alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 12-0069 , 0070

Post-Focus Draft Revision 1 3/14/2012

ENGINEER: Hall \ BCS

PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

USE:

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: Eng Controls: No special requirements under

ordinary conditions of use and| with adequate ventilation.

// Hand: Please observe the instructions regarding

permeability and breakthrough time which are provided by

the supplier of the gloves. Also take into consideration

the specific local conditions under which the product is

used, such as the danger of cuts, abrasion, and the

contact time. When handling hot material, use heat

resistant gloves. // Eye: safety glasses // Skin and Body:

long sleeved clothing.

Respirator: None listed

Health Effects: Caution - this is a research sample and

the toxicological and ecotoxicological properties have

not been fully evaluated.

TLV/PEL:

none established

@=

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (12/09/2011):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Analogs:

Migration to groundwater: Rapid

PBT rating: P1B1T1 P12-0069: Health: 2, Eco: 2. //

P12-0070: Health 2, Eco: 3

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 52 ppb for

P12-0069 and 4 ppb for P12-0070)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 12-0069 , 0070

Number of Sites/ Location: 1

South Coast Terminal Houston TX 77020

Days/yr: 15

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

Water or Incineration or Landfill

Conservative: 0.0E+0 kg/site-day over 15 days/yr from 1

site

or 0.0E+0 kg/yr

Air

Output 2: 3.0E-1 kg/site-day over 15 days/yr from 1 site

RELEASE TOTAL

4.5E+0 kg/yr - all sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARYINITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 12-0069 , 0070

Number of Sites/ Location: 180

unknown site(s)

Days/yr: 250

Basis:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

Water or Incineration or Landfill

High End: 6.2E+0 kg/site-day over 2 days/yr from 180 sites

or 2.2E+3 kg/yr

Water or Incineration or Landfill

Conservative: 4.0E-2 kg/site-day over 250 days/yr from 180

sites

or 1.8E+3 kg/yr

RELEASE TOTAL

4.0E+3 kg/yr - all sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARYINITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 12-0069 , 0070

Number of Sites/ Location: 1,000

unknown sites

Days/yr: 350

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

Water or Incineration or Landfill

High End: 3.8E-2 kg/site-day over 5 days/yr from 1,000

sites

or 1.9E+2 kg/yr

Incineration

Output 2: 2.6E-1 kg/site-day over 350 days/yr from 1,000

sites

or 9.0E+4 kg/yr

RELEASE TOTAL

9.0E+4 kg/yr - all sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARYm
# Official Journal C 389/26 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 389 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6126 October 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 389

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6126 October 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | OLAF Supervisory Committee |
| 2018/C 389/01 | Activity Report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee — 2017 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

OLAF Supervisory Committee

2018/C 389/01

Activity Report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee — 2017

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 6, 2009 

d0303 

Order 

 

March 6, 2009 

138219 & (20)(21) 

EDWARD M. HANNAFORD, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138219 

 COA: 289977 

Macomb CC: 1995-004609-DM 

CHRISTINE L. MORRISON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED as moot.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v MICHAEL A. RUMPLER, Lance Corporal, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

19 USCMA 479, 42 CMR 81

No. 22,922

May 28, 1970

*Captain Frank A. Nelson,*JAGC, USN, and *Captain John N. Stafford,*USMCR, were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

The appellant entered pleas of guilty to three specifications alleging desertion apd escape from custody, in violation of Articles 85 and 95, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 885 and 895. The law officer’s inquiry into the providence of the guilty *480pleas did not cover the elements of the offenses charged. In mitigation testimony, Rumpler does not admit an intent to desert. We are uncertain whether the law officer intended to probe the question of intent following Rumpler’s testimony when he asked a question that is reported in this authenticated record as follows:

> “LO: Since the accused has mentioned going AWOL and has shown his general background, I think this will attribute to those absences. The court I’m sure is aware of the specific intent as required in this case. Are [sic] there any intention on your part on that testimony to interrogate [sic] from the existence of that intent?”

If the words actually spoken were “derogate from” instead of “interrogate from,” the answer would have conceded the intent to desert. But we must take the record as it is authenticated. Under these circumstances the desertion convictions must be set aside. United States v Boyd, 18 USC MA 581, 40 CMR 293 (1969).

The findings of guilty as to desertion under Charge I and its three specifications are set aside. The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing may be ordered on the original desertion charges, or the Court of Military Review may affirm the lesser included offenses of unauthorized absence and reassess the sentence.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

Before the law officer accepted the accused’s plea of guilty, he was informed by the accused that he had discussed the plea with his counsel who informed him what the Government had “to prove as to the elements of” the offenses and that he understood the Government’s burden of proof. The accused also informed the law officer that he did not want “any further advice.” In my opinion, the record here demonstrates, as it did in United States v Gremillion, 18 USCMA 568, 569, 40 CMR 280 (1969), that the accused “knew the elements of the offense”; it is also sufficient to demonstrate the providence and the volun-tariness of the accused’s plea of guilty. United States v Romero, 18 USCMA 578, 40 CMR 290 (1969); United States v Graan, 18 USCMA 586, 40 CMR 298 (1969). Consequently, I would affirm the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review.
# Official Journal C 292/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 292 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5912 August 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 292

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5912 August 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 292/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7947 — Banco Santander Totta/Banif) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 292/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7947 — Banco Santander Totta/Banif) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 292/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2016/C 292/03 | Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 September 2016(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 ( OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1 )) | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 292/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2016/C 292/03

Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 September 2016(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 ( OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1 ))

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 ( OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1 ))

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 292/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7963 — ADM Europe/Wilmar Europe/Olenex) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2016/C 292/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8168 — Steinhoff International/Poundland) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 292/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7963 — ADM Europe/Wilmar Europe/Olenex) (
  1
  )

1

4

2016/C 292/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8168 — Steinhoff International/Poundland) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Official Journal C 280/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 280 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6413 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 280

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6413 July 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 280/01 | Commission Notice – Technical guidance on sustainability proofing for the InvestEU Fund | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 280/01

Commission Notice – Technical guidance on sustainability proofing for the InvestEU Fund

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection
with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Trinity Capital Corporation, a New
Mexico corporation (Trinity), for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
Daniel R. Bartholomew as Chief Financial Officer of Trinity, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge: (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 Trinity.  /s/ Daniel
  R. BartholomewDaniel R.
  BartholomewChief
  Financial OfficerAugust 9,
  2007 34
District Judge of the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by

designation.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 94-40728

_______________________

VIRGINIA HIGHTOWER, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees.

versus

TEXAS HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

Defendants,

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION OF PALESTINE, 

INC., dba MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ANDERSON 

COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL RETIREMENT PLAN, 

AKA THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION RETIREMENT PLAN FOR 

MEMBER HOSPITALS - ANDERSON COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

Defendant-Appellant,

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

_________________________________________________________________

January 3, 1996

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion September 28, 1995, 5th Circuit, 1995, ___F.3d___)

Before DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges and COBB1, District Judge

O R D E R :

In their petition for rehearing, appellees have raised a

number of arguments that they did not make to this court in their

original appellate briefs. Specifically, they contend that if the

scope of Title I and Title IV of ERISA are not construed
consistently with regard to governmental plans that have, as here,

been transferred to private entities, a number of problems will

arise. The alleged problems will include the extent to which state

law rules will govern matters otherwise controlled by federal law

under ERISA's preemptive provisions in Title I; whether the Title

I protections accorded the PBGC will continue to apply to 0court,

and they are deemed waived and have played no role in our decision.

For this reason, and because appellees' reurging of their

position on rehearing is otherwise not persuasive, the petition is

DENIED.

Judge Cobb would grant the petition for a panel

rehearing.
(logo)Prudential

 

 

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PGIMReal Estate Finance

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

2010Corporate Ridge

10thFloor, Ste 1000

McLean,Virginia 22102-7853

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:         **CFCRE 2016 - C3**

Period: **January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019(the “Reporting Period”)**

 

**AnnualCompliance Statement**

 

 

I,Joni Brown-Haas, in my capacity as President and Managing Director ofPrudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify with regard tothe Company’s role as Sub-Servicer under the Sub-Servicing Agreement, (the“Agreement”) dated as of January 1, 2016, pertaining to the above-referencedcertificates, that:

 

(i)       a review of theactivities of the Company under the Agreement during the period noted above,and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement during the relevantperiod has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)     to the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all its obligationsunder the Agreement throughout the relevant period, and

 

(iii)   to the best of my knowledge,based on such review, the Company has fulfilled its obligations under itssub-servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv)    the Company hasmaintained an effective internal control system over the servicing of mortgage loansincluding the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v)     the Company has notreceived any notice regarding qualification, or challenging the status of theLower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from the IRS or any othergovernmental agency or body.

 

 

Effectiveas of February 21, 2020

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown-Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

D’NANEKAI CARRIGAN-TERRELL,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-387 

Judge Graham

Magistrate Judge King

DOCTOR SILVIA, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges that she was transferred from the Franklin Pre-Release

Center (“FPRC”), where she worked as a porter, to the Ohio Reformatory for Women (“ORW”)

without notice, hearing or opportunity to appeal, all in violation of her right to due process of law.

On October 29, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that defendants’ motion for

judgment on the pleadings, Doc. No. 15, be granted. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 18. 

This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff’s objections to that recommendation. Motion for

Relief, Doc. No. 20. The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b). 

As the Magistrate Judge noted, state inmates are vested with a liberty interest and the due

process clause of the United States Constitution entitles a state prisoner to notice and opportunity

to be heard prior to a transfer to another institution only where conditions at the other institution

impose “atypical and significant hardships on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of

prison life.” See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Cf. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209

Case: 2:12-cv-00387-JLG-NMK Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/26/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
(2005)(recognizing an inmate’s liberty interest in not being transferred to Ohio’s “supermax”

institution without due process of law). The conditions at ORW as reflected in the exhibits attached

to plaintiff’s complaint do not meet that standard. 

In her objections, plaintiff does not disagree with either the reasoning or recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge. Rather, plaintiff presents her own recommendations as to what she believes

are appropriate procedures that should be followed before an inmate is transferred to another prison.

However, the due process clause of the United States Constitution attaches only to constitutionallyprotected liberty interests. Because plaintiff has not established that she has a constitutionallyprotected liberty interest in remaining at FPRC, the Constitution did not require due process in

connection with plaintiff’s transfer from that institution to ORW.

Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. No. 15, is therefore GRANTED.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in this case.

Date: November 26, 2012 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00387-JLG-NMK Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/26/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

WILLIAM T. ALLEN,

Petitioner,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

WARDEN, TOLEDO CASE NO. 2:12-CV-154

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORAH MCCANN KING

Respondent.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the ORDER filed May 9, 2013, JUDGMENT is hereby entered

DISMISSING this action.

Date: May 9, 2013 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:12-cv-00154-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 05/09/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DONALD R. DUTTINE, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 550, 38 CMR 348

No. 20,951

May 17, 1968

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Major David J. Passamaneck,*and *Captain Kenneth J. Stuart*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rariclc, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain Salvatore A. Romano*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, the accused was convicted of three specifications of robbery, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 122, 10 USC § 922, and sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for two years, and reduction. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed, and we granted accused’s petition upon the contention that two of the robbery specifications were multiplicious as, though they involved different victims, the offenses occurred at the same time and place.

Our decision in United States v Parker, 17 USCMA 545, 38 CMR 343, this day decided, is dispositive of this issue. As we therein pointed out, it is well settled that robberies of different victims at the same time and place are separately punishable offenses.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil-day concur.
# Official Journal C 193A/29 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 193A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4729 July 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 193A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4729 July 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | European Medicines Agency |
| 2004/C 193A/1 | Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London) | 1 |
| | European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia |
| 2004/C 193A/2 | Call for applications ACER-B-2004 | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

European Medicines Agency

2004/C 193A/1

Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London)

1

European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

2004/C 193A/2

Call for applications ACER-B-2004

3

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN