alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT s

PMN: 15

- 0188

Post

- Focus Draft Revision 1 4/2/2015

PV (kg/yr): ENGINEER: Macek \ DDB

SUBMITTER: Allnex USA Inc.

MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: Where this material is not used in a closed system, good

enclosure and local exhaust ventilation should be provided to control

exposure when spraying or curing at elevated temperatures. // Wear

eye/face protection such as chemical splash proof goggles or face

shield. // Wear impermeable gloves and suitable protective clothing.

Gloves for short

- term exposure: Laminated multilayer gloves and

nitrile rubber. Not suitable gloves: Latex

Respirator: For operations where inhalation exposure can occur use an

approved respirator. Full face mask with organic vapor cartridge, Type

A filter (BP > 65 deg C).

Health Effects: None known.

TLV/ PEL:

None established.27/2015):

Analogs: Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P3B1T1

Health: 1

- 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 7 ppb)OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2C

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 09/30/2013 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

No Pollution Prevention information provided by the submitter.

EXPOSURE

- BASED REVIEW: NoINITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 15

- 0188

Processing:

unknown site(s) Number of Sites/ Location: 1

Days/yr: 30

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide

with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 15

- 0188

unknown site(s) Number of Sites/ Location: 5

Days/yr : 250

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide

with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.Water or Incineration or Landfill

High End: 2.2E+0 kg/site

- day over 19 days/ yr from 5 sites

or 4.2E+1 kg/site

- yr from 5 sites or 2.1E+2 kg/yr

- all sites

Water or Incineration or Landfil l

Output 1: 1.1E

- 1 kg/site

- day over 250 days/yr from 5 sites

or 2.8E+1 kg/site

- yr from 5 sites or 1.4E+2 kg/yr

- all sites

Incineration or Landfill

Conservative: 1.1E

- 1 kg/site

- day over 250 days/yr from 5 sites

or 2.8E+1 kg/site

- yr from 5 sites or 1.4E+2 kg/yr

- all sites

RELEASE TOTAL

4.8E+2 kg/yr

- all sitesCALL BY:

CALL TO:

Organization:

Date:

Time:

PMN: 15

- 0188 Organization:

Phone:

Concerning what? CBI: No

MEMORANDUM of TELEPHONE CONVERSATION (Contains No TSCA CBI)
Exhibit
32.2





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 amended and restatedAnnual Report of Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K/A-2 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles
T. Bernhardt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(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.





/s/ Charles T. BernhardtCharles
      T. Bernhardt CPAChief
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      11, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         547,714
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      10,202,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,893,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      5,197,810
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,502,190
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,893,695
<SALES>                                        956,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               969,261
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  779,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             198,242
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,162)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,162)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,162)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>THE PARTNERSHIP HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET; THEREFORE, THE VALUE IS 
$0.
<F2>THIS INFORMATION IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE PARTNERSHIP'S FORM 10-Q FILING.
</FN>
        

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE  YEAR  ENDED  MARCH  31,  2000  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  AMOUNTS IN
THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               1,153
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,593
<INVENTORY>                                          8,768
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    19,073
<PP&E>                                              11,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                       5,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      59,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               19,602
<BONDS>                                                208
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               138
<OTHER-SE>                                          39,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        59,709
<SALES>                                             33,834
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    47,295
<CGS>                                               24,930
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       35,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       545
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (7,902)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (3,286)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (11,188)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (11,188)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.83)



</TABLE>
§ 582.5590 Phenylalanine. ( a ) *Product.* Phenylalanine (L- and DL-forms).
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
Promissory Note

$40,000                                   Date January 7, 2002

For value received, the undersigned, CODY MCGARRAUGH, ("Maker")
hereby promises to pay to the order of Concepts Direct, Inc.
("Payee"), a Delaware Corporation, at the principle office of
employee in Longmont, CO, the principal sum of Forty Thousand
Dollars and 00/100 ($40,000) on demand.

The unpaid principal balance hereof shall bear a nominal interest
rate (2% annually) payable monthly, commencing on the last
business day of the month following the date hereof and will be
computed in accordance with Section 7872(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code.  Interest shall be calculated for the actual number
of days elapsed, using a daily rate determined by dividing the
annual rate by 365.  Principal and interest on this note shall be
payable in lawful money of the United States of America.

So long as the maker remains employed by the Payee, Payee shall
forgive $666.67 of principal plus accrued interest each month,
prorated for any partial month.  In the event that the Maker's
employment with Payee terminates voluntarily before all sums are
forgiven, the amount not representing the forgiven sums will be
the balance due hereunder.  This amount will be due upon demand by
the Payee.

In the event that the Maker's employment is terminated as a result
of the Payee's ownership changing (Change of Control), the Payee's
operations are discontinued or the Maker dies or becomes
physically or mentally incapacitated, the Payee will immediately
forgive all amounts not forgiven including principal and accrued
interest.  As well, the Payee will reimburse the Maker an amount
equal to 40% of the amount to be forgiven to offset any tax
consequences to the Maker.

This note may be prepaid in full or in part at any time without
penalty.

This note is governed by the internal laws of the state of
Colorado, except to the extent superseded by federal law.



/S/Cody McGarraugh                                  1/11/02
Signature of Maker                                    Date


/s/Phillip A. Wiland, Chairman & CEO                1/11/02
Payee Authorization                                   Date
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.37

                          SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

                FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE 1993 STOCK OPTION PLAN

                                  JUNE 12, 1997

         I, Richard J. Willemin, Secretary of Summit Medical Systems, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify on behalf of the Company
that on May 12, 1997, pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Company's Stock Option
Plan of 1993, as amended (the "Plan"), the Board of Directors approved a fourth
amendment to the Plan providing for the issuance of an additional 500,000 shares
of common stock under the Plan (the "Third Amendment"). The shareholders of the
Company adopted the Third Amendment at their Annual Meeting held on June 12,
1997. Accordingly, Section 5.1 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated as
follows:

          5.1 NUMBER. The number of shares of Stock hereby made available and
     reserved for issuance under the Plan is 2,626,666. The aggregate number of
     shares of Stock available under this Plan shall be subject to adjustment as
     provided in Section 5.3. The total number of shares of Stock may be
     authorized but unissued shares of Stock, or shares acquired by purchase as
     directed by the Board from time to time in its discretion, to be used for
     issuance upon exercise of Options granted hereunder.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto signed my name.



                                        /s/ Richard J. Willemin
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Richard J. Willemin
                                       Secretary
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


      We consent to the use of our report dated January  22, 1999 with respect
to the financial statements of Ribi ImmunoChem Research, Inc. included in the
Form 8-K of Corixa Corporation dated October 21, 1999.



KPMG LLP

Billings, Montana
October 21, 1999
# C_2015190EN.01001501.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Rezon v OHIM — mobile.international (mobile.de proMotor)

(Case T-337/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark mobile.de proMotor - Prior national figurative mark mobile - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 165(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 190/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: P. Kanchev and T. Ignatova, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2014 (Case R 950/2013-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Rezon OOD and mobile.international GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rezon OOD to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rezon OOD to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

---
38653.

#### KAHLE v. BROWNING.

Decided April 4, 1961.

*438
      *Woodruff, Latimer, Saveli, Lane & Williams, Edward L. Savell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Marvin G. Russell, Turner Paschal,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

1. Ordinarily questions of diligence and negligence including contributory negligence and proximate cause are peculiarly for the jury and this court will decline to solve such questions on demurrer except when they appear palpably clear, plain and indisputable. *Rogers v. Johnson,*94 Ga. App. 666, 680 (96 S. E. 2d 285); *Long Construction Co. v. Ryals,*102 Ga. App. 66 (1) (115 S. E. 2d 726).

Under the factual situation appearing from the averments of the instant petition, a cause of action was clearly alleged against the defendant. It was a question for the jury, and not for the court on demurrer as contended by the defendant, as to whether the plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant’s alleged negligence. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

2. The allegations in paragraphs 3 and 11 of the petition, as toi the general physical condition of the roadway in question and the defendant’s knowledge of the same, simply constituted matters of inducement, and were not absolutely irrelevant so as to be subject to being stricken. The special demurrers to' these paragraphs were without merit.

3. Paragraph 20 (b) of the petition specified that the defendant was negligent: "In driving at a speed greater than 35 miles per hour on a roadway which defendant knew contained many curves, hills, dips, inclines and declines, as well as many driveways leading into said roadway from and into* which automobiles might reasonably be expected to be using.” The defendant demurred to* this paragraph and moved that it be stricken as an allegation of negligence because the petition failed “to show any causal connection between the defendant’s knowledge of the alleged conditions of the road and the cause of the accident.” Under the averments of the petition which disclosed that the condition of the roadway in question in the immediate vicinity of the collision afforded the defendant an unobstructed view of the point of collision from a distance of 500' feet, this specifica*439tion of negligence, based on the defendant’s knowledge of the alleged condition of the roadway in general, was subject to the special demurrer filed thereto and should have been stricken by the trial court.

*Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.*

*Townsend, P. J., Carlisle and Frankum, JJ., concur.*
#### FEDERAL DISCOUNT COMPANY, Respondent, v. JOHN P. BECKER, Appellant.

Kansas City Court of Appeals,

May 31, 1909.

BILLS AND NOTES: Endorsement: Evidence. Certain bills of exchange were endorsed with a rubber stamp. *Held,*they were not admissible in evidence against the acceptor, until the endorsement was proven to have been made by some one authorized to do so.

Appeal from Chariton County *Court.*— Hon. *John P. 'Butler,*Judge.

Reversed ajnd remanded.

*Grawley & Bucher*for appellant.

(1) Plaintiff introduced no evidence *aliunde*to prove endorsement's — this is a fatal omission. Dunlap v. Kelly, 105 Mo. App. 1; Saville v. Huffstetter, 63 Mo. App. 273; Robinson v. Powers, 63 Mo. App. 290; Worrell v. Roberts, 58 Mo. App. 197; Bank v. Pennington, 42 Mo. App. 355. While the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1905 authorizes “printed” endorsements, we submit the endorsement on the bills of exchange in question would be defective even though they were written, for the reason they do not appear to have been made by any one having authority to endorse.

*J. G. Wallace,*for respondent, filed no briefs.

BROADDUS, P. J.

— This is a suit to recover on four bills of exchange, as follows: Each bill was for the sum of $24 and as they were all alike as well as the endorsements on them a copy of one will be sufficient for the purposes of the case. They read thus:

> *55“St. Louis, Mo., Sept. 7,1907. No. 2.

> “Six mouths after date, pay to the order of St. Louis Jewelry Company, the sum of Twenty-four & 16-100 Dollars ($24.16) at their office in St. Louis. Value received, charge to account of St. Louis Jewelry Company.

> . “By O. P. Blackstad, General Manager.

> To Jno. P. Becker,

> “Wien, Mo.

> “Customer’s Acceptance.

> “Accepted J. P. Becker,

> “Customer’s Signature.”

> *Endorsements.*

> “Pay to the order of Federal Discount Co.

> “St. Louis Jewelry Co. Oct. 4,1907.”

> “Pay to the order of any bank or attorney for collection.

> “Federal Discount Co/’

The answer of defendant denied that the St. Louis Jewelry Co. transferred the paper to plaintiff by endorsement or otherwise.

Plaintiff offered said bills and acceptance in evidence together with the endorsements on the back of the bills stamped thereon with a rubber stamp. The defendant objected to the endorsements for the reason that it was not proven to have been made by the drawee of the bills or by any person having the right or authority to make it for or in the name of said drawee. The objection was overruled. This was all the evidence in the case. The judgment was for the plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

The appeal is based upon the contention of the defendant that the endorsement on the note was not sufficient to prove ownership in the plaintiff. And such seems to be the law. [Worrell v. Roberts, 58 Mo. App. 197; Dunlap v. Kelly, 105 Mo. App. 1; National Bank v. Pennington, 42 Mo. App. 355.]

For the reason given, the cause is reversed and remanded.

All concur.
Exhibit 31.2

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I,Douglas W. Cowan, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Retractable Technologies,Inc.;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

 

Date:       June 9, 2011

 
| /S/  DOUGLAS W. COWAN                     |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
| DOUGLAS  W. COWAN                         |   |
| VICE  PRESIDENT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, |   |
| AND  PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER         |   |

 

----
#### CITY OF INTERNATIONAL FALLS v. AMERICAN TRACTION COMPANY AND OTHERS.1

November 23, 1923.

No. 23,896.

When improper change of venue may be waived by plaintiff.

If venue of'an action is changed improperly, plaintiff waives right to have it remanded by noticing case for trial in county to which it was removed.

*208' The city of International Falls obtained from the supreme court an order directing the district court for Hennepin county, Hon. W. C. Leary, J. and another, to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not' issue directing the officers above named to transfer the files and papers in the case of City of International Falls v. American Traction Company and others, from the district court for Hennepin county to the district court for Koochiching county.

Order to show cause discharged.

*F. J. McPartUn,*for plaintiff.

*M. G. Bowler,*for defendants.

1

 Reported in 195 N. W. 891.

Pee O'ueiam.

Original proceeding in mandamus to compel the remanding of an action wherein relator, a municipal corporation, was plaintiff and certain residents of Hennepin county were defendants. The case was commenced in Koochiching county. Within the time and in the manner provided by statute, defendants had the venue changed to Hennepin county. Certain proceedings were had there,' plaintiff, the relator here, participating. The principal step was taken by relator itself in that it noticed the case for trial in Hennepin county.

Thereafter it moved to have the case remanded to Koochiching county. That motion was denied and now the relator seeks an order from this court requiring the district court of Hennepin county to remand.

It is argued for relator that an action in which a municipality is a party is local to the county wherein it is situated; that it makes no difference whether .the municipal corporation is plaintiff or defendant, and that in all such cases there should be applied the rule of State ex rel. Johnson v. District Court, 120 Minn. 458, 139 N. W. 947, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 106.

That is a point not before us for decision because, even if the relator’s position in that respect is well taken, it has waived its right to have the case remanded. 40 Cyc. 181, Dunnell, Minn. Practice, § 292. Delasca v. Grimes, 144 Minn. 67, 174 N. W. 523; Wade v. National Bank of Commerce of Mankato, 144 Minn. 187, 174 N. W. 889. After relator’s voluntary participation in the Hennepin county *209proceedings, particularly its service of tbe notice of trial, it was too late for it to assert that the case was not properly there.

Order to show cause discharged.