alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 913.3 Enforcement. ( a ) In general. Whenever any person, partnership, corporation, association, or entity fails to comply with any subpoena duly served upon him, the General Counsel may request that the Attorney General seek enforcement of the subpoena in the district court of the United States for any judicial district in which such person resides, is found, or transacts business (or in the case of a person outside the territorial jurisdiction of any district court, the district court for the District of Columbia), and serve upon such person a petition for an order of such court for the enforcement of this part.
( b ) Jurisdiction. Whenever any petition is filed in any district court of the United States under this section, such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter so presented, and to enter such order or orders as may be required to carry into effect the provisions of this section. Any final order entered shall be subject to appeal under section 1291 of title 28, United States Code. Any disobedience of any final order entered under this section by any court may be punished as contempt.
#### § 167.401 Off San Francisco: Precautionary area.

(a)

(1) A precautionary area is established bounded to the west by an arc of a circle with a radius of 6 miles centering upon geographical position 37°45.00′ N, 122°41.50′ W and connecting the following geographical positions:

| Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- |
| 37°42.70′ N | 122°34.60′ W. |
| 37°50.30′ N | 122°38.00′ W. |

(2) The precautionary area is bounded to the east by a line connecting the following geographic positions:

| Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- |
| 37°42.70′ N | 122°34.60′ W. |
| 37°45.90′ N | 122°38.00′ W. |
| 37°50.30′ N | 122°38.00′ W |

(b) A pilot boarding area is located near the center of the precautionary area described in paragraph (a) of this section. Due to heavy vessel traffic, mariners are advised not to anchor or linger in this precautionary area except to pick up or disembark a pilot.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 111 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14473]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-3857]


Fort James Operating Company, Wauna Mill, Clatskanie, OR; Notice 
of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on April 11, 2000, in response to a petition filed on 
behalf of workers at Fort James Operating Company, Wauna Mill, 
Clatskanie, Oregon.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, 
and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 30th day of May, 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-14473 Filed 6-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-15-0242 SAT Date: 2/13/2015 Print Date: 4/1/2015

Related cases : Yes Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 2

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 12

Exposure Based Review : Health: Yes Exposure based testing (health): Coordinate with asked for OECD 422 - combined repeated dose and developmental/reproductive toxicity screening test Ecotox: Yes
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: MUTA; ONCO; DEVEL; IRR-S,E; LIVER; KIDNEY; SENS; ACUTE AQUATOX-A,C
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-15-0242 FATE: Estimations for typical n=0 MW 254 C12H14O6 Liquid with MP = 50 °C (M for typical) log Kow = -0.30 (E) S = 800 mg/L at 25 °C (M for typical) VP = 1.2E-3 torr at 25 °C (E) BP = 299 °C (E)H < 1.00E-8 (E) log Koc = 1.00 (E) log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E) log Fish BAF = -0.04 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk Sorption to soils/sediments = low - moderate PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = moderate - rapid

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is poor all routes (pchem ). Expect Michael addition to the acrylates. This compound may be a crosslinker. There is concern for mutagenicity, oncogenicity, developmental, liver, and kidney toxicity, sensitization, and irritation from the acrylate. There is also concern for acute toxicity based on the acute oral study for which is the same structure as this chemical when the number of repeating units is 0. Moderate concern.

Test Data: similar compound, where n=0 Severe eye irritant in rabbits Moderate dermal irritant in rabbits N egative in Salmonella and E coli with and without metabolic activation Acute oral study in rats LD50 is approximately 300 mg/kg; 2 of 3 animals died at 300 mg/kg, no deaths at 50 mg/kg Acute dermal study in rats – no deaths at 2000 mg/kg

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 13.4-33.2 daphnid 48-h LC50 57.3->100 green algal 96-h EC50 4-10.2 fish

_ chronic value 1.8-7.1 daphnid

_ chronic value 6.2->10

algal

_ chronic value 1.2-3

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Acrylates; SAR chemical class = Acrylates; MW 364 with 54.5% <500, 90.7% <1000; liquid with mp = 50 C (M); log Kow = -0.296

— 0.66 (P); S < 800 mg/L at 20 C (M); p H7; effective concentrations based on100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 120

SARs Acrylates SAR Class Acrylates Ecotox Category Acrylates/Methacrylates

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair:
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 15.1


May 8, 2006

Aceto Corporation
Lake Success, New York

We are aware that Aceto Corporation and subsidiaries has incorporated by
reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-38679, No.
333-90929, and No. 333-110653) our report dated May 3, 2006, relating to the
Company's unaudited interim consolidated financial statements appearing in its
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006. Pursuant to
Regulation C under the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a
part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report
prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the
Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any procedures subsequent to
May 8, 2006.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

Melville, New York
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81576-CIV-CANNON

VPR BRANDS, LP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHENZHEN WEIBOLI TECHNOLOGY

CO. LTD. et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EXPEDITED MOTIONS TO STAY

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Expedited Motions to Stay, both 

filed on February 24, 2023 [ECF Nos. 88, 89]. The first Expedited Motion seeks a Stay Pending 

Appeal of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 88 (seeking stay of ECF No. 83)], and the 

second Expedited Motion seeks an expedited ruling on Defendants’ Expedited Motion to Stay 

[ECF No. 89 (seeking expedited resolution of ECF No. 88)]. The Court has considered the 

Motions, Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to a Stay [ECF No. 90], Defendants’ Reply 

[ECF Nos. 91], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Upon review, and in consideration 

of the stay factors set forth in Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987), and Rule 62(c) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court determines that Defendants have not satisfied their 

burden to demonstrate that the circumstances justify an exercise of the Court’s discretion to issue 

a stay, see generally Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). 

The Court’s preliminary injunction issued on February 23, 2023 [ECF No. 83], became 

effective on February 24, 2023, the date on which Plaintiff posted the required bond [ECF No. 86], 

triggering Defendants’ compliance with the Order. 

Case 9:22-cv-81576-AMC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2023 Page 1 of 2
 CASE NO. 22-81576-CIV-CANNON

2

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendants’ Expedited Motion for Stay [ECF No. 88] is DENIED. 

2. Defendants’ Expedited Motion to Expedite Resolution of the Motion for Stay 

[ECF No. 89] is DENIED AS MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 28th day of February 

2023.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cv-81576-AMC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 401.70 Fendering—explosive and hazardous cargo vessels.

All explosive vessels requiring a Seaway Explosives Permission Letter in accordance with § 401.68 and all tankers carrying cargo with a flashpoint of up to 61 °C, except those carrying such cargo in center tanks with gas free wing tanks, shall be equipped with a sufficient number of non-metallic fenders on each side to prevent any metallic part of the vessel from touching the side of a dock or lock wall.

[72 FR 2620, Jan. 22, 2007]
{0273.001 / 111 / 00087692.DOCX}

Vapors to Flare or Vapor 

Recovery System 

Activity C: 

Release Point 1

(3.9 kg/day) 

Tar Oil

(45,900 kg/day) Hydrocracking 

Process

Tar Oil 

Storage

Railcar 

Offloading

Products 

Activity D: Release Point 2 

Fugitive Air (0.9 kg/day) 

NOTES:

Special Symbols/Nomenclature:

Reference Drawings:

Block Flow Diagram

Hydrocracker

Processing

Date

11/10/11

Rev #

0
Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM   Document 117-15   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2023   Page 1 of 1
#### Sophia Lowe, appellee, v. John Riley et al., appellants, Impleaded with George A. Hoagland et al., appellees.

Filed September 19, 1894.

No. 5401.

1. Bill of Exceptions: Review. A bill of exceptions must contain all the evidence upon which questions of fact are to be determined, a reference in such bill to evidence to be found by refer*813enee lo another bill filed in an independent ease not being sufficient.

2. Appeal from Order Appointing Receiver:1 Review: Bill of Exceptions. Where there is not such a bill of exceptions as will permit of a consideration of the facts upon the evidence, and where the averments of the petition for a receiver were in no way denied except by affidavits used as evidence, the rights of the parties must be determined solely upon the allegations of the petition accepted as true.

Appeal from the district court of Douglas county. Heard below before Doane, J.

*A. G. Read,*for appellants.

*Chas. JE. Clapp, Clinton N.*Powell, *James B. Meihle, Gregory, Day & Day, Cornish & Robertson,*and *Switzler & McIntosh,*for appellees.

Ryan, C.

This is an appeal from an order appointing a receiver after a decree of foreclosure of certain mortgages and mechanics’ liens. On appeal the decree just referred to was affirmed. *(Vide Hoagland v. Lowe,*39 Neb., 397.) The application for receiver was by petition. There appears to have been no answer or other adverse pleading filed, and the trial was upon affidavits and other evidence in writing. For this other evidence reference is made in ' the bill of exceptions herein contained to a bill of exceptions used in *Hoagland v. Lowe, supra.*If there was in another case evidence material and relevant to the matters presented by appeal in this, such evidence should have been embodied in the bill of exceptions settled herein. We are aware of no rulevwhich in effect authorizes a district judge for certain purposes in this court to consolidate entirely different actions or bills of exceptions in cases docketed independently of each other. As it is evident that to a consideration of all the evidence introduced reference must *814be had to the bill of exceptions in another case already determined, we must decline to consider this appeal upon the evidence. The petition, upon which alone this appeal must be determined, presented sufficient grounds for the appointment of a receiver in an ordinary action wherein a decree had already been entered from which an appeal had been taken. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Irvine, C., not sitting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                              56
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,716
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    406,770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               502,646
<PP&E>                                         817,367
<DEPRECIATION>                                 453,553
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 934,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          449,846
<BONDS>                                        232,795
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     38,275
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                     186,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   934,866
<SALES>                                        375,975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               375,975
<CGS>                                         (11,911)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  6989
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                249,405
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            249,405
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   249,405
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-CANNON

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

UNITED STATES’ NOTICE OF FILING

The United States of America hereby gives notice that it is providing today to the 

Special Master the United States’ Response Brief to the Special Master on Global Issues. 

While the government intended to file publicly this Response Brief, it contains references to 

Dkt. Nos. 171 and 173, which remain under seal. 

On November 9, 2022, the parties filed under seal their Joint Motion to Unseal 

Redacted Global Issues Briefs (Dkt. Nos. 171 and 173) [ECF 174]. Since the filing of this 

motion, the Court has been closed due to Hurricane Nicole and the federal holiday. 

Understandably, the Court has not yet ruled on the parties’ unsealing motion. If the Court 

grants the motion to unseal, the government will promptly file publicly its Response Brief to 

the Special Master on Global Issues. 

. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2022 Page 1 of 3
 JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ 

 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

 MATTHEW G. OLSEN

Assistant Attorney General

 By: /s/ 

 JULIE A. EDELSTEIN 

 Deputy Chief

 JAY I. BRATT

 Chief

 STEPHEN MARZEN

 Trial Attorney

 Counterintelligence and Export Control Section 

 National Security Division

 Department of Justice

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2022 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 12, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

/s/ Julie A. Edelstein 

Julie A. Edelstein

Deputy Chief

Counterintelligence and Export Control Section

National Security Division

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

Special Bar # A5502949

Tel.: 202-233-0986 

Email: julie.a.edelstein@usdoj.gov 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 177 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2022 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 99.2

                            RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Relm Wireless Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
P. Kelly, Vice President-Finance and 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:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ William P. Kelly
------------------------------------
William P. Kelly
Vice President-Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2002
Rockingham

No. 78-031

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Walter J. Komisarek, Jr.

July 18, 1978

*Thomas D. Rath,*attorney general *(Peter W. Heed,*assistant attorney general, orally), for the State.

*Walter J. Komisarek, Jr.,*of Pembroke, by brief *pro se.*

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was convicted of speeding in the district court and appealed. He was tried by the court and convicted in the superior court and a fine of $30 was imposed. He appealed to this court and petitioned that because he was without funds that a transcript of the testimony at his trial be supplied by the county. After a hearing, the court found that defendant was financially unable to pay for the transcript but found that the appeal is frivolous and that because speeding is a violation only, he was not entitled to a free transcript.

 Speeding is a violation, RSA 262-A:2 and RSA 262-A:54, and not a crime. RSA 651:2 IV. Defendant is not therefore entitled as a matter of right to a free transcript and, in view of the finding that the appeal is frivolous, there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the petition. *See United States v. MacCollom,*426 U.S. 317 (1976).

*Exceptions overruled.*

Brock, j., did not sit.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of British Energy plc, (the “Company”) for the annual period ended March 31, 2004 (the“Periodic Report”), I, William Coley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge thePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date:July 25, 2005 

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

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

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of VoIP,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Osvaldo Pitters, 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:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

                                                      /s/ Osvaldo Pitters
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Osvaldo Pitters
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

March 29, 2005
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION UNDERSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

I, Masoud Najand,  theChief Financial Officer of TMSF Holdings, Inc., certify that: 

1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended          December 31, 2004 of TMSF Holdings, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a 15(e)and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have: 

     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

     b. designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statementsfor external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
     c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

     a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation ; and 

     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

/s/ Masoud Najand     Masoud Najand Chief Financial OfficerMarch 31, 2005