alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Respuesta ante la IAAP para el AF 2016

Compostaje de mortalidad: fuentes de 

carbono para la construcción de hileras

9 de mayo de 2016

Tenga en cuenta que: estos procedimientos pueden ser modificados a medida que avance la situación; esta es una lista

de fuentes de carbono generalmente aceptables para el compostaje en hileras de mortalidades relacionadas con la 

influenza aviar de alta patogenicidad (IAAP). Un experto en la materia deberá determinar las necesidades de 

recursos de fuentes de carbono, es decir, cantidad y tipo, y dependerán de las condiciones y circunstancias 

específicas de cada lugar (generalmente es específico para cada gallinero).

Fuentes aptas de carbono:

• Astillas de alrededor de 2” o menos

• Virutas de madera

• Podas de jardín o maleza de 2” o

menos

• Hojas y desecho de jardinería 

parcialmente compostados (aún caliente)

• Aserrín (no se utiliza por sí solo)

• Heno o paja picada

• Rastrojo de maíz picado

• Cascarillas de avena o girasol

• Estiércol seco de mamíferos

• Palés molidos (de 2” o menos) si se 

han retirado los sujetadores

• Biosólidos de Clase A, de acuerdo con 

los requisitos locales y estatales para la 

aplicación en terreno

• Otro material listado en el Protocolo de 

compostaje del Servicio de Inspección 

Zoosanitaria y Fitosanitaria (APHIS) o

según lo recomendado por un experto 

en la materia que esté reconocido por el 

APHIS y aprobado por el estado para su

uso en terrenos agrícolas

Mantillo de restos de poda de jardín

Materiales no aptos dentro de una fuente 

de carbono:

• Rocas

• Vidrio

• Plástico

• Troncos o ramas grandes

• Césped cortado >5%

• Escombros de construcción o demolición (CDD)

• Plagas reglamentadas (barrenador 

esmeralda del fresno, etc.)

• Goma

• Alambre metálico o de embalar

• Sustancias químicas

• Concreto

• Madera pintada o prensada

• Tierra o arena

• Fuente de carbono con líquido 

libre o exceso de lixiviado

Madera mezclada con troncos/trozos grandes de leña

Rastrojo de maíz 

picado Escombros de construcción o 

demolición

Astillas con rocas o 

gravilla

Virutas de madera

Cascarillas de avena
September 2020

There were 10 surveillance inspections conducted at 10 different sites for a total of 

50 fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. The water temperatures remained steady. All sites with fish in the 

water remained Category 1 and were scheduled for monthly sampling. No cages 

were confirmed positive this month.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

October 2019 90 0 21702

November 2019 93 0 21795

December 2019 91 0 21886

January 2020 81 0 21967

February 2020 78 0 22045

March 2020 55 0 23000

April 2020 50 0 23050

May 2020 50 0 23100

June 2020 80 0 23180

July 2020 56 0 23236

August 2020 50 0 23286

September 2020 50 0 23336
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                         33,934     
<SECURITIES>                                   0          
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,466      
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (500)      
<INVENTORY>                                    2,855      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               46,611     
<PP&E>                                         496,466    
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (496,466)  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 49,176     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          212,928    
<BONDS>                                        0          
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0          
<PREFERRED>                                    0          
<COMMON>                                       19,333     
<OTHER-SE>                                     (183,085)  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   49,176     
<SALES>                                        0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               434,306    
<CGS>                                          0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  484,295    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0          
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0          
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (49,989)   
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0          
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (49,989)   
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,383,529)
<CHANGES>                                      0          
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,111,775  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.09
        


</TABLE>
A LETTER FROM VIN

Dear Students,

I’ll tell you, this is one great State. But it hasn’t

been a walk in the park . I mean, they call me 

“invasive species .” Nice, huh? Or, hungry pests .

Like I’m some kind of bad guy or something. I

mean, do I look invasive? No ! You should think 

of me as a culinary tourist, a footloose foodie

of your fields and trees . I just want to sample 

the locale fare . Just a taste ! And I’m not the 

pushy type. People help me get around, mostly on

the things they move and pack. Did you know I’m

completely vegetarian? Yeah, very healthy ! Hungry 

Pests, yeah right ! Oh, gotta run ! I do have a lot 

of mouths to feed.

Love,

Vin
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

UNIT Company ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W911KB-07-D-0014 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60581 

Michael A. Brain, Esq. 

Taylor B. McMahon, Esq. 

Law Offices of Royce and Brain 

Anchorage, AK 

Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Carl F. Olson, Esq. 

Kyle B. Davis, Esq. 

William B. Davis, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: October 4, 2018 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60581, Appeal of UNIT Company, 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
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 September 30, 2006 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 8th day of November, 2006.

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

/s/ Darrell R. Rains
------------------------------
Darrell R. Rains
Group Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal financial officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-6505.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 16, 2005.

Decided Oct. 7, 2005.

Christopher Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Taylor, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his “Notice of Motion to Dismiss,” which was essentially a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tay*422lor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50713 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS RICARDO ELIZALDE-LIRA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-841-1-H

- - - - - - - - - - February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Carlos Ricardo Elizalde-Lira appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Elizalde argues that his sentence should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Elizalde acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000).No. 00-50713 - 2 - Elizalde’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
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.                  

###### Social Security Administration

          - 20 CFR Part 404

### CFR Correction

This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400 to 499, revised as of April 1, 2023, in Appendix I to Subpart P of Part 404, in Part B, section 101.00, revise the first sentence of paragraph C.7.c. to read as follows:

## Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404—Listing of Impairments

* * * * *

## Part B

* * * * *

## 101.00 Musculoskeletal Disorders.

* * * * *

C. * * *

7. * * *

c. For 101.15, 101.16, 101.17, 101.18, 101.20C, 101.20D, 101.22, and 101.23, all of the required criteria must be present simultaneously, or within a close proximity of time, to satisfy the level of severity needed to meet the listing. * * *

[FR Doc. 2023-26983 Filed 12-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0099-10-P
# C_2018319EN.01002302.xml

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/23

---

Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Pareto Trading v EUIPO — Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH)

(Case T-438/18)

(2018/C 319/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pareto Trading Co., Inc. (Carlstadt, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, C. Martínez-Tercero Molina, V. Balaguer Fuentes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bikor Elżbieta Korbut (Gdańsk, Poland) and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics Małgorzata Wedekind (Gdańsk)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH — European Union trade mark No 9 561 788

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2018 in Case R 1826/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare that the costs in this proceedings shall be borne by the Defendant, including all the costs which the Applicant has incurred before both the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO that have resulted in the present Application. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the costs in this proceedings shall be borne by the Defendant, including all the costs which the Applicant has incurred before both the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO that have resulted in the present Application.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JACOB BUCKIUS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-196 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 20, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Tom Barber, Judge. Rachael E. Reese of O'Brien Hatfield P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### Kim v. Costa.

16972

12/23/96

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part and Remanded
Exhibit 10.87
 AMENDMENT NO. 3  TO REVOLVING CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
  BACKGROUND
    Definitions
 Amendment
  Leverage Ratio




---



##### 



Fiscal Quarter Ending:
    
    Leverage Ratio:September 30, 2008
    
    
    3.50 to 1.0December 31, 2008
    
    
    3.50 to 1.0March 31, 2009
    
    
    5.70 to 1.0June 30, 2009
    
    
    6.25 to 1.0September 30, 2009
    
    
    4.55 to 1.0December 31, 2009
    
    
    3.00 to 1.0March 31, 2010 and each fiscal quarter ending thereafter
    
    
    2.50 to 1.0
 Minimum EBITDA
 Fiscal Quarter Ending:
    
    Minimum EBITDADecember 31, 2008
    
    $
    5,000,000March 31, 2009
    
    $
    3,000,000June 30, 2009
    
    $
    2,500,000September 30, 2009
    
    $
    4,000,000December 31, 2009 and each fiscal quarter ending thereafter
    
    $
    5,000,000
 Conditions of Effectiveness
 Representations, Warranties and Covenants
    2




---



##### 



Effect on the Loan Agreement
   Release
 3




---



##### 



Governing Law
 Cost and Expenses
 Headings
 Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures
  4




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,as Lender and as AgentBy:
    
    /s/ JOHN TRIEUName: John TrieuTitle: Vice PresidentDRI CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ DAVID L. TURNEY

     Name: David L. TurneyTitle: Chairman, CEO, & PresidentDIGITAL RECORDERS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ DAVID L. TURNEY

     Name: David L. TurneyTitle: Chairman, CEO, & PresidentTWINVISION OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.By:
    
    /s/ DAVID L. TURNEY

     Name: David L. TurneyTitle: Chairman, CEO, & President
# C_2018161EN.01006402.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/64

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kande Mupompa v Council

(Case T-170/18)

(2018/C 161/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (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 10 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 10 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 10 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 10 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

---
Amendment Number 2 to Component Recovery Agreement

     THIS AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 (this "Amendment") is entered
into by and between Micron Technology, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("MTI") and Micron Electronics, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation ("MEI").

     WHEREAS, MTI and MEI entered into that certain
Component Recovery Agreement with an effective date of
August 14, 1996, as amended by that certain Amendment Number
1 to Component Recovery Agreement dated effective as of
August 30, 1996 (as amended, the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, MTI and MEI desire to amend the Agreement in
accordance with the terms set forth below:

     NOW THEREFORE, MTI and MEI agree as follows:

1.   Amendment.  Section 12.1 of the Agreement is deleted
and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:

     Section 12.1 Term.  The term of this Agreement shall
     commence on the Effective Date and shall continue
     thereafter until September 2, 1999, subject to earlier
     termination in accordance with the provisions of this
     Section, and shall continue on a year-to-year basis
     thereafter unless terminated by either party by written
     notice not less than ninety (90) days prior to the end
     of the initial term or any extension thereof.

2.   No Further Modification.  Except as set forth herein,
the provisions of the Agreement remain unmodified and in
full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this
Amendment to be effective as of the date of the last
signature set forth below.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.       MICRON ELECTRONICS, INC.


By:/s/Steven R. Appleton          By:/s/T.Erik Oaas
   -----------------------------     ----------------------------------
Name: Steven R. Appleton          Name: T.Erik Oaas
     ---------------------------       --------------------------------
Title: Chairman, CEO & President  Title: Executive V.P., Finance, & CFO
      --------------------------        -------------------------------
Date: September 2, 1998           Date: August 26, 1998
     ---------------------------       --------------------------------
00
547
Andrew Dwayne Ellis
BELL
27TH
50,590
RICK MORRIS

Andrew Dwayne Ellis seeks to appeal his conviction for aggravated assault.  Theclerk's record contains a written waiver of appeal signed by appellant, his attorney, and the trialjudge.  The reporter's record reflects that appellant signed this document in open court aftersentencing and after being admonished of his rights.  A defendant who knowingly and intelligentlywaives his right to appeal may not thereafter appeal without the consent of the trial court.  Exparte Dickey, 543 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976); see also Hurd v. State, 548 S.W.2d 388(Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Reed v. State, 516 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).  The recordreflects that appellant sought the court's permission to appeal, but permission was denied.

The appeal is dismissed.

Before Justices Jones, Yeakel and Patterson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed:   August 31, 2000

Do Not Publish

00
547
Andrew Dwayne Ellis
BELL
27TH
50,590
RICK MORRIS

Andrew Dwayne Ellis seeks to appeal his conviction for aggravated assault.  Theclerk's record contains a written waiver of appeal signed by appellant, his attorney, and the trialjudge.  The reporter's record reflects that appellant signed this document in open court aftersentencing and after being admonished of his rights.  A defendant who knowingly and intelligentlywaives his right to appeal may not thereafter appeal without the consent of the trial court.  Exparte Dickey, 543 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976); see also Hurd v. State, 548 S.W.2d 388(Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Reed v. State, 516 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).  The recordreflects that appellant sought the court's permission to appeal, but permission was denied.

The appeal is dismissed.

Before Justices Jones, Yeakel and Patterson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed:   August 31, 2000

Do Not Publish
#### State v. Toguchi

18416

10/31/96

Affirmed