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

PMN Number: P-13-0854

SAT Date: 9/6/2013

Print Date: 1/8/2014

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: Analogs: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

2 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: Yes

Routes of exposure: Health: Low Concern

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

P2Rec Comments:

Comment: No Comment

Keywords:

 Keywords: NO SIG HLTH CNCRNS

AQUATOX-A,C

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0854

FATE: 
H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = strong

PBT Potential: P2B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil to poor all routes, based on 

physical/chemical properties. No significant health concerns.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.44

daphnid 48-h LC50 1.6

green algal 96-h EC50 0.11

fish _ chronic value 0.044

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.16

algal _ chronic 

value

0.026

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SAR nearest analog predictions for 

organozinc compounds; SAR chemical class = o ; with unknown mp 

 effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC 

<2.0 mg/L;

Nearest analog data were for (CAS RN provided in the 

and considered to be core (as 

denoted by the ‘C’) by If additional experimental data characterize the PMN substance as a 

stable , ecotoxicity hazard will need to be re-evaluated.

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

3

SARs

SAR Class

Ecotox Category 
Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
From: orvajohnson@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:31:46 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Orva Johnson

Orem, UT 84097
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 19 Filed 08/19/03 Page 1 of 1
* The Honorable Jerome Farris, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 05a0377n.06

Filed: May 11, 2005

No. 02-4149

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MYKOBI L’BERT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM MONTAGUE, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

 /

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

O R D E R

BEFORE: KEITH, CLAY, and FARRIS*

PER CURIAM. The district court dismissed Plaintiff Mykobi L’Bert’s tort lawsuit against

Defendants William Montague, Robert Goldberg, Daniel Tilman, Charles Franks, Patricia Gheen,

Brenda McCombs, and Theresa O’Malley, officials at the Ohio hospital where L’Bert worked, for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The hospital is administered by

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). L’Bert originally brought this lawsuit in state court; the

defendants removed the case to federal district court upon certification by the Attorney General that

the defendants were acting within the scope of their employment at the VA. See 28 U.S.C. §

2679(d)(1). The district court accordingly accepted the case and substituted the United States as

Defendant. See id. 
No. 02-4149

1

 R. James Nicholson is substituted for his predecessor, Anthony Principi, pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

2

The district court also dismissed another lawsuit brought by L’Bert, this one against

Defendant R. James Nicholson, the Secretary of the VA,1 see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), involving

claims of discriminatory and retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., on the grounds that the Title VII claims are barred by res

judicata. These claims were raised and fully litigated in a lawsuit L’Bert brought in 1999; in that

case, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and this Court affirmed. L’Bert

v. West, 2001 WL 1450734 (6th Cir. Oct. 30, 2001) (unpublished order). L’Bert appeals the

substitution of the United States as Defendant in the tort lawsuit and the dismissal of the tort and

Title VII lawsuits. 

We have carefully reviewed the record supplied to us on appeal, the parties’ briefs, and the

decision below. Because the district court (Oliver, J.) fully addressed L’Bert’s claims and correctly

disposed of them in a thorough written opinion, we conclude that the issuance of an opinion by this

Court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. We therefore affirm on the basis of the

district court’s opinion.
From: RANDIGIFT@HOTMAIL.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:43:29 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

RANDI GIFT

Harkers Island, NC 28531
60 deduOt.ed from **pay** PO119 of Embers andhaveo oaweapoabingamountdeda~tedfrolD~~~ avallablefor paying teachfst salaries,and traneadtsame to the Executlre Searetary of the State Ward of Trusteesas provided for in tus &Lct. Any college or unirex%ityor other eduo~~ tioual institution**or** ageuq nupportedin whole **or** in part by the State 6hall hare the amouut retained **or** dM.uated **from** the f'uuds regularly approprlated

by the State for the ourreutmaiutenanoe for such educational departmate and insti**tutiona** .' -- SeC. 8, U. B. 60.602, Uh. 2W, 48th Legislature, Reg. Sess., **VWIOII ’** **S** Tax. Beso. &aw ser., pp. 621-622, aroeading 2eo. 2 of Art. 2222-1, kev. Cir. Stat. Vernoats Codifioatlon.
St rill thus be seeu that the deductionswhen made *shall be paid Into said Teaaher Daring Ihad.@

The verb "pap is one of ditrerentmeanlnga,aoeording to the context. Vhen uoed rith respeot to a debt, it meaus to eotiafy,aud ouoh paymutmaybe either in oash,or other t&lug uhatsoereracceptableto the aredltor. Iu cmmercial understahd%ng, Ouets cheek is paid when the drawee**bank,** respeatingthe maker'6 order,delimrs the stun aalled for to the holder of the check. In yet auother seuse the word meaue to deliVercdepouit, or plaoe in the ha&is ot auother,a mu of nouey held in trust.

CbViously,the payment requtredby the statuteuuder oonsideration

is that of the last illustration.
The relationbetween the Wxpleyeram¶ the State TeachursRetiremeutSystem is not one of debtor aud oreditor, but on the contrary is statutory - that Is to saJ, one of contributor to and custod.l.an of a publio fund. PaVBmut, therefore, by the employingauthority to them xaesnsthe delivery or depositby the oontributor and the receiptby the oustodianof theprmd,andthis mustbeinlawful money, or at least In ite equivalent- united sttites mom?y order or commroial paper cmverttble imediately at the place of receipt into cash for actual deposits.

From what wo have soid it is clear we **are** of' the opinion your question should be answeredin the affincatire. OS course, we should not **be** understood as holding that you

### 464

rould **be** forbidden to oocept s pereonsl cheek in auoh oaaea, for such accepting of a check would neoes&l~ be fpr 6OllectiOn a& Credit OtiJ.

vwy truly yours, AT~OIUNXWllERAL OF **T**
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 07086 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 

### x 07086\07086_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 07086\07086_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### x 07086\07086_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 07086\Certification Statement Plant ID_07086.pdf Plant certification statement

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Scott Cramer; Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Affinity Mediaworks Corp. (the Registrant), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-l4(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that:



| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | the Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2011 (the Report), to which this statement is filed as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.                                                                                                                                        



|                    |     |                        
|------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|Dated: May 20, 2011 | By: | /s/ Scott Cramer       
|                    |     | Scott Cramer           
|                    |     | Chief Executive Officer
|                    |     | Chief Financial Officer







|
|
|
No. 68926.

#### Abraham & Straus, a division of Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 64/5062 (New York).

*324Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>  0001037120
<NAME>  LOOMIS, FARGO & CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,621
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,931
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,520
<INVENTORY>                                      1,010
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,033
<PP&E>                                          85,062
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 195,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,580
<BONDS>                                        148,324
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,981)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   195,550
<SALES>                                        288,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288,813
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  278,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,333)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       280
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,613)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,613)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: milthorst@w-link.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:42:23 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Milton Horst

Seattle, WA 98146
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66065-66066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20910]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal

[[Page 66066]]

Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to 
the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification 
Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 26, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 15, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 55 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-270, CP2023-273.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-20910 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Benjamin J. Hill, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Brady, J.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00025-CV

In re James Barrentine and Patricia Barrentine

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BASTROP COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Filed: March 13, 2014
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nos. 04-22-00862-CR & 04-22-00863-CR

Adrian JACOBO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2018CR9781 & 2019CR7306

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 15, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant Adrian Jacobo filed a notice of appeal on December 21, 2022 in Cause Nos.

2018CR9781 and 2019CR7306. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require a notice of appeal 

to state the judgment or order appealed from. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(2). Appellant’s notices of 

appeal do not state the judgment or order he wishes to appeal or any date thereof. The clerk’s 

records show the State filed a “Motion to Enter Adjudication of Guilt and Revoke Community 

Supervision (Adult Probation)” on September 7, 2022. The records further show that prior to any 
04-22-00862-CR & 04-22-00863-CR

- 2 -

judgment on the motions in both matters, the matters were referred to a criminal law magistrate on 

a “Motion for Examination of Competency.”1

Because the clerk’s records do not contain an appealable judgment or order, we ordered 

appellant to show cause no later than January 23, 2023, why these appeals should not be dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction. We cautioned appellant if he failed to satisfactorily respond within the time 

provided, the appeals would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). We further advised 

appellant if a supplemental clerk’s record was required to establish this court’s jurisdiction, he was 

required to ask the trial court clerk to prepare one and notify the clerk of this court that such a 

request was made. Appellant did not file a response or supplemental clerk’s record in either of 

these appeals. 

Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

1 The records contain an order of deferred adjudication dated September 23, 2019, but to the extent appellant filed his 

December 21, 2022 notice of appeal to appeal the September 23, 2019 order more than three years later, it is untimely

and appellant filed no motion for extension of time. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.12, § 23(b); TEX. R. APP. P. 

26.2(a)(1), 26.3; Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Whillhite v. State, 627 S.W.3d 

703, 705 (Tex. App.—Austin 2021, pet. ref’d) (defendant placed on deferred adjudication may raise issues relating to 

original plea proceeding, including evidentiary sufficiency, only in appeal taken when deferred adjudication first 

imposed).