alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Cover Letter

January 21, 2014

Page 1 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

### 74553350972 4000140121033755794 4000TX

X X

X Page 2 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

### X



## X Page 3 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 

## X

X
X X

X X Page 4 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X

Carbamic acid, N-(3-isoocyanatomethylphenyl)-, 2-[2-(2-butoxyethoxy)ethoxy]ethyl ester 304855-14-9 

## X 359662 Attachment I CA Preferred Name.pdf 

### C19H28N2O6 See Attachment 002 (Attachment II Structure.pdf)

Attachment II Structure.pdf Page 5 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 6 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 7 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 8 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONXXX 

## X

Page 9 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

### XXX XXX 

## X

X Destructive XXX 

### X XXX 

### X XXX 

### X XXX XXX XXX XXX 

### X

Page 10 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X XXX XXX XXX 

## X XXX X XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 

## X

Page 11 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONSee Attachment 004 (ATTACHMENT IV Human Exposures Environmental Releases Sanitized.pdf)

ATTACHMENT IV Human Exposures Environmental Releases Sanitized.pdf Page 12 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONCharging XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 

### X X X

Page 13 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 14 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

### 0

Page 15 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 16 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 17 SANITIZED SUBMISSION001 Attachment I CA Preferred Name Attachment I CA Preferred Name.pdf Pt.I, Sec.B, 1c. 1 002 Attachment II Structure Attachment II Structure.pdf Pt.I, Sec.B, 1e. 1 003 Attachment III MSDS Sanitized Attachment III MSDS Sanitized.pdf 10 004 Attachment IV Human Exposure Environmental Releases ATTACHMENT IV Human Exposures Environmental Pt.2, Sec.A, 1d. 2 005 Attachment V Spectra Sanitized Attachment VII Spectra Sanitized.pdf 0

Page 18 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X Estimate negligble Estimate 20 1.15 Measured insoluble Estimate 20 <0 Estimate XXX XXX 

## X

> 100 C Estimate does not explode Estimate Page 19 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 001 Attachment Name Attachment I CA Preferred Name 

## Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.I, Sec.B, 1c. Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number 4000140121033755794

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 002 Attachment Name Attachment II Structure 

## Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.I, Sec.B, 1e. Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number 4000140121033755794

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 003 Attachment Name Attachment III MSDS Sanitized 

## Associated PMN Section Number

N/A Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number 4000140121033755794

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 004 Attachment Name Attachment IV Human Exposure Environmental Releases 

## Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.2, Sec.A, 1d. Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number 4000140121033755794

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 005 Attachment Name Attachment V Spectra Sanitized 

## Associated PMN Section Number

N/A Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number 4000140121033755794
INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
No. 85568 

# FILED DONALDALT, Appellant,

vs. TAHOE-RENO INDUSTRIAL CENTER, LLC, MANAGING MEMBER; NORMAN PROPERTIES, INC.;L. LANCE GILMAN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC., PRINCIPLE, DIRECTORAND EXECUTIVE, LEONARD LANCE GILMAN; NORMAN PROPERTIES, INC., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CYNTHIA GAGLIANO;AND SECRETARY, DON ROGER NORMAN, Res•ondents. NOV Ü 2022 ELIZABE A.er;CANN C OF ,4E O

ORDER DISMISSINGAPPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismissand from an "Order DenyingPlaintiffsAmended Default and Request for Default Judgment Hearing." First Judicial District Court, Storey County;JamesTodd Russell, Judge.

Review ofthe notice ofappeal and documents before this court reveals ajurisdictional defect. The order granting the motion to dismissis not a finaljudgment appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1) because it does not resolve all of the claims appellant asserted against all respondents in the district court. SeeLee v. GNLVCorp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) ("[A] finaljudgment is one that disposes ofall the issues presented in the case, and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney'sfees and costs."). It does not appear from the district court docket sheet that the district court has

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 0), 1947A eMt.entered a finaljudgment in this matter. And no other statute or court rule

authorizes an appeal from the order of dismissal. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court c`may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule"). Neither does any statute or court rule authorize an appeal from an "Order Denying Plaintiffs Amended Default and Request for Default Judgment Hearing." Accordingly, this court lacksjurisdiction and

ORDERSthis appeal DISMISSED.'

4.

, J. Cadish

, J. , Sr. J.

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Donald Alt Gunderson Law Firm Cynthia Gagliano Don Roger Norman Storey County Clerk

1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in this matter under a general order ofassignment

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
101 19.47A 41411'&D 2
§ 550.512 Transactions related to the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates. ( a ) All transactions prohibited by this part that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices to Ethiopia or Eritrea, or to persons in third countries purchasing specifically for resale to Ethiopia or Eritrea, are authorized.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices are defined as follows: ( 1 ) *Agricultural commodities.* For the purposes of this section, agricultural commodities are: ( i ) Products that fall within the term “agricultural commodity” as defined in section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602); and
( ii ) That are intended for ultimate use in Ethiopia or Eritrea as: ( A ) Food for humans (including raw, processed, and packaged foods; live animals; vitamins and minerals; food additives or supplements; and bottled drinking water) or animals (including animal feeds);
( B ) Seeds for food crops;
( C ) Fertilizers or organic fertilizers; or
( D ) Reproductive materials (such as live animals, fertilized eggs, embryos, and semen) for the production of food animals.
( 2 ) *Medicine.* For the purposes of this section, medicine is an item that falls within the definition of the term “drug” in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
( 3 ) *Medical devices.* For the purposes of this this section, a medical device is an item that falls within the definition of “device” in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
Note 1 to § 550.512 .
Nothing in this section relieves any person from compliance with the requirements of other Federal agencies, including the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security.
U

.S

. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration



### JUN 0

**~** 

### 2015 Mr. Jose Mora-Vargas Certification Director Associated Air Center 8321 Lemmon Avenue Dallas, Texas 75209 Dear Mr. Mora-Vargas: Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, Washington 98057-3356

We have received your petition letter dated May 7, 2015, requesting exemption from §§ 25.785(h)(2), 25.7850), 25.813(e), 25.815, and 25.853(d), ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations. This exemption, ifgranted, would permitrelieffrom the requirements of flight-attendant direct view; firm handholds along each aisle; interior doors between passenger compartments and emergency exits; minimum aisle width in the passenger compartment; and maximum heat release rates for large panel interior materials and large non-metallic seat panels. You stated that the proposed exemption is specifically intended for application to an executive interior on an Airbus Model A320-232 airplane, Serial Number 6659, designated as "private use, not for hire, not for common carriage." This request was posted to the Department ofTransportation's Federal Docket Management System (at Regulations.gov) on May 19,2015, and has been assigned Docket No. FAA2015-1773. We are in the process ofreviewing your request and would like to know ifyou intend to exercise the privileges ofthe exemption outside the United States per 14 CFR 11.81(h). Ifso, please provide this additional information to Mr
. Dan Jacquet at (425) 227- 2676, or by e-mail at Daniel.Jacquet@faa.gov. We will contact you ifwe need any additional information. Ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact Mr. Jacquet. Sincerely,



# J~~ DeanaM. Stedman Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
§ 501.742 Secretary's designee's consideration of decisions by Administrative Law Judges. ( a ) *Scope of review.* The Secretary's designee may affirm, reverse, modify, set aside or remand for further proceedings, in whole or in part, a decision or ruling by an Administrative Law Judge and may make any findings or conclusions that in his or her judgment are proper and on the basis of the record and such additional evidence as the Secretary's designee may receive in his or her discretion.
( b ) *Summary affirmance.* The Secretary's designee may summarily affirm an Administrative Law Judge's decision or ruling based upon the petition for review and any response thereto, without further briefing, if he or she finds that no issue raised in the petition for review warrants further consideration.
§ 128.2 Manner of reporting. ( a ) *Methods of reporting* — ( 1 ) *Prescribed forms.* ( i ) Except as provided in § 128.2(a)(2), reports required by this part shall be made on forms prescribed by the Secretary. The forms and accompanying instructions will be published in accordance with § 128.1(c).
( ii ) Copies of forms and instructions prescribed by the Secretary for reporting under this Part may be obtained from any Federal Reserve Bank, or from the Office of the Assistant Secretary (Economic Policy), Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220.
( 2 ) *Alternative methods of reporting.* In lieu of reporting on forms prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to this part, reports may be filed on magnetic tape or other media acceptable to, and approved in writing by, the Federal Reserve district bank with which the report is filed, or by the Assistant Secretary (Economic Policy) in the case of a special exception filing pursuant to § 128.2(b)(3). The Secretary may require that magnetic tape or other machine-readable media, or other rapid means of communication be used for filing special survey reports under subpart B or C of this part.
( b ) *Filing of periodic reports* — ( 1 ) *Banks and other depository institutions, International Banking Facilities, and bank holding companies.* Except as provided in § 128.2(b)(3), each bank, depository institution, International Banking Facility, and bank holding company in the United States required to file periodic reports under subpart B or C of this part shall file such reports with the Federal Reserve bank of the district in which such bank, depository institution, International Banking Facility or bank holding company has its principal place of business in the United States.
( 2 ) *Nonbanking enterprises and other persons.* Except as provided in § 128.2(b)(3), nonbanking enterprises and other persons in the United States required to file periodic reports under subpart B or C of this part shall file such reports with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
( 3 ) *Special exceptions.* If a respondent described in § 128.2(b)(1) or (2) is unable to file with a Federal Reserve district bank, such respondent shall file periodic reports with the Office of the Assistant Secretary (Economic Policy), Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, or as otherwise provided in the instructions to the periodic report forms.
( c ) *Filing of special survey reports.* All respondents required to file special survey reports under subpart B or C of this part file such reports as provided in § 128.2(b) unless otherwise provided in the instructions to the special survey reports.
586 P.2d 216

#### ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, Appellant, v. A. Jay HOLLAND, Appellee.

No. 2 CA-CIV 2851.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Oct. 17, 1978.

John A. LaSota, Jr., Atty. Gen. by C. Eileen Bond, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellant.

Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc. by Leslie A. Nixon, Tucson, for appellee.

OPINION

RICHMOND, Chief Judge.

Appellee filed a complaint in superior court seeking review of a final decision of the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) denying him unemployment insurance compensation. A responsive pleading was filed by DES and a judgment was subsequently entered reversing its decision. Approximately four months later, DES filed a motion to vacate the judgment on the ground that it was void. The motion was denied and this appeal followed. We agree with DES that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellee’s appeal from the administrative decision and reverse.

A.R.S. § 12-904 requires that an action to review a final administrative decision be commenced within 35 days from the date when a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed is served upon the party affected. It is undisputed that appellee’s complaint was not filed within this time requirement. In opposition to the motion to vacate, he argued that A.R.S. § 12-904 is merely a statute of limitations rather than a jurisdictional requirement and that appellant, by failing to plead such defense, had waived it.

Appellee has cited no authority for his position. Independent research has disclosed but one case holding that the statutory period for filing a civil action to review an administrative decision is one of limitation, rather than jurisdiction. *Diva Labora-torium Aktiengesellschaft v. DeLoney and Company,*237 F.Supp. 868 (D.D.C.1965). The weight of authority is otherwise—com*372pliance with the statutory requirement as to appeal time is a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review of an administrative decision. *See, e. g., Varnes v. Lentz,*30 Ill.App.3d 806, 332 N.E.2d 639 (1975); *Brooks v. Dierker,*275 Or. 619, 552 P.2d 533 (1976).

Judicial review of administrative decisions is not a matter of right except when authorized by law. *Allen v. Graham,*8 Ariz.App. 336, 446 P.2d 240 (1968). Appeal being a statutory privilege, jurisdictional requirements prescribed by statute must be strictly complied with to achieve entrance to appellate review. *City of Tucson v. Wondergem,*4 Ariz.App. 291, 419 P.2d 552 (1966). We hold that appellee’s failure to file his complaint in superior court within 35 days deprived that court of jurisdiction to review the decision of DES. When a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction, the court has no discretion to refuse to vacate the judgment. *Preston*v. *Denkins,*94 Ariz. 214, 382 P.2d 686 (1963).

The order denying the motion to vacate the judgment is reversed with directions to enter an order dismissing the complaint.

HOWARD and HATHAWAY, JJ., concur.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2677

To require the Secretary of the Interior to accept from a State donations

of services of State employees to perform, in a period of Government

budgetary shutdown, otherwise authorized functions in any unit of the

National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 20, 1995

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. CALVERT,

and Mr. HAYWORTH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Interior to accept from

a State donations of services of State employees to perform, in a period of Government budgetary shutdown,

otherwise authorized functions in any unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park

System.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Parks and

5 National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 2677 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

2 TO ACCEPT STATE DONATIONS OF STATE EM3 PLOYEE SERVICES.

4 (a) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall accept from

5 any State donations of services of qualified State employ6 ees to perform in a Unit, in a period of Government budg7 etary shutdown, functions otherwise authorized to be per8 formed by Department of Interior personnel.

9 (b) LIMITATIONS.—An employee of a State may per10 form functions under this section only within areas of a

11 Unit that are located in the State.

12 (c) EXCLUSION FROM TREATMENT AS FEDERAL EM13 PLOYEES.—A State employee who performs functions

14 under this section shall not be treated as a Federal em15 ployee for purposes of any Federal law relating to pay or

16 benefits for Federal employees.

17 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—

18 (1) the term ‘‘Government budgetary shut19 down’’ means a period during which there are no

20 amounts available for the operation of the National

21 Wildlife Refuge System and the National Park Sys22 tem, because of—

23 (A) a failure to enact an annual appropria24 tions bill for the period for the Department of

25 the Interior; and
3

•HR 2677 IH

1 (B) a failure to enact a bill (or joint reso2 lution) continuing the availability of appropria3 tions for the Department of the Interior for a

4 temporary period pending the enactment of

5 such an annual appropriations bill;

6 (2) the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

7 of the Interior; and

8 (3) the term ‘‘Unit’’ means a unit of—

9 (A) the National Wildlife Refuge System,

10 or

11 (B) the National Park System.

Æ
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 16

- 0074 Filed November 23, 2016

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. KEVIN BROWN , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, Emily S. Dean , District Associate Judge.

The def endant appeals from his conviction, following a guilty plea.
AFFIRMED.

William R. Monroe of the Law Office of William Monroe , Burlington , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.2

POTTERFIELD, Presiding J udge. Kevin Brown appeals from his conviction , following a guilty plea, for operating while intoxicated

. Brown maintains his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty without the district court making express findings the plea was kn owing and voluntary. Brown has the burden to establish both that his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty and that the failure resulted in prejudice. See State v. Straw , 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 2006). We review his claim de novo. Id. C ounsel does not have a duty to pursue a meritless issue, see State v. Utter

, 803 N.W.2d 647, 652 (Iowa 2011), so we first consider whether the district court ’s acceptance of Brown’s plea violated Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(b). Where a defend ant is pleading guilty to a serious or aggravated misdemeanor, as Brown did here, 1 the defendant may waive their in

- court appearance and colloquy. See Iowa R. Crim P. 2.8(2)(b) . In the plea signed by Brown, he acknowledge d the charge against him as OWI, first offense , and the possible maximum and minimum sentences. He also acknowledged and waived his right to appear in court for a colloquy , as well as his rights to a jury trial and to confront and compel witnesses. Brown’s written plea met the necessary informational requirements. See State v. Majeres , 722 N.W.2d 179, 183 (Iowa 2006). Because Brown w as fully informed of his rights and chose to sign and submit the guilty plea anyway, “ [a]n in

- court colloquy is not necessary to ensure the waiver was volu ntary, knowing, and intelligent. ” See id. (citing Iowa v. Tovar ,

1 Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(a) (2015) provides that a first offense of operating while intoxicated is a serious misdemeanor.3

541 U.S. 77, 80

– 81 (2004)) . Rather, “[a] written guilty plea containing such a waiver is prima facie evidence the defendant gave the waiver voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” Id. Here, the court’s acceptance of Brown’s guilty plea substantially complied with rule 2.8(2)(b), and any objection by counsel would have been meritless. See State v. Loye , 670 N.W.2d 141, 150 (Iowa 2003) (stating “we employ a substantial compliance stan dard in determining whether a trial court has discharged its duty” under rule 2.8(2)). Thus, counsel has not breached an essential duty, and Brown’s claim must fail. See Everett v. State , 789 N.W.2d 151, 159 (Iowa 2010) (holding that a defendant’s ineffe ctive

- assistance claim fails if either element is lacking).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's Consolidated Condensed Statement of Income and Consolidated
Condensed Balance Sheet for the six-month period ended December 31, 1999,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         140,600
<SECURITIES>                                   260,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                  632,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                   178,400
<INVENTORY>                                    124,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,030,700
<PP&E>                                         428,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 277,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,106,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,094,600
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        (1,300)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     28,800
<OTHER-SE>                                     628,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,106,100
<SALES>                                      1,363,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,363,200
<CGS>                                        1,178,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,178,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               244,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                194,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                    69,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,400
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16


</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00391

- CV

Michelle Kaplowitz , Appellant

v.

Lone Star Tan GP, LLC; LST Austin I, Ltd.; and Ashley Alvillar , Appellee s

FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 18

- 0550

- C26 , THE HONORABLE DONNA GAYLE KING , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Michelle Kaplowitz has filed an unopposed moti on to dismiss this

appeal. We g rant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a )

.

__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice

Before Justices Go odwin, Bake r, and Kelly

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: O ctober 14, 2022