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

PMN Number: P-13-0108

SAT Date: 11/27/2012

Print Date: 1/7/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

2 22

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

P2Rec Comments:

Comment: No Comment

Keywords:

 Keywords: 

SOLV IRR

SOLV NEURO

LIVER

REPRO

DEVEL

MUTA

ONCO

ENDOCRN DISRUPT

AQUATOX-A,C

Summary of Assessment:
 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0108

FATE: Estimations for typical MW 328 

 MP = 17 C (M for typical)

log Kow = 6.85 (E) 

S = 0.04 mg/L at 25 C (E)

VP = 8.7E-5 torr at 25 C (NOMO5)

BP = 351 C (NOMO5) based on 215 C @ 15 mm Hg (M)

H = 4.77E-3 (E)

log Koc = 4.15 (E)

log Fish BCF = 2.81 (E)

log Fish BAF = 3.56 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and stripping

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk->mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 2 hrs

Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 7 da

Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 11 hr via OH radical

PBT Potential: P2B2

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

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

properties. There are concerns for solvent irritation and solvent neurotoxicity. There also are 

concerns for liver, reproductive, and developmental toxicities, mutagenicity, neurotoxicity, 

oncogenicity, and endocrine disruption, based on and derivatives as well as 

associated organic compounds.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.1

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.76

green algal 96-h EC50 1.6

fish _ chronic value 0.002

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.004

algal _ chronic 

value

0.036

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_
Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Neutral Organics; SAR 

chemical class = Neutral Organics; MW 328; pH7; LogP 4.6 6.9 

effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; 

hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1

SARs Neutral Organics

SAR Class Neutral Organics

Ecotox Category Neutral Organics

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Ciauri, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Besser, Also Known as James Zerilli, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 341]

—Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered January 17, 1996 and December 11, 1995, convicting each defendant, after a jury trial, of enterprise corruption, and sentencing defendant Ciauri, as a second felony offender, to a term of 12V2 to 25 years, and sentencing defendant Besser, as a persistent felony offender, to a term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. The value of the dishonored checks in question was properly established through the testimony of the victim. The totality of the evidence established defendant Besser’s intent, at the relevant time, to deprive the owner of the funds at issue within the meaning of Penal Law § 155.00 (3) (a), and that this conduct was in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. Contrary to defendant Ciauri’s contention, he was properly convicted of separate pattern acts.

*165The court properly disallowed, pursuant to *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79), certain peremptory challenges by the defense. The procedures followed by the court sufficiently complied with the required *Batson*protocols. Where, as here, a party asserting the peremptory strike puts forward race-neutral reasons and the other side says nothing more, the court may nonetheless make a finding of pretext based on an articulated rejection of the race-neutral reasons *(People v Payne,*88 NY2d 172, 184). The record supports the court’s finding of pretext concerning the challenges at issue.

We agree with the court’s well-reasoned decision (166 Misc 2d 615) to instruct the jury that accomplice corroboration was required for the offense of enterprise corruption but not for each of the underlying pattern acts *(see,*CPL 60.22). The court appropriately charged that it was a question of fact as to whether the victim-witness was an accomplice, since his participation in the criminal activity at issue could reasonably be viewed as coerced.

Defendant Besser was properly sentenced as a persistent felony offender. We conclude that his imprisonment for the second of his predicate felonies preceded the “commission” of the present felony within the meaning of Penal Law § 70.10 (1) (b) (ii).

We have considered and rejected both defendants’ remaining claims. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ. *[See,*166 Misc 2d 615.]
§ 1915.132 Portable electric tools. The provisions of this section shall apply to ship repairing, shipbuilding and shipbreaking except that paragraph (e) of this section applies to ship repairing only. ( a ) The frames of portable electric tools and appliances, except double insulated tools approved by Underwriters' Laboratories, shall be grounded either through a third wire in the cable containing the circuit conductors or through a separate wire which is grounded at the source of the current.
( b ) Grounding circuits, other than by means of the structure of the vessel on which the tool is being used, shall be checked to ensure that the circuit between the ground and the grounded power conductor has resistance which is low enough to permit sufficient current to flow to cause the fuse or circuit breaker to interrupt the current.
( c ) Portable electric tools which are held in the hand shall be equipped with switches of a type which must be manually held in the closed position.
( d ) Worn or frayed electric cables shall not be used.
( e ) The employer shall notify the officer in charge of the vessel before using electric power tools operated with the vessel's current.
§ 1990.141 Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. ( a ) Within thirty (30) days after OSHA initiates a study concerning the economic and/or technological feasibility of specific standards that might be applied in the regulation of a potential occupational carcinogen, the Secretary will normally publish, in the Federal Register, a notice which includes at least the following: ( 1 ) The name of the substance(s),
( 2 ) The scope of the study, including where possible, ( i ) Affected industries,
( ii ) Levels of exposure being studied,
( iii ) The anticipated completion date of the study;
( 3 ) A brief summary of the available data on health effects;
( 4 ) An estimate of when the Secretary anticipates the issuance of a proposal;
( 5 ) An invitation to interested parties to provide relevant information;
( 6 ) A statement that persons wishing to provide OSHA with their own study should complete it within 30 days after the anticipated proposal date; and
( 7 ) A statement of the procedural requirements that must be met before substantial new issues or substantial new evidence will be considered in the proceeding pursuant to § 1990.145.
( b ) Where the Secretary determines to discontinue a feasibility study, the Secretary should publish, within 30 days, a notice in the Federal Register so indicating.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1460

RHONDA R. LILLIE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-245-2)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rhonda R. Lillie, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Edwin Miller, MCGUIRE,

WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Rhonda R. Lillie appeals the district court's order granting

the Defendant summary judgment on her employment discrimination

suit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lillie v. Lifetouch National School

Studios, No. CA-96-245-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 5, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 1985.114 District court jurisdiction of retaliation complaints. ( a ) The complainant may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United States, which will have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in controversy, either: ( 1 ) Within 90 days after receiving a written determination under § 1985.105(a) provided that there has been no final decision of the Secretary; or
( 2 ) If there has been no final decision of the Secretary within 210 days of the filing of the complaint.
( b ) At the request of either party, the action shall be tried by the court with a jury.
( c ) A proceeding under paragraph (a) of this section shall be governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in § 1985.109. The court shall have jurisdiction to grant all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including injunctive relief and compensatory damages, including: ( 1 ) Reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the discharge or discrimination;
( 2 ) The amount of back pay, with interest;
( 3 ) Compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discharge or discrimination; and
( 4 ) Litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
( d ) Within seven days after filing a complaint in federal court, a complainant must file with OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending, a copy of the file-stamped complaint. In all cases, a copy of the complaint also must be served on the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
#### In the Matter of Thomas L. Healey, Respondent, against Charles Gold, as Mayor of the City of Long Beach et al., Appellants.

Argued May 17, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*Charles C. Clark*and *Morris Alfred Vogel*for motion.

*David B. Tolins, Corporation Counsel,*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
# EUR-Lex - 32000R1997 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R1997

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1997/2000 of 21 September 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 determining the intervention centres for cereals **

*
Official Journal L 238 , 22/09/2000 P. 0026 - 0027 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1997/2000

of 21 September 2000

amending Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 determining the intervention centres for cereals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The intervention centres are determined in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2083/1999(4). Some Member States have asked for that Annex to be amended and their requests should be granted.

(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 is amended as follows:

1. In the "Belgique/België" section:

The "Poperinge" centre is replaced by "Farciennes".

2. In the "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" section:

(a) The "Oerbke bei Fallingsbostel" centre is replaced by "Rethem/Aller";

(b) The "Semmenstedt" centre is replaced by "Frellstedt".

3. In the "France" section, the amendments are as follows:

>TABLE>

4. In the "Sverige" section:

The "Nyköping" centre is renamed "Nyköping-Oxelösund".

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 September 2000.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 207, 18.8.1993, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 256, 1.10.1999, p. 48.
# EUR-Lex - 32000Y0129(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000Y0129(02)

**Administrative Commission on social security for migrant workers: Annual average costs of benefits in kind - 1996, 1997 and 1998 **

*
Official Journal C 027 , 29/01/2000 P. 0022 - 0024 *

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS

(2000/C 27/08)

The annual average costs do not take into account the reduction of 20 % provided for in Articles 94(2) and 95(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72.

The net monthly average costs have been reduced by 20 %.

AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND - 1996(1)

I. Application of Article 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to the benefits in kind provided in 1996 to members of the family as referred to in Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

II. Application of Article 95 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 1996 under Article 28 and 28a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND - 1997(2)

I. Application of Article 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 1997 to members of the family as referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

II. Application of Article 95 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 1997 under Article 28 and 28a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND - 1998

I. Application of Article 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 1998 to members of the family as referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

II. Application of Article 95 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 1998 under Article 28 and 28a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

(1) Average costs: Spain and Luxembourg, (OJ C 303, 2.10.1998);

Average costs: Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal (OJ C 56, 26.2.1999);

Average costs: Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom (OJ C 228, 11.8.1999).

(2) Average costs: Spain (OJ C 228, 11.8.1999).
<PAGE>1
Exhibit 32 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Mary D. Cohron, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By:  /s/Mary D. Cohron
        Mary D. Cohron
        Chief Executive Officer



Date:  September 8, 2006

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Steve Marcum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By:  /s/ Steve Marcum
         Steve Marcum
        Chief Financial Officer
Date: September 8, 2006                                     1
On motion to dismiss appeal.

Motion allowed April 19, 1927.

#### ALVIE E. KAUFMAN *v.*W. C. CULBERTSON.

(255 Pac. 330.)

Appeal and Error — On Motion of Appellant, Appeal -will be Dismissed and Judgment Affirmed, Notwithstanding Conflicting Affidavits as to Settlement (Or. L., §555).

Appeal will be dismissed, on appellant’s motion, and judgment affirmed, in view of Section 555, Or. L., notwithstanding controversy raised on motion to dismiss by conflicting affidavits as to settlement, since controversy must be first determined by lower court before being, considered by Supreme Court.

See 2 R. C. L. 16S.

Appeal and Error, 4 C. J., p. 563, n. 12, p. 564, n. 36.

*339Prom Multnomah: Ashby O. Dickson, Judge.

In Banc.

Motion to Dismiss Allowed.

Por the motion, *Messrs. Ciarle, Simias on & Ciarle.*

*Contra, Mr. George N. Woodley.*

COSHOW, J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment against defendant. Defendant appeals from that judgment. Thereafter defendant filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, basing his motion on the records and files and affidavits of himself and another party. The substance of the affidavits is that since taking the appeal defendant has paid and fully settled with the plaintiff. Plaintiff as respondent resists said motion. He bases his resistance on some four affidavits from which it appears that before the alleged settlement plaintiff assigned his judgment against defendant. Plaintiff also denies having been paid and denies that the matter in controversy had been settled by the defendant.

> “ * * At any time before the hearing or trial, the court, on motion of the appellant, may dismiss his appeal; and thereupon the court shall affirm the judgment or decree appealed from, as a matter of course.” Or. L., § 555.

By authority of that section there is nothing for this court to do but to allow the motion, dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment.

This court will not pass upon the question presented by the affidavits filed in behalf of the parties hereto. The question there presented was not passed upon by the Circuit Court and is not properly here.

> *340
>       *“ * **The case being before ns on appeal, we can only review the action of the circuit court, and cannot permit a new case to be made here on the evidence. The showing presented here might be a proper showing’ before the Commissioner upon application for the issuance of a license.” *Union Pac. Life Ins. Co.*v. *Ferguson,*64 Or. 395, 403 (129 Pac. 529, 130 Pac. 978).

The controversy between appellant and respondent raised by the conflicting’ affidavits on the motion to dismiss must be first determined by the Circuit Court before being considered here. Motion allowed. Appeal dismissed. Judgment affirmed.

Appeal Dismissed and Judgment Aeeirmed.
§ 1905.41 Summary decision. ( a ) *No genuine issue of material fact.* ( 1 ) Where no genuine issue of a material fact is found to have been raised, the hearing examiner may issue an initial decision to become final 20 days after service thereof, unless, within such period of time any party has filed written exceptions to the decision. If any timely exception is filed, the hearing examiner shall fix a time for filing any objections to the exception and any supporting reasons. Thereafter, the Assistant Secretary, after consideration of the exceptions and any supporting briefs filed therewith and of any objections to the exceptions and any supporting reasons, may issue a final decision.
( 2 ) An initial decision and a final decision made under this paragraph shall include a statement of: ( i ) Findings and conclusions, and the reasons or bases therefor, on all issues presented; and
( ii ) The terms and conditions of the rule or order made.
( 3 ) A copy of an initial decision and a final decision under this paragraph shall be served on each party.
( b ) *Hearings on issues of fact.* Where a genuine material question of fact is raised, the hearing examiner shall, and in any other case he may, set the case for an evidentiary hearing in accordance with subpart C of this part.
# EUR-Lex - 31998R1061 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R1061

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1061/98 of 25 May 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs **

*
Official Journal L 152 , 26/05/1998 P. 0003 - 0003 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1061/98 of 25 May 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1587/96 (2), and in particular Articles 6(6), 12(3) and 28 thereof,

Whereas Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 (3) lays down the time limit for processing and incorporating into final products the products referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation; whereas the length of the time limit is for the moment a factor encouraging speculative operations; whereas the time limit should therefore be reduced;

Whereas, to ensure that the tenders are bona fide, given the current situation on the market, the tendering security referred to in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 should be increased to ECU 350 per tonne;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 is hereby amended as follows:

1. in Article 11, 'six months` is replaced by 'three months`,

2. in Article 17(1), 'ECU 180` is replaced by 'ECU 350`.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 May 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13.

(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 350, 20. 12. 1997, p. 3.