alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10/20/14

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Review of Submitted Ready Biodegradability Study on CASRN 31138

- 65

- 5

f or A dequacy to F ulfill T esting R equired under the HPV 2 TSCA Section 4 Test Rule

FROM: David G. Lynch

Assessment Branch 5

Risk Assessment Division (7403M)

THRU: Nhan Nguyen, Chief

Assessment Branch 5

Risk Assessment Division (7403M)

TO: John Schaeffer

CITB

Chemical Control Division (7405M)

Th e submitted study, titled “Sodium Glucoheptanoate: Assessment of Ready Biodegradability ;

Manometric Respirometry Test” conducted by Harlan Laboratories Ltd has been reviewed. The Study

was conducted under GLP with a minor exception not expected to impact the outcome. The study used

a standard protocol for Ready Biodegradation testing (OECD G uideline 301F/OPPTS 835.3110) and met

all criteria for validity.

It is recommended that the study be accepted as fulfilling the requirement for Ready Biodegradation

testing under the HPV 2 TSCA Section 4 Test Rule.

Please let me know if you have any q uestions.
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 Quarterly Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy Brasel,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director 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), as
      applicable, 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:           February
12, 2010





/s/Timothy
Brasel.


Timothy
Brasel


President,
Chief Executive Officer,


Chief
Financial Officer and Director
(logo) TORCHLIGHT

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

CSMC2016-NXSR Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass Through

Certificates, Series 2016-NXSR (the “Trust”)

 

I, William A. Clarkson, on behalf of TorchlightLoan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify toCredit Suisse Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. each Other Depositor andtheir officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intentthat they will rely upon this certification, that:

 

1. I (or Servicing Officers under mysupervision) have reviewed the Certifying Servicer’s activities during thepreceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and the Certifying Servicer’sperformance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based onsuch review, the Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations underthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects during theReporting Period. 

 

Capitalized terms used but not definedherein have the meanings set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

 

Date:  February 28, 2020

 

Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as specialservicer

 

By: /s/ William A. Clarkson

 

Name: William A. Clarkson

 

Title: Authorized Signatory
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19632]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11707 and <greek-i>11708]


North Dakota Disaster Number ND-00016

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION:  Amendment 5.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of North Dakota (FEMA--1829--DR), dated 
04/10/2009.
    Incident: Severe storms and flooding.
    Incident Period: 03/13/2009 and continuing through 08/10/2009.

DATES:  Effective Date: 08/10/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/10/2009.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/11/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of North Dakota, dated 04/10/2009 is hereby 
amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 
03/13/2009 and continuing through 08/10/2009.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-19632 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism John T. Godfrey Travel to Oman, UAE, London

# 									Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism John T. Godfrey Travel to Oman, UAE, London							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

September 24, 2021

Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Special Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS John Godfrey will travel from September 24 to 29 to Oman, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.  There he will meet with government officials to coordinate on shared counterterrorism priorities, including stabilization efforts in territory liberated from ISIS in Iraq and Syria and countering terrorist threats in Afghanistan.

Tags

Bureau of CounterterrorismBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelOmanThe Global Coalition To Defeat ISISUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by

assignment. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003). 

NO. 07-02-0271-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

JANUARY 28, 2003

______________________________

CECIL WARD, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF CASTRO COUNTY;

NO. B2767-0108; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., REAVIS, J., and BOYD, S.J.1

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

On April 4, 2002, appellant Cecil Ward was convicted of murder with the use of a

deadly weapon. His punishment was assessed by the jury at life imprisonment in the
2

Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely filed his

appeal and the clerk’s record was filed in this court on August 6, 2002. The court reporter

has been granted four extensions of time within which to file the reporter’s record, with the

last extension being granted until December 13, 2002. However, we have never received

the reporter’s record. In his last motion seeking an extension of time, the court reporter

certified that appellant had made the required payment and the written designation of

record.

This state of the record requires us to remand the case to the 242nd District Court

of Castro County to conduct hearings as mandated by Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure 37.3(2) and 38.8.

Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause proper notice to

be given and conduct a hearing to determine:

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, and if so,

2. why appellant has been deprived of a reporter’s record,

3. if any other orders are necessary to ensure the diligent and prompt

pursuit of appellant’s appeal.

In support of its determination, the trial court shall prepare and file written findings

of fact and conclusions of law and cause them to be included in a supplemental clerk’s

record. The hearing proceedings shall be transcribed and included in a supplemental
3

reporter’s record. These supplemental records shall be submitted to this court not later

than February 28, 2003.

It is so ordered. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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

December 30, 2009 

d1217 

Order 

 

December 30, 2009 

139601 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139601 

 COA: 282100 

Oakland CC: 2006-212089-FH 

ANTHONY KEITH WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 6, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 KELLY, C.J., would grant leave to appeal.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No. FAA - 2010 - 1190 Directorate ID: 20 10 - SW - 038 - AD Helicopter Model: Apical Emergency Float Kits Installed on Various Model Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 324 Helicopt ers in the U . S . r egistry. 

### Reason : The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent helicopter occupants from further injury

due to unnecessary

exposure to harsh water conditions and to aid in deploying liferafts when liferafts are available on the helicopter and can be activated after a water landing. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 70 Labor per Helicopter ( 0.5 x $ 8 5 /work-hour) $ 43 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 113 Total US Fleet Cost $ 36,450 Executive Order 12866 : Could th e AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a subst antial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: Venessa Stiger
#### Jacob WEARING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOVIS & LEND LEASE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-2391.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

Jacob Wearing, Appellant Pro Se. Nigle Brace Barrow, Jr., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Jacob Wearing appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for a permanent injunction and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this employment action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Wearing v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.,*No. CA-00-880-5-H-3 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 23 *&*Nov. 15, 2001). We deny Wearing’s motions for a default judgment, to deny Defendant response, and for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c). Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade*610quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         3161
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3161
<PP&E>                                         154175
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 52925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          96905
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4435
<OTHER-SE>                                     (48415)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (43980)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7593
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7593)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7593)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7593)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)



</TABLE>
40138.

#### FENSTER v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. Under the State Workmen’s Compensation Act an employee whose contract of employment was “expressly for service exclusively outside of the State” is not entitled to compensation for an accident which happens while he is employed elsewhere than in this State. *Code*'§ 114-411.

*822Decided May 23, 1963.

2. Findings of fact in an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation acting within its power, are, in the absence of fraud, conclusive on the reviewing court if they are supported by any evidence. See cases annotated under *Code*§ 114-710, catchwords “Conclusiveness of findings.”

3. Where the evidence adduced before the deputy director showed that the plaintiff employee, at the time he sustained his injury, was employed outside of this State by an employer doing business in Atlanta, under a contract executed and entered into in Georgia, under which contract the employee was hired as a salesman for a specific territory, all of which was outside of this State, and that as soon as he was assigned his territory he moved his residence within his territory, commenced working under the sales manager for that region and at no time performed services for his employer within Georgia, the finding of fact by the deputy director and the full board on appeal, that the plaintiff’s contract of employment was expressly for service exclusively outside of the State and hence that the Georgia Board of Workmen’s Compensation did not have jurisdiction of the case, was conclusive on the superior court and on this court. Nothing in the cases of *Slaten v. Travelers Ins. Co.,*197 Ga. 1 (28 SE2d 280) and *Martin v. Bituminous Cas. Corp.,*215 Ga. 476 (111 SE2d 53) requires a different result from that above reached because these cases can be distinguished by their facts from the instant case. In the *Slaten*case, supra, the employee had actually engaged in work in this State and the court held that this was sufficient to constitute acceptance of the terms of the act by the method prescribed in *Code*§ 114-201, whereas in the case at bar the employee had not engaged in any work for this employer in the State, having been only in training with the employer for his duties outside of this State, which he assumed after his training was completed. In the *Martin*case, supra, the contract was to perform a part of the work in Georgia, whereas in the instant case the only contact apparently maintained with the Atlanta headquarters was the reporting in of sales, sending in of orders, and other such transactions which were done by mail and did not amount to service within the State.

The court below did not err in its judgment affirming the award of the full board denying compensation.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*

*823
      *Daniel B. Clark,*for plaintiff in error.

*Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, Burt DeRieux,*contra.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 212.2 Scope. This part applies to: ( a ) *Entities.* All financial institutions, as defined in § 212.3.
( b ) *Funds.* Federal benefit payments protected from garnishment pursuant to the following authorities: ( 1 ) SSA benefit payments protected under 42 U.S.C. 407 and 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1);
( 2 ) VA benefit payments protected under 38 U.S.C. 5301(a);
( 3 ) RRB benefit payments protected under 45 U.S.C. 231m(a) and 45 U.S.C. 352(e); and
( 4 ) OPM benefit payments protected under 5 U.S.C. 8346 and 5 U.S.C. 8470.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

May 21, 2021

t0518 

# Order

Clerk May 21, 2021

162957 & (15)(16)

VILLAGE OF NEW HAVEN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 162957

COA: 356169

Macomb CC: 2020

- 000975

- CZ

NEW HAVEN TOWN CENTER, LLC,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the April 22, 2021 order of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented

should now be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED.
#### § 20.665 State.

*State* means any of the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States.
Exhibit 11.1

                    SLADE'S FERRY BANCORP. AND SUBSIDIARY
                      COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                 (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Dollars in Thousands,
except for per share data)                 March 31, 2005    March 31, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          <c>               <c>
Net income                                   $    1,100        $      585
                                             ==========        ==========

Average shares outstanding                    4,076,707         4,012,654
                                             ==========        ==========

Basic earnings per share                     $     0.27        $     0.15
                                             ==========        ==========

Average shares outstanding                    4,076,707         4,012,654

Net effect dilutive stock options                36,549            57,201
                                             ----------        ----------

Adjusted shares outstanding                   4,113,256         4,069,855
                                             ==========        ==========

Diluted earnings per share                   $     0.27        $     0.14
                                             ==========        ==========
</TABLE>


<PAGE>  32
Rule-Making ("f'over Sheet

TO : Secretary of State ATTN: Administrative Procedure Officer

State House Station 101, Augusta, Maine 04333 1 . Agency: Department of Environmental Protection MiNIl 

## MAY 13 . 2010 SECFi~TAR;f OF a"rATE 2. Agency umbrella and unit number : 06-096 3. Title of rule: Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from.Paper, Filmand Foil Coating Operations 4. Chapter number assigned to the rule: 123 5. Date(s)/method(s) of notice : On December 8, 2009 in the Kennebec Journal and on December 16, 2009 in the Kennebce Journal, Portland Press Herald, Bangor Daily News, Lewiston Sun Journal and Waterville Morning Sentinel . 6. Date(s)Iplace(s) of hearing(s) : January 7, 2010 9:00 AM Civic Center Augusta, Maine 7. Type : __ new rule X partial amendment(s) of existing rule _suspension of existing rule ~_repeal of rule !emergency rule -repeal and replace: complete replacement of existing chapter, with former version simultaneously repealed . 8. Namelphone of agency contact person : Carolyn Wheeler (207) 287-2437 9 . If a major substantive rule under Title 5, c . 375, sub-CII-A, check one of the following: 0 Provisional adoption 13 Final adoption

(prior to Legislative review) - Emergency adoption of major-substantive rule 10. Certification Statement : l, David P. Littell, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of the rui ~ed above and lawfully adopted by t oard of Environment rotection op April 152010. Signature: Printed name & title : 11 . Approved as to form and legality by the Attorney General on Signature: (origiriaP~signature, personally signed by the head of agency) Printed name & title :

E® FlbWeR' k h b' G .> DATE

### '

. 

### MAY 18 ZQ1~ ~1J (date)



### ai=i :IcE NrH~SECRErARYoc sTIATr AU(3Mta usiaie
#### Bernard Reilly, Respondent, *against*James Flynn, Appellant.

(Decided April 3d, 1882.)

An action by a sheriff to recover his term fees in certain causes, cannot be sustained by proof merely that such causes appeared upon the calendars of the courts for certain terms, and that the defendant was the attorney for the plaintiffs therein, without any evidence showing by whom the notes of issue in such causes were filed.

Appeal from a judgment of a district court in the- City of Now York.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Leroy S.*Gove, for appellant.

Vanderpoel, *Green &*Cuming, for respondent.

Van Brunt, P. J.

This is an action to recover the sheriff’s term fees upon certain cases, appearing upon the calendars of the courts of this county, in which the defendant was the attorney for the plaintiffs. The sole proof upon- the part of the plaintiff was the production of certain calendars showing that the causes had appeared for certain terms upon such calendars, and that the defendant was the plaintiff’s attorney therein.

That the sheriff has a right to recover such fees from the attorney in a proper case has been decided by this court in the case of *Reilly v. Tullis (ante,*p. 283), and it is not necessary now to consider that question, except so far as to state that the principle upon which the attorney was-held in that case was, that the services were performed at the request of the attorney, and that it has been the uniform practice for sheriffs to charge their fees to the attorney for the party for whose benefit the services are rendered, and that there is an implied assumpsit by the attorney from the uniform prac*463tice to pay for the services done for his client by his express or implied request.

In the case at bar there is no evidence whatever as to who filed the note of issue, and as a consequence there seems to be a link missing in the evidence necessary to hold the defendant responsible for these term fees. In the absence of all evidence showing by whom the note of issue, was filed, there is no room for an implied assumpsit against the attorney of the plaintiff rather than the attorney for the defendant.

Under these circumstances it would appear that there was a defect of proof in the case at bar, and that the judgment must be reversed.

J. E. .Daly and Van IIoesen, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed.