alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 35415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15065]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Addition to the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will 
be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or 
have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Effective Date: 7/18/2011.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 
603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additions

    On 4/29/2011 (76 FR 23998), the Committee for Purchase From People 
Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed 
addition to the Procurement List.
    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning 
capability of a qualified nonprofit agency to provide the service and 
impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the 
Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for 
procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 
51-2.4.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors 
considered for this certification were:
    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other 
than the small organization that will provide the service to the 
Government.
    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide 
the service to the Government.
    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would 
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48c) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the 
Procurement List.

End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement 
List:

Service

Service Type/Location: Custodial Service, US Military Academy 
Preparatory School, West Point, NY.
NPA: New Dynamics Corporation, Middletown, NY.
Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QM West Point Doc, West 
Point, NY.

Barry S. Lineback
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-15065 Filed 6-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4409 Delegations of authority. ( a ) Each employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs appointed to or lawfully filling any of the following positions is hereby delegated authority, within the limitations and conditions prescribed by law, to exercise the powers and functions of the Secretary with respect to assisting eligible individuals in acquiring specially adapted housing: ( 1 ) Under Secretary for Benefits.
( 2 ) Executive Director, Loan Guaranty Service.
( 3 ) Deputy Director, Loan Guaranty Service.
( 4 ) Assistant Director, Loan Policy and Valuation.
( 5 ) Chief, Specially Adapted Housing, Loan Guaranty Service.
( 6 ) Director, VA Medical Center.
( 7 ) Director, VA Regional Office.
( 8 ) Loan Guaranty Officer.
( 9 ) Assistant Loan Guaranty Officer.
( b ) Nothing in this section will be construed to authorize the determination of basic eligibility or medical feasibility under § 36.4404(a), (b)(1)(i), or (b)(1)(ii) by any employee designated in this section, except as otherwise authorized.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 512, ch. 21)
[75 FR 56876, Sept. 17, 2010, as amended at 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021; 86 FR 52991, Sept. 24, 2021]
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-11-0530

SAT Date: 8/2/2011

Print Date: 5/1/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 1 Health: PMN substance ; Eco: intact material

2 3 Health: Incomplete incineration product ; Eco: high concern for toxicity o

incomplete incineration products to terrestrial organisms

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 1 1 PMN

3 2 2 Deg Pdt.

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ; PMN negl; Deg Pdt rapid

P2Rec Comments:

Comment: No Comment

Keywords:

 Keywords: 

IRR-E,S,L

GI

LUNG

UNCERT WATERPROOFING

LIVER

BLOOD

MALE REPRO
IMMUNO

ONCO

AQUATOX-C

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-11-0530

FATE: 

S = Disp.

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = PMN 90 via sorption; Deg Pdt 0 via stripping

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg ≥ mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = PMN v.strong; Deg Pdt low

PBT Potential: PMN P3B1; Deg Pdt P3B2

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = PMN negl; Deg Pdt rapid

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes, based on physical/chemical 

properties. There is concern for irritation to the eye, skin, and lung, and for disturbances to the 

GI tract if ingested, based on information in the PMN MSDS. There also is concern for lung 

toxicity if inhaled based on lung overload for high molecular weight polymers, and uncertain 

concern for lung waterproofing, based on fluorinated surfactants. 

.

For the potential degradation product, based on test data for the analog 

concerns are liver toxicity, blood toxicity, and male reproductive toxicity [rat 28-day oral 

NOAEL = 50 mg/kg, LOAEL = 150 mg/kg with liver toxicity; rat 90-day oral LOAEL = 10 

mg/kg based on decreased body weight in males at all doses and liver toxicity and anemia at 200 

mg/kg; there were toxic effects on the testes in 2 males in the 90-day oral study that were judged 

by the reviewer to be indicative of the potential for male reproductive toxicity. There is also 

concern for immunosuppression and oncogenicity based on data for 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 >100

daphnid 48-h LC50 >100

green algal 96-h EC50 >100

fish _ chronic value >10
daphnid _ chronic 

value

>10

algal _ chronic 

value

>10

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR 

chemical class = polymerwith mp unknown (P); S = dispersible in water at 25 C (P); effective concentrations based 

on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and 

TOC <2.0 mg/L;

high concern for the degradation product 

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1000

SARs nonioinic polymers

SAR Class polymer-nonionicEcotox Category 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
 FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of FCCC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bernard Zimmerman, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Company.




Date: February 7, 2012
By:Bernard ZimmermanPresident, Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer
### Opinion issued March 9, 2021

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— 

### NO. 01
- 20
- 00784
- CV

——————————— IN RE JAVIER MARTINEZ , Relat or

Original Proceeding on Petition for W rit o f Mandamus

MEMORANDU M OPINION Relator, Javier M a rtinez, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus , requesting that this Court order the trial court to vacate its order reinstating a proceeding involving the modi fication o f child support and enforcement of medica l2



### support. 1 

### We deny the petition 2 

### and li f t the stay imposed by December 1, 2 020
order

. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
P ER CU RIAM
Panel consists of Justic e s Countiss, Rivas

- Molloy, and Guerra

.

1 The underlying case is Javie r Martinez v. Sylvia Yvette M artinez , C ause No. 2015

- 75648 , pending in the 246 th District Court of Harris County, Te xas, the H onora ble Angela L. Graves

- Harrington presiding.
2 Relator ’s petition is deficient because it lack s an adequate appendix and a record

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(k)(1) (requiring original pr o ceedings to be filed with appendix that contains “a cert ified or s worn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of”) ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.7 (requiring record to include “certified or sworn copy of every document t hat is mate rial to the relator’s claim for relief and th at was fil ed in any underlying proceeding”)

. Relato r ’s appendix does not contain any live pleadings . Without the live pleadings, it is not possible to determine whether the trial court has continui n g ju risdiction over th is matter. Se e , e.g. , T EX

. F AM

. C ODE § § 155.001

– .00 3 (e numerating con tinuing jurisdiction of family courts in certain matters)

.
§ 21.320 Awards for subsistence allowance and authorization of rehabilitation services. Awards providing for payment of a subsistence allowance and authorization of services necessary for rehabilitation may be prepared when an IWRP (Individualized Written Rehabilitation Plan) or other plan has been completed and other requirements for entrance or reentrance into a rehabilitation program have been met. ( a ) *Commencing date of subsistence allowance.* The commencing date of an award of subsistence allowance will be determined under the provisions of § 21.322.
( b ) *Commencing date of authorization of training and rehabilitation services.* The commencing date for authorization of training and rehabilitation services is the same as the effective date for awards for subsistence allowance under provisions of § 21.322, except when: ( 1 ) The commencing date for authorization of a program of employment services is determined under provisions of § 21.326;
( 2 ) An earlier commencement date is established in the veteran's plan or the veteran is entitled to earlier induction under § 21.282;
( 3 ) The veteran elects payment at the educational assistance allowance rate, in which case the commencing date of payment is determined under provisions applicable to commencement of payment under Chapter 30. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3108 (a) and (f))
( c ) *Ending date of subsistence allowance.* The ending date of an award for subsistence allowance will be the earliest of the following dates: ( 1 ) The ending date provided in the veteran's IWRP or other plan;
( 2 ) The ending date of a period of enrollment as certified by a training or rehabilitation facility;
( 3 ) The ending date specified in § 21.324. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3108)
( d ) *Ending date for training and rehabilitation services.* The ending date of training and rehabilitation services will be the same as the termination date for subsistence allowance under paragraph (c) of this section, except when: ( 1 ) The ending date for a period of employment services is determined under provisions of § 21.326;
( 2 ) A later termination date is established in the veteran's plan;
( 3 ) A veteran has elected payment at the educational assistance rate paid under Chapter 30. The ending date of the award is determined under regulations applicable to termination of training under Chapter 30.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3108 (a) and (f))
[49 FR 40814, Oct. 18, 1984, as amended at 54 FR 4284, Jan. 30, 1989; 57 FR 57108, Dec. 3, 1992]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 186 (Monday, September 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49387-49388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23341]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the 
Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, 
October 8, 2009, 8 a.m. to October 9, 2009, 3:30 p.m., Department of 
Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201 which was published in 
the Federal Register on August 17, 2009, 74FR41436.
    This notice is being amended to change the meeting location to the 
Park

[[Page 49388]]

Hyatt Hotel, 1201 24th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. The meeting 
is open to the public.

    Dated: September 23, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-23341 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

JAMES FREDERICK SCHOOLER

,

Appellant

,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

No. 2D 2 02 3

- 1126

May 15

, 202 4

Appeal from the County Court for Pasco County; Anne W a nsboro , Judge.

James Frederick Schooler , pro se.

Samuel B. Boundy and Jessica L. Rodriguez, Assistant County

Attorneys, New Port Richey, for Appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

SLEET, C.J., and LaROSE and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3661

___________

Hector Hinojosa Aguilar, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, et al., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondents. *

___________

Submitted: December 19, 2003

Filed: January 26, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Hector Hinojosa Aguilar is a native of Mexico who entered the United States

without inspection in 1987. In December 1991, Hinojosa Aguilar returned to Mexico

and attempted to reenter the United States the same day. Immigration officers

stopped Hinojosa Aguilar and forced him to return to Mexico. He illegally reentered

the United States the next day. The INS commenced deportation proceedings in

1995. Hinojosa Aguilar conceded deportability and requested suspension of

deportation. After a hearing, the immigration judge concluded that Hinojosa Aguilar

is not eligible for that relief because he failed to maintain a continuous physical
-2-

presence in the United States for more than seven years before the INS issued its

order to show cause. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Hinojosa

Aguilar’s administrative appeal, and he now petitions this court for review of the

BIA’s final agency action.

This deportation proceeding was pending when Congress enacted the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L.

No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). While retaining the continuous physical

presence principle from prior law, Congress added the rule that an alien has not

maintained continuous physical presence “if the alien has departed from the United

States for any period in excess of 90 days.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2). Under IIRIRA’s

transitional rules, this new rule applies to Hinojosa Aguilar’s deportation proceeding.

He argues that he is eligible for suspension of deportation under the statute as

amended by § 1229b(d)(2) because his voluntary return to Mexico in December 1991

was for less than ninety days and therefore was not a break in his continuous physical

presence in this country for more than seven years. The BIA disagreed, concluding

in this and similar cases that (i) § 1229b(d)(2) was not intended to define the only

means by which continuous physical presence may be broken, and (ii) an alien’s

voluntary departure under a threat of deportation proceedings interrupts the alien’s

continuous physical presence in this country. 

Agreeing with the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, this court recently held that the

BIA’s interpretation of § 1229b(d)(2) is a reasonable construction of the statute that

is within the Attorney General’s substantial discretion in granting relief such as a

suspension of deportation. Palomino v. Ashcroft, No. 02-3961, 2004 WL 63404, at

*3 (8th Cir. Jan. 15, 2004). Palomino controls the issue raised in this case.

Accordingly, the decision of the BIA is affirmed.

______________________________
§ 20.6 Rule 6. Withdrawal of services by a representative. ( a ) ( 1 ) *Applicability.* The restrictions on a representative's right to withdraw contained in this paragraph apply only to those cases in which the representative has previously agreed to act as representative in an appeal. In addition to express agreement, orally or in writing, such agreement shall be presumed if the representative makes an appearance in the case by acting on an appellant's behalf before the Board in any way after the appellant has designated the representative as such as provided in § 14.630 or § 14.631 of this chapter. The preceding sentence notwithstanding, an appearance in an appeal solely to notify the Board that a designation of representation has not been accepted will not be presumed to constitute such consent.
( 2 ) *Procedures.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, after an appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals has been filed, a representative may not withdraw services as representative in the appeal unless good cause is shown on motion. Good cause for such purposes is the extended illness or incapacitation of an agent admitted to practice before the Department of Veterans Affairs, an attorney-at-law, or other individual representative; failure of the appellant to cooperate with proper preparation and presentation of the appeal; or other factors which make the continuation of representation impossible, impractical, or unethical. Such motions must be in writing and must include the name of the veteran, the name of the claimant or appellant if other than the veteran (*e.g.,* a veteran's survivor, a guardian, or a fiduciary appointed to receive VA benefits on an individual's behalf), the applicable Department of Veterans Affairs file number, and the reason why withdrawal should be permitted, and a signed statement certifying that a copy of the motion was sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the appellant, setting forth the address to which the copy was mailed. Such motions should not contain information which would violate privileged communications or which would otherwise be unethical to reveal. Such motions must be filed at the following address: Board of Veterans' Appeals, P.O. Box 27063, Washington, DC 20038. The appellant may file a response to the motion with the Board at the same address not later than 30 days following receipt of the copy of the motion and must include a signed statement certifying that a copy of the response was sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the representative, setting forth the address to which the copy was mailed.
( b ) *Withdrawal of services prior to certification of a legacy appeal.* A representative may withdraw services as representative in a legacy appeal at any time prior to certification of the appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals by the agency of original jurisdiction by complying with the requirements of § 14.631 of this chapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2900-0085) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5901-5904, 7105(a))
[84 FR 184, Jan. 18, 2019, as amended at 84 FR 4337, Feb. 15, 2019]
41994.

#### LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY et al. v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY.

Argued May 2, 1966

Decided June 10, 1966.

*813*Edenfield, Reyman & Sizemore, W. J. Tipton, Weldon C. Boyd, Robert G. Young,*for appellants.

*Harris, Russell & Watkins, John B. Miller,*for appellee.

Felton, Chief Judge.

In the consideration of this case it seems to us that the conclusion to be reached is dictated by the provisions of *Code*§ 20-702, which are as follows: “The cardinal rule of construction is to ascertain the intention of the parties. If that intention be clear, and it contravenes no rule of law, and sufficient words be used to arrive at the intention, it shall be enforced, irrespective of all technical or arbitrary rules of construction.” It seems to us that in arriving at the intention of the parties both of the contracts with reference to the maintenance of the structure must be considered. It is not alleged in the petition that the Central Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia did not erect the structure under the 1888 contract to the satisfaction of the parties plaintiff and according to their specifications. It was this specific and identified structure which the contract agreed to maintain. If there was lack of foresight in providing a structure to accommodate the growing needs of the plaintiffs and to provide therefor it was not the fault of the defendant’s predecessor. Indeed it is clear from par. 5 of the 1901 contract that the parties intended that the provisions as to maintenance were referable to the undergrade crossing as the same “is now erected and maintained.” This reference cannot be construed as merely indicating the location of the crossing. Par. 2 of the 1901 contract seems to remove all doubt as to the intention of the parties as to what structure was to be maintained. In fact the agreement to maintain, in the 1888 contract, was specifically carried forward in the 1901 contract. Par. 2 concludes with: “This contract is intended to be a full compliance with the said agreement of April 21, 1888, which is hereby annulled except in so far as it is to be carried out by the terms of this agreement.” This provision is a conclusive acknowledgment that the structure was erected as directed by the plaintiff and that it would be maintained according to the pro*814visions of both contracts, which are clearly to the effect that the structure as erected would be maintained and do not provide for changes in the structure to meet the growing needs of the plaintiff’s railroad. The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to' count 1 of the petition.

Count 2 of the petition shows that whatever rights the plaintiffs had with reference to the maintenance of the structure were provided for in a contract or contracts between the parties. In such circumstance the parties are relegated to the contract or contracts in the absence of an allegation that the contracts are for some reason void or unenforceable for reasons of public, policy.

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to count 2 of the petition.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
#### § 351.15 Remand.

In the event of a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit of a final determination of the Copyright Royalty Judges, the parties to the proceeding shall within 45 days from the issuance of the mandate from the Court of Appeals file with the Judges written proposals for the conduct and schedule of the resolution of the remand.

[74 FR 38533, Aug. 4, 2009]