alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1/4/13 page of 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-13-0070 Reviewer: Tobias/SS 

 

 

Results Table: Dose, Concentration, and Days Exceeded Results Summary 

Exposure Scenario1 Water Landfill Stack Air Fugitive Air 

Drinking Water Fish Ingestion 

ADR LADD ADR LADD 7Q104 

CC = 1 

PDM 

Days 

Exceede

d 

LADD ADR LADD ADR LADD 

Release 

activity(ies)2; 

exposure 

calculation(s)3 

mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day μg/l # Days mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day 

 max acute eco --- --- --- --- 6.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- 

1 Exposure scenario titles consist of release activity followed by exposure calculation abbreviation. 

2 Release activities are from engineering report's Manufacturing (Mfg), Processing (Proc) and Use release 

activity labels. 

 Multiple release activities are combined in one exposure scenario if their releases occur at same location. 

3 Exposure calculations are Acute Dose Rate (ADR), Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD), and 

Probabilistic Dilution 

 Model (PDM). There may be one, two, or all three exposure calculations per exposure scenario. 

 CC is the aquatic concentration of concern. 

4 This column displays concentration values for the 7Q10 streamflow, which is defined as the average daily 

streamflow 

 of the seven consecutive days of lowest flow within a ten year period. 

Remarks: 
1/4/13 page of 

 POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Chemical ID: P-13-0070 Assessor: Tobias/SS 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES 

 Scenario#:1 Number of Release Sites: 

 Release Activity: Max ADR 

 Release Description: WATER LANDFILL 

Non-sludge/Sludge 

STACK FUGITIVE 

Total Releases: 

 (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 

 

 Non-sludge/Sludge 

Release Days/yr: 

Per Site Release: 

 (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) 

Remarks: 
1/4/13 page of 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-13-0070 

SIC-CODE BASED HUMAN AND AQUATIC EXPOSURES TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES 

SCENARIO #: 1 Number of Sites: RELEASE ACTIVITY: Max 

ADR 

SIC-CODE DESCRIPTION: POTW's (All facilities) 

SIC-CODE (S): 4952 EXPOSED POPULATION: Adult 

WWT 

REMOVAL 

(%) 

RELEASE 

DAYS 

PRETREATMENT 

RELEASE 

(kg/site/day) 

POSTTREATMENT 

RELEASE 

(kg/site/day) 

DWT 

(%) BCF 

(L/kg) 

 0.00 0.00 

AQUATIC EXPOSURE ESTIMATES - SURFACE WATER 

PLANT 

TYPE 

% ILE 

FACILITY 

STREAM FLOW (MLD) STREAM CONC. (μg/l) 

Harmonic 

Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10 

Harmonic 

Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10 

ALL 50 125.56 44.02 26.80 22.53 5.10E-03 1.45E-02 2.39E-02 2.84E-02

ALL 10 11.11 1.94 1.06 0.96 5.76E-02 0.33 0.60 0.67 

DRINKING WATER AND FISH INGESTION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES 

Exposure Units 

Drinking Water Results Drinking 

Water Units Fish Ingestion Results 

Fish 

Ingestion 

Units 

50% 10% 50% 10% 

Cancer 

LADDpot 1.09E-10 1.23E-09 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day 

LADCpot 5.59E-09 6.31E-08 mg/L 0.00 0.00 mg/kg 

Acute 

ADRpot 1.21E-06 2.76E-05 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day 

SIC Code Comments:
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-1108 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Communications 

 Memorandum of Understanding between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ARGENTINA 

Signed October 9 and November 8, 2006 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
ARGENTINA 

Defense: Communications 

Memorandum of understanding signed 

 October 9 and November 8, 2006; 

 Entered into force November 8, 2006.
### §3789m. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3789m was editorially reclassified as section 10236 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6474

RECO A. HILL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:11-cv-02978-DCN)

Submitted: July 31, 2013 Decided: August 6, 2013

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reco A. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reco A. Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### §4591. Separability

If any section, provision, or term of this chapter is adjudged invalid for any reason, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate any other section, provision, or term of this chapter, and the remaining sections, provisions, and terms shall be and remain in full force and effect.

(Pub. L. 91–616, title VI, §601, formerly title V, §501, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1854, renumbered Pub. L. 94–371, §7, July 26, 1976, 90 Stat. 1038.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 91–616, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1848, known as the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act of 1970. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4541 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Pub. L. 94–371, §7, July 26, 1976, 90 Stat. 1038, redesignated title V of Pub. L. 91–616, which was classified to subchapter IV of this chapter, as title VI without renumbering the sections therein. Section 501 of Pub. L. 91–616 was renumbered 601, as the probable intent of Congress.
#### VAUGHN OUTLAW *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 25020)

Lavery, C. J., and DiPentima and Gruendel, Js.

Argued March 24

officially released May 3, 2005

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessica M. COBIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-5118.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2007.

Decided: April 30, 2007.

Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Dean Arthur Ei-chelberger, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jessica M. Cobia pled guilty to one count of a three-count indictment charging credit card fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) (2000) (Count 1). The district court sentenced Cobia to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and ordered payment of restitution in the amount of $101,251.83 and a $100 statutory assessment.* Cobia’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied with the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Cobia’s plea. Cobia was given an opportunity to file a *pro se*brief, but has failed to do so.

Cobia did not move in the district court to withdraw her guilty plea, therefore her challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. *See United States v. Martinez,*277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.2002). We have carefully re*173viewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and find no plain error in the district court’s acceptance of Cobia’s guilty plea. *See United States v. DeFusco,*949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir.1991).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Cobia’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

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 probation officer calculated an advisory sentencing guideline range for Cobia of fifty-seven to seventy-one months’ imprisonment founded on a total offense level of nineteen and a criminal history category of V. After careful consideration of the facts and evidence, the district court made all the factual findings appropriate for that determination, and considered the advisory sentencing range along with the other factors described in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006), prior to imposing sentence.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> CT
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,518,751
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,969
<OTHER-SE>                                 (18,674,524)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,518,751
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,746,486
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (13,641,727)
<DISCONTINUED>                               2,330,253
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (783,495)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (12,094,969)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.86)


</TABLE>
#### Etta M. Hartley, appellant, v. Mystic Workers of the World, appellee.

Gen. No. 7,096.

Action upon a beneficiary certificate issued by defendant to plaintiff’s husband. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Stark county; the Hon. Charles V. Miles, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 25, 1922.

T. W. Hoopes, for appellant. Charles E. Sturtz and J. H. Rennick, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm





We have issued our
report dated February 21, 2020, with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Alpine Income
Property Trust, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019. We consent to the incorporation by reference of said report
in the Registration Statement of Alpine Income Property Trust, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-235256).



|                       | 
|---------------------- | 
|/s/ Grant Thornton LLP | 
|                       | 
|Jacksonville, Florida  | 
|February 21, 2020      |
Case 3:08-cv-04550-SC   Document 30   Filed 06/21/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:08-cv-04550-SC   Document 30   Filed 06/21/10   Page 2 of 2

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-13T15:44:37-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
§ 146.135 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures. ( a ) *Designation of responsible employee.* Each recipient shall designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under these Title IX regulations, including any investigation of any complaint communicated to such recipient alleging its noncompliance with these Title IX regulations or alleging any actions that would be prohibited by these Title IX regulations. The recipient shall notify all its students and employees of the name, office address, and telephone number of the employee or employees appointed pursuant to this paragraph.
( b ) *Complaint procedure of recipient.* A recipient shall adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any action that would be prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2544 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2544

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on benzoic acid, 2-amino-4-
         [[(2,5-dichlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-, methyl ester.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2005

 Mr. Langevin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on benzoic acid, 2-amino-4-
         [[(2,5-dichlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-, methyl ester.

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

SECTION 1. BENZOIC ACID, 2-AMINO-4-[[(2,5-
              DICHLOROPHENYL)AMINO]CARBONYL]-, METHYL ESTER.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.51 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to benzoic acid, 2-amino-4-
[[(2,5-dichlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-, methyl ester) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §3540. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–242, title IV, §420, Feb. 5, 1988, 101 Stat. 1913

Section, Pub. L. 95–128, title IX, §904, Oct. 12, 1977, 91 Stat. 1149, required annual publication of prototype housing costs for one- to four-family dwelling units.
### §285g–3. Associate Director for Prevention; appointment; function

There shall be in the Institute an Associate Director for Prevention to coordinate and promote the programs in the Institute concerning the prevention of health problems of mothers and children. The Associate Director shall be appointed by the Director of the Institute from individuals who because of their professional training or experience are experts in public health or preventive medicine.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §451, as added Pub. L. 99–158, §2, Nov. 20, 1985, 99 Stat. 856; amended Pub. L. 105–362, title VI, §601(a)(1)(E), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3285.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–362 struck out subsec. (a) designation and struck out subsec. (b) which read as follows: "The Associate Director for Prevention shall prepare for inclusion in the biennial report made under section 284b of this title a description of the prevention activities of the Institute, including a description of the staff and resources allocated to those activities."
#### Johanna Schumann, Appellant, v Mattson Matturro et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 20, 1976, which is in favor of defendants and against her, upon a jury verdict. This appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, dated March 15, 1976, which, in effect, denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for the entry of a judgment in her favor, or for a new trial. Judgment and order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It is undisputed that on the morning of January 23, 1970 a vehicle owned by respondent Dominick Matturro and operated by respondent Mattson Matturro struck plaintiff-appellant. Mattson Matturro and plaintiff both testified at the trial and their testimony was substantially at odds. The jury’s determination that the accident was the result of the negligence of both plaintiff and Mattson Matturro is supported by the evidence. Plaintiff contends that several portions of the charge to the jury, as well as the court’s failure to charge as to several matters, constitute reversible error. Except for one instance, plaintiff made no objection to the charge at the trial. The only contention which merits discussion is the failure of the trial court to marshal the evidence. Where the trial court does not apply the general rules of law to the particular facts of the case, the judgment may be reversed even though no objection was taken to the lack of specificity *(Zipay v Benson,*47 AD2d 233). It is always preferable that the trial court marshal the evidence and discuss the relationship between the applicable law and the facts of the case. However, where, as here, the trial is short, the issues are simple and the facts are detailed by the respective counsel in their summations immediately prior to the charge, the judgment will not be reversed unless it is clearly unjust (cf. *Combader v Eberhardts’ Bus Serv.,*50 AD2d 919; *Tenczar v Milligan,*47 AD2d 773, mot for lv to app den 36 NY2d 645). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT McMEANS, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 08-4461 CRB (JSC)

ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS FOR STATUS 

REPORT

According to the docket, this action is still pending against several defendants. However, 

it appears this case may be related to other settled cases. On or before July 22, 2016, Plaintiffs 

shall file with the Court a status report on the case or a dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04461-CRB Document 66 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of John D. Young, Individually and as Executive Director and a Member of the Board of Managers of the Watson Homestead, and as Executive Director of The Watson Religious Scholarship Fund, and as Executive Director and Ex-Officio Member of the Board of Trustees of the Watson Homestead and The Watson Religious Scholarship Fund, et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs, unless appellants perfect appeal, file note of issue, and file and serve record and brief on or before August 15, 1960 and are ready for argument at the September Term of this court, in which event the motion is denied. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
§ 311.200 Agency and legislative liaison. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 311.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if the payment is for agency and legislative liaison activities not directly related to a covered Federal action.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, providing any information specifically requested by an agency or Congress is allowable at any time.
( c ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the following agency and legislative liaison activities are allowable at any time only where they are not related to a specific solicitation for any covered Federal action: ( 1 ) Discussing with an agency (including individual demonstrations) the qualities and characteristics of the person's products or services, conditions or terms of sale, and service capabilities; and,
( 2 ) Technical discussions and other activities regarding the application or adaptation of the person's products or services for an agency's use.
( d ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the following agencies and legislative liaison activities are allowable only where they are prior to formal solicitation of any covered Federal action: ( 1 ) Providing any information not specifically requested but necessary for an agency to make an informed decision about initiation of a covered Federal action;
( 2 ) Technical discussions regarding the preparation of an unsolicited proposal prior to its official submission; and,
( 3 ) Capability presentations by persons seeking awards from an agency pursuant to the provisions of the Small Business Act, as amended by Public Law 95-507 and other subsequent amendments.
( e ) Only those activities expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Capital  Beverage  Corporation  (the
Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carmine
Stella, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

     (1) 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 result of operations of the
     Company.

/s/Carmine Stella

Carmine Stella
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002