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

CH···-lfl~= C- C- Z 

11 

e&?cc 

0 

SUMMARY 

CODE NUMBER 090536 

SUBSTANCE ID CAS 1464989-16-9 

The final level of carcinogenicity concern for this aldehyde when the 

anticipated route of exposure is inhalation or injection is MARGINAL. 

JUSTIFICATION: 

Aldehydes are reactive electrophilic chemicals which may react with 

macromolecules or cause crosslinking to initiate carcinogenesis. 

However, being soft electrophiles, aldehydes tend to react 

preferentially with cellular nucleophiles such as glutathione before 

attacking macromolecules. Furthermore, aldehydes can be readily 

oxidized to acids which are not electrophilic and can be readily 

excreted. Therefore, the carcinogenic action of aldehydes tends to 

require relatively high doses and to confine close to the site of 

administration.In general, the carcinogenic activity of aldehydes 

decreases with increase in molecular size. Introduction of 

hydrophilic group(s) is also inhibitory. alpha,beta-Unsaturation 

generally increases the carcinogenic potential provided that the 

beta-position is not sterically hindered. Halogenation of the 

alpha-carbon also increases the carcinogenic potential. 

An aldehyde has a baseline level of concern of LOW-MODERATE. 

The group to which the aldehyde is attached (Rl), which is an alkyl 

group containing seven carbons, is expected to reduce the level of 

concern. 

Therefore, the level of concern is reduced to LOW. 

It is uncertain whether the substituent(s) on Rl denoted as 'Z' have 

any significant effect on the level of concern. 

In general, inhalation and injection provide the best chance of 

delivering the largest possible amount of direct-acting reactive 

chemicals to target tissue because of a lesser absorption barrier and 

better chance of avoiding detoxification by protective nucleophiles 

such as glutathione. Exposure to the compound by either of these 

routes is expected to raise the level of concern to MARGINAL. 

The final level of concern when the anticipated route of exposure is 

inhalation or injection is MARGINAL. 

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case Number 14-20698 

v. Honorable David M. Lawson 

 

KORDARYL CROSS, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

SECOND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO REPLY 

 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties (ECF No. 243), it is ORDERED that if the 

defendant wants to file a reply in support of his motion for compassionate release, then he must 

do so on or before December 28, 2020. No further extensions will be granted. 

 s/David M. Lawson 

 DAVID M. LAWSON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: November 25, 2020 

Case 2:14-cr-20698-DML-DRG ECF No. 244, PageID.1436 Filed 11/25/20 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011269EN.01003401.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of Alltri Inka v Ministre du budget, des comptes publiques, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’État

(Case C-340/11)

2011/C 269/66

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of Alltri Inka

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publiques, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’État

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

| 2. | If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?

---
Facility Location

Emission 

Inventory Year

Facility VOC 

Emissions

(tons/year)

Pactiv Fresno 2011 27.55

Pactiv Bakersfield 2011 101.45

Pregis Innovative 

Packaging

Visalia 2010 85.11
- 2186
- 2187
- 2188
- 2189
- 2190
- 2191
- 2192
- 2193
- 2194
- 2195
- 2196
2:14-cv-12981-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 1 of 11 Pg ID 83
2:14-cv-12981-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 2 of 11 Pg ID 84
2:14-cv-12981-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 3 of 11 Pg ID 85
2:14-cv-12981-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 4 of 11 Pg ID 86
2:14-cv-12981-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 5 of 11 Pg ID 87
2:14-cv-12981-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 6 of 11 Pg ID 88
2:14-cv-12981-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 7 of 11 Pg ID 89
2:14-cv-12981-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 8 of 11 Pg ID 90
2:14-cv-12981-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 9 of 11 Pg ID 91
2:14-cv-12981-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 10 of 11 Pg ID 92
2:14-cv-12981-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 11 of 11 Pg ID 93
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
THE BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         AUG-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                            SEP-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              NOV-30-2000
<CASH>                                          5,812
<SECURITIES>                                    4,544
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                      422
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14,918
<PP&E>                                         10,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                  4,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 39,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7,754
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           70
<OTHER-SE>                                     28,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   39,533
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,270
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,968
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    4
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 75
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,456
<INCOME-TAX>                                      575
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               881
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      881
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .14


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 72 (Monday, April 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19007-19008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1853]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group, 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Program Project Review Committee.
    Date: June 14, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Sheraton College Park, 4095 Powder Mill Road, Beltsville, 
MD 20705.
    Contact Person: Jeffery H. Hurst, PHD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7208, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 
301-435-0303, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f39b8681808799b39d9b9f919add9d9a9bdd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa928f88898e90ba9492969893d4949392d49d958c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and

[[Page 19008]]

Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 6, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-1853 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Owen v. Griffin.

*Married woman*— *separate estate*— *alimony is*— Attorney— *claim for services.*

Defendant, a married woman, employed plaintiff as attorney to prosecute a suit for divorce, obtain alimony and support for herself and child, and set aside an ante-nuptial agreement. The suits were settled, and a third person, for the benefit of the defendant, received from her husband a sum of money thereupon. *Reid,*(1) that the action was for the direct benefit of her separate estate, and (2) if the agreement between her and her husband was to create a trust which is not a separate estate, it did not deprive plaintiff of his right to receive pay for his services, and he was entitled to have his contract therefor enforced against defendant.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon tlie report of a referee.

The action was brought by Silas J. Owen against Mary Jane Griffin, to recover for services as attorney.

*Silas J. Owen,*appellant in person.

*C. Frost,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

The head-note states fully the only point passed upon in the opinion.

*Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.*
# CE2010046EN.01012002.xml

| 24.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 46/120 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 46/120

---

Common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (codified version) *

P6_TA(2009)0002

P6_TA(2009)0002

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 January 2009 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (codified version) (COM(2008)0488 – C6-0334/2008 – 2008/0155(CNS))

(2010/C 46 E/22)

(Consultation procedure – codification)

(Consultation procedure – codification)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0488), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0488),

| — | having regard to Articles 26, 87 to 89, 132 et seq. and 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0334/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Articles 26, 87 to 89, 132 et seq. and 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0334/2008),

| — | having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1),

1

| — | having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0510/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0510/2008),

| A. | whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

1

---
§ 128.310 Fuel. ( a ) *OSVs of less than 6,000 GT ITC (500 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned).* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, each internal-combustion engine installed on an OSV of less than 6,000 GT ITC (500 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned), whether for main propulsion or for auxiliaries, must be driven by a fuel having a flashpoint of not lower than 43 °C (110 °F) as determined by ASTM D 93 (incorporated by reference, see § 125.180).
( 2 ) The use of a fuel with a flashpoint of lower than 43 °C (110 °F) must be specifically approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG), except in an engine for a gasoline-powered rescue boat.
( b ) *OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC (500 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned).* ( 1 ) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(2) of this section, each internal-combustion engine installed on an OSV of at least 6,000 GT ITC (500 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned), whether for main propulsion or for auxiliaries, must be driven by a fuel having a flashpoint not lower than 60 °C (140 °F) as determined by ASTM D 93 (incorporated by reference, see § 125.180).
( 2 ) The use of a fuel with a flashpoint lower than 60 °C (140 °F) must be specifically approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG), except in an engine for a gasoline-powered rescue boat or emergency generator, or as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
[USCG-2012-0208, 79 FR 48936, Aug. 18, 2014]
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7352** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Petitioner

- Appellee ,

v.
GARY DEBENEDETTO , Respondent

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. ( 5:14

- hc

- 02172

- BR )

Submitted : December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Gary Debenedetto , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Dee Dannels , FMC BUTNER FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER , Butner, North Carolina, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas Gray Walker , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh , North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gary Debenedetto seeks to appeal the district court’s order civilly committing him to the care and custody of the Attorney
General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2012) . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,

t he notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’ s final judgment or order,
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal per iod under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) ;

see 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241

- 47 (201 2 ) (setting forth procedures for involuntary civil c ommitment of federal detainees).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
November 6, 2014 . The notice of appeal was filed on August 20,
2015

. * Because Debenedetto failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reo pening of the appeal

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (19 88).3 period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Debenedetto ’s motion for bail or release pending appeal and petition for a writ of
mandamus and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
# C_2013046EN.01002703.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/27

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — AX v ECB

(Joined Cases F-7/11 and F-60/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - ECB Staff - Disciplinary proceedings - Suspension of a staff member without reduction of his basic salary - Withdrawal of a decision - Rights of the defence - Access to the file - Statement of reasons - Reasons for a decision - Allegation of breach of professional duties - Serious misconduct)

2013/C 46/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AX (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: in Case F-7/11 by P. Embley and E. Carlini, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer and in Case F-60/11, by P. Embley and M. López Torres, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision suspending the applicant with effect from 5 August 2010 and compensation for non-material damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions in Cases F-7/11 and F-60/11; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions in Cases F-7/11 and F-60/11;

| 2. | Declares that AX must bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that AX must bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011, p. 33 and OJ C 211, 16.7.2011, p. 35.

1

---
* District Judge of the Central District of Illinois, sitting

by designation.

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 01-10144

_____________________

JOHN TRICKETT,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

A. G. EDWARDS & SONS INC.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

A. G. EDWARDS & SONS INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CV-2912-M

_________________________________________________________________ January 11, 2002

B efore JOLLY and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, * Dist rict

Judge.

PER CURIAM: **

We have reviewed the record and studied the briefs in this

case, and we find no reversible error. Although we think that the

district court erred in setting aside the jury’s determination that

Trickett rati fied A.G. Edwards’ conduct, this error makes no

difference in the ultimate judgment. The jury determined that2

Trickett’s claim un der the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act

(“DTPA”)

, T EX

. B US

. & C OM

. C ODE A NN

. § 17.46, formed an independent

basis for the award of damages and attorneys’ fees. Because

ratification does not provide a defense to a DTPA claim, the

failure of Trickett’s negligence and fiduciary breach claims based

on the jury’s finding of ratification does not affect the amount of

the final award and consequently does not require a reversal of the

district court’s judgment.

We also conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most

favorable to Trickett, supports t he jury’s finding that A.G.

Edwards did not p rovide Trickett with a level of expertise

consistent with Lanier Lafitte’s represen tations. The district

court therefore correctly held that the jury’s finding of a DTPA

violation is adequately supported in the record.

Finally, we find no principle of Texas law that precludes the

damage award in this case, which essentially provided a remedy to

make Trickett whole. Thus, under the circumstances of this case,

the district court did not err in allowing the jury to base its

award on the value of the shares that Trickett was forced to sell

to pay the cost of exercising the options, measured at the time of

the trial. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.
§ 900.405 Proposals normally requiring an EIS. An EIS will normally be required for: ( a ) Large scale infrastructure construction efforts such as the relocation of an entire community;
( b ) A project that requires a formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; or
( c ) Where implementation of the proposal may directly cause or induce changes that significantly: ( 1 ) Displace population;
( 2 ) Alter the character of existing residential areas; or
( 3 ) Adversely affect a floodplain.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30,
2009 of Homeland Security Capital Corporation.2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report.
 HOMELAND SECURITY CAPITAL CORPORATIONMarch 31, 2011
    By:
    /s/ C. Thomas McMillenName:
    C. Thomas McMillenTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Executive Officer