alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### • Capabilities Overview Current test methods and approaches for poorly water soluble substances Lee E. Sayers Senior Research Biologist

### • Inhomogeneous solutions

– Flow through conditions



### • Variable analytical recoveries



### • Undissolved material

– Potential physical toxicity

– Disruption of toxicant delivery

2 

# Effects of Poorly Soluble Materials

### • Settling time (Water Accomodated Fraction)



### • Filtration

– Membrane filters (active filtration)

– Filter floss (passive filtration)



### • Centrifugation

3 

# Removal of Undissolved Material

### So, you need to test a poorly soluble material 

### and you know the pitfalls. What are your

options??

4• Advantages

– Eliminates potential solvent effect

– Lower microbial growth

• Disadvantages

– Volume limitations

– Instability in water

• Poorly Soluble Materials

– Potentially non - homogenous stocks

– Can be a challenge to actively filter

– Passive filtration may not be effective Direct Addition - Water Stock

# Increased Mixing Time

• Advantages of water stocks apply

• Disadvantages

– Material must be stable in water

– Limitations during flow through exposures

– Need for mixing time evaluation
– analytical support

7

# Use of Co

- Solvents
Examples of acceptable co - solvents

• Acetone

• Dimethyl formamide (DMF)

• Triethylene glycol (TEG)

• Methanol

8

# Solvent Considerations Advantages

• Aid in achieving solubility

• Consistency of test concentrations over time

• Efficient delivery of test substance if delivery is not impeded by undissolved material Disadvantages

• Microbial growth

– Increased labor to maintain systems

• Water quality

– Dissolved oxygen levels

9

# Special Considerations with Solvent

10 

### • Concerns of interaction of co
- solvent with the test item



### • Potential issues in interpretation of toxicity data

• Possible rejection of studies



### • Increased cost of compound registration



### • Animal welfare

– vertebrate usage

• Decreased capacity in CROs

# S onication

• Advantages

– Powerful method for solid materials

• Disadvantages

– Volume limitations

– Concern with temperature increases

11

# pH Adjustment

• Advantages

– Preparation of concentrated aqueous stocks

• Disadvantages

– Molecule specific

– Potential pH effects on test solutions

– Low buffering capacity of some dilution matrices

12

# Saturator columns

• Advantages

– Eliminates concern over solvent use

– Single preparation in some cases

• Disadvantages

– Pilot work to evaluate longevity and consistency

– Limited by flow rates

– Test material needs can be great

13

# Questions??
### SUBCHAPTER II—FORFEITURE OF ANNUITIES AND RETIRED PAY
§ 1903.11 Restrictions on photographic, transmitting, and recording equipment. ( a ) Except as otherwise authorized under this section, the following are prohibited on Agency installations: ( 1 ) Possessing a camera, other visual or audio recording devices, or electronic transmitting equipment of any kind.
( 2 ) Carrying a camera, other visual or audio recording devices, or electronic transmitting equipment of any kind.
( 3 ) Using a camera, other visual or audio recording devices, or electronic transmitting equipment of any kind.
( b ) This section does not apply to any person using, possessing or storing a government or privately owned cellular telephone or pager while on any Agency installation. The Central Intelligence Agency may regulate or otherwise administratively control cellular telephones and pagers outside the provisions of this part.
( c ) This section does not apply to any officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who may enter on to an Agency installation to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law.
( d ) This section does not apply to any person who has received approval from the CIA Director of Security, or from his or her designee, to carry, transport, or use a camera, other visual or audio recording devices, or electronic transmitting equipment while on an Agency installation.
[63 FR 44786, Aug. 21, 1998, as amended at 88 FR 20763, Apr. 7, 2023]
EXHIBIT 32

 

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

**Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350,**

**as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Leonard F. Leganza, the Chief Executive Officer of The Eastern Company (the “Company”) and John L. Sullivan III, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

 

| 1) | The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Period ended July 4, 2009, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 24th day of July, 2009.

 

|   | /s/ Leonard F. Leganza    |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Leonard F. Leganza

CEO   |
|   |                      |
|   | /s/ John L. Sullivan III  |
|   | John L. Sullivan III

CFO |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Eastern Company and will be retained by The Eastern Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

This certification “accompanies” the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
Exhibit 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John Kehoe, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of MS Structured Asset Corp.
on behalf of SATURNS Trust No. 2002-15;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;
and

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and
the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based
upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee
have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: LaSalle Bank National
Association and its officers and agents.



                                                   By: /s/ John Kehoe
                                                      ----------------------
                                                   Name:  John Kehoe
                                                   Title: Vice President
                                                   Date:  February 27, 2004
§ 843.25 Energy Policy Act enforcement in States with approved State programs. ( a ) *State-by-State determinations.* By July 31, 1995, OSM will determine for each State with an approved State regulatory program whether: ( 1 ) Direct Federal enforcement of the Energy Policy Act and implementing Federal regulations will occur under paragraph (b) of this section with respect to some or all surface coal mining operations in each State, or
( 2 ) The procedures of §§ 843.11 and 843.12(a)(2) will apply to State enforcement of the Energy Policy Act, or
( 3 ) A combination of direct Federal enforcement and State enforcement will occur.
( 4 ) Before making this determination, OSM will consult with each affected State and provide an opportunity for public comment. OSM will publish its determination in the Federal Register.
( b ) *Interim Federal enforcement.* ( 1 ) If OSM determines under paragraph (a) that direct Federal enforcement is necessary, §§ 817.41(j), 817.121(c)(2), and 817.121(c)(4) of this chapter will apply to each underground mining operation subject to that determination that is conducted in a State with an approved State regulatory program.
( 2 ) If OSM determines under paragraph (a) of this section that direct Federal enforcement is necessary, the provisions of § 843.12(a)(2) will not apply to direct Federal enforcement actions under this paragraph (b). When, on the basis of any Federal inspection under this paragraph, an authorized representative determines that a violation of § 817.41(j) or § 817.121(c)(2) exists, the authorized representative must issue a notice of violation or cessation order, as appropriate.
( 3 ) This paragraph (b) will remain effective in a State with an approved State regulatory program until the State adopts, and OSM approves, under part 732 of this chapter, provisions consistent with §§ 817.41(j) and 817.121(c)(2) of this chapter. After these provisions are approved, this paragraph will remain effective only for violations of §§ 817.41(j) and 817.121(c)(2) that are not regulated by the State regulatory authority.
[60 FR 16750, Mar. 31, 1995]
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                          DYNAMICS RESEARCH CORPORATION

                        2000 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

                                    AMENDMENT

      Pursuant to the reserved right of the Board of Directors of Dynamics
Research Corporation to at any time amend the above-titled Plan, and as
authorized by action of said Board on October 25, 2006, Section 2(m) thereof is
hereby revised to read in its entirety, effective November 1, 2006, as follows:

      "Purchase Price" shall mean an amount equal to 95% of the Fair Market
      Value of a share of Common Stock on the Exercise Date.

      EXECUTED to be effective November 1, 2006.

                       DYNAMICS RESEARCH CORPORATION

                       By:  /s/ James P. Regan
                            ---------------------------
                             James P. Regan

                       Title:   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. Martin McHugh. (B) The People of the State of New York v. Eloy Serrano. (C) The People of the State of New York v. Ceasar Goings.

[In each action] Motion to dismiss appeal granted unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before August 14, 1962, with notice of argument for the September 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
§ 200.2009 Subpoenas for attendance at hearing. ( a ) A party wishing to procure the appearance and testimony of any individual at the hearing may make a motion requesting the ALJ to issue a subpoena if the appearance and testimony are reasonably necessary for the presentation of a party's case.
( b ) A subpoena requiring the attendance of an individual in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section may also require the individual (whether or not the individual is a party) to produce evidence authorized under § 200.2007 at or prior to the hearing.
( c ) When a subpoena is served by a respondent or petitioner on a particular individual or particular office of the DHA, the DHA may comply by designating any of its representatives to appear and testify.
( d ) A party seeking a subpoena will file a written motion not less than 30 days before the date fixed for the hearing, unless otherwise allowed by the ALJ for good cause shown. Such request will: ( 1 ) Specify any evidence to be produced;
( 2 ) Designate the witnesses; and
( 3 ) Describe the address and location with sufficient particularity to permit such witnesses to be found.
( e ) The subpoena will specify the time and place at which the witness is to appear and any evidence the witness is to produce.
( f ) Within 15 days after the written motion requesting issuance of a subpoena is served, any party may file an opposition or other response.
( g ) If the motion requesting issuance of a subpoena is granted, the party seeking the subpoena will serve it by delivery to the individual named, or by certified mail addressed to such individual at his or her last dwelling place or principal place of business.
( h ) The individual to whom the subpoena is directed may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena within 10 days after service.
( i ) The exclusive remedy for contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpoena duly served upon, any person is specified in section 205(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(e)).
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1*


                           Section 1350 Certification


        I, Richard M. Haddock, the chief executive officer of LaserCard
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), certify pursuant to section
1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to our knowledge:

        (i)     the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2005 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and

        (ii)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: November 03, 2005


/s/ Richard M. Haddock
----------------------
Richard M. Haddock


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

*       The material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed "filed" with
the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.


                                       38
# C_2008064EN.01003302.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2008 — Ioannis Terezakis v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-380/04) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the construction of the new Athens International Airport at Spata - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of audits - Partial access)

(2008/C 64/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, L. Defalque, G. Xanthoulis, A. Tsamis, A. Georgiadis, E. Stefanakis, É. Koeune and G. Stylianakis, lawyers, and subsequently, G. Stylianakis, B. Keane, Solicitor, and P. Koutsoukos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and P. Aalto, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 12 July 2004 refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to the construction of the new Athens International Airport at Spata

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission's decision of 12 July 2004 in so far as it concerns the refusal of access to the contract of 14 June 1996 signed between Athens International Airport SA and a consortium of companies led by Hochtief AG; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission's decision of 12 July 2004 in so far as it concerns the refusal of access to the contract of 14 June 1996 signed between Athens International Airport SA and a consortium of companies led by Hochtief AG;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Mr Ioannis Terezakis to bear one half of his own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Ioannis Terezakis to bear one half of his own costs;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of the costs incurred by Mr Terezakis. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of the costs incurred by Mr Terezakis.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

1

---
Impact of the Year 2000 Issue

Many computer systems currently record years in a two-digit format.  Such 
computer systems, if not modified, will be unable to properly recognize 
dates beyond the year 1999.  This inability to recognize the year 2000 is 
commonly referred to as the "Year 2000 Issue".

The holding company in the United States has no third person issues and 
its internal systems are not complex and adequate alternatives for 
preparation of external reports are available at minimal cost and disruption.

The Company's main operating subsidiary, located in Ireland, which performs 
all computer functions, is presently in the process of implementing its 
upgraded computer systems which will be Year 2000 compliant.  The purchase 
cost of the new software that will be capitalized and other related Year 
2000 costs to be expensed as incurred are presently estimated to be 
approximately $120,000 and the project to be completed in mid-
1999.

As to third parties, i.e., vendors, suppliers and customers in Ireland, 
the United Kingdom and elsewhere, the subsidiaries' assessment has begun.  
Based upon information available at this time, the third parties of critical 
importance to the Company are in the process of becoming Year 2000 compliant 
and the Company believes the issue will not have a material impact upon the 
financial position of the subsidiary and ultimately the Company.  
However, there can be no assurance that presently unforeseen difficulties 
will not arise and actual results could differ materially.
### §302501. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) Designation.—The term "designation" means the identification and registration of property for protection that meets criteria established by a State or locality for significant historic property within the jurisdiction of a local government.

(2) Protection.—The term "protection" means protection by means of a local review process under State or local law for proposed demolition of, changes to, or other action that may affect historic property designated pursuant to this chapter.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3197.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 302501 | 16 U.S.C. 470a(c)(4). | Pub. L. 89–665, title I, §101(c)(4), as added Pub. L. 102–575, title XL, §4005, Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4755. |

Section
### Part D—Cyber Incident Reporting
# C_2008107EN.01002302.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Giannini v Commission

(Case T-100/04) (1)

1

(Public service - General competition - Non-inclusion in the reserve list - Irregularities in the conduct of the tests liable to distort the result - Equal treatment - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2008/C 107/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Massimo Giannini (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, L. Lozano Palacios and M. Velardo, acting as Agents, and subsequently, G. Berscheid, acting as Agent, and M. Genton, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/A/9/01 with a view to constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators (A7/A6) in the fields of economics and statistics (OJ 2001 C 240 A, p. 12) not to include his name on the competition reserve list, and an application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the Commission to pay its own costs and three quarters of the costs of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Commission to pay its own costs and three quarters of the costs of the applicant;

| 3. | orders the applicant to pay one quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the applicant to pay one quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.

1

---