alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT P-11-0130 Focus Ready Draft 1/20/2011
ENGINEER: Hall \ EV PV (kg/yr): 1000 Import only
Revision Notes/Assessment Overview:
SUBMITTER: Eastman Kodak Company (submitter)
USE: Chemical intermediate;

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes LABEL : N o Gen Eqpt: Install closed system or local exhaust engineering controls; impervious gloves and clothing; safety goggles or face-shield (if required); and protective boots (if required). Respirator: Half or full facepiece respirator, self-contained breathing apparatus, supplied air respirator, etc. Health Effects: Harmful if swallowed. Causes severe skin burns and eye damage. CRSS: (1/6/2011): Chemical Name: 1-Butanol, 4-aminoS-H2O: 1000 g/L @ VP: 2.5E-1 torr @ MW: 89 0.0%<500 0.0%<1000 Physical State and Misc CRSS Info: Neat: Liquid Mfg: N K: Imported

Consumer Use : SAT (concerns): (1/7/2011 ):
Related Cases and Misc SAT Info :
Migration to groundwater: Moderate PBT rating: P 1 B 1 T 1

. Health: 2, Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 2, Water (All releases to water with a CC = 350 ppb.)
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2A
NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. The submitter was contacted for additional informationabout the PMN (see Contact Report).

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

P2 REC:
EXPOSURE -BASED REVIEW: N o (0 criteria met)P-11-0130

Use - Chemical Intermediate
Number of Sites/Location:
Basis: Process Description:



## 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.

Conservative: to: from: basis:

Output 2: to : from: basis:

Output 2: to : from: basis:

Typical: r Worst Case: to: from: basis:

High End: to: from: basis:Output 2: to : from: basis:


## RELEASE TOTAL

kg/y r - sites



## OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis:

Dermal: Exposure to High End: Number of workers (all sites) with Dermal exposure: Basis:

Inhalation: Exposure to Worst Case : Typical: Number of workers (all sites) with Inhalation exposure: Basis:


## INHALATION MONITORING DATA REVIEW 1) Uncertainty (estimate based on model, regulatory limit, or data not specific to industry): 2) (a) Exposure level > 1 mg/day? (b) Hazard Rating for health of 2 or greater? o Inhalation Monitoring Data Desired ?
Inhalation : Exposure to Worst Case: Typical: Number of workers (all sites) with Inhalation exposure: Basis:


## INHALATION MONITORING DATA REVIEW 1) Uncertainty (estimate based on model, regulatory limit, or data not specific to industry): 2) (a) Exposure level > 1 mg/day? (b) Hazard Rating for health of 2 or greater? Inhalation Monitoring Data Desired ?Dermal: Exposure to High End: Number of workers (all sites) with Dermal exposure: Basis:

Inhalation: Exposure to Worst Case : Typical: Number of workers (all sites) with Inhalation exposure: Basis:


## INHALATION MONITORING DATA REVIEW 1) Uncertainty (estimate based on model, regulatory limit, or data not specific to industry): 2) (a) Exposure level > 1 mg/day? (b) Hazard Rating for health of 2 or greater? Inhalation Monitoring Data Desired ?
# C_2006062EN.01000301.xml

| 15.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4099 — EQT IV/DC Off-Highway)

(2006/C 62/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 March 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4099. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4099. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2006052EN.01000101.xml

| 2.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/1

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

2,32 % on 1 March 2006

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 March 2006

(2006/C 52/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1954 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,56 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4604 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68060 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4475 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5614 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 77,33 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0290 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5747 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,265 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 253,42 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7748 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4753 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,50 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 36,975 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,5708 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6047 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3607 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2739 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7955 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9341 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 157,80 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,3652 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6098 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3105 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 10 976,76 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,434 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,396 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,4940 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,587 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1954

JPY

Japanese yen

138,56

DKK

Danish krone

7,4604

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68060

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4475

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5614

ISK

Iceland króna

77,33

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0290

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5747

CZK

Czech koruna

28,265

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

253,42

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7748

RON

Romanian leu

3,4753

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,50

SKK

Slovak koruna

36,975

TRY

Turkish lira

1,5708

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6047

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3607

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2739

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7955

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9341

KRW

South Korean won

1 157,80

ZAR

South African rand

7,3652

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6098

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3105

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

10 976,76

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,434

PHP

Philippine peso

61,396

RUB

Russian rouble

33,4940

THB

Thai baht

46,587

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)

2

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Ruth CARLYLE, Appellant, v. Robert J. CARLYLE, Appellee.

No. R-260.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 19, 1974.

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1974.

Jon D. Caminez, Tallahassee, for appellant.

• Charles Vocelle of Brannon, Brown, Norris, Vocelle & Haley, Lake City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Ryan v. Ryan, 277 So.2d 266 (Fla.1973).

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.

McCORD, J., concurs specially.

McCORD, Judge

(concurring specially).

Appellant contends that she was indigent and was, therefore, entitled to be furnished a free transcript of record for her appeal. Such contention is without merit since she has not shown compliance with Section 57.081, Florida Statutes, F.S. A. No opinion as to whether or not she would be entitled to a free transcript if she had complied with said statute is expressed.

As to appellant’s contention that the chancellor erred in granting dissoulution of the marriage without referring the parties for marriage counseling, appellant has not shown that the chancellor abused his discretion in such regard.

The Supreme Court has ruled contrary to appellant’s contentions that Chapter 61, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is unconstitutional. See Ryan v. Ryan, Fla., 277 So.2d 266.
## Alliance Meeting with Margo Oge, EPA Re: Growth Energy E15 Waiver Request and Pending Decision

Date EPA Attendees Name of Organization Summary of Discussion Written

Comments

Provided? Date sent to EPA

3/ 25 /2010 Margo Oge Oge.Margo@epa.gov

Karl Simon Simon.karl@epa.gov

Robert Anderson Anderson.robert@epa.gov

Paul Machiele (by video) Machiele.paul@epa.gov

Antonio Fernandez (by video) Fernandez.antonio@epa.gov

Susan Stahle (by phone) Stahle.susan@epa.gov In Person : Six individuals me t with EPA including: Marie Valentine (Toyota), Brian Rampp (BMW), Reg Modlin (Chysler), Julie Becker and Ellen Shapiro (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers), and Robert Babih (GM). The Alliance (including representatives from automobile manufacturers) di scussed onboard diagnostics, implementation timing, post

waiver monitoring, plan for educating and protecting consumers, and EPA’s expectations

for automakers. Yes , an agenda was provided (also in the docket). 3/ 25 /2010
#### § 8.42 Practice of law.

Nothing in the regulations in this part may be construed as authorizing persons not members of the bar to practice law.
# C_2005315EN.01001903.xml

| 10.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/19

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2005 — Milella and Campanella v Commission

(Case T-289/05)

(2005/C 315/36)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of Juan Carlos Varela Rodriguez,  Former Panamanian President, for Significant Corruption

# 									Designation of Juan Carlos Varela Rodriguez,  Former Panamanian President, for Significant Corruption							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

July 13, 2023

Today, I am announcing the designation of former Panamanian President, Juan Carlos Varela Rodriguez as generally ineligible for entry into the United States, due to his involvement in significant corruption.  While serving as Panama’s vice president and then president, Varela accepted bribes in exchange for improperly awarding government contracts.

This designation reaffirms the commitment of the United States to combat endemic corruption in Panama.  The people of Panama place trust in those who represent them.  Corruption unjustly deprives the people of Panama of quality public services such as schools, hospitals, and roads, hurting their economic prospects and their quality of life.  If not addressed, corruption will continue to depress Panama’s prosperity, weaken its democracy, and prevent it from realizing its full potential.

It is our hope that today’s action will prompt Panama’s elected representatives and authorities to tackle entrenched corruption and empower all those who stand up for the rule of law.  Corruption anywhere damages the national security and economic health of the United States and our allies.  We will continue to promote accountability for those involved in significant corruption throughout the world.

*This public designation is made under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2023.**Officials designated under Section 7031(c) and their immediate family members are generally ineligible for entry into the United States.*

Tags

7031(c)Anti-Corruption and TransparencyBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCorruptionOffice of the SpokespersonPanamaThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3120

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to witness retaliation,

witness tampering and jury tampering.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 1996

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to

witness retaliation, witness tampering and jury tampering.

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

3 That title 18, United States Code, is amended—

4 (1) in section 1513, by adding at the end the

5 following:

6 ‘‘(c) If the retaliation occurred because of attendance

7 at or testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of

8 imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under

9 this section shall be the higher of that otherwise provided
2

•HR 3120 IH

1 by law or the maximum term that could have been im2 posed for any offense charged in such case.’’;

3 (2) in section 1512, by adding at the end the

4 following:

5 ‘‘(i) If the offense under this section occurs in connec6 tion with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term

7 of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense

8 shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or

9 the maximum term that could have been imposed for any

10 offense charged in such case.’’; and

11 (3) in section 1503, by adding at the end the

12 following: ‘‘If the offense under this section occurs

13 in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the

14 maximum term of imprisonment which may be im15 posed for the offense shall be the higher of that oth16 erwise provided by law or the maximum term that

17 could have been imposed for any offense charged in

18 such case.’’.

Æ
#### Belinda RUSSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. II-377.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 5, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Kathleen Dekker, Special Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Russell’s conviction as a principal in the first degree to robbery with a weapon is affirmed. However, the provision in her sentence that she be imprisoned “at hard labor” is not authorized by law, and being merely surplusage, this provision is hereby stricken. *Massey v. State,*351 So.2d 376*869(Fla. 1st DCA 1977). As amended, the sentence is AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Opinion issued January 29, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00129-CV

———————————

JUSDEN A. KUKOWSKI, JESSE DAVID HARTUNG D/B/A H & H 

HAULING, INC. AND H & H HAULING, INC., Appellants

V.

BRYCE G. BURTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 56th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-CV-1174

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2), 42.1(a). No opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c). 
2

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). All pending motions are dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1125 

KA 10-01928 

PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

SHAWN M. MUNT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S.

Sperrazza, J.), rendered September 3, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree

and criminal contempt in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827). 

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
§ 24.7 Inapplicability of provisions regarding appointments. ( a ) Appointments to the Service shall be made without regard to the provisions of title 5 of the U.S. Code regarding appointments.
( b ) Members of the Service shall not be covered by the following provisions of title 5 of the U.S. Code: ( 1 ) Subchapter I of chapter 35 (relating to retention preference in the event of reduction in force);
( 2 ) Chapter 43 (relating to performance appraisal and performance-based actions);
( 3 ) Chapter 51 (relating to classification);
( 4 ) Subchapter III of chapter 53 (relating to General Schedule pay rates); and
( 5 ) Chapter 75 (relating to adverse actions).
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 13, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00331

- CV

Randolph A. Lopez, d/b/a Brown Hand Center and d/b/a Brown Medical Center, Appellant

v.

Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P., d/b/a Austin American

- States man, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GO ODWIN

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on March 18, 2014. Having

reviewed the record , the Court holds that Randolph A. Lopez, d/b/a Brown Hand Center and

d/b/a Brown Medical Center h as not prosecuted his appeal and d id not comply with a notice from

the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
§ 412.246 MGCRB members. ( a ) *Composition.* The Medicare Geographical Classification Review Board (MGCRB) consists of five members, including a Chairman, all of whom are appointed by the Secretary. The members include two members who are representative of prospective payment system hospitals located in rural areas, and at least one individual who is knowledgeable in analyzing the costs of inpatient hospital services.
( b ) *Term of office.* The term of office for an MGCRB member may not exceed 3 years. A member may serve more than one term. The Secretary may terminate a member's tenure prior to its full term.
[55 FR 36766, Sept. 6, 1990, as amended at 61 FR 46224, Aug. 30, 1996; 61 FR 51217, Oct. 1, 1996]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6553

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CARL A. EUBANKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CR-97-110, CA-00-3645-2-18)

Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl A. Eubanks, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Howe Hendricks, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carl A. Eubanks seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Eubanks, Nos. CR-97-110; CA00-3645-2-18 (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2006010EN.01002001.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2005 — Righini v Commission

(Case T-145/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Temporary staff - Classification in grade and in step - Classification in the higher career grade)

(2006/C 10/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elisabetta Righini (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Application for

annulment of the Commission's decisions to classify the applicant on her entry into service in Grade A7, step 3, whether as a member of the temporary staff or as a probationary official, and, in so far as is necessary, annulment of the decision of 21 January 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004.

1

---
No. 99-8922.

#### Townsend *v.*Booker, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2006063EN.01003602.xml

| 16.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/36

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4102 — BASF/Engelhard)

(2006/C 63/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 23 February 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4102. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4102. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---