alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 36533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14897]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9688-7]

Notice of Availability of the Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is announcing the 
availability of Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance (BMD). This document 
was developed as part of an agency-wide guidance development program by 
a technical panel of the EPA's Risk Assessment Forum. Drafts were peer 
reviewed internally by EPA scientists and externally by experts from 
academia, industry, and other federal and state government agencies. 
When appropriate, the EPA intends to use the guidance prospectively in 
conducting risk assessments.

ADDRESSES: The BMD document is available electronically through the 
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/benchmarkdose.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael W. Broder, Risk Assessment 
Forum, Office of the Science Advisor (8105R), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; 
on telephone number (202) 564-3393; facsimile number (202) 564-2070; or 
email broder.michael@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In support of its mission to protect human 
health and the environment, the EPA routinely conducts risk assessments 
on chemical agents that may be toxic to humans. A key component of the 
risk assessment process involves evaluating the dose-response 
relationship between exposure to the agent and the observed effect. The 
dose-response assessment is a two-step process: (1) Defining a point of 
departure (POD); and (2) extrapolating from the POD for relevance to 
environmental exposures. Traditionally, the no observed adverse effect 
level (NOAEL) or lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) methods 
were used for establishing the POD for noncancer endpoints. The BMD 
method gained favor within the risk assessment community over time 
because it incorporates and conveys more information than the NOAEL/
LOAEL methods. The EPA conducted workshops and symposia about the 
application of BMD methodology and the development of relevant 
guidance.
    The BMD document focuses on the use of the BMD methodology for 
human health risk assessments. The document discusses computation of 
BMD values and their confidence limits, data requirements, dose-
response assessment, and reporting recommendations that are specific to 
BMD values. Although the EPA has generated its own BMD software (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/BMDS/index.html), this document supports the use of 
other relevant, well-documented software packages.

    Dated: June 6, 2012.
Glenn Paulson,
Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2012-14897 Filed 6-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 of Crimson Exploration Inc. (the “Issuer”).  The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

| Date:

  | May 14, 2008

     |   |
|---------------|-------------------------|--------|
| /s/           | E. Joseph Grady         |   |
| Name:         | E. Joseph Grady         |   |
| Title:        | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|          |                    |   |
|          |                    |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Issuer and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C><ARTICLE>    5<S>                                                      <C><PERIOD-TYPE>                                          6-MOS<PERIOD-START>                                   Jan-02-2000<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Dec-31-2000<PERIOD-END>                                     Jul-02-2000<CASH>                                               776,000<SECURITIES>                                               0<RECEIVABLES>                                      1,186,000<ALLOWANCES>                                         104,000<INVENTORY>                                        2,478,000<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   7,353,000<PP&E>                                           133,916,000<DEPRECIATION>                                    44,772,000<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   106,829,000<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             18,109,000<BONDS>                                                    0<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0<PREFERRED>                                                0<COMMON>                                             135,000<OTHER-SE>                                        45,009,000<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     106,829,000<SALES>                                           84,464,000<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  84,645,000<CGS>                                             24,972,000<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     62,476,000<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  13,804,000<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 1,642,000<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    6,723,000<INCOME-TAX>                                       1,210,000<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0<DISCONTINUED>                                             0<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0<CHANGES>                                                  0<NET-INCOME>                                       5,513,000<EPS-BASIC>                                             0.47<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.47</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                 Subsidiary List
                            as of September 28, 1998

The following sets forth the wholly-owned subsidiary corporations of Ride, Inc.
(a Washington corporation):

    1. Ride Manufacturing, Inc. (a California corporation)

    2. SMP Clothing, Inc. (a Washington corporation)

    3. Ride Snowboard Company (a Washington corporation)

         (a)      Preston Binding Company (a Washington corporation) (a
                  subsidiary of Ride Snowboard Company)

    4. Ride Canada, Inc. (an Ontario corporation)

    5. Ride International, Inc. (a Barbados corporation)

    6. Smiley Hats, Inc. (a Nevada corporation)

    7. Carve, Inc. (a Washington corporation)


                                       58
§ 520.82b Aminopropazine and neomycin. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains aminopropazine fumarate equivalent to 25 percent aminopropazine base and neomycin sulfate equivalent to 50 milligrams (mg) of neomycin base.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer orally at a dosage of 1 to 2 mg per pound of body weight, repeated every 12 hours as indicated.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For control of bacterial diarrhea caused by organisms susceptible to neomycin and to reduce smooth muscle contractions.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 28816, May 20, 2014]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

714 

CA 11-00108 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

IN RE: EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS 

LITIGATION. 

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

KEVIN KLAS, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ORDER

NORMAN WILLIAM KLAS, DECEASED, 

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

 

V

A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS,

AND CRANE CO., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

K&L GATES, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (KIRSTEN ALFORD KNEIS OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

BELLUCK & FOX, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (JOSEPH W. BELLUCK OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John P.

Lane, J.H.O.), entered October 19, 2010. The order denied the motion

of defendant Crane Co. for summary judgment. 

Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the

attorneys for the parties on February 16, 2011, and filed in the Erie

County Clerk’s Office on March 28, 2011, 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9013-9014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4153]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6908]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Vienna Circa 1780: An Imperial Silver Service 
Rediscovered''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Vienna Circa 1780: An Imperial Silver 
Service Rediscovered,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from 
on or about April 13, 2010, until on or about November 7, 2010, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.


[[Page 9014]]


    Dated: February 23, 2010.
Maura M. Pally,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-4153 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
[No. 15847-1-III.

Division Three.

December 16, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Paul E. Roberts, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 95-1-00119-3, Craig Matheson, J., entered December 21, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Kurtz, J.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, and the
Amended and Restated Directors Stock Option Plan of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated of our report dated January 29, 1999 with respect to the financial
statements of Redhook Ale Brewery, Incorporated included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Seattle, Washington
March 26, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1992-B,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         152,378
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,525
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               278,758
<PP&E>                                         5,327,521
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,548,803)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,057,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,661
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,051,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,057,476
<SALES>                                        151,907
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,131
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  83,901<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            12,545
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   12,545
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
# C_2014102EN.01002001.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Christie’s France SNC v Syndicat National des Antiquaires

(Case C-41/14)

2014/C 102/28

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christie’s France SNC

Applicant:

Defendant: Syndicat National des Antiquaires

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the rule laid down by Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, (1) which makes the seller responsible for payment of the royalty, be interpreted as meaning that the seller is required definitively to bear the cost thereof without any derogation by agreement’s being possible?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 272, p. 32.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,657
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                       551
<INVENTORY>                                     26,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,106
<PP&E>                                         104,230
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,418
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           707
<OTHER-SE>                                     136,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,291
<SALES>                                        193,984
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               193,984
<CGS>                                           75,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                85,585
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,181
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,825
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,221
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 10(q)
 
                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                     TO THE GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY
                              PHANTOM STOCK PLAN
                           (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED)

          RESOLVED, that the Guarantee Life Insurance Company Phantom Stock Plan
     (as Amended and Restated On October 23, 1995) (the "Plan") be and hereby is
     amended by adding Section 6.06 to the Plan to read as follows:

     Section 6.06.  Transfer to Guarantee Life Insurance Company Deferred
     --------------------------------------------------------------------
     Compensation Plan.  At any time after a participant has become 100% vested
     ------------ -----                                                        
     in the Phantom Shares under Article IV of the Plan, but before the calendar
     year in which a participant is subject to mandatory cash-out of the
     participant's Phantom Shares under Section 6.03, a participant may, in the
     month of December, request the Compensation and Benefits Committee to
     transfer all or a portion of such Phantom Shares to the Stock Account of
     the Guarantee Life Insurance Company Deferred Compensation Plan.  The final
     decision and approval regarding the transfer of Phantom Shares, is at the
     sole discretion of the Compensation and Benefits Committee.  All such
     transfers shall be effective the January 1 following the date of the
     request.  The participant shall specify the amount of the value of the
     transferred Phantom Shares to be allocated to the participant's Stock
     Account under the Deferred Compensation Plan.  All transfers shall be based
     on the value of the participant's Phantom Shares as of the date of the
     transfer.  From and after the effective date of any transfer of the Phantom
     Shares to the Deferred Compensation Plan, all of the transferred amounts
     shall be subject to the provisions of the Deferred Compensation Plan; and

          FURTHER RESOLVED, that this amendement shall be effective January 1,
     1997.
[Cite as State v. Bowling , 2018-Ohio-4387.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2018-05-111

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 10/29/2018 : LONNIE L. BOWLING, SR., : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2017-10-1770

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecutin g Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appelleeKrista M. Gieske, 810 Sycamore Street, 3rd Floor, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for defendantappellant

Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Lonnie L. Bowling, Sr., has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates thatButler CA2018-05-111

- 2 - a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists three potential erro rs "that might arg uably support the appeal," Anders at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proc eedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constituti onal rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.