*v. *Court of Common Pleas,*144 Ohio St., 461, 59 N. E. (2d), 376; and *State, ex rel. Dunphy,*v. *Graham, Judge,*146 Ohio St., 547, 67 N. E. (2d), 321.

The relators contend Section 1685, General Code, made mandatory the duty of the respondent judge to determine the motion within 30 days after its submission. Section 557-1, Revised Statutes, the predecessor of Section 1685, was held directory in *James*v. *West, Admr.,*67 Ohio St., 28, 65 N. E., 156.

The demurrer to the petition is sustained and a writ denied.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, O. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,001
<ALLOWANCES>                                       314
<INVENTORY>                                     12,961
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,593
<PP&E>                                         111,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,129
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,249
<SALES>                                         48,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,419
<CGS>                                           31,557
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,214
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,229
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,452
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,777
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,777
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
        

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      20,501,676
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  614,919
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,148,689
<PP&E>                                       2,031,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                 464,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,894,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,469,866
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,812,444
<COMMON>                                         4,358
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,444,327)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,894,566
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,013,406
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,758,288
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,572,084)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (21,572,084)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (881,864)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (22,453,948)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)
        

</TABLE>
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

NVAP Reference Guide: F: Web Sites

Last Modified: 

Print

NVAP Reference Guide: Table of Contents

Questions, Comments, or Technical Issues?

NVAP Error Report Form

Preface

Introduction

Control and Eradication

Brucellosis

Johne’s Disease

Pseudorabies (PRV)

Tuberculosis

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies

Scrapie

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD)

Poultry

National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP)

Avian Influenza (AI)
Exotic Newcastle disease (END)

Equine Disease

Aquatic Animal

Aquatic Animal National Health Plan

Aquatic Animal Health Activities

Animal Health Emergency Management

Animal Health Emergency Management

Emergency Response Structure

National Response Framework (NRF)

National Incident Management System (NIMS)

National Animal Health Emergency Management System (NAHEMS)

Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Plan (FAD PReP)

FAD Recognition and Initial Response

National Animal Health Emergency Response Corps (NAHERC)

Notifiable Diseases and Conditions

WOAH and International Standards

Cleaning and Disinfection

Importance of Cleaning & Disinfection

Cleaning

Disinfection

Regulation of Disinfectants

Safety

Disease Surveillance

Laboratory Submissions

Animal Movement

Interstate Regulations

Interstate Movement of Cattle, Horses, Swine, Sheep and Goats

Issuing Interstate Animal Movement Documents

International Animal Movement

Issuing International Health Certificates (IHCs) for Live Animal Movement

Common Problems Observed on Certificates for Live Animal Movement

Animal Identification 
Animal Identification

Cattle Identification

Swine Identification

Equine Identification

Sheep and Goat Identification

Fowl Identification

Compliance and Regulations

Appendix

A: 9 CFR PARTS 160, 161, and 162

B: APHIS VS District Offices

C: State Animal Health Officials

D: Forms

E: Other Organizational Information with Contact Points

F: Web Sites

G: Equine Teeth and Aging

The following websites may assist you in fulfilling your duties as an accredited

veterinarian: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Veterinary Services

National Veterinary Accreditation Program: Addresses and phone

numbers of the Assistant District Director and the State animal health officials

can be accessed through this site as well as information about the program,

including an online form to update your address information for the APHIS

accredited veterinarian database.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

Bonorrblo **Bet** Ford, **Adminl8tr~tor hur**  **Llqaor Oontrul**  **Boar6 I**  **Au8 tin,**  Texa8 **Boar 81x-r** 

quertlon b8 bQen reoolt

‘ItI th8 **right** 6iV8ll t0 8 8UbdiVi81OlI 18 iPQ1184 **the** mr by 

### l doptlw prohlbltfon to **pat** l **rule in**  

### iox- 

### wh8robyth8 aa10 0r Uquor 8hdl b0 M-58 Ud&ti ifsl TOrY iOOt Or it8 **torrltorf,** l

tta

### mm thi8 it r08ulO8 that no **part** or that territory em meke the 8al0 tatrti in sU0h PVtpt, 8inO0 that WOtIad b4 hOOtt-

-0 =--~=~-I~- I. 10
. . .2eI.,.‘,.. a. 1 m. . . . . . . 1.1. ..I”,*” Y”..” as-m.“.*

. . .*. ..,e.“.. ..““AL e” .m A9.l .I...Honorable Bert lord, Tage 2
8iStOllt

with the pawor of the larger so to emtabllsh the law throughoutits extent. And thin la not allowed to affeot the right of an inoluded 8Ubdivi8iOn to a&opt thr law for iteelfwhen it has been rejeotedby the lnoludlngone.* The oourta have repeatedlyheld that tharscannot be a wet preolnotwithin a dry oounty, thererore, it

### w0ula naturally rollow that there oou1.d not be a wet areawithin a dry preolnot. 30 Seotion ZO, Article 16, or the Stata COIi8titUtiOn,

Artlole 666-83Or the Penal Code, and the case8 or Coker, County Judge v. Kmloik, 87 5. %. (2d)1076, Walling v. King, countyJudge, 07 s. IF.(2d)1074, Aaron v. Stat..,

eo s. w. 267, and Ex Part0 

### iaia8, 46 3. w. 1X7. In view or the roregola; authoritiesyou are **re** apaotfullyadvised that it i8 the opinion Or thisDep&rtmUt that the annexedwet territorywould take the statusof the aunexlng dry territory.

Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your inquiry, we remain Yours very tiuly ATTORNEY GENl?RAL OF -TDAS 

# By Ardbll William8 A88i8tant
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0061

_____________________________

EDWARD COOK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

February 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and RAY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2018399EN.01002101.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2018 — AV, BU v Comune di Bernareggio

(Case C-465/18)

(2018/C 399/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AV, BU

Respondent: Comune di Bernareggio

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination, equal treatment, the protection of competition and freedom of movement for workers, referred to in Articles 45, 49 to 56 and 106 TFEU and in Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the requirements of proportionality and reasonableness inherent in those principles, preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 12(2) of Law No 362/1991, which, in the event of the transfer of ownership of a municipal pharmacy, confers a right of pre-emption on the employees of the pharmacy in question?

---
May 11, 2004

25497

#### State v. Kawaa

Affirmed
#### Jack CORYELL, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12395.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 6, 1957.

Lewis F. Oerke, Lawton, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff in error, Jack Coryell, defendant below, was charged by information in the Superior Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma, with the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon. He was tried by a jury, convicted, and his punishment fixed at three years confinement in the state penitentiary. Judgment and sentence were entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been perfected.

Briefly, the record discloses that prior to December 4, 1955, the defendant, Jack Cory-ell, and the complaining witness, Mary Yort,. had had some dates together. At about 2:00 A.M. on December 4, 1955, she was. returning to her room with her roommate when they were accosted by the defendant. It appears that Mary Yort got into the defendant’s automobile and took a ride of a rather wild nature. He drove the automobile in such a reckless manner that he almost turned it over on several occasions. Mary Yort pled with him to let her out of the car. When this was done, she went to her room in the Lawton Hotel and proceeded to get ready for bed and put on her pajamas. Her roommate, Shirley Chappell, had not come in at that time and she left the door unlocked. Shortly thereafter, the defendant appeared at the door, came in her room,, and made advances to her which she rejected. Whereupon, the defendant removed a switchblade knife from his pocket and threatened the life of Mary Yort, stating, in substance, that he would give her fifteen minutes to live and pressing the knife to her throat. It appears that a man came up the steps and was walking down the hallway and that the defendant opened the door to see who he was and what he wanted. Mary Yort ran out of the room, down the stairs,. *670and into a nearby cafe, in her pajamas, in a greatly disturbed and hysterical condition. She testified that it was her belief that he was going to kill her and that was the reason for her condition.

Shirley Chappell corroborated Mary Yort to the effect that when she returned to the room it was at the time that Mary Yort ran out in a hysterical condition. Shirley Chap-pell was corroborated in her testimony by Herbert Brannon and Paul Lynch.

The defendant offered no evidence in his own behalf. The jury found him guilty and fixed his punishment at three years in the penitentiary.

The defendant complains of the judgment and sentence based upon the verdict for the reason that the court refused to instruct a verdict of not guilty; that the jury was actuated by passion and prejudice in assessing the verdict; and that the verdict was not warranted by the evidence.

It is apparent that the objections were not well taken and that the judgment and sentence is supported by the evidence, the penalty is not excessive, and the court did not err in refusing to give an instruction of not guilty. The judgment and sentence is affirmed.

POWELL and NIX, JJ., concur.
#### State v. Bowe

19138

6/13/97

Affirmed
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-0994

_____________________________

DAVID HOWARD,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—

Original Jurisdiction.

January 16, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel is denied on the merits.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

David Howard, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 432 

Expressing support for designating February 2016 as ‘‘National Spine Ability 

Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2015 

Mr. MURPHY of Florida (for himself and Mr. ROONEY of Florida) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designating February 2016 as 

‘‘National Spine Ability Month’’. 

Whereas spinal impairment is the primary cause of disability 

in the United States, affecting 14,000,000 people in the 

Nation; 

Whereas the United States spends $253,000,000,000 on 

costs associated with spine-related impairment; 

Whereas the cost of spine-related impairment and associated 

musculoskeletal disorders over the past 20 years has escalated by nearly 4 times the rate of increase as the 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP); 

Whereas 66 percent of the total costs associated with spine 

related impairment in the United States is attributed to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 432 IH 

productivity loss and absenteeism, accounting for annual 

employer losses of $28,000,000,000; 

Whereas back pain was the cause of 671,000,000 bed days 

and 385,000,000 lost work days in 2008; 

Whereas spine impairment is currently the leading cause of 

disability in veterans of the United States Armed Forces; 

Whereas millions of children suffer from spinal deformities 

and conditions reducing quality of life and longevity; 

Whereas 94 percent of children with spine-related impairment 

report some level of associated disability; 

Whereas the North American Spine Foundation is a nonprofit multistakeholder organization that is cohesively 

and collaboratively addressing the leading cause of disability in the United States, spinal impairment; 

Whereas the North American Spine Foundation has established the Spine 10 x 25 Initiative with the stated goal 

of achieving a 10-percent reduction in spine-related disability in the United States by the year 2025; and 

Whereas February 2016 would be an appropriate month to 

designate as ‘‘National Spine Ability Month’’ to raise 

awareness for spinal impairment and support the goals of 

the Spine 10 x 25 Initiative: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National Spine 

3 Ability Month’’; 

4 (2) supports the goals and ideals of ‘‘National 

5 Spine Ability Month’’; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 432 IH 

1 (3) continues to support research to find better 

2 prevention, treatments, and support services for spi3 nal impairment; and 

4 (4) commends organizations like the North 

5 American Spine Foundation for its Spine 10 x 25 

6 Initiative to reduce spine-related disability by 10 

7 percent in the United States by 2025. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### State v. Dowsett

16216

8/25/94

Denied

- Haw.App. -, 878 P.2d 739
December 2, 1999

22213

#### State v. Jolley

Affirmed
% Food exposure

% Once daily oral exposure, dose from cpfs SS F13_49 foodonly exp distribution.csv 50th percentile % Female adult, Body weight set to 72.9 kg % Cecilia Tan % August 26, 2015

prepare @clear @all % Setting model parameters start @NoCallback use human_parameters_MRP use preg_female_parameters

BWSW=1; % Set to 1 if BWT is provided BWST=72.9; % Initial BW in kg PREG=0; % not pregnant TSTOP= 1008; % Exposure duration in hrs

%Single daily oral exposure DT = xlsRead("Food.xls", "50p", "A1:A43"); % Dosing Times DORAL=xlsRead("Food.xls", "50p", "B1:B43"); % Dose in ug/kg prepare time rbcce cv urinetcpy start@nocallback

mytable = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6]; %unit of conc = ug/L save mytable @file='food_50.txt' @format=ascii