alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Dow Chemical Company

CERTIFIED PRODUCT DATA SHEET

(Properties of product "as supplied" by The Dow Chemical Company)

 Date: 20-Sep-12

 Vendor Address: 2010 Dow Center, Midland, Michigan 48674

 CPDS Update: You may wish to request updated CPDS data on an annual basis for this product.

 The Dow Chemical Company Product Name: ADCOTETM 76R36B 

 The Dow Chemical Company Product Description: Laminating adhesive

A. Density (DC)S: 8.01 lbs./gal ASTM D1475  Other 

B. Total Volatiles (WV)S 57.50 Weight Percent ASTM D2369 Other 

C. Water Content (WW)S: None Weight Percent ASTM D3792  ASTM D4017  Other 

D. Organic Volatiles (VOC) (WO)S: 57.50 Weight Percent

E. Other Volatiles (Wv)s: None Weight Percent

F. Nonvolatile and/or Solids Content (WN)S: 42.50 Weight Percent

G. Total HAP Content (HAP)S: 24.80 Weight Percent

H. Volatile HAP Content (VHAP)S: 24.80 Weight Percent

I. Constituents [List all VOC (4), HAP (2), California Proposition 65 reportables (3), SARA 313 reportables(3)]

 Indicate Method Used: Theoretical Formulation  Method 311 

Substance CAS Number Target Weight 

Percent Volatile VOC 

(4)

HAP 

(2)

California 

Prop 65 

(3)

SARA 

313 

(3)

Density 

(lbs/gal)

Toluene 108-88-3 24.80 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7.2

Methyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3 29.10 Yes Yes No No No 6.7

108-65-6 3.20 Yes Yes No No No 8.1

Other volatile organics below reportable levels N/A 0.0008 Yes Yes Yes Yes Below De 

Minimis N/A

Other volatile organics below reportable levels N/A 0.40 Yes Yes No No No N/A

(1) The subscript "s" denotes each value is for the adhesive or coating "as supplied" by the manufacturer.

(2) HAP's are reported if present at 0.1% or greater which meets or exceeds both the MACT Standard for Printing and Publishing and the MACT Standard for Paper and Other Web Coatings. 

(3) Following OSHA reporting guidelines for Prop 65 and SARA 313 as reported on current MSDS.

(4) Organic volatiles must total item D above.

Layout 101108802

 The Dow Chemical Company reports Hazardous Air Pollutants present at 0.1% or greater. This meets or exceeds US EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

References: MACT Standard for Printing and Publishing (61 FR 27131; dated 5/30/1996) and MACT Standard for Paper and Other Web Coatings (67 FR 72341; dated 12/05/2002).

The above information was compiled using formulation data and available supplier CPDS information, unless noted by an X next to the 311, 2369, 4017, 3792 or 1475 methods shown above. As a result, the data may not compare 

to analytical data from Method 24 for VOC or Method 311.

 Vendor Name: The Dow Chemical Company

Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate

 Persons Preparing Certified Product Data Sheet and Phone Number: Gloria Miller (847 808 3874) / Samiksha Athani
COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

SAM GLASSCOCK III

VICE CHANCELLOR

STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 THE CIRCLE

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: June 22, 2023

Date Decided: June 22, 2023

John W. Paradee, Esquire

Brian V. DeMott, Esquire

J. Garrett Miller, Esquire

6 South State Street

Dover, DE 19901

Ryan T. Costa, Esquire

State of Delaware Department of Justice

820 N. French Street

Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: KDM Development Corp. v. The Consumer Protection Unit of 

the Department of Justice for the State of Delaware, 

C.A. No. 2023-0438-SG

Dear Counsel:

Petitioner seeks to quash a subpoena under both Rule 45(c)(3) of this Court

and 6 Del. C. §§ 2514-17.1 However, the rule and statute referenced contemplate a 

subpoena authorized by a court, which is not the case here.2 This Court therefore 

lacks statutory jurisdiction over the matter. Because Petitioner is free to seek 

identical relief at law, traditional equitable jurisdiction is also lacking.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice with the 

understanding that a similar filing will be made in Superior Court.

1

See Verified Pet. Seeking to Quash Subpoenas and the Issuance of a Protective Order, Dkt. No. 

1.

2 Per Respondent, the subpoena in question was authorized by the Department of Justice itself 

pursuant to 29 Del. C. §§ 2504(4) and 2508(a). Opp. of the Delaware Department of Justice to 

Pet. Seeking to Quash Subpoenas and the Issuance of a Protective Order ¶ 6, Dkt. No. 6. 

Because I find that I am without equitable jurisdiction, I do not reach the merits of the case. 
2

To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO 

ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Vice Chancellor
41136.

#### THORNTON v. THE STATE.

Ebekhajkdt, Judge.

The evidence was sufficient to authorize a verdict of guilty both of possessing and selling nontax-paid liquor.

In the one special ground of the motion for new trial error is assigned upon the charge “If you should find the defendant guilty on one count and not guilty on the other count, then, in that event, it would, of course, be necessary for you to specify in your verdict the count on which you have found her guilty, and the count on which you have found her not guilty. In this regard, the court charges you that while it would be possible for you to find the defendant guilty of possessing and not guilty of selling, it would, of course, not be possible to find the defendant guilty of selling and not guilty of possessing, as such a verdict would be void and of no effect.” The error assigned is that the charge was argumentative and suggested that the defendant had to be found guilty of possessing if she was found guilty of selling, that it was misleading, confusing and intimated an opinion as to the defendant’s guilt.

There can be no question but that the first sentence of the portion excepted to was pertinent, correct and applicable. It is not subject to the criticisms of this assignment, and since the assignment itself is to the whole of the excerpt, not showing which of the propositions therein it is contended is *227subject to criticism made or to which exception is intended to be taken, it is not good. *White v. State,*141 Ga. 526 (1b) (81 SE 440); *Jefferson v. State,*131 Ga. 28 (61 SE 997); *Gaillard v. State,*41 Ga. App. 478 (3) (153 SE 374); *Harrold Bros., Inc. v. Peterman,*104 Ga. App. 831, 833 (123 SE2d 30).

Decided February 9, 1965

Rehearing denied February 23, 1965.

*Guy B. Scott, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Preston M. Almand, Solicitor,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
HomeNATO Status Lists...21. Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty for the Security of Information, done at Brussels March 6, 1997

# 									21. Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty for the Security of Information, done at Brussels March 6, 1997							

Depositary – Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Entered into force August 16, 1998.

In accordance with Article 6, paragraph (b), the Agreement entered into force thirty days after the date of deposit by two signatory States of their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval. It shall enter into force for each other signatory State thirty days after the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval.
Download Status List						 [130 KB]

Tags

MultilateralNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationTreaties

Back to Top
#### § 488.203 Withdrawal of request for reconsideration.

A requestor may withdraw its request for reconsideration at any time before the issuance of a reconsideration determination.
**
**Exhibit 23**

**DeGolyer and MacNaughton**

5001 Spring ValleyRoad 

Suite 800 East 

Dallas, Texas 75244 

March 25, 2022 

Sabine Royalty Trust 

Simmons Bank, Trustee 

2911 Turtle Creek Blvd, Suite 850 

Dallas, Texas 75219 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We hereby consent to the inclusion of our report of third party dated February 10, 2022, containing our opinion on the estimated proved reservesand revenue, as of January 1, 2022, of certain royalty interests that Sabine Royalty Trust has represented it holds in the Annual Report on Form 10–K for the year ended December 31, 2021, of the Sabine Royalty Trust (the Form 10–K) to befiled with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. We also consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton under the heading “Properties—Reserves” in Item 2 and under the heading “Supplemental Oil and GasInformation (Unaudited)—Reserve Quantities” in Item 8 of the Form 10–K. 

Very truly yours, 

/s/ DeGolyer and MacNaughton 

DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON 

Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-716 
**
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 18, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133088 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

CITY OF CHARLEVOIX,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133088 

 COA: 271405 

Charlevoix CC: 05-094120-CK 

MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE 

LIABILITY & PROPERTY POOL, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2006 

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, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

p0711 

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. 

July 18, 2007 

 Clerk
§ 489.2 Scope of part. ( a ) Subpart A of this part sets forth the basic requirements for submittal and acceptance of a provider agreement under Medicare. Subpart B of this part specifies the basic commitments and limitations that the provider must agree to as part of an agreement to provide services. Subpart C specifies the limitations on allowable charges to beneficiaries for deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, blood, and services that must be part of the provider agreement. Subpart D of this part specifies how incorrect collections are to be handled. Subpart F sets forth the circumstances and procedures for denial of payments for new admissions and for withholding of payment as an alternative to termination of a provider agreement.
( b ) The following providers are subject to the provisions of this part: ( 1 ) Hospitals.
( 2 ) Skilled nursing facilities (SNFs).
( 3 ) Home health agencies (HHAs).
( 4 ) Clinics, rehabilitation agencies, and public health agencies.
( 5 ) Comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities (CORFs).
( 6 ) Hospices.
( 7 ) Critical access hospital (CAHs).
( 8 ) Community mental health centers (CMHCs).
( 9 ) Religious nonmedical health care institutions (RNHCIs).
( 10 ) Opioid treatment programs (OTPs).
( 11 ) Rural emergency hospitals (REHs).
( c ) ( 1 ) Clinics, rehabilitation agencies, and public health agencies may enter into provider agreements only for furnishing outpatient physical therapy, and speech pathology services.
( 2 ) CMHCs may enter into provider agreements only to furnish partial hospitalization services and intensive outpatient services.
( 3 ) OTPs may enter into provider agreements only to furnish opioid use disorder treatment services.
[45 FR 22937, Apr. 4, 1980, as amended at 47 FR 56297, Dec. 15, 1982; 48 FR 56036, Dec. 15, 1983; 51 FR 24492, July 3, 1986; 58 FR 30676, May 26, 1993; 59 FR 6578, Feb. 11, 1994; 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997; 68 FR 66720, Nov. 28, 2003; 84 FR 63204, Nov. 15, 2019; 87 FR 72309, Nov. 23, 2022; 88 FR 82184, Nov. 22, 2023]
#### PRESSWOOD V. THE STATE.

(Decided May 9, 1911.)

Appeal from Bessemer City Court.

Heard before Hon. J. C. B. Gwin.

Mathews & Mathews, for appellant.

R. C. Brick-ell, Attorney General, for the State.

de Grafeenried, J.

Reversed and rendered on the -evidence.
****

This chart presents 1996 Colorado exports to the New Independent States of the former SovietUnion.  Data used to create the chart were collected by the **Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce**, With further analysis by the **University of Massachusetts,Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research** (MISER).  For more informationcall Pat Sweeney at **BISNIS**, at (202)482-4655x20.
'95 export data for Colorado
Return to USA Export Map
Return to BISNIS Home Page
No. 99-9055.

#### Varela *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 12
 TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 2010
    
    2009
    
    2008
    
    2007
    
    2006(Dollars in millions)(Loss) income from continuing operations before income
taxes and noncontrolling interest
    
    $
    (341
    )
    
    $
    (305
    )
    
    $
    (539
    )
    
    $
    222
    
    
    $
    210Fixed Charges:Interest on debt
    
    
    118
    
    
    
    159
    
    
    
    307
    
    
    
    397
    
    
    
    351Estimated interest portion of rents
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    3Total fixed charges
    
    
    120
    
    
    
    161
    
    
    
    310
    
    
    
    400
    
    
    
    354Adjusted (loss) income
    
    $
    (221
    )
    
    $
    (144
    )
    
    $
    (229
    )
    
    $
    622
    
    
    $
    564Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (1)
    
    
    (1.85
    )x
    
    
    (0.89
    )x
    
    
    (0.74
    )x
    
    
    1.56
    x
    
    
    1.59
    x
 (1)
    
    The ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been computed by dividing (loss) income from
continuing operations before income taxes and noncontrolling interest and fixed charges, by
fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest on debt and one-third rental expense as
representative of interest portion of rentals. Additional earnings of $341 million, $305
million and $539 million would have been necessary to bring the ratio of earnings to fixed
charges to 1.0 in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John Robert NICOLAUS v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penn.

No. 65260.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1979.

In re John Robert Nicolaus, applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and habeas corpus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.
#### NEW ENGLAND SAVINGS BANK *v.*MEADOW LAKES REALTY COMPANY ET AL. ANGUS MCDONALD-GARY SHARPE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. *v.*GLEN LAKES REALTY COMPANY ET AL.

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15651.

The petition by the plaintiff Angus McDonald-Gary Sharpe and Associates, Inc., for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 44 Conn. App. 240 (AC 14162), is granted, limited to the following issue:

> “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiffs mechanic’s lien was invalid?”

*919
      *John S. Bennet,*in support of the petition.

*Michael D. Colonese,*in opposition.

Decided March 27, 1997
HomeNuclear Energy Recent Actions...Nuclear – IAEA Statute – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Comoros September 17, 2020

# 									Nuclear – IAEA Statute – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Comoros September 17, 2020							

Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Download Attachment						 [105 KB]

Tags

ComorosNuclear Energy

Back to Top
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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 25, 2016

s0518 

# Order

Clerk May 25, 2016

152150

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152150

COA: 321113

Saginaw CC: 13

- 038964

- FC

JOHN HENRY GRANDERSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 14, 2015

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them.
NORWEST FINANCIAL, INC.
                                
            Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                                 Exhibit 12

   
                                         Years Ended December 31,

(Thousands of Dollars)

                               1998      1997      1996      1995      1994

Net earnings                 $238,604  $269,450  $276,331  $267,941  $223,340


Add:

  Fixed charges:

  Interest including
  amortization of
  debt expense                485,784   401,736   372,859   359,079   259,605

  One third of rentals*        13,406    12,107    10,748    10,317     9,747

  Total fixed charges         499,190   413,843   383,607   369,396   269,352

  Provision for income taxes  121,668   144,082   148,096   147,873   116,900

  Total net earnings,
  fixed charges and
   income taxes -
  "Earnings"                 $859,462  $827,375  $808,034  $785,210  $609,592


Ratio of earnings
  to fixed charges               1.72      2.00      2.11      2.13      2.26




* One-third of rentals is deemed representative of the interest factor.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Jamaica’s Independence Day

# 									Jamaica’s Independence Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

August 6, 2022

On behalf of the Government and People of the United States, I extend a heartfelt congratulations to the Jamaican people on a successful six decades of independence. Since 1962, our two countries have stood side-by-side, strengthening regional security, fostering people-to-people ties, and facilitating free trade.

The intertwined history of our peoples and the importance Jamaican-Americans hold in our national story only bring our countries closer.  The Jamaican diaspora in the United States has made enormous contributions to America’s success and wellbeing, rising to the highest levels of business, science, sport, film, music, and government.

We congratulate you on this important milestone, and we look forward to expanding our unbreakable partnership in the decades to come.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsJamaicaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of RegeneRx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J.J. Finkelstein,Chief Executive Officer 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:

 

(1)                      The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                      The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand result of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented inthis report.

 

Date:   March 28,2008

 
|   |   |   |   | /s/J.J. Finkelstein                    |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | J.J. Finkelstein                       |
|   |   |   |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

----
1 

f 

In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: February 26,2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0047 

FACILITY SOLUTIONS, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2012NE700128 

Respondent 

ORDER CANCELLING THE HEARING 

AND SETTING A THIRD STATUS CONFERENCE . 

On January 24, 2014, an Order Continuing Pre-Hearing Status Conference was filed. 

Among other things, this Order continued the Pre-Hearing Status Conference to February 26, 

2014, at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time, to allow the parties additional time to discuss settlement issues. 

On February 26, 2014, the parties convened by telephone for a second Pre-Hearing Status 

Conference. The parties stated that they were still engaged in settlement discussions. The parties 

agreed to strike the currently scheduled hearing dates, and set the matter for a third status 

conference. 

Having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, 

regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

It Is Hereby Ordered: 

1. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.221(b), the Hearing currently set for April 8, 2014 and April 

9, 2014 in Detroit, Michigan is cancelled. In addition, the March 20141itigation 

deadlines, contained in the June 6, 2013 Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures, 

are cancelled. 

2. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a), the parties shall reconvene by telephone (202-493-

2343) for a Third Status Conference on Tuesday, AprilS, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. Eastern 

time. 

3. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, should the parties reach a settlement, notice of the 

settlement anci/or a withdrawal of the pleadings shall be filed with the Judge. 

Attachment: Service List 
I 

I 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Mr. Brian K. Khan 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7H 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7652 

F~: 847-294-7498 

Mr. Roy J. Transit 

Respondent's Counsel 

P.O. Box 1578 

Royal Oak, MI 48068-1578 

TEL: 586-491-6822 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

ONE COPY 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

F ~: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0047 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3417

To remove a restriction on the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture

to enter into agreements with other Federal agencies to acquire goods

and services directly related to improving or utilizing the firefighting

capability of the Forest Service.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 1996

Mr. GALLEGLY (for himself and Mr. SCHIFF) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To remove a restriction on the authority of the Secretary

of Agriculture to enter into agreements with other Federal agencies to acquire goods and services directly related to improving or utilizing the firefighting capability

of the Forest Service.

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

3 SECTION 1. ACQUISITION OF GOODS AND SERVICES RELAT4 ED TO FIREFIGHTING.

5 The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the

6 Chief of the Forest Service, may place an order with a

7 major organizational unit within the Department of Agri-
2

•HR 3417 IH

1 culture or another Federal agency for goods or services

2 directly related to firefighting without regard to the re3 striction contained in section 1535(a)(4) of title 31, Unit4 ed States Code, that the Secretary determine that the

5 goods or services cannot be provided by contract a conven6 iently or cheaply by a commercial enterprise.

Æ