alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Last Updated: 5 March 2024 11:23

Exotic Moth (ExM)

2024 Quick Reference

Program: Exotic Moth (ExM)

Application: ArcGIS Field Maps

Host: USDA-MRP GIS Enterprise (Portal)

Map Title: PPQ ExM Trapping 2024 Field Map

CHECK URL! https://maps.mrp.usda.gov/arcgis/

IMPORTANT!! You must synchronize your map at the beginning/end of each workday.*

1. Open ArcGIS Field Maps. Confirm the correct ArcGIS Enterprise URL.

2. Open previously downloaded map area.

3. Stand at the point you wish to collect.

4. From the menu bar at the top of the page, tap the Layers icon to toggle ON the

layers you wish to view/edit.

ExM Trap Sites 

1. Tap the blue plus sign in the lower-right corner of the map to add data. 

2. Be sure the layer is enabled and choose the Trap Type from the list on the left.

3. Complete the data form (Verify the Install Date field is Today.)

4. Tap the Submit button in the upper right corner.

ExM Trap Activities

Tap the trap symbol on the map to select it. The data form opens on the left.

Scroll down and tap ExM Trap Activities 2024 or tap the link icon. 

1. Tap the blue Add button. 

2. Complete the data form. (Verify the Activity Date field is Today.)

3. Tap the Submit button in the upper right corner.

ExM Map Notes Points

1. Tap the blue plus sign in the lower-right corner of the map to add data. 

2. Be sure the layer is enabled (scroll down, if needed) and choose the Map Notes Type (Info or 

Hazard) from the list on the left.

3. Complete the data form. (Verify the Note Date is Today.)

4. Tap the Submit button in the upper right corner.

If the Submit button fails, you have not completed all required fields or GPS accuracy failed.

To preserve battery power, put the device to sleep between surveys. 

*For more details, refer to the PPQ Exotic Moth Trapping User Manual.

ArcGIS Field Maps 

Mobile Application

Photo Credit: Flickr and Wiki Commons

Add data button

Layers icon

Activity link icon
# C_2018399EN.01002102.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

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2018 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2018 in Case T-283/15, Esso Raffinage v European Chemicals Agency

(Case C-471/18 P)

(2018/C 399/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: P. Klappich and C. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Esso Raffinage, European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 May 2018 in Case T-283/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 May 2018 in Case T-283/15;

| — | dismiss the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action;

| — | order the applicant to pay the costs incurred before the Court of Justice and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant to pay the costs incurred before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal on the following grounds:

First, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in attributing legal significance to the letter entitled ‘Statement of Non-Compliance following a Dossier Evaluation Decision under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006’ which ECHA addressed to the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing on 1 April 2015 (‘the letter’) and classifying it as an act which could be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU.

Secondly, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in applying Article 42(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) and disregarding Article 22(2) of the REACH Regulation.

Thirdly, the appellant does not share the General Court’s view on the general division of areas of competence between Member States and ECHA, according to which ECHA alone is competent to decide whether registration information complies with the REACH requirements.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this
Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for  the  quarter  ended  June 30, 2005 fully
complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report
fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of  operations  of  the  Company.

This 9th day of August, 2005.

/s/ R. Daniel Blanton
---------------------
R. Daniel Blanton
President &
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer)

/s/ Ronald L. Thigpen
---------------------
Ronald L. Thigpen
Executive Vice President &
Chief Operating Officer
(Principal financial officer)
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 12/1/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at the Carolinas Air Pollution Control Association Fall 

Meeting

SUMMARY: 

EPA Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at Carolinas Air 

Pollution Control Association Fall Meeting in Myrtle Beach, SC, on October 16, 2014. The Clean 

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Beverly Banister/EPA R4

Heather McTeer Toney/EPA R4 

External Stakeholders

Randall Taylor/URS Corporation

Sheila Holman/North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Myra Reese/South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

Approximately 420 other attendees

ATTACHMENT
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)**

**AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

**OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Williams Controls, Inc (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ended

September30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, R. Eugene Goodson, Chairman of the Board and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company through September 30, 2004, and I, Patrick W.Cavanagh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company commencing October 1, 2004,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  R. EUGENE GOODSON              |   |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| R.  Eugene Goodson                  |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer through    |   |
| September  30, 2004                 |   |
| Williams  Controls, Inc             |   |
| December  27, 2004                  |   |
|                                |   |
|                                |   |
| /s/  PATRICK W. CAVANAGH            |   |   |
| Patrick  W. Cavanagh                |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer commencing |   |
| October  1, 2004                    |   |
| Williams  Controls, Inc             |   |
| December  27, 2004                  |   |
|                                     |        |        |  |

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27426]



[[Page 86664]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Initial Review 
Group; Career Development for Clinicians/Health Professionals Study 
Section Career development awards for clinicians and health 
professionals.
    Date: February 5-6, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, RM: 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Maurizio Grimaldi, Ph.D., M.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of 
Health, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, RM: 
2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9374, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d101c080f14071412531a0f14101c1119143d131415531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="04696571766d7e6d6b2a63766d696568606d446a6d6c2a636b72">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 8, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-27426 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7309

TERRY LEE STONE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RAY ANDREWS, Warden, FCI Estill; JOHN F.

FANELLO,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-94-1177)

Submitted: November 16, 1995 Decided: February 14, 1996

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Lee Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parkwood Griffith, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Stone v. Andrews, No. CA-94-1177 (D.S.C. July 13, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00113-CV

Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Department of Aging 

and Disability Services

v.

Jose P. Baldonado

On appeal from the

445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2008-08-4696-I

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.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 30, 2015.
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Agricultural producers and wildlife researchers alike 

are looking for innovative ways to minimize 

damages caused by the growing wild pig population

in the United States. Management tools being 

developed include trapping methods, lethal control, 

fertility control, and various types of fencing. The 

most successful control programs employ a variety 

of population management techniques. Although no 

single approach is sufficient, researchers agree that 

fencing is a key part of the strategy to prevent feral 

swine damage.

What are the best fencing practices to keep 

out wild pigs? 

• Build multiple fences (i.e., one on exterior of

property and one around crops or animals)

• Build fences at least 5 feet high

• Keep spacing of fence strands no more than 4

inches apart

• Wrap barb wire on top of fence to prevent

animals from going over

• Reinforce fencing into the ground to prevent

hogs from digging under

• Weave electrified wires through non-electric

fencing

• Inspect fencing regularly for ground-level

gaps, holes, or ineffective electric wiring

What are the best materials for pig-proof 

fencing? 

Galvanized Wire Netting/Mesh

• Netting/mesh prevents pigs from going

through or digging underneath

• Made from zinc-coated steel that does not

easily rust or tear

Electric Fencing

• Sends a small shock and teaches feral pigs

to avoid the fence

• Shown to significantly reduce the number of

entries and damage caused by wild pigs

To access more information on a case study of 

fencing out feral swine, click here. 

For more information contact:

The Center for Epidemiology 

and Animal Health

vs.ceah@usda.gov

(970) 494-7200

The USDA is an equal opportunity employer, lender, 

and provider.

Information Sheet

February 2022

Fencing out Feral Swine

Photo by Tejas Ranch
BIOTECHNOLOGY REGULATORY SERVICES

APHIS eFile UPDATE

FY 2022 APHIS eFile Accomplishments

 Upgraded to Lightning Platform

 Resolved problems with large applications and other pain points

 Delivered 10 training sessions to 10 external users and 26 internal users

FY 2022 Metrics

 External users increased 185% to 918

 Authorizations increased 127% to 720

 Permittee record submissions increased 189% to 8978

 Inspections completed in system increased 456% to 651

FY22 Challenges and Improvements

FY23 Outlook

 Invested $1 M to maintain and enhance APHIS eFile for BRS permitting

o Improve planting report submission process

o Improve functionality in the application user interface 

o Streamline supplier/developer data entry

 Outcomes

o Applicants and permit holders will require less assistance for routine actions

o Improved processing times

CHALLENGES Large Applications Maintenance & Enhancement Requirement Alignment

EXAMPLES • Inability to submit

• Inability to process

• Inability to generate PDFs

• Regular maintenance was 

not streamlined

• Adding functionality was 

not streamlined

• Supplier/Developer

• Location agent

• Location address

IMPROVEMENTS Can now submit, process, and 

generate PDFs for large 

applications

• Maintaining and developing 

BRS applications in APHIS 

eFile is now simpler

• Consistent user interface

Regulatory and system 

requirements are now aligned
19078

#### State v. Moses

February 18, 1997

Order No. 97-14

Vacated in part, Granted in part
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7669

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RENE ELLIS, a/k/a Money, a/k/a Nut,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior

District Judge. (3:01-cr-01024-CMC-7; 3:14-cv-03607-CMC)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rene Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Marshall Prince, 

II, Assistant United States Attorneys, Nancy Chastain Wicker, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rene Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, 

the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after 

the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

September 11, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on September 

25, 2015.* Because Ellis failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

 *For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988). 
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Auker v. Tanaka

16632

12/05/94

Affirmed
# C_2019432EN.01005501.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/55

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — ZW v EIB

(Case T-727/18 R)

(Interim measures - Civil service - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 432/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZW (represented by: T. Petsas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures to suspend or to extend certain time limits and to order the production of documents.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
AAM-12-016-E October 17, 2011

Exemption No. 10373 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1100

Mr. David Alan Fernald

President New England Air Transport, Inc.

604 Violette Settlement Road Fort Kent, ME 04743

Dear Mr. Fernald:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 5, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of New England Air Transport, Inc. (New England Air Transport), for an exemption from part 120 to allow New England Air Transpor t, which is operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to New England Air Transport.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant New England Air Transport, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow New England Air Transport, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of New England Air Transport are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the New England Air Transport part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on October 31, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure