alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: 9110113 

OFFICE OF 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION 

PREVENTION 

SUBJECT: Orthosulfamuron Immunotoxicity Waiver Request. 

PC Code: 108209 

Decision No.: 480734 

Petition No.: N/A 

Risk Assessment Type: N/ A 

TXR No.: 0056786 

MRID No.: N/A 

FROM: 

THRU: 

Jaime D' Agostino, Toxicologist 

Risk Assessment Branch II 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

Christina Swartz, Chief 

Risk Assessment Branch II 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

TO: Neil Anderson, RM 51 

DP Barcode: D413020 

Registration Nos.: NA 

Regulatory Action: Registration Review 

Case No.: NA 

CAS No.: 213464-77-8 

40 CFR: N/A 

Khue Nguyen, Chemical Review Manager 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch I 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

I. CONCLUSION: HED agrees with the waiver request based on a decision to waive 

immunotoxicity studies for all sulfonylurea (SU) pesticides based on the minimal evidence of 

immunotoxicity in the available databases for SU pesticides, the liver, not the immune system is 

generally the target organ for this chemical class, points of departures based on the most 

sensitive endpoints obtained via the appropriate routes of exposure in the most sensitive species 

are currently used for dietary and non-dietary risk assessments, and there was no evidence of 

immunotoxicity with six other structurally-related sulfonylurea herbicides. (K. Rury, 

TXR#0056723, 8/6/2013). 

II. ACTION REQUESTED: The Health Effects Division (HED) was asked to review a 

waiver request submitted by Isargo for an immunotoxicology study in conjunction with 

Page 1 of2 
registration review for orthosulfamuron. 

III. BACKGROUND: Orthosulfamuron, 1-( 4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-[2-

(dimethylcarbamoyl)phenylsulfamoyl]urea, is an herbicide of the sulfamoylurea class that is 

currently used on rice for the control of annual and perennial broadleaf weeds, sedges, and 

barnyard grass. 

Isagro has requested a waiver for an immunotoxicity study in response to a registration review 

data call in. HED agrees with the waiver request based on a decision to waive immunotoxicity 

studies for all sulfonylurea pesticides as a class (K. Rury, TXR#0056723, 8/6/2013). 

Page 2 of2
|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                        |                                                                                                                             |                                              |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
| May                15, 2006 |                                                                                                                        | /s/ Mark              E.              Gitter |
|                        | Mark                E. Gitter, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer                (Principal                  Accounting Officer) |

----
# C_2018032EN.01002801.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360o)

o

(Case T-333/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark 360o - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

o

(2018/C 032/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2016 (Case R 2287/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign 360o as an EU trade mark.

o

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Colgate-Palmolive Co. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Colgate-Palmolive Co. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

1

---
No. 61776.

#### W. R. Grace & Co. v. United States,

protests 310247-K and 310995-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 6 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 JOSEPH GUILLORY, 2 Worker-Appellant, 3
v. NO. 32,977 4 NEW MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 5 OF THE COURTS and DONA ANA COUNTY 6 MAGISTRATE COURT ENTITIES OF THE 7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, a Self-Insured 8 Employer, 9 Employer-Appellee. 10 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 11 Terry S. Kramer, Workers ’ Compensation Judge 12 Perales Law Group PC 13 J. Marcos Perales-Piña 14 Las Cruces, NM 15 for Appellant 16 Morgan Lyman 17 Las Cruces, NM 18 for Appellee 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 202 VIGIL, Judge. 1 {1} Worker appealed the denial of his cl aim for workers’ compensation benefits. 2 We proposed to affirm in a calendar notice. Employer filed a memorandum in support 3 of the proposed affirmance; however, Worker has not filed a memorandum in 4 opposition and the time for doing so has expired. Therefore, for the reasons discussed 5 in our calendar notice, we affirm the deci sion of the worker’s compensation judge in 6 this case. 7 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________________________________ 9 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

___________________________________ 12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 13

___________________________________ 14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 15
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 8 -00 139 -CV Tim ot hy J . N obl e , A ppe lla nt

v. Arnold Csan, Jr. and Kim berly K . Csan , Appellees F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT N O. 210, 940- B , HO NORAB LE RICK M ORRI S , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant, T i m o t h y

J . Noble, has f

iled a motion to dism iss this appea l. Appellant state s th at th e pa

rt ie s h ave se ttl e d a ll m atte rs in di spute and tha t th e a pp e a l is the re fo re moo t. T h e ap p ellees do not oppose this motion. W e grant the motion and dismiss the appea l. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) (1).

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Jul y

15, 2008
# C_2019164EN.01004201.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Pometon v Commission

(Case T-433/16) (1)

(Competition - Agreements and concerted practices - European steel abrasives market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price coordination throughout the EEA - Chronologically staggered ‘hybrid’ procedure - Presumption of innocence - Principle of impartiality - Charter of Fundamental Rights - Evidence of the infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Duration of the infringement - Fine - Exceptional adjustment of the basic amount - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2019/C 164/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pometon SpA (Maerne di Martellago, Italy) (represented by: E. Fabrizi, V. Veneziano and A. Molinaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3121 final of 25 May 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39792 — Steel Abrasives).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 3121 final of 25 May 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39792 — Steel Abrasives); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 3121 final of 25 May 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39792 — Steel Abrasives);

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Pometon SpA at EUR 3 873 375; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Pometon SpA at EUR 3 873 375;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

---
ex10_210.htm


    AMENDMENT
N0. 9

    NON-COMPETITION
AGREEMENT

    


    AMENDMENT
NO. 9, dated as of June 22, 2008, among The STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation (“Company”), CITIBANK, N.A., a national banking association
(“Citibank”), CITIGROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation and the ultimate parent of
Citibank (“Citigroup” and, together with Citibank, the “Parents”).

    


    WHEREAS,
the Company, Citibank (successor by merger to Citibank (New York State)), and
Citicorp, a Delaware corporation, have heretofore entered into a Non-Competition
Agreement, dated as of December 22, 1992, the term of which was extended
pursuant to a letter agreement dated November 1, 1999, the term of which was
further extended pursuant to Amendment No. 1 dated as of June 22, 2000,
Amendment No. 2 dated as of June 22, 2001, Amendment No. 3 dated as of May 5,
2002, Amendment No. 4 dated as of June 22, 2003, amendment No. 5 dated as of
June 22, 2004, Amendment No. 6 dated as of June 22, 2005, Amendment No. 7 dated
as of June 22, 2006, and Amendment No. 8, dated as of June 22, 2007, and
Citigroup Inc. was substituted as a party in lieu of Citicorp (the
Non-Competition agreement, as so extended and amended, being referred to herein
as the “Agreement”); and

    


    WHEREAS,
the parties to the Agreement wish to extend the term of the
Agreement.

    


    NOW,
THEREFORE, for an in consideration of the premises and of other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Company, Citibank and Citigroup hereby consent and agree as
follows:

    


    SECTION
1. Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 9, all defined terms used
therein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the
Agreement.

    


    SECTION
2. The term of the Agreement (originally scheduled to expire on December 22,
1999, and previously extended to June 22, 2008) shall be extended to August 8,
2008.

    


    SECTION
3. This Amendment No. 9 may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and
the same instrument.

    


    SECTION
4.  From and after the date of this Amendment No. 9, all references in
the Agreement to this “Agreement” shall refer to the Agreement as amended
hereby.

    


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, Citibank and Citigroup have each caused this
Amendment No. 9 to the Agreement to be duly executed by the respective officers
as of the day and year first above written.

     

     

     

     

    
      
        	THE STUDENT LOAN
      CORPORATION	 
	 	 	 
	
                By:

              	/s/ 
      Michael J. Reardon	 
	Name:	Michael
      J. Reardon	 
	Title:	Chief
      Executive Officer and President	 
	 	 	 


      

    

     

    
      	CITIBANK, N.A.	 
	 	 	 
	
              By:

            	/s/ 
      Gary Kimmelman	 
	Name:	Gary
      Kimmelman	 
	Title:	Vice
      President	 
	 	 	 


    

     

    
      
        	CITIGROUP INC.	 
	 	 	 
	
                By:

              	/s/ 
      Steven Freiberg 	 
	Name:	Steven
      Freiberg	 
	Title:	Executive
      Vice President
Case 2:05-cv-01094-PBT Document 70 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 1
Order entered June 18, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00446-CV

IDEAL ROOFING, INC., Appellant

V.

MIKE ARMBRUSTER, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-03420-E

ORDER

We GRANT appellees’ June 12, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a brief. 

Appellees shall file their brief on or before July 1, 2013. We caution appellees that no further 

extension of time will be granted in this accelerated appeal absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Veterans Affairs
 The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10, that the Veterans’ Family, Caregiver and Survivor Advisory 
                    ( print page 78816)
                    Committee will meet virtually on November 30 and December 1, 2023. The meeting sessions will begin and end as follows: Date(s)
Time(s)November 30, 2023
12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).December 1, 2023
12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST.
 The meeting is open to the public and will be conducted via the WebEx conference platform. The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (SECVA) with respect to the administration of benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for services to Veterans’ families, caregivers and survivors. On Thursday, November 30 and Friday, December 1, 2023, the agenda will include opening remarks from the Executive Director, Caregiver Support Program, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Committee Chair. There will be briefings by the VA Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care, Care Management and Social Work Services, and Readjustment Counseling Service. Time will be allocated for receiving public comments on December 1, 2023, 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EST. Individuals wishing to make public comments should contact Dr. Betty Moseley Brown, Designated Federal Officer at (210) 392-2505 or 
                    *VHA12CSPFAC@va.gov*
                     and are requested to submit a 1 to 2-page summary of their comments for inclusion in the official meeting record. In the interest of time, each speaker will be held to a 5-minute time limit. The Committee will accept written comments from interested parties on relevant issues until Monday, November 27, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. EST. Each public speaker will receive a confirmed time for speaking via email from the Designated Federal Officer. All attending should register at the following link: 
                    *https://veteransaffairs.webex.com/​webappng/​sites/​veteransaffairs/​webinar/​webinarSeries/​register/​aaa9fdda9fdc463e8acbea9444a71ede.*
                     Anyone seeking additional information should contact Dr. Betty Moseley Brown, at (210) 392-2505 or 
                    *Betty.MoseleyBrown@va.gov*. Dated: November 13, 2023. Jelessa M. Burney, Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.


[FR Doc. 2023-25335 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Before the Second Division,

March 10, 1949

No. 52924.

#### Irving Trust Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 636188-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of hats known as harvest hats, valued at less than $3 per dozen, similar in all material respects to those involved in *Caradine Hat Co.*v. *United States*(9 Oust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, the hats imported or withdrawn for consumption prior to the effective date of T. D. 48075 were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those items imported or withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to that date were held dutiable at *12}i*percent under said paragraph.
# C_2020271EN.01003301.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — MU v Parliament

(Case T-40/16) (1)

(Action for annulment - Article 263 TFEU - Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the Parliament - Trainee with disabilities - Additional disability allowance - Refusal - Conditions for grant of additional amount prescribed for trainees with disabilities - Error in law)

(2020/C 271/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: MU (represented by: A. Bruno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge, J. Steele and E. Paladini, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 11 December 2015 refusing the additional payment prescribed for trainees with disabilities by Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the Parliament.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 11 December 2015 refusing the additional payment for trainees with disabilities provided for by Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the Parliament to MU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 11 December 2015 refusing the additional payment for trainees with disabilities provided for by Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the Parliament to MU.

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312 of 16.9.2019.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANDRE BLAYLOCK : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

PHILADELPHIA POLICE OFFICERS REYNOLDS, :

WALKER, CUJDIK, LICIARDELLO and MALKOWSKI : NO. 05-1649

ORDER

AND NOW, this 4 day of April, 2008, it having been reported to the court that

TH

the issues between plaintiff and defendants in this action have been settled, and upon Order of 

the court, pursuant to the provisions of 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this

court, it is ORDERED that:

1. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel

without costs, AS TO ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS TO THIS ACTION.

2. The Clerk is directed to mark this case CLOSED.

ATTEST: or BY THE COURT:

/s/ Madeline F. Ward /s/ Norma L. Shapiro 

 Madeline F. Ward, Deputy Clerk S.J.

Case 2:05-cv-01649-NS Document 77 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 1
No. 56349.

protest 140216-K (New York).

#### F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
# C_2019093EN.01004702.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2019 — HJ v EMA

(Case T-881/16) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary agents - Partial inadmissibility - Application for an injunction - Access of officials to their personal file - Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Personal file made accessible to all members of staff of the EMA - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies - Liability - Non-material harm))

(2019/C 93/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HJ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: I. Ratescu and F. Cooney, acting as Agents, and S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, compensation in respect of the non-material harm which the applicant claims to have suffered following the disclosure of his personal file to all members of staff of the EMA and, second, the withdrawal of two documents from that file.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to pay HJ the symbolic sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to pay HJ the symbolic sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the EMA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by HJ. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EMA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by HJ.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

---