alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### 2 Table 1. Summary of data classifications of r ecently submitted studies for nicosulfuron.

Guideline Study Citation MRID Study
Classification Test
Substance

835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism: Sarff, P. 2004. Aerobic aquatic metabolism of 14 Cnicosulfuron (DPX-V9360) in two water/sediment systems. Unpublished study performed by ABC Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, Missouri, sponsored and submitted by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware (pp. 1, 3). ABC Study No.: 47548. DuPont Study No.: DuPont-10930 (p. 6). Experiment started September 27, 2002, and terminated April 28, 2004 (p. 6). Final report issued August 16, 2004. 48354304 Supplemental Nicosulfuron

TGAI

835.4400 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism:Allan, J. 2012. Anaerobic aquatic metabolism of 14Cnicosulfuron (DPX-V9360) in two water/sediment systems. Unpublished study performed by ABC Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, Missouri, sponsored and submitted by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware. ABC Study No.: 66637. DuPont Study No.: DuPont-31933. Experiment started September 15, 2011, and terminated March 21, 2012 (p. 6). Final report issued March 23, 2012. 48790905 Supplemental Nicosulfuron

TGAI
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Ralph Miller, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 551]

—Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Oneida County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The contention of defendant that County Court erred in its denial of his application for a missing witness charge is not preserved for our review *(see,*
      *1002
      *People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424, 427-428; *People v Peterson,*188 AD2d 1002, *Iv denied*81 NY2d 891; *People v Ruiz,*176 AD2d 683, 684, *lv denied*79 NY2d 952). The further contention of defendant that the 19th count of the indictment is duplicitous is also not preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 210.20 [2]; 255.20 [1]). We decline to exercise our power to address either issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Five days after the jury returned a guilty verdict, defendant brought a motion for a reconstruction hearing, alleging that he had not been present at an in-chambers *Sandoval*hearing. The motion was unopposed and the reconstruction hearing was held on March 29, 1995. The record of that hearing discloses that the issue of defendant’s presence was sharply contested. The court, however, neither made findings of fact nor a determination whether defendant was present at the *Sandoval*hearing. "Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses” *(People v Michalek,*218 AD2d 750, 751). We, therefore, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court to make findings of fact and a determination whether defendant was present at the *Sandoval*hearing *(cf, People v James,*221 AD2d 963 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Murad, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2309

TORI SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES ORGANIZATION, (JWs); NATIONAL 

ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN, (NOW); WEAVE OF SACRAMENTO, CA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01319-LMB-JFA)

Submitted: April 20, 2023 Decided: April 24, 2023

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tori Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2309 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Tori Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing Smith’s civil complaint

against Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Smith v. Jehovah’s Witnesses Org., No. 

1:22-cv-01319-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Nov. 23, 2022). We deny as moot Smith’s motion to 

expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2309 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Docket No. FAA-2012-0270

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 5/12/11 ---

Regional Airline Association Connie

Arnold

5/12/11 ---

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 5/12/11 ---

ATA Joe White 5/12/11 ---
Case: 2:10-cv-01036-EAS-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 08/02/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-01036-EAS-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 08/02/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-01036-EAS-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 08/02/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, Merlyn Kirk, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1)the annual  report on Form 10-K of GreenChoice International, Inc. for the period ended April 30, 2011 (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 GreenChoice International, Inc.  Dated: August 15, 2011/s/ Merlyn KirkMerlyn KirkPresident, Secretary, Treasurer and Director(Principal Executive Officer, Principal FinancialOfficer, and Principal Accounting Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0341 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SAMUEL RICHARD BONKO,

Defendant and Appellant

.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 5 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 28 2021

06/28/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0341
(Reap. Dec. 8754)

#### Curt L. Sterner Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 761944 1/2, etc.

(Decided March 6, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub¡*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*603LawreNce, Judge:

The records indicate that there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached to and made part of this decision were called for hearing, and the cases were ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the records in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.