alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Study number: PT01-0354 

Robust Summary Skin Sensitisation 

Test Substance 

Identity: Decanoyloxybenzolcarboxylic acid (CAS No. 86960-46-5)

Remarks: Purity > 98%

Method 

Method/guideline followed: OECD 406 

Type: maximisation test according to Magnusson & Kligman 

GLP: Yes [ x] No [ ] 

Year: 2001 

Test Conditions: (Detail and discuss any significant protocol deviations, and detail differences from the 

guideline followed including the following as appropriate):

Species/Strain: Guinea Pig / Mol:DH (Moellegaard) 

Sex: female 

No. of animals per sex per dose: 10 (treatment group) / 5 (control group) 

Route of administration: Injection / topical (topical with occluded patch) 

Induction concentration: Intradermal induction 5%, dermal induction 25% 

Induction vehicle: Sesame oil 

Challenge concentration: 25% 

Challenge vehicle: Sesame oil 

Grading system used: According to the scale of EEC-guideline B.6 

Method remarks: The study fulfills the requirements of OECD guideline 

 406 completely 

Results: 

Remarks: Test substance is not a skin sensitiser 

Grades: - 

Results remarks: Intradermal injections with the 5 % preparation caused 

 well defined erythema and edema based on a irritation 

 screen. 25% was not irritating. Based on the result of the 

 main study, slight erythema (grade 1) were observed in 

 five animals of the treatment group 24 and 48 hours after 

 the first challenge procedure. After a second challenge 

 tretament one week later, none of the ten animals showed 

 a positive skin response 24 and 48 hours after removal of 

 the occlusive bandage. 

Robust Summary Study No. PT01-0354 1
Conclusions: 

Based on the results of this study Decanoyloxybenzolcarboxylic acid showed no evidence for sensitising 

properties according to the classification criteria of Directive 93/21/EEC. 

Remarks: Conclusion of the study director 

 

Reliability: 

Valid without restrictions 

Remarks: guideline study (OECD 406) 

References 

- 

Other 

- 

Robust Summary Study No. PT01-0354 2
#### Joseph Davis, Respondent, v. Lyndel Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Motion by plaintiff to dismiss the appeal of the defendant, United Parcel Service of New York, Inc., denied, without prejudice to such action as plaintiff may be advised with respect to vacating the stipulation *799between him and said defendant, discontinuing the action as to it (see *Davis*v. *Lyndel Corp.,*16 A D 2d 802). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 994 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.994

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the protection of 
  community centers with religious affiliation, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Religiously Affiliated 
Institutions Act of 2018''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF COMMUNITY CENTERS WITH RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION.
    Section 247 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
        (1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting after ``threat of 
    force,'' the following: ``including by threat of force against 
    religious real property,'';
        (2) in subsection (d)--
            (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
        ``or (c)'' after ``subsection (a)'';
            (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
            (D) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
        ``(4) if damage to or destruction of property results from the 
    acts committed in violation of this section, which damage to or 
    destruction of such property is in an amount that exceeds $5,000, a 
    fine in accordance with this title, imprisonment for not more than 
    3 years, or both; and''; and
        (3) in subsection (f), by inserting before the period at the 
    end the following: ``, or real property owned or leased by a 
    nonprofit, religiously affiliated organization''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Case: 1:12-cv-02571 Document #: 107 Filed: 09/15/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1392
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SHEILA R. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 12 C 1750

Magistrate Judge Denlow

COMMISSIONER’S MOTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Defendant, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, by Gary S. Shapiro, Acting

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, moves pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),

for judgment to be entered affirming the Commissioner’s decision.

A memorandum in support is filed with this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

GARY S. SHAPIRO

Acting United States Attorney

By: s/ Samuel S. Miller

 SAMUEL S. MILLER

 Assistant United States Attorney

 219 South Dearborn Street

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

 (312) 886-9083

 samuel.s.miller@usdoj.gov
#### MOTT, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Annie E. Mott against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.

A. Ofner, for appellant.

M. P. Lynch, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed,, with costs.
# Eiropas Savienības C 330A/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 330A |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 58. sējums2015. gada 7. oktobris |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 330A

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

58. sējums2015. gada 7. oktobris

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Atzinumi |
| | ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS |
| | Eiropas personāla atlases birojs (EPSO) |
| 2015/C 330A/01 | Paziņojums par atcelšanu | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

V   Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eiropas personāla atlases birojs (EPSO)

EPSO

2015/C 330A/01

Paziņojums par atcelšanu

1

---

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

V Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eiropas personāla atlases birojs (EPSO)

| 7.10.2015 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 330/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2015

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 330/1

---

PAZIŅOJUMS PAR ATCELŠANU

(2015/C 330 A/01)

Publikācija Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī
   (1) par atklāto konkursu EPSO/AD/321/15 – Administratori revīzijas jomā (AD 5/AD 7) – ir atcelta.

---

(1)  OV C 316 A, 24.9.2015, 1. lpp.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry Manuel, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 790]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John J. Connell, J.), rendered April 2, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

*1186Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial based on the approximately 17-month delay between his arraignment and the commencement of trial. We reject that contention. Most of the delay resulted from defendant’s seven attorney substitutions, some of which were made after defendant allegedly threatened his attorney *(see People v Taranovich,*37 NY2d 442, 445-446 [1975]). Defendant also failed to show that he was prejudiced by the delay *(see id.*at 446-447; *People v Morobel,*273 AD2d 871 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 906 [2000]). We likewise reject defendant’s contention that reversal is required based on prosecutorial misconduct on summation, i.e., the prosecutor’s use of the phrase “big conspiracy.” “Reversal on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct ‘is mandated only when the conduct has caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he has been denied due process of law’ ” *(People v Rubin,*101 AD2d 71, 77 [1984], *lv denied*63 NY2d 711 [1984], quoting *People v Mott,*94 AD2d 415, 419 [1983]). Here, it cannot be said that defendant was denied due process of law based on the prosecutor’s use of that phrase on summation.

We reject the further contention of defendant that his right to counsel was violated when he was forced to appear in an investigatory lineup after he had requested the assistance of counsel. “[A] request for counsel at [an investigatory] lineup will cause the right [to counsel] to attach only when the police are or become aware that the suspect is actually represented by counsel in a pending case” *(People v Mitchell,*2 NY3d 272, 275 [2004]), and there is no indication in the record that defendant was so represented and, if so, that the police had such knowledge of the representation. Finally, “there is no basis for reversal [based on County Court’s refusal to dismiss the depraved indifference murder count] because the jury only convicted defendant of intentional murder” *(People v Diaz,*35 AD3d 226, 226 [2006]; *see People v Griffin,*28 AD3d 578 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 789 [2006]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Matthew F. Kennelly Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1668 DATE 9/24/2012

CASE

TITLE

Percy Groves Jr. vs. United Airlines

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s current complaint is subject to dismissal. The Court will dismiss the

complaint unless, by no later than 10/22/12, plaintiff files an amended complaint that truthfully reflects that

he has obtained a notice of right to sue, and attaches that notice to the amended complaint. The Clerk is

directed to mail plaintiff a copy of the form for an amended complaint of employment discrimination.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint of employment discrimination on 3/7/12, and the case was assigned to this

judge’s docket, but unfortunately the Clerk of Court did not bring the case to the judge’s attention, and the

judge has only recently discovered that the case was pending.

Plaintiff’s complaint and the attached charge that he filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) reflect that he asserts claims of race, age, and disability-based discrimination based on

actions taken by the defendant in 2005 and 2006. Plaintiff filed this suit in March 2012.

Any claim that plaintiff might make under 42 U.S.C.§ 1981 is barred by the four-year statute of limitations

that applies to claims under that statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1658; Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons, 541 U.S.

369 (2004).

As for any claim that plaintiff might make under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age

Discrimination in Employment, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, such claims cannot be filed in court

unless plaintiff first exhausts administrative remedies with the EEOC and obtains a notice of right to sue. 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not reflect that he has obtained a notice of right to sue; indeed, he left that portion

of the form complaint blank.

For these reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint unless he files an amended complaint, by no

later than 10/22/12, reflecting that he has obtained a notice of right to sue.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

12C1668 Percy Groves Jr. vs. United Airlines Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-01668 Document #: 6 Filed: 09/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:15
Case: 1:12-cv-01668 Document #: 6 Filed: 09/24/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:16
FTC Consumer Alert

Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection Division of Consumer & Business Education

Evaluating Diabetes Claims? 

Be Smart. Be Skeptical.

Evaluating online claims for diabetes products is a two-step process. First, be smart. Then, be 

skeptical. The Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s consumer protection agency, says it’s best 

to check any product out with your health care provider before you buy it. That’s because some 

fraudulent marketers try to make money by peddling products that sound great, but just don’t — and 

can’t — work as promised. 

Here are some tips on how to spot scams before you get stung.

• A promise that a product can cure diabetes is a tip-off to a rip-off. There’s no pill, patch, 

tea, herb, or other “miracle” treatment you can buy on the Internet that can make your diabetes go away forever.

• Ads that promise too much generally deliver nothing. Don’t buy any product that claims it 

can do it all — stabilize your blood sugar, end your need for insulin, regenerate your pancreas, 

reduce your cholesterol, and cause easy weight loss. 

• A product that claims to be a “scientific breakthrough” may be a bust. Researchers around 

the world are racing to find better treatments for diabetes, so genuine scientific discoveries 

make front-page news. If the first you hear about a new treatment is an ad on the Internet, be 

suspicious. 

• Ads that try hard to sound scientific are suspect. Technical terms don’t necessarily mean 

medical proof. And the presence of a doctor in an ad is no guarantee the product works. Scam 

artists have been known to dress models to look like experts. 

• Don’t be swayed by a questionable “success” story. Despite what a company claims, there’s 

no guarantee that “A.B. of Hometown, USA” had the advertised results — or is even a real 

person. 

• A money-back guarantee does not prove that a product works. Scam artists who offer a 

guarantee have been known to take your money and run.

• If an ad for a product makes you curious, ask your healthcare provider about it before 

you try it — or buy it. If you’re thinking about trying a new product, run it past a doctor, 

nurse, dietician, or other health professional who knows your case well. 
The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices 

in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file 

a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTCHELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity 

theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure online database available to 

hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

 

1-877-FTC-HELP FOR THE CONSUMER

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ftc.gov

October 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oxygen Biotherapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chris J. Stern, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                                
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                        | 
|Date: December 10, 2009 |  | /s/    Chris J. Stern                          
|                        |  | Chris J. Stern                                 
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer & Chairman of the Board

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
(c)(2) For purposes of the Federal Pell Grant Program -

(i)

(A) Does not have a baccalaureate or first professional degree; or

(B) Is enrolled in a postbaccalaureate teacher certificate or licensing program as 

described in 34 CFR § 690.6(c); and or (not sure if or is the right choice)

(C) is enrolled in an eligible prison education program as defined in 34 CFR § 

668.236.

(ii) 

(A) is not a confined or incarcerated individual as defined in 34 CFR § 668.235; 

or 

(B) is enrolled in an eligible prison education program as defined in 34 CFR § 

668.236.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

Order 

October 26, 2010 

139096 

ALISHA ANN RECKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139096 

 COA: 284676 

Grand Traverse CC: 

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING, 07-025927-NI 

COMPANY, L.L.C., and MICHAEL ALAN 

WARNES, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of October 26, 2009, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

McCormick v Carrier (Docket No. 136738). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on July 31, 2010, 487 Mich ___ (2010), the application is again considered and, 

pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the 

judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Grand Traverse Circuit Court, and we 

REMAND this case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of McCormick. 

 CORRIGAN, J. (concurring). 

 I concur in the order remanding for reconsideration under McCormick v Carrier, 

487 Mich ___ (2010), because the majority opinion in McCormick altered the criteria for 

determining whether an injured plaintiff meets the serious impairment threshold in MCL 

500.3135(7). But I reiterate my disagreement with the McCormick majority’s analysis 

for the reasons expressed in Justice MARKMAN’s dissent in that case, which I joined. I 

continue to conclude that the McCormick majority misinterpreted MCL 500.3135(7), thus 

encouraging litigation that is expressly prohibited by the motor vehicle no-fault insurance 

act and upsetting the Legislature’s clear intent to provide Michigan citizens with timely, 

automatic benefits for injuries sustained in auto accidents while avoiding costly, 

unnecessary litigation. 

 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2010 

d1018 

 

2

 YOUNG, J. (concurring). 

 

 Although I recognize that this Court’s decision in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 

___ (2010), now controls when a person may recover in tort for non-economic loss under 

the no-fault act, I continue to adhere to the position stated in Justice MARKMAN’s 

dissenting opinion in that case, which I joined.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Income Properties, Ltd. II 1997 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000711642
<NAME> ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. II
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,099
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      564
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          35,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                (24,462)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         18,197
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,229)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,868
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,261
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,129
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       145
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.44<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
2101.101 Purpose. ( a ) This subpart establishes Chapter 21, Office of Personnel Management Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Federal Acquisition Regulation, within title 48, the Federal Acquisition Regulations System, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The short title of this regulation shall be LIFAR.
( b ) The purpose of the LIFAR is to implement and supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) specifically for acquiring and administering a contract, or contracts, for life insurance under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program.