alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USDA, APHIS, PPQ

2281 W Heyrend Way

Idaho Falls, ID 83401

Data Source:

USDA APHIS PPQ

USDA FSA

These data, and all the information contained therein, have been collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or by its cooperators on APHIS’ behalf, for restricted

government purposes only and is the sole property of APHIS. See full disclaimer: www.aphis.usda.gov/help/map-disclaimer

United States

Department of

Agriculture

PALE CYST NEMATODE - IDAHO

Regulated Fields - November 22, 2021

0 2.5 5

Miles

0 2.5 5

Kilometers

Date Created:

11/22/2021

[

Document Path: C:\GIS\PCN\Projects\WebMap\2021_1122\PCN Web Map.aprx Coordinate System: GCS WGS 1984

T 01 N

R 32 E

T 01 N

R 33 E

T 01 N

R 34 E

T 01 N

R 35 E

T 01 N

R 36 E

T 01 N

R 37 E

T 01 N

R 38 E

T 01 N

R 39 E

T 01 S

R 32 E T 01 S

R 33 E

T 01 S

R 34 E

T 01 S

R 35 E

T 01 S

R 36 E

T 01 S

R 37 E

T 01 S

R 38 E

T 01 S

R 39 E

T 02 N

R 32 E

T 02 N

R 33 E

T 02 N

R 34 E

T 02 N

R 35 E

T 02 N

R 36 E

T 02 N

R 37 E

T 02 N

R 38 E

T 02 N

R 39 E

T 02 S

R 32 E

T 02 S

R 33 E

T 02 S

R 34 E

T 02 S

R 35 E

T 02 S

R 36 E

T 02 S

R 37 E

T 02 S

R 38 E

T 02 S

R 39 E

T 03 N

R 32 E

T 03 N

R 33 E

T 03 N

R 34 E

T 03 N

R 35 E

T 03 N

R 36 E

T 03 N

R 37 E

T 03 N

R 38 E

T 03 N

R 39 E

AMMON

BASALT

BLACKFOOT

FIRTH

IDAHO FALLS

IONA

SHELLEY

Regulated Fields

Idaho Idaho

Bonneville County

Bingham County
#### Gray v. A.J. Lopez Sons, Inc.

16273

12/21/94

Affirmed
19369

#### State v. Breen

December 18, 1996

Order No. 96-50

Vacated
#### Robert S. HUBBARD, Plaintiff in Error, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE PENSION and Retirement System of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. 37890.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 26, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1958.

Geo. E. Reeves and Geo. P. Striplin, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Darven L. Brown, City Atty., Tulsa, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

This proceeding was instituted by Robert S. Hubbard, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, who sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension and Retirement System of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, hereinafter referred to as defendant, to grant to plaintiff the right to participate in the benefits and protection of the Police Pension and Retirement System of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma. An alternative writ was issued and defendant filed its answer in response thereto. Plaintiff filed a demurrer to such answer, which was by the court overruled, and plaintiff has brought this appeal from the order overruling such demurrer. Although plaintiff announced in open court that he was standing upon his demurrer, no judgment was entered other than to overrule the demurrer.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the order as made cannot be reviewed until there has been a final judgment or order in the case. Such motion to *208dismiss must be sustained. Exactly the same question was presented in the case of Western Auto Store v. Auto Parts & Equipment Co., Okl., 259 P.2d 535, 536, in which an appeal was taken from an order overruling a demurrer to the petition. The appeal was dismissed, and the syllabus in such case is as follows:

> “An order overruling a demurrer to the petition is not a final order and where an appeal is taken from such order prior to the entry of a final judgment or order in the cause, such appeal presents nothing properly reviewable by this court/’

See also Robertson v. State ex rel. Pinson, 195 Okl. 641, 163 P.2d 975; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Ry. Co. v. Parks, 182 Okl. 598, 78 P.2d 791; Tobly v. Dekinder, 85 Okl. 288, 206 P. 201.

.Appeal dismissed.

. WELCH, C. J., and HALLEY, JOHNSON, BLACKBIRD, ’ JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

CORN, V. C. J., dissents.
#### State v. Kato

18870

7/3/97

Affirmed
H. Res. 879 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 22, 2016. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 5931) to provide for the prohibition on cash payments 

to the Government of Iran, and for other purposes. The first 

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After 

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 

under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the 

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs now printed in the bill, it shall be in order 

to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 

under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 

substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
2 

•HRES 879 EH 

114–64. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 

be considered as read. All points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment 

to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 

order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 

Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 

may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 

be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 

be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 

and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 

points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 

conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member 

may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as 

original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 
3 

•HRES 879 EH 

SEC. 2. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for 

a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 

Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 

with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative 

day of September 27, 2016, relating to a measure making or 

continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
120 P.3d 1145

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

October 10, 2005

26819

#### State v. Dickens

Affirmed
# C_2019230EN.01005002.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/50

---

Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — RATP v Commission

(Case T-422/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure initiated by the Commission against a Member State - Documents originating from the applicant - Third party access request - Initial decision to grant partial access - Lack of purpose - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 230/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) (Paris, France) (represented initially by: E. Morgan de Rivery, P. Delelis and C. Lavin, and subsequently by P. Delelis and C. Lavin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, W. Mölls and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of 5 March 2018 on a request for access to documents originating from the RATP in so far as it grants partial access to those documents.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   70,572,862
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 42,699,905
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      10,730,275
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               5,286,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             129,289,884
<COMMON>                                    22,090,566
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                   24,742,130
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         24,719,266
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>              71,551,962
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 12,780,170
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                        23,250,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                3,000,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>              18,707,752
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              129,289,884
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   56,184,525
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         7,782,268
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  40,633,656
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     15,550,869
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           3,563,108
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              19,103,577
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     2,017,686
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,314,023
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    672,434
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                8,641,589
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     5,548,126
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                    2,017,686
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                      17,427,254
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.87


</TABLE>
## MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRO NME NT 1800 Washington Boulevard -Baltimore MD 21230 

# MDE 410-537-3000 - 1-800-633-6101 Martin O'Malley Shari T. Wilson Governor Secretary Anthony G. Brown Robert M. Summers, Ph .D. Lieutenant Governor Deputy Secretary**~!**



# DEC 1. k 

# 2 nn ' Mr. William C. Early Acting Regional Administrator (3RAOO) U .S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia PA 19103-2029 Dear Mr. Early: The purpose of this letter is to submit the enclosed State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision 

### # 09-04 concerning the establishment of NOx and S02 emission limits for R Paul Smith Power Station electric generating units . An annual emission cap has been set for NOx and S02 . An ozone season emission cap has been set for NOx emissions . This SIP submittal includes amendments to Regulations .02 and .03 under COMAR 26.11.27 Emission Limitations for Power Plants. An Emergency Action for these amendments became effective on April 11 , 2009. The Notice of Proposed Action for this SIP Revision was published in the Maryland Register on April 24, 2009. A public hearing was held on May 28, 2009 . The amendments were adopted on August 12, 2009 . The Notice of Final Action was published on August 28 , 2009 and the amendments became effective as permanent requirements on September 7,2009 . All administrative procedures were properly followed throughout the adoption process. If you have any questions concerning this SIP submittal , please feel free to call me at (410) 537­ 3084 or Mr. George (Tad) S . Aburn, Jr. , Director of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, at (410) 537-3255. 

# Si"it' j 

# J iL­**Wilson** Secretary STW:dhr Enclosures

Recycled Pape, www .mdc.state .md . us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258 Via Maryland Relay Service
Item_5_1_9a_Camelpox/ page 1

Annex 28

CHAPTER X.Z.INFECTION WITH CAMELPOX VIRUS

Article X.Z.1.

General provisions

For the purposes of the *Terrestrial Code*, *infection* with camelpox virus is defined as an *infection* of dromedary and bactrian camels (hereafter ‘susceptible animals’) with camelpox virus of genus *Orthopoxvirus*, family *Poxviridae*.

The following defines the occurrence of *infection* with camelpox virus:

1)	camelpox virus has been isolated and identified as such in a sample from a susceptible animal; or 

2)	characteristic orthopox virions have been observed in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs suggestive of *infection* with camelpox virus or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*; or 

3)	antigen or nucleic acid specific to camelpox virus has been detected in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs suggestive of *infection* with camelpox virus or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*; or

4)	antibodies specific to camelpox virus, that are not the consequence of *vaccination*, have been detected in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs suggestive of *infection* with camelpox virus or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*.

Standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines are described in the *Terrestrial Manual*. 

___________________________

*WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2022*

*WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2022*1
SCWC-14-0001107

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CHARLES LEE,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-14-0001107; 5DCW-13-0000125)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s application for writ

of certiorari, filed on September 8, 2017, is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 17, 2017.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-14-0001107

17-OCT-2017

08:30 AM
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

141 

KA 14-00411 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROGELIO MUESES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (DEBORAH K. JESSEY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DANIEL J. PUNCH OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P.

Franczyk, J.), rendered January 23, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon

in the second degree and unlawful possession of marihuana. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is 

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the

second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and unlawful possession of

marihuana (§ 221.05). We reject defendant’s contention that County

Court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence seized from

defendant and his vehicle. The evidence at the suppression hearing

established that the police officers had an objective, credible reason

to approach defendant’s parked vehicle, which was located in a park

known for drugs, prostitution and underage drinking (see People v

Ocasio, 85 NY2d 982, 984; People v Cintron, 125 AD3d 1333, 1334, lv

denied 25 NY3d 1071). One of the officers testified that he noticed a

pile of tobacco next to the driver’s door, which in the officer’s

experience was indicative of marihuana use, and both officers

testified that they detected the aroma of marihuana when they got

close to the vehicle. The officers were justified in opening the

driver’s door based upon their observations outside the vehicle and

their inability to see into the vehicle’s interior (see People v David

L., 56 NY2d 698, 700, revg on dissent 81 AD2d 893, 895-896, cert

denied 459 US 866; People v Funderbunk, 122 AD3d 515, 516, lv denied

25 NY3d 1201). The question to defendant whether he had “more weed”

was supported by a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in

criminal activity (see People v Phillips, 46 AD3d 1021, 1023, lv

denied 10 NY3d 815). He responded to that question by producing a bag

of marihuana and, “[a]lthough defendant was not placed under arrest at
-2- 141 

KA 14-00411 

the time of the search, we nevertheless conclude that the officer[s]

had probable cause to search the vehicle” (People v Harrington, 30

AD3d 1084, 1085, lv denied 7 NY3d 848; see People v Chestnut, 43 AD2d

260, 261-262, affd 36 NY2d 971). 

Entered: March 25, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-50526 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CHARLES ROBERT DEATHERAGE, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-143-1
Before JONES, DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent C harles Robert Deatherage has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and U n ited States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Deatherage has not f iled a r esponse. We have r e viewed cou n s e l ’ s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave t o withdraw is GRANTED, U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D February 20, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-50526 Document: 00512149428 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2013No. 12-50526

counsel is excused from further responsibilities he r e i n, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-50526 Document: 00512149428 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2013
### Distribution Transformers Test Procedure Rulemaking How to Submit Comments

The Department will accept written comments, data, and information regarding the Test Procedure SNOPR after the public meeting, but no later than November 8, 2004. See section IV.D, "Submission of Comments," of the Federal Register document for details. 69 FR 45520 (July 29, 2004)

AD DRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number EE-TP-98-550 and/or RIN 1904-AA85, by any of the following methods: ® E-mail: DistTransformerTP-SNOPRc ee.doe.gov Include EE-TP-98-550 and/or RIN 1904-AA85 in the subject line of the message. ® Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, SNOPR for Distribution Transformers, EE-TP-98-550 / RIN 1904-AA85, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Please submit one signed original. ® Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed original. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IV of the Federal Register document (Public Participation). 69 FR 45519 (July 29, 2004) Docket: For access to the docket, to read background documents or comments received, go to the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room IJ-018 (Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, (202) 586- 9127, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones on (202) 586-2945 for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room. Please note: The Department's Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room IE-190 at the Forrestal Building) is no longer housing rulemaking materials.


### FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
WEBSITE: http://www.eere

. energy.gov/buildings/appliancestandards /commercial/distribution transformers.html
CONTACT: Cyrus Nasseri , U.S. Department of Energy , Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program , EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington , DC, 20585

- 0121, (202 ) 586-9128 Email : cyrus.nasseri @ ee.doe. ov. Francine Pinto, Esq ., or Thomas B. DePriest , Esq., U.S. Department of Energy , Office of General Counsel , Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-72 , 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington , DC, 20585, ( 202) 586 -9507. E-mail : Francine .Pinto@ hq.doe.gov or Thomas.DePriestna hq doe.gov.