alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Re: HPV 2 CAS 68479-98-1 Test Results from Albemarle and studies that 

Albemarle believes will satisfy requirements for E 2 endpoint 

David Brooks to: Paul Campanella 05/08/2012 09:24 AM

Cc: John Schaeffer, Mark Townsend, Meena Sonawane

Hi Paul and John,

Attached is our contractor's report. The genotoxicity data (chromosomal aberration studies) submitted on 

March 1, 2012 by Albemarle and Lonza are adequate to satisfy the E2 test rule requirement. We have 

reviewed this report and it is acceptable. 

May 2012 Update of 68479-98-1Final DA Review.docx

Dave

David Brooks

Risk Assessment Division (7403M)

High Production Volume Chemical Branch

EPA East Room 6308N

(202) 564-8603

Paul Campanella David, Attached is a submission from Albemarle.... 03/28/2012 03:24:59 PM

From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US

To: David Brooks/DC/USEPA/US

Cc: John Schaeffer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/28/2012 03:24 PM

Subject: HPV 2 CAS 68479-98-1 Test Results from Albemarle and studies that Albemarle believes will 

satisfy requirements for E2 endpoint

David, Attached is a submission from Albemarle. Daniel Lin is reviewing the A1 test for acceptability. 

Please give me an opinion on the information they submitted to meet the E2 endpoint.

 Also, do you have any updates for delivery dates on HPV CAS 127-68-4 Tiarco -- study plans ?

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D.

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 

202-564-8091
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

391 

KA 11-00882 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALONZO MADISON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.)

 

THOMAS E. ANDRUSCHAT, EAST AURORA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah

A. Haendiges, J.), rendered February 10, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of assault in the third degree and

harassment in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed.

Same Memorandum as in People v Madison ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d

___ [May 3, 2013]). 

Entered: May 3, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Case 2:04-mc-00107-MK Document 27 Filed 10/07/04 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:04-mc-00107-MK Document 27 Filed 10/07/04 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:04-mc-00107-MK Document 27 Filed 10/07/04 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:04-mc-00107-MK Document 27 Filed 10/07/04 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:04-mc-00107-MK Document 27 Filed 10/07/04 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:04-mc-00107-MK Document 27 Filed 10/07/04 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:04-mc-00107-MK Document 27 Filed 10/07/04 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:04-mc-00107-MK Document 27 Filed 10/07/04 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:04-mc-00107-MK Document 27 Filed 10/07/04 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:04-mc-00107-MK Document 27 Filed 10/07/04 Page 10 of 10
Exhibit 10.1

LEASE TERMINATION AGREEMENT

THIS LEASE TERMINATION AGREEMENT("Termination Agreement") is made as of the 22nd day of May, 2002 by and between EOP-150 CALIFORNIA STREET, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company("Landlord") andTENFOLD CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation("Tenant").

RECITALS:

1

---



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals which by this reference are incorporated herein, the mutual covenants and
conditions contained herein and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant agree as follows:

2

---



3

---



4

---





5

---



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this Termination Agreement on the day and year first above written.

| |  | LANDLORD:                                                               |  |                                                                                   
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | EOP-150 CALIFORNIA STREET, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
| |  | By:                                                                     |  | EOP Operating Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, its sole member
| |  |                                                                         |  | By:                                                                               
| |  |                                                                         |  |                                                                                   
| |  |                                                                         |  |                                                                                   
| |  |                                                                         |  |                                                                                   
| |  | TENANT:                                                                
| |  | TENFOLD CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation                            
| |  | By:                                                                     |  |                                                                                   
| |  | Name:                                                                   |  |                                                                                   
| |  | Title:                                                                  |  |                                                                                   

6

---

EXHIBIT A

FORM OF NEW LEASE

1

---

QuickLinks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION “ (Doe. No. 61)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Civil No. 04-831 (RBK)
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, et al.,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the Motion to Compel Discovery
by Plaintiff Charles Williams; and the Court having considered the moving papers; and for the
reasons expressed in the Opinion issued this date;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Charles Williams’s motion to compel

discovery is DENIED.

Dated: 9/28/2010 /s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WALKER : 02-3868

SIMON : 02-3887

GOTO : 02-3922

JOHNSON, et al. : 02-3932

HOSOKAWA : 02-3959

KILCY : 02-3964

BYRON : 02-4108

ROCHA, et al. : 02-4121

CAVITT : 02-4139

HIBMA-CANARIO, et al. : 02-4152

BAILEY, et al. : 02-4188

BOSSI, et al. : 02-4234

STEINHAUER, et al. : 02-4257

SKEELS, et al. : 02-4274

WALKER, et al. : 02-4279

FRIEDEN, et al. : 02-4310

DIMANLANTA : 02-4313

:

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04274-RBS Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

R. Barclay Surrick

Case 2:02-cv-04274-RBS Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 2 of 2
Affirmed; Opinion Filed February 5, 2018.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-17-00815-CR

MATTHEW ST. CLAIR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 271st District Court

Wise County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR18377

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Myers, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Myers

Matthew St. Clair waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual 

assault of a child younger than fourteen years. After finding appellant guilty of both counts, the 

trial court assessed punishment at twelve years’ imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently. 

Although originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals, the appeal was transferred to this Court 

on July 14, 2017 by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to a docket equalization order. TEX. GOV.

CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013).

On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly 

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, 

there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. 
–2–

App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel 

delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, 

but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support 

the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

170815F.U05
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MATTHEW ST. CLAIR, Appellant

No. 05-17-00815-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 271st District Court, 

Wise County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR18377.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Bridges and Schenck participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 5th day of February, 2018.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

HAYES : 02-3937

MCKNIGHT : 02-3954

SKOGLULND : 02-3979

BALLIRO : 02-4111

SADEIK : 02-4129

HAYWARD, et al. : 02-4133

WAINER, et al. : 02-4177

VAN STREEPEN, et al. : 02-4199

BAILEY : 02-4231

ABERCROMBIE, et al. : 02-4235

TRESSLAR, et al. : 02-4291

CONLEY, et al. : 02-4296

GLADHART, et al. : 02-4312

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

Case 2:02-cv-04312-CMR Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Cynthia M. Rufe, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04312-CMR Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

April 30, 1959

No. 63005.

#### Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/5464 (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
# C_2017104EN.01002102.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal — Portugal) — Município de Palmela v Autoridade de Segurança Alimentar e Económica (ASAE) — Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

(Case C-144/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procedures for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Directives 83/189/EEC and 98/34/EC - Draft technical regulation - Notifying the European Commission - Obligations of Member States - Infringement - Consequences))

(2017/C 104/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Município de Palmela

Applicant:

Defendant: Autoridade de Segurança Alimentar e Económica (ASAE) — Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Directive 83/189/EEC of the Council of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, and Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that the penalty of unenforceability of a technical regulation which has not been notified, such as Article 16(1) and (2) of the Regulamento que estabelece as condições de segurança a observar na localização, implantação, conceção e organização funcional dos espaços de jogo e recreio, respetivamente, equipamento e superfícies de impacto (Regulation on the mandatory safety requirements regarding the localisation, implementation, design and functional organisation of play and recreation areas and their equipment and impact surfaces), annexed to Decreto-Lei No 379/97 (Decree-Law No 379/97), of 27 December 1997, as amended by Decreto-Lei No 119/2009 (Decree-Law No 119/2009), of 19 May 2009, applies only to that technical regulation and not to the entire legislative text in which it is contained.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

1

---
RVAAC	Communications	Sub - committee # 10 November	6,	2014 1:00 - 3:00	PM Agenda Call - in	Number: 888 - 396 - 7314	or	773 - 756 - 0935 Password: 8020595 CART: www.streamtext.net/player?event=ACCESSBOARD110614 1. Welcome	and	Self

- introductions 2. Brief	Review	of	October	2 meeting a. Discussion	of advertisements and	accessibility	when	part	of	a	pre recorded	audible	message.	Print advertisements not	required	to be	accessible. b. Discussions	of	dynamic	audible	messages – make them	accessible if	possible or	pre - record	messages	to	cover	possible	emergencies. c. Discussion	of	back- up	power	for	the	VMS	system. d. Possible	volunteers	for	a	p otential	list	of	recommendations for DOT &	FRA. 3. Continue	discussions	and	“Homework”	reports. 4. Next	meeting – December	4th. 5. Adjourn No	Handouts
Docket No. FAA-2011-0917
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001051285
<NAME> PRECEPT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         510,476
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,752,049<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,395,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,597,938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,609,371
<PP&E>                                       7,530,651
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,460,114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,877,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,330,035
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,217
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,784,102<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,877,234
<SALES>                                    121,865,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           121,865,284
<CGS>                                       80,484,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              130,600,326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,856,595
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,591,637)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,531,986)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,059,651)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,059,651)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.08)
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNT REPRESENTS NET ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE.
<F2>AMOUNT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL, RETAINED EARNINGS, AND TREASURY
STOCK.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2015190EN.01002201.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/22

---

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council

(Case T-153/15)

(2015/C 190/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Mohamed Hamcho (Damascus, Syria) and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Order the production of the file in Case T-43/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the production of the file in Case T-43/12;

| — | Reserve the applicants the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reserve the applicants the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses;

| — | Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicants:






  — | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicants:

—

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015;

| — | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council
   (1).

---

(1)  
  OJ 2012, C 58, p. 12.

---
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4674 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
No. 49960.

#### Protests 981994-G, etc., of Chong Sing & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Wing Duck Co.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 133, C. D. 446). In accordance therewith the claim that the merchandise is not subject to the assessment of the internal revenue tax was sustained.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934






RULE 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND






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 Texhoma Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September, 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Brian Alexander, President, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:




|1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








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



Dated: January 13, 2005 By: /s/ Brian Alexander






Brian Alexander, President, CEO and Acting Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 for theCompany’s Citizens First Savings Bank 401 (K) Plan (Registration No. 333-74218), Citizens FirstBancorp, Inc. 2001 Stock-Based Incentive Plan (Registration No. 333-98199), Citizens First Bancorp,Inc. Management Restricted Stock Purchase Plan (Registration Nos. 333-100516 and 333-122417) and inthe Registration Statement on Form S-3 for the Citizens First Bancorp, Inc. Dividend Reinvestmentand Optional Cash Purchase Plan (Registration No. 333-122417)) of our report dated March 11, 2005relating to the consolidated financial statements of Citizens First Bancorp, Inc. which appears inthis Form 10-K.
BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
Grand Rapids, Michigan