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 d eviations, 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: Intrader mal 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 1Conclusions:

Based on the results of this study Decanoyloxybenz olcarboxylic 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 April 28, 2014

t0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148535

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148535

COA: 318443 

Wayne CC: 13-003436-FC

CLIFFORD RASHAWN JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 17, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to correct 

the Presentence Investigation Report by replacing the words “crack cocaine” with 

“marijuana” in the Evaluation and Plan. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, 

because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed 

by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000715273
<NAME> BAY MEADOWS OPERATING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           9,155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      861
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (77)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,960
<PP&E>                                          11,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,276)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,657
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,883
<SALES>                                          2,205
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,408
<CGS>                                              729
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   638
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                638
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          638
<NET-INCOME>                                       997
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
**§668.41 Reporting and disclosure of information.**

*** * * ***

(h) Enrolled students and prospective students—and irrevocable letters of credit. 

(1) An institution must, upon notification by the Secretary of a Federal a requirement to post an irrevocable letter of credit, make disclosure of the irrevocable letter of credit to prospective and enrolled students.   

(i)  

(2) Delivery to enrolled students. (i) An institution must provide the disclosures required by paragraph (h)(1) of this section by means of a notice in writing to each enrolled student no later than 30 days after being informed by the Secretary of its requirement to post an irrevocable letter of credit by—

(A) Hand-delivering the disclosure notification as a separate document to the student individually or as part of a group presentation; or

(B) Sending the disclosure notification to the primary email address used by the institution for communicating with the student about the program; or

(ii) If the institution sends the disclosure notification by email, the institution must—

(A) Ensure that the disclosure notification is the only substantive content in the email;

(B) Receive electronic or other written acknowledgement from the student that the student has received the email;

(C) Send the disclosure(s) using a different address or method of delivery if the institution receives a response that the email could not be delivered; and

(D) Maintain records of its efforts to provide the required disclosure notification.

(3) Delivery to prospective students. (i) An institution must provide the disclosure required by paragraph (h)(1) of this section to each prospective student at the first contact between the institution and the student by—

(A) Hand-delivering the disclosure notification as a separate document to the prospective student individually, or as part of a group presentation; or

(B) Sending the disclosure notification to the primary email address used by the institution for communicating with the prospective student.

(ii) If the institution sends the disclosure notification to the prospective student by email, the institution must—

(A) Ensure the disclosure notification is the only substantive content in the email;

(B) Receive electronic or other written acknowledgement from the prospective student that the student has received the email;

(C) Send the disclosure notification using a different address or method of delivery if the institution receives a response that the email could not be delivered; and

(D) Maintain records of its efforts to provide the required disclosure notification.
exv10w1



 








March 31, 2006




Ms. Karen Durant

Senior Vice President, Finance and Analysis

Pentair, Inc.

5500 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 800

Golden Valley, MN 55416




Dear Karen:




RE:
     Special Recognition and Retention Award





The Board of Directors of Pentair, Inc. wants to acknowledge the important role you play at the
Company. As Pentair continues to grow and evolve, we value your contribution and expertise.



To demonstrate our continued belief in you, Pentair hereby grants you, subject to your acceptance
and your signing of a non-competition agreement, a one-time special award of 24,808 shares of
restricted stock. The restricted stock is subject to the provisions of the Company’s Omnibus Stock
Incentive Plan and your Key Executive Employee Severance Agreement dated August 23, 2000. The
vesting schedule of the award will be longer than typically used for equity awards made pursuant to
the Plan: 100% of the awards will vest on the fourth anniversary of grant. As part of signing the
related non-competition agreement, you will be agreeing that this award will serve as adequate
consideration for entering the agreement even if you do not stay with Pentair long enough for the
shares to vest.



Nothing contained in this letter alters any of the terms of your employment, nor does it represent
a guarantee of employment. However, it should serve as an indicator of the faith we have in you as
a senior Pentair executive.



This letter agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. It may not be amended or
modified except through a letter signed by the Company and you.



If this letter agreement is acceptable to you, please indicate your acceptance by countersigning it
in the place provided below. Upon your signing the non-competition agreement, it will become
binding agreement between the Company and you. Once receiving the countersigned original, Fred
Koury will supply you with any additional paperwork required to effect this grant.



Please call Fred Koury or me if you have any questions.



Regards,




Randall Hogan

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer

Pentair, Inc.




Accepted and agreed to on April 5, 2006




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	By:  	 	 
	 	Karen Durant 	 
	 	Senior Vice President, Finance and Analysis
#### Jane R. Price v. Lorin E. Price.

Motion for a stay denied. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA-NWFSC Tech Memo 12: Exposure to oil from the Exxon Valdez Figure 1. Map of the sampling areas for subsistence seafoods following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Figure 2. Fish and shellfish sampling stations in the vicinity of Tatitlek Figure 3. Fish and shellfish sampling stations in the vicinity of Chenega Bay
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2653

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Joseph O. Ramsey, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 17, 1997

 Filed: December 4, 1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Joseph Otis

Ramsey pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2113(a). The district court imposed a sentence 1

of 30 months& imprisonment, three years& supervised

release, and restitution. This
-2-

appeal followed. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ramsey has not

filed a supplemental brief. 

In his Anders brief, counsel argues that the district

court erred in imposing restitution. We conclude that

Ramsey failed to preserve his right to challenge the

imposition of restitution on appeal because he failed to object at

sentencing. In any event, we find no clear error. See United States v.

Kessler, 48 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir. 1995) (reviewing

for plain error where defendant failed to preserve

challenge to imposition of restitution by not objecting

at sentencing). 

After conducting the record review required by Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous

issues.

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### 211.002 Policy.

All defense technology and acquisition programs in DoD are subject to the policies and procedures in DoDD 5000.01, The Defense Acquisition System, and DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework.

[71 FR 27641, May 12, 2006, as amended at 76 FR 76319, Dec. 7, 2011; 88 FR 80466, Nov. 17, 2023]
#### 2009.570-10 Remedies.

In addition to other remedies permitted by law or contract for a breach of the restrictions in this subpart or for any intentional misrepresentation or intentional nondisclosure of any relevant interest required to be provided for this section, the NRC may debar the contractor from subsequent NRC contracts.
(October 7, 1963)

#### David O. Ashbee, Respondent, v. Peter J. Brunie, Individually and as President of Local Union No. 816, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, et al., Appellants.

In an action to direct the defendants, a labor union and the trustees of its pension fund, to .pay to plaintiff a .pension from the date of his retirement, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 4,1961, as denied their motion for summary judgment. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. On the record before *827us we are required to accept as fact the following: Plaintiff, as a seM^rnglorad ¿ranker, was a member of the defendant union from 1935 to the date of his retirement in 1958. From 1954, as^anemgloger, he made payments into the union’s welfare and pension funcf. This fund had been created by virtue of bargaining agreements which, as an employer, plaintiff was required to sign, although the agreements were for the benefit of himself as an employee. He was given a certificate showing that, as part of the welfare benefits, he was entitled to life insurance. 'So far as appears from the union constitution and by-laws, the only distinction made between the plaintiff and those union members w-ho did not own trucks, related to credit for seniority. Despite the trustees’ acceptance for years of the plaintiff’s contributions for pension benefits, the trustees, under the trust agreement relating to maintenance and regulation of the pension fund, deem plaintiff to have been sufficiently recompensed by the refund of his contributions. The resolution of the issue involved depends largely upon the construction of the term “ employee ” as used in the trust agreement. That, in turn, depends primarily upon the use of that term in connection with union membership. Under the circumstances, proof as to the practical construction of the agreement by the parties would be admissible. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
217.7601 Provisioning. ( a ) Follow the procedures at PGI 217.7601 for contracts with provisioning requirements.
( b ) For technical requirements of provisioning, see DoD Manual 4140.01, Volume 2, DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Procedures: Demand and Supply Planning.
[71 FR 27643, May 12, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 61480, Dec. 28, 2017]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000016160
<NAME> CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-26-2000
<CASH>                                           7,502
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     45,963
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,541
<PP&E>                                         232,248
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,867
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 238,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           188
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   238,883
<SALES>                                        209,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               209,300
<CGS>                                          194,352
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  194,352
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,040)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,947)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,093)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.98)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
3/31/99 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      16,811,000
<SECURITIES>                                19,238,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,025,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      63,599,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              29,009,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,267,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,127,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  84,730,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,267,000
<SALES>                                      1,599,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,190,000
<CGS>                                        1,247,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,247,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,127,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,706,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,468,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,277,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,277,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.82
        

</TABLE>
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good

standing of this Court’s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for

by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14.

In the Matter of Case Number: 12 C 2255

Robert Sanchez

v.

Cook County, et al.

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

Robert Sanchez

NAME (Type or print)

Lawrence V. Jackowiak

SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically)

 s/ Lawrence V. Jackowiak

FIRM

Jackowiak Law Offices

STREET ADDRESS

 20 North Clark Street, Suite 1700

CITY/STATE/ZIP

Chicago, IL 60602

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS)

6231003

TELEPHONE NUMBER

312.795.9595

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES X NO G

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES G NO X

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES X NO G

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES X NO G

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.

RETAINED COUNSEL G APPOINTED COUNSEL G

Case: 1:12-cv-02255 Document #: 3 Filed: 03/27/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:6
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles D. Dennis, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 380]—

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.), rendered October 14, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of gang assault in the first degree.

On November 13, 2003, defendant was indicted and charged, in a 12-count indictment, with assault in the first degree (three counts), assault in the second degree (three counts), gang assault in the first degree, gang assault in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts). Following his arraignment, defendant *1029moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied the opportunity to testify before the grand jury by reason of the prosecution’s failure to provide reasonable notice of the grand jury proceedings. County Court denied the motion, whereupon defendant pleaded guilty to gang assault in the first degree in satisfaction of the indictment. Defendant thereafter was sentenced to a prison term of 11 years with five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

Initially, defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. Suffice to say, inasmuch as defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate his judgment of conviction, that argument is not preserved for appeal *(see People v Missimer,*32 AD3d 1114, 1114-1115 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 927 [2006]). Moreover, if we were to consider defendant’s contention, we would find it to be without merit. The record reflects that defendant admitted at the plea allocution that he stabbed the victim while he and others were beating and kicking him, and he acknowledged that his attorney had discussed the consequences of his plea and that he was freely and voluntarily pleading guilty.

With regard to defendant’s contention that the People failed to give him reasonable notice of the impending grand jury proceedings against him, we need note only that by entering his plea of guilty, defendant waived his right to raise this contention on appeal *(see e.g. People v Kelone,*292 AD2d 640, 641 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 677 [2002]). Finally, we have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including his assertion that his sentence was both harsh and excessive, and find them to be equally without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.