alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
VIA E-MAIL 

Subject: 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Mesotrione Data Call-In (DCI) Package for Registration Review 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated the registration review for mesotrione in 

June 2014 with the opening of a docket and publication of a preliminary work plan. The final work 

plan was issued in December 2014. Both of these documents, and supporting materials, may be 

found in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0779. The Agency is now issuing a DCI to require 

submission of data for use in the registration review of mesotrione. You must respond to this DCI 

within 90 days of receipt. Further instructions are provided in the attached DCI package. 

When initially scoping the registration review for mesotrione EPA did not identify the need for any 

additional studies to evaluate potential effects on pollinators. However, since the issuance of the 

June 2014 Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees\ EPA has begun to require these data where 

applicable. Therefore, the final work plan for mesotrione contained pollinator studies not listed in 

the initial work plan, and the DCI now contains the entire suite of pollinator studies listed in the 

Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risk to Bees. For mesotrione, the additional pollinator study 

requirements for this DCI are included in Table 1 below. 

Table 1. Pollinator Data Requirements for Mesotrione 

Guideline# Study 

850.3040** Field testing for pollinators 

on-Guideline "t (OECD 213) Honey bee adult acute oral toxicity 

Non-Guideline** Residues in pollen and nectar/ field residue analysis 

Non-Guideline** (OECD 75) Semi-field testing for pollinators (tunnel or colony feeding 

studies) 

*T1er 1 Laboratory-based studies. **T1er 2 and 3 (Serru-field and full field colony-level studies) The need for a 

higher tier test for pollinators will be determined based upon lower-tiered tests and/ or other lines of data and 

the need for a refined pollinator risk assessment. 

1 http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 14-

6/documents/pollinator risk assessment guidance 06 19 14.pdf 
Further instructions for responding to the DCis are enclosed. If you have any questions about 

this letter, the mesotrione registration review, or the generic DCis for mesotrione, please 

contact Jolene Trujillo of my staff at (303) 312-6579 or trujillo.jolene@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

'-

r-.... ·---------- ------

Linda Arrington, Chief 

Risk Mitigation and Implementation Branch V 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

cc: Heather Garvie Product Manager, Registration Division
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 28, 2024

NO. 03-23-00805-CV

B. A., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on November 9, 2023. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. Because appellant 

is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
### §403–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 403–4, comprising section 104 of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3035 of this title.
Exhibit 1.6



                                    Autoriteit
                                    Financiet Markten





Form for the disclosure of securities transactions in the own issuing
institution


<PAGE>


Form for the disclosure of securities transactions in the own issuing
institution



Part 1


1.  Name of issuing institution:                       New Skies Satellites N.V.

2.  Name of person obliged to notify:                  New Skies Satellites N.V.


Sort of security
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3.  Sort of security: Ordinary shares

    (Share/Bond/Option/Warrant/other)

4.  To be filled out if applicable:

      Nominal value of the security:                   0.05 EUR

      Optional series (call option/put option):

      Exercise price:

      Expiration date:


Transaction in the security indicated in questions 3 and 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5.  Date of the transaction:                           11-03-03

6a. Number of securities acquired in the transaction:  31,802

 b. Number of securities sold in the transaction:

7.  Price of the securities:                           3.75EUR

8.  Open/Close (in case of options)




To the best of my knowledge and belief I certify that the information set forth
in this statement is true, complete and correct:


Mary J. Dent, General Counsel of New Skies Satellites N.V.,
-----------------------------------------------------------
Name

Rooseveltplantsoen 4                                               13 March 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------        -------------
Address                                                            Date

2517 KR The Hague
-----------------------------------------------------------        -------------
Postal code & city & country                                       Signature
§ 196.535 Effect of state or local law or other requirements. ( a ) *Prohibitory requirements.* The obligation to comply with §§ 196.500 through 196.550 is not obviated or alleviated by the existence of any State or local law or other requirement that imposes prohibitions or limits upon employment of members of one sex that are not imposed upon members of the other sex.
( b ) *Benefits.* A recipient that provides any compensation, service, or benefit to members of one sex pursuant to a State or local law or other requirement shall provide the same compensation, service, or benefit to members of the other sex.
Last updated on Wednesday, May 07, 2014



## State and Local Climate and Energy Program http://epa.gov/statelocalclimate/resources/action -guide.html 

# Clean Energy– Environment Guide toAction You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more. The Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action: Policies, Best Practices, and Action Steps for States (April 2006) provides in-depth information about 1 6 clean energy policies and programs that states are using to meet their energy, environmenta l, and economic objectives. States have found that these 16 clean energy policies and programs of fer numerous opportunities to save energy, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emission s, improve system reliability and security, and enh ance economic development. The Guide to Action is intended for use by state energy, envi ronment, and economic policymakers and public utili ty commissions. A revised and updated Guide to Actionwill be available in Fall 2014.  Guide to Action Full Report (PDF) (410 pp, 28M)  Guide to Action Executive Summary (PDF) (32 pp, 3.4M) By Chapter:  Chapter 1: Introduction and Background (PDF) (17 pp, 840K)  Chapter 2: Developing a Clean Energy - Environment Action Plan (PDF) (14 pp, 1.4M)  Chapter 3: State Planning and Incentive Structures (PDF) (92 pp, 2.7M)Section 3.1: Lead by Example (PDF) (27 pp, 1.7M)Section 3.2: State and Regional Energy Planning (PDF) (19 pp, 978K)Section 3.3: Determining the Air Quality Benefits of Clean Energy (PDF) (17 pp, 1.4M)Section 3.4: Funding and Incentives (PDF) (29 pp, 1M)  Chapter 4: EnergyEfficiency Actions (PDF) (68 pp, 2.4M)Section 4.1: Energy

Efficiency Portfolio Standards (PDF) (18 pp, 742K)Section 4.2: Public

Benefits Funds for Energy Efficiency (PDF) (18 pp, 826K)Section 4.3: Building Codes for Energy Efficiency (PDF) (18 pp, 791K)Section 4.4: State Appliance Efficiency Standards (PDF) (15 pp, 773K)  Chapter 5: EnergySupply Actions (PDF) (74 pp, 2.4M)Section 5.1: Renewable Portfolio Standards (PDF) (20 pp, 880K)Section 5.2: Public

Benefits Funds for State Clean Energy Supply Programs (PDF) (11 pp, 538K)Section 5.3: Output - Based Environmental Regulations to Support Clean Energy Supply (PDF) (11 pp, 498K)Section 5.4: Interconnection Standards (PDF) (16 pp, 1.4M)Section 5.5: Fostering Green Power Markets (PDF) (16 pp, 721K)  Chapter 6: UtilityPlanning and Incentive Structures (PDF) (50 pp, 1.4M)Section 6.1: Portfolio Management Strategies (PDF) (23 pp, 686K)Section 6.2: Utility

Incentives for Demand - Side Resources (PDF) (16 pp, 567K)Section 6.3: Emerging Approaches: Removing Unintended Utility Rate Barri ers to Distributed Generation (PDF) (11 pp, 431K)  Appendices (PDF) (43 pp, 1.4M)AppendixA: Federal Clean Energy Programs (PDF) (6 pp, 335K)AppendixB: Energy Efficiency Program Resources (PDF) (23 pp, 942K)AppendixC: Clean Energy Supply: Technologies, Markets, and Programs (PDF) (13 pp, 552K) 

# Page 1 of 1 Clean Energy - Environment Guide to Action | Resources | State and Local | US EPA

5/29/2014 http://epa.gov/statelocalclimate/resources/action - guide.html
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEB 15, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-12022 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cv-00114-LGW-JEG

JAMES CHAPLIN,

 lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner-Appellant,

 versus

DEBORAH A. HICKEY, Warden,

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, JR., 

 lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents-Appellees.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Georgia

 ________________________

(February 15, 2012)

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
James Chaplin, a counseled federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

for failure to state a claim. His claim is that he was wrongly sentenced under the

Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), because of an escape

conviction that Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008), and Chambers v.

United States, 129 S. Ct. 687 (2009), make clear is not a “violent felony” within

the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), and that as a result of the error he was

sentenced to a term of imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum applicable to

his crime. Our decision in Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir.

2010), did not decide that issue. See id. at 1295, 1306–07, 1312, 1316, 1319 n.20,

1323. The Government concedes that Chaplin’s allegations, if true, do state a

claim.

We exercise our discretion to accept in this case the Government’s

concession that Chaplin may present his claim in a § 2241 petition, and we remand

to the district court for further proceedings on the merits of Chaplin’s habeas claim

to determine if the allegations of his petition are true. 

VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

2
§ 2400.31 Destruction of classified information. ( a ) Classified information no longer needed in current working files or for reference or record purposes shall be processed for appropriate disposition in accordance with the provisions of chapters 21 and 33 of title 44, U.S.C., which governs disposition of classified records. Classified information approved for destruction shall be destroyed in accordance with procedures and methods prescribed by the Director, OSTP, as implemented by the Security Officer. These procedures and methods must provide adequate protection to prevent access by unauthorized persons and must preclude recognition or reconstruction of the classified information or material.
( b ) All classified information to be destroyed will be provided to the ATSCO for disposition. Controlled documents will be provided whole so that accountability records may be corrected prior to destruction by the ATSCO.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 86948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28930]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

[Docket No. 2020R-10W]


Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons With ``Stabilizing 
Braces''; Withdrawal of Guidance

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 
Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 
(``ATF'') is announcing the withdrawal of a notice and request for 
comments entitled ``Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with 
`Stabilizing Braces','' that was published on December 18, 2020.

DATES: The withdrawal is effective December 31, 2020.

ADDRESSES: This Notice also will be made available on the ATF website 
(www.atf.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Lange, Office of Regulatory 
Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Ave. 
NE, Mail Stop 6N-518, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070 
(this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Upon further consultation with the 
Department of Justice and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 
ATF is withdrawing, pending further Department of Justice review, the 
notice and request for comments entitled ``Objective Factors for 
Classifying Weapons with `Stabilizing Braces','' that was published on 
December 18, 2020. 85 FR 82516. As explained in the notice, the 
proposed guidance was not a regulation. The notice informed and invited 
comment from the industry and public on a proposed guidance prior to 
issuing a final guidance document.
    The withdrawal of the guidance does not change any law, regulation, 
or other legally binding requirement.

Marvin G. Richardson,
Associate Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 2020-28930 Filed 12-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEPHEN HARRIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3972

[July 2, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Mariya Weekes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 05-16325CF10A.

Stephen Harris, Indiantown, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-0669 

LT Case No. 2021-CF-010881

_____________________________

CHRISTIAN M. YUMA, 

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

R. Anthony Salem, Judge.

Olivia M. Goodman, of O’Brien Hatfield, P.A, Tampa, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daren L. 

Shippy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

June 18, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., and MAKAR and LAMBERT, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
##### 



Eaton Corporation
Second Quarter 2006 Report on Form 10-Q
Item 6
Exhibit 12
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 SixmonthsendedJune 30,
    
    
    Year ended December 312006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001Income before income taxes
    
    $
    531
    
    
    $
    996
    
    
    $
    781
    
    
    $
    508
    
    
    $
    399
    
    
    $
    278AdjustmentsMinority interests in consolidated
subsidiaries
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    5
    
    
    
    7
    
    
    
    12
    
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    8Income (losses) of equity
investees
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (3
    )
    
    
    (1
    )
    
    
    Interest expensed
    
    
    67
    
    
    
    109
    
    
    
    88
    
    
    
    93
    
    
    
    110
    
    
    
    149Amortization of debt issue costs
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    1Estimated portion of rent
expense representing interest
    
    
    19
    
    
    
    39
    
    
    
    38
    
    
    
    38
    
    
    
    34
    
    
    
    38Amortization of capitalized
interest
    
    
    6
    
    
    
    12
    
    
    
    17
    
    
    
    13
    
    
    
    13
    
    
    
    13Distributed income of equity
investees
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4
    
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Adjusted income before income
taxes
    
    $
    630
    
    
    $
    1,167
    
    
    $
    935
    
    
    $
    663
    
    
    $
    571
    
    
    $
    487Fixed chargesInterest expensed
    
    $
    67
    
    
    $
    109
    
    
    $
    88
    
    
    $
    93
    
    
    $
    110
    
    
    $
    149Interest capitalized
    
    
    7
    
    
    
    13
    
    
    
    7
    
    
    
    7
    
    
    
    8
    
    
    
    12Amortization of debt issue costs
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    1Estimated portion of rent
expense representing interest
    
    
    19
    
    
    
    39
    
    
    
    38
    
    
    
    38
    
    
    
    34
    
    
    
    38Total fixed charges
    
    $
    94
    
    
    $
    162
    
    
    $
    134
    
    
    $
    140
    
    
    $
    154
    
    
    $
    200Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    6.70
    
    
    
    7.20
    
    
    
    6.98
    
    
    
    4.73
    
    
    
    3.71
    
    
    
    2.44
  22
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Ellis L. Phillips, Deceased. Kathryn S. Phillips et al., as Executors of Ellis L. Phillips, Deceased, Appellants; State Tax Commission, Respondent.

In a proceeding to appraise the estate of a decedent under the provisions of article 10-0 (§ 249-m *et seq.)*of the Tax Law, the executors of the estate appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, entered January 11, 1963 upon the opinion and decision of the court after a non jury trial, which affirmed the court’s prior *pro forma*order, entered June 25, 1962, fixing the New York State tax on the estate. Decree affirmed, without costs. On September 22, 1949 a stock certificate in a co-aperative apartment was issued to the decedent and his wife. Under section 66 of the Real Property Law, which is applicable to personal property *(Matter of Kimberly,*150 N. Y. 90), a stock certificate issued in this form established a tenancy in common. However, if the parties so intended, a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship may be declared with respect to the certificate and paroi evidence is admissible to show such intent *(Belfanc*v. *Belfme,*252 App. Div. 453, affd. 278 N. Y. 563; *Matter of Kaupper,*141 App. Div. 54, affd. 201 N. Y. 534). Here, the decedent’s secretary and the decedent’s son both testified' that the intent of the decedent and his wife, declared prior and subsquent to the issuance of the certificate, was that there should be a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship. The proof also showed that the decedent and his wife had each contributed half of the purchase price of the certificate and that the decedent’s son, a lawyer, had never suggested a change in the form of the certificate. A question of fact was thus presented on the issue of intent; and it may not be said that the determination of the Surrogate that the stock certificate created a tenancy in common was against the weight of the evidence. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,191                   2,924
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,436                  20,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (409)                   (320)
<INVENTORY>                                     90,947                  78,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,014                 105,278
<PP&E>                                          13,332                   8,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,453)                 (2,133)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,452                 124,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,080                  88,732
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,579                   3,439
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,716                   6,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,452                 124,002
<SALES>                                        783,071                 474,048
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               783,071                 474,048
<CGS>                                          663,902                 406,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  663,902                 406,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,953                   5,535
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,661                     510
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,864)                   (446)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,797                      64
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,797                      64
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24                   (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23                   (.01)
        

</TABLE>