alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Vegetable Crops Research: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ScientistsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Madison, Wisconsin Vegetable Crops Research People B. bee lab





- Home
- All Publications
- Outreach
- Photos
- Videos
- Bee Blog
- Pollinator Behavior and Gene Flow
- Pollinator Preferences
- Hybridization and Introgression
- Alfalfa Selfing Management
- Pollinators and Global Warming
- Other Research
- Research Projects (VCRU)
- Publications in ARIS
- Current
- Previous
- How to Assess a Hive

How to Assess a Hiveheadline bar The USDA lab in Maryland discusses bee hive diseases and how to submit samples for assessment.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2228 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2228

           To extend the duty suspension on Iminodisuccinate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2005

   Ms. Hart introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To extend the duty suspension on Iminodisuccinate.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. IMINODISUCCINATE.

    (a) In General.--Headings 9902.29.83 and 9902.38.10 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to mixtures 
of sodium salts) are each amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

L a w r e n c e c o n s e n te dto p r o c e e db e f o r e am a g is tr a te ju d g e . See 28 ** U . S . C . § 6 36 (c ).

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on * ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T TANY A LATRI CE LAW RE NCE, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. B E R R Y , D o c to r ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 12- 16118 D. C. No . 1 : 0 9 - c v - 0 1 9 3 6 - DLB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D e nni s L . B e c k, M a gi s tr a t e Judge , P r e s i di ng ** S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry11, 2013 *** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , T A S H IM A , an dW A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one rT a ny aL a tr i c e L a w r e nc e appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng he r42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng 

# FI LED FEB 19 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 16118 2 de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o he rs e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds a s ba rr e d bythe s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo a d is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A . W ei lb u rgv. Sh a

p i ro , 488 F . 3d 1202, 1205 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed L aw re nce’ s a ct i on as t i m e- barr ed because a l l cl ai m s a cc rued m ore than fou r y ears before L aw re nce f i l ed her c o m p la in t. See C a l . C i v. P r oc . C ode §§ 335. 1, 352. 1( a ) ( tw o- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t at i on s f

or pers on ali nj ury c l ai m s; l i m i t at i on s per i od m aybe t ol l ed for an addi t i on altw o years for pri soners ); Kn o xv . D a v is , 2 6 0 F .3 d1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 2 - 1 3 ( 9 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (§ 1 9 8 3 act i o n s are g o v ern edb y th e fo ru m st at e’ s st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s; a c l ai m ac crues w hen the pl ai nt i ff kn ow s or has re as on t o k no w of the i nj ury w hi ch i s the basi s of the ac t i on ; cont i nu i ng i m pactfr om pastvi ol at i on s does notcause a c la im to a c c ru e a n e w ) . L a w r e n c e ’s m o tio n r e q u e s tin g a“w ith d r a w a l an dab e y a n c e ,” f ile do n Ju ly 2 7 , 2 0 1 2 , i s d en i edas u n n ecessary. A F F I R M E D .
Exhibit 32.2
                                 ------------

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Henry P. Herms, the Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1.       The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended April 30,
         2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                         /s/ Henry P. Herms
                                         ----------------------------
                                         Henry P. Herms
                                         Vice President - Finance and
June 11, 2007                            Chief Financial Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2334 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

design, planning, and construction of permanent facilities for the GREAT 

project to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired waters water in the area 

of Oxnard, California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2005 

Mrs. CAPPS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and 

construction of permanent facilities for the GREAT 

project to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired waters 

water in the area of Oxnard, California. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘City of Oxnard Water 

5 Recycling and Desalination Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 2334 IH 

1 SEC. 2. OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, WATER RECLAMATION, 

2 REUSE, AND TREATMENT PROJECT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

4 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (title XVI of Public 

5 Law 102–575; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by add6 ing at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. ll. OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, WATER RECLAMATION, 

8 REUSE, AND TREATMENT PROJECT. 

9 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera10 tion with the City of Oxnard, California, may participate 

11 in the design, planning, and construction of permanent fa12 cilities for the GREAT project to reclaim, reuse, and treat 

13 impaired waters water in the area of Oxnard, California. 

14 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs 

15 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

16 25 percent of the total cost. 

17 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

18 funds for the operation and maintenance of the project 

19 described in subsection (a).’’. 

20 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

21 in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

22 Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after the 

23 last item the following: 

‘‘Sec. lll. Oxnard, California, water reclamation, reuse, and treatment 

project.’’. 

Æ
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Tyrone Learone McCurdy, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00206

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 196th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 27,412 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss,

Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the

award of attorney ’ s fees

. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Tyrone Learone McCurdy, has adequately indicated his

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 26, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Bio-oils Research: Peoria, IL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NCAUR Homepage
                    BOR-NCAUR pilot plant facilities
                        Seed pressing and refining equipment
                                    Oil synthesis equipment
                                    Other equipmentSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Peoria, Illinois National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research Bio-oils Research Docs







Bag filtration unitheadline bar Bag filtration unit


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### YUE RONG LIAN, Petitioner, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Attorney General & Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondents.

No. 04-1352-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 25, 2006.

Yue Rong Lian, Starkville, Mississippi, for Petitioner, pro se.

Gregory A. White, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, James L. Bickett, Assistant United States Attorney, Akron, Ohio, for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. WALKER, Jr., Chief Judge, Hon. JON O. NEWMAN, and Hon. ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Yue Rong Lian, *pro se,*petitions for review of the BIA decision denying her motion to reconsider the BIA’s decision denying her motion to reopen her immigration proceedings. In a previous decision, the BIA denied Lian’s appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

We review the BIA’s denial of Zhao’s motion under the abuse of discretion standard. *Zhong Guang Sun v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*421 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir.2005). An abuse of discretion may be found where the BIA’s decision “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” *Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001). Because Lian’s petition for re*46view is timely only from the BIA’s denial of her motion to reconsider, we will not review the BIA’s denial of her appeal or the denial of her motion to reopen. *Id.*at 90.

Motions to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the decision the movant is seeking to challenge. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). The motion to reconsider was filed in December 2003, and thus, was not timely with respect to the denial of her merits appeal in June 2002. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Lian’s motion to reconsider was timely only with respect to the denial of her motion to reopen. Furthermore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reconsider for failing to raise any errors of fact or law in the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(d)(1).
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3695 

To amend section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

an additional religious exemption from the individual health coverage mandate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 19, 2012 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. 

MORAN, Mr. PAUL, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 to provide an additional religious exemption from 

the individual health coverage mandate. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Equitable Access to 

5 Care and Health Act’’ or the ‘‘EACH Act’’. 


ebenthall on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
2 

•S 3695 IS

1 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION TO HEALTH 

2 COVERAGE MANDATE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 

4 5000A(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend5 ed by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

6 ‘‘(C) ADDITIONAL RELIGIOUS EXEMP7 TION.— 

8 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Such term shall 

9 not include an individual for any month 

10 during a taxable year if such individual 

11 files a sworn statement, as part of the re12 turn of tax for the taxable year, that the 

13 individual was not covered under minimum 

14 essential coverage at any time during such 

15 taxable year and that the individual’s sin16 cerely held religious beliefs would cause the 

17 individual to object to medical health care 

18 that would be covered under such coverage. 

19 ‘‘(ii) NULLIFIED IF RECEIPT OF MED20 ICAL HEALTH CARE DURING TAXABLE

21 YEAR.—Clause (i) shall not apply to an in22 dividual for any month during a taxable 

23 year if the individual received medical 

24 health care during the taxable year. 

25 ‘‘(iii) MEDICAL HEALTH CARE DE26 FINED.—For purposes of this subparaVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:46 Dec 27, 2012 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3695.IS S3695

ebenthall on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
3 

•S 3695 IS

1 graph, the term ‘medical health care’ 

2 means voluntary health treatment by or 

3 supervised by a medical doctor that would 

4 be covered under minimum essential cov5 erage and— 

6 ‘‘(I) includes voluntary acute care 

7 treatment at hospital emergency 

8 rooms, walk-in clinics, or similar fa9 cilities, and 

10 ‘‘(II) excludes— 

11 ‘‘(aa) treatment not admin12 istered or supervised by a med13 ical doctor, such as chiropractic 

14 treatment, dental care, mid15 wifery, personal care assistance, 

16 or optometry, 

17 ‘‘(bb) physical examinations 

18 or treatment where required by 

19 law or third parties, such as a 

20 prospective employer, and 

21 ‘‘(cc) vaccinations.’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

23 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the 


ebenthall on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
4 

•S 3695 IS

1 amendments made by section 1501 of the Patient Protec2 tion and Affordable Care Act. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**EUGENE MCMILLER,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 272 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 16th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed January 23, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00380-CV

RICHARD A. MYERS, REALTY CAPITAL CORPORATION, AND 

REALTY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Appellants

V.

LINDA PAVLIK AND PAVLIK AND ASSOCIATES, Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-13928

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Before the Court is the parties’ January 21, 2014 Agreed Motion to Dismiss the appeal. 

The parties have informed the Court that they have settled all matters before the Court in this 

appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2).

130380F.P05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RICHARD A. MYERS, REALTY 

CAPITAL CORPORATION, AND 

REALTY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, 

Appellants

No. 05-13-00380-CV V.

LINDA PAVLIK AND PAVLIK AND 

ASSOCIATES, Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas,

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-13928.

Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, 

Justices Bridges and Lewis participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED with 

prejudice.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 23rd day of January, 2014.

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
#### DUNCAN, Respondent, v. DUNCAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Ellen M. Duncan against Fred A. Duncan. P. N. Turner, for appellant. C. W. Gould, for respondent. No opinion. Order reversed, and motion granted, to the extent of reducing alimony to $15 a week for the support of the children. Settle order on notice.
# L_2008344EN.01007201.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 344/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 344/72

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1318/2008

of 19 December 2008

on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2008 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 for poultrymeat and allocated to the United States of America

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for poultrymeat allocated to the United States of America (2), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 opened a tariff quota for imports of poultrymeat products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 opened a tariff quota for imports of poultrymeat products.

| (2) | The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2008 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2009 do not cover the quantities available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined, and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2008 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2009 do not cover the quantities available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined, and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 under the quota with order number 09.4169 have not been lodged, to be added to the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2009, shall be 12 498 750 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 December 2008.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 6.

2

---