alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D.C

. 20460



## NOV 

## 2201\

OFF IC E OF CHEMICAL SAFETY Ms. Deborah Goldberg A ND PO LLUTI ON PREVE NTION Earthjustice 156 William Street, Suite 800 New York, NY 10038 Re: TSCA Section 21 Petition Concerning Chemical Substances and Mixtures Used in Oil and Gas Exploration or Production Dear Ms

. Goldberg : The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is continuing its review ofthe petition concerning chemical substances and mixtures used in oil and gas exploration or production (E&P) that you and other petitioners filed under section 21 ofthe Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) on August 4, 20 II. Your petition requests that EPA require manufacturers and processors ofE&P chemical substances and mixtures to : I) develop test data pursuant to TSCA Section 4, and 2) maintain records and submit reports to the EPA on E&P chemical substances and mixtures and any data on environmental or health effects and exposures pursuant to TSCA section 8(a). Further, it requests that EPA have manufacturers, processors and di stributors : 1) submit copies ofany information related to significant adverse reactions to health or environment pursuant to TSCA section 8(c) , and 2) submit health and safety studies related to E&P chemical substances and mixtures pursuant to TSCA section 8(d). You have suggested to us that additional data would be useful to inform the work ofthe Agency and the broader Federal government, as well as the public, on this important issue and that TSCA may be a valuable authority to provide a national picture ofthe chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing

. EPA is therefore considering and conducting additional analysis on the TSCA section 8(a) and section 8(d) requests in your petition. We need a short but important extension oftime for this review and plan to provide a full response to the petition no later than November 23 , 20 II. EPA is denying the TSCA section 4 request in the petition for issuance ofa test rule

. The petition does not set forth sufficient facts to support the assertion that it is "necessary to issue" the requested TSCA section 4 rule, as required by TSCA section 21(b)(I). Specifically, the petition did not set forth f acts sufficient to support the required fmdings under TSCA section 4(a)(I)(A) or 4(a)(I)(B) for issuance ofa test rule covering all chemical substances and mixtures used in oil and gas exploration and production.

Internet Address (URl) • httpll,WAllepa gov Re cyc l ed/Recyc l abl e' Pnnted w ith Veget able 01 1Based I nks on 100% Posl consumer, P rocess Ch lOrine Free Recycled Pape rWe believe natural gas is an important component of our domestic energy portfolio but that at the same time the resource can and should be responsibly developed, building offthe important work that has already been done by the states, the industry, and others to disclose crucial information to the American public. Thank you for your continued interest in the Agency's efforts to assess and manage chemical ri sks

.

# c:::**Ste~** A. Owens AssiS@lt Administrator
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                            
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                   1,000
       
<S>                                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                         1,297
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  4,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   340
<INVENTORY>                                                    7,962
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               14,962
<PP&E>                                                         21,610
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 38,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          16,654
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       32
<OTHER-SE>                                                     15,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   38,004
<SALES>                                                        148,963
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               148,963
<CGS>                                                          132,441
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  153,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               392
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             1,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                (4,339)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   (2,038)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            (4,339)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (4,339)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  (1.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0
        

</TABLE>
#### DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, INC., etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Elizabeth JACKSON et al., Respondents.

No. 49563.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 12, 1977.

Sam Daniels, Miami, for petitioners.

W. Thomas Spencer, of Spencer & Taylor, Miami, for respondents.

BY THE COURT.

The petition for the writ of certiorari is granted. The decision of the Third District Court of Appeal reported at 330 So.2d 830 is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our decision filed today in *Insurance Co. of North America*v. *Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc.,*348 So.2d 1149 (Fla.1977).

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., dissents.
EXHIBIT 12.1

NTL INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

|                                   |  | Year ended December 31, |       
|---------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ------
|
|
|
|Fixed charges:                     |  |                         |       
|Interest                           |  | £                       | 271.0 
|Interest portion of rental expense |  |                         | 14.9  
|                                   |  |                         |       
|Fixed charges                      |  | £                       | 285.9 
|                                   |  |                         |       
|Earnings:                          |  |                         |       
|(Loss) from continuing operations  |  | £                       | (504.4
|Fixed charges                      |  |                         | 285.9 
|Less: capitalized interest         |  |                         |      
|                                   |  |                         |       
|                                   |  | £                       | (218.5
|                                   |  |                         |       
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |  |                         |       
|Deficiency                         |  | £                       | (504.4

---

The
ratio of earnings to fixed charges and combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends is not meaningful for the periods that result in a deficit.

---



QuickLinks
P5. Injury Status

CODE ATTRIBUTES DESCRIPTION

K Fatal Injury

A fatal injury is any injury that results in death within 30 days after the motor vehicle crash in 

which the injury occurred. If the person did not die at the scene but died within 30 days of the 

motor vehicle crash in which the injury occurred, the injury classification should be changed 

from the attribute previously assigned to the attribute “Fatal Injury.”

A Suspected Serious Injury 

A suspected serious injury is any injury other than fatal which results in one or more of the 

following: 

~ Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in 

significant loss of blood

~ Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg)

~ Crush injuries

~ Suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury other than bruises or minor lacerations

~ Significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10% or more of the body)

~ Unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene

~ Paralysis 

B Suspected Minor Injury 

A minor injury is any injury that is evident at the scene of the crash, other than fatal or serious 

injuries. Examples include lump on the head, abrasions, bruises, minor lacerations (cuts on the 

skin surface with minimal bleeding and no exposure of deeper tissue/muscle).

C Possible Injury

A possible injury is any injury reported or claimed which is not a fatal, suspected serious or 

suspected minor injury. Examples include momentary loss of consciousness, claim of injury, 

limping, or complaint of pain or nausea. Possible injuries are those which are reported by the 

person or are indicated by his/her behavior, but no wounds or injuries are readily evident.

O No Apparent Injury

No apparent injury is a situation where there is no reason to believe that the person received 

any bodily harm from the motor vehicle crash. There is no physical evidence of injury and the 

person does not report any change in normal function.

http://www.mmucc.us/sites/default/files/MMUCC_4th_Ed_0.pdf 

Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), 4th Edition Definitions

The injury severity level for a person Involved in a crash. The determination of which attribute to assign should be based on the latest 

information available at the time the report is completed, except as described below for fatal Injuries.

NOTE: Attribute definitions are provided for Injury Status to emphasize that some attribute names and definitions have changed from 

the 3rd Edition of MMUCC even though the “KABCO” acronym remains. Most notably, “Suspected Serious Injury” (A) has replaced 

“Incapacitating Injury” and “Suspected Minor Injury” (B) has replaced “Non-incapacitating Injury.”
```

[104th Congress Public Law 82]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ82.104]

[[Page 109 STAT. 796]]

Public Law 104-82
104th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
   Providing for the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr. as a citizen 
           regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
        Institution. <<NOTE: Dec. 28, 1995 -  [H.J. Res. 110]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 
in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the 
expiration of the term of Jeannine Smith Clark of the District of 
Columbia on August 25, 1995, is filled by the appointment of Howard H. 
Baker, Jr. of the District of Columbia. The appointment is for a term of 
six years and shall take effect on the date on which this joint 
resolution becomes law.

    Approved December 28, 1995.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 110:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Nov. 7, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 20, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
APPENDIX 1

                           WARRANT NOTICE OF EXERCISE
                           --------------------------

     1.     The undersigned hereby elects to purchase shares of the Common Stock
of  Thinka  Weight-Loss  Corporation  pursuant  to  the  terms of the Warrant to
Purchase  Common  Stock  issued by Thinka Weight-Loss Corporation on January 29,
2003, and tenders herewith payment of the purchase price of such shares in full.

     2.     Please  issue a certificate or certificates representing said shares
in  the  name  of  the  undersigned or in such other name as is specified below:

                            ________________________

                            ________________________

                            ________________________
                               (Name and Address)





     3.     The undersigned makes the representations and covenants set forth in
Article  4  of  the  Warrant  to  Purchase  Common  Stock.





_________________________________
(Signature)


_______________________
(Date)


                                        9
<PAGE>
#### W. Charles SMITH and Heide U. Smith, his wife, Appellants, v. BROWARD COUNTY TITLE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 70-893.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 3, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Louis Weissing, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 213

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain

Federal land to Rio Arriba County, New Mexico.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rio Arriba County

5 Land Conveyance Act’’.
 †

2

S 213 ES

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

2 In this Act:

3 (1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘County’’ means the

4 County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico.

5 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map en6 titled ‘‘Alcalde Proposed Land Transfer’’ and dated

7 September 23, 2004.

8 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

9 the Secretary of the Interior.

10 SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO RIO ARRIBA COUNTY,

11 NEW MEXICO.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to valid existing rights,

13 the Secretary shall convey to the County, without consid14 eration, all right, title, and interest of the United States

15 in and to the land (including any improvements to the

16 land) described in subsection (b).

17 (b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land referred to in

18 subsection (a) consists of approximately 171 acres of land

19 located on the Sebastian Martin Land Grant in the vicin20 ity of Alcalde, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, as depicted

21 on the map.

22 (c) REVERSION.—If any portion of the land conveyed

23 under subsection (a) ceases to be used for public purposes

24 the land shall, at the option of the Secretary, revert to

25 the United States.
†

3

S 213 ES

1 (d) CONDITIONS ON SALES.—If the County sells any

2 portion of the land conveyed to the County under sub3 section (a)—

4 (1) the amount of consideration for the sale

5 shall reflect fair market value, as determined by an

6 appraisal; and

7 (2) the County shall pay to the Secretary an

8 amount equal to the gross proceeds of the sale, for

9 use by the Director of the Bureau of Land Manage10 ment in the State of New Mexico, without further

11 appropriation.

12 (e) COSTS.—The County shall pay any costs associ13 ated with the conveyance of land under subsection (a).

Passed the Senate November 16, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 213

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey

Mexico.certain Federal land to Rio Arriba County, New
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3299 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3299

 To provide that United States citizens evacuating Israel shall not be 
   required to reimburse the United States Government, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 14 (legislative day, November 13), 2023

  Mrs. Blackburn (for herself and Ms. Rosen) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that United States citizens evacuating Israel shall not be 
   required to reimburse the United States Government, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Saving Americans in Foreign 
Evacuations (SAFE) Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE FREE TRAVEL TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS 
              EVACUATING ISRAEL.

    Notwithstanding section 4(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the State Department 
Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2671(b)(2)(A)(ii)), private 
United States citizens and permanent resident aliens evacuating Israel 
in response to the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas and the resulting 
war and civil unrest shall not be required to reimburse the United 
States Government for travel organized by the Department of State 
during fiscal year 2024 pursuant to such section.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to Congress 
a report examining the feasibility of expanding the reimbursement 
requirement under section (2) to future evacuations worldwide.
    (b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a) shall 
include the following elements:
            (1) The estimated annual costs of providing cost-free 
        flights and other forms of transportation.
            (2) A description of the additional responsibilities the 
        Department would bear under such a requirement.
            (3) A description of additional authorities the Department 
        would need to under such a requirement.
            (4) A description of moral hazard issues that may arise 
        from such a requirement.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 
2024 for the Department of State to carry out activities under this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Donald G. SYMON et al., Petitioners, v. CHARLESTON CAPITAL CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. 40763.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Emmett Nelson BISHOP, Petitioner, v. Honorable Curtis GOLDEN, State Attorney, for the First Judicial Circuit, Respondent.

No. 39313.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 13, 1970.

Emmett Nelson Bishop, in pro. per.

Curtis A. Golden, State’s Atty., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Alternative Writ having been issued and it appearing from consideration of respondent’s return that there are no criminal cases against petitioner pending in the County and Circuit Courts of Okaloosa County, it is ordered that the Writ heretofore issued be discharged and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is hereby dismissed.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Edith GUISE, Appellant, v. Burton GUISE, Appellee.

No. 69-710.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 17, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1971.

R. Regis Reasbeck, of Reasbeck & Feg-ers, Hollywood, for appellant.

Calvin F. David and S. O. Carson, of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record in the present case and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we conclude that the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error.

Affirmed.

*121REED, J., and WILLIAMS, ROBERT L., Associate Judge, concur.

WALDEN, J., dissents, with opinion.

WALDEN, Judge

(dissenting):

I cannot say that the conclusion reached by the majority is not in accord with the literal wording of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure or with the cases that have construed them. However, here the wife erroneously and belatedly (but with clear intent) sought in this divorce suit to establish a pleading basis for a decision as to whether she was entitled to a special equity or interest in the husband’s property and fees. It is clear that the Rules should be construed to secure the just determination of the action. Accordingly, I feel it was the higher duty for the trial court to permit the requested amendment and to decide the wife’s entitlement, if any, upon the equities and merits reflected in the record already before the court.

I would reverse because I think the ruling represented an abuse of discretion.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00361- CV

In re G ary Whidd on

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TO M GREEN CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Gar y Wh id d o n , a

n inmate proce eding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking us to order the di strict court to ref orm what W hiddon char acte rizes as an illega l restitution order
. He further asks us to order the Texas Boa rd of Pardons and Paroles to return the full amount of re stitut ion that he has a lrea dy paid. Whiddon filed a simil ar petition for writ of m andamus with the di strict court. I n a Dec ember 2011 order deny ing the petition, the district court noted that Whiddon was reque sting relief from a judgme nt of conviction enter ed in 1994, that Whiddon had previously made a simil ar reque st that was denied by the district court in 2000, and that W h i d d o n was not entitled to the relief reque sted. A complaint rela ting to a restitution order must be made at the time it was imposed
or on direc t appea l from the judgme nt of conviction. See Ex parte Pena , 71 S.W .3d 336 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 2 0 0 2 ). W h i ddon has failed to do so. Also, Whiddon has failed to provide us with a cop y
o f t he restitution order or any documentation showing the amount of restitution that he has alleg edly paid. Thus, even if Whiddon’s complaint was proper ly befor e us, he has failed toprovide us with a sufficient rec o rd s h owing that he is entitled to the ex traordina ry relief he seeks. See W alker v. Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); Barnes v. State , 832 S.W .2d 424, 426 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig
. proce eding ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7( a) (re lator must file with petition “a cer tified or sworn copy of ever y document that is materia l to the rela tor’s claim for r elief a

nd that was filed in a

ny underly ing pr ocee ding” ). Moreove r, to the extent that Whiddon is as k i n g u s o rder the Boa rd of Pardons and Paroles to return the amount of restitution that he has alre ady paid, a court of appeal s is not auth o ri z ed to issue writs of mandamus ag ainst the Boa rd of Pardons and Paroles unless it is
nece ssary to enfor ce the appellate court’s jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a) ;
see also In re V

i n ey ard , No. 04-07-00666- CV, 2007 Tex. App. L EXI S 8624, at *2-3 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio O ct. 31, 2007, orig . proce eding ) (pe r cur iam). Whiddon has not show n that the issuance of a writ ag ainst the Boa rd of Pardons and Paro l es i s n ec essary to enfor ce this Court’s jurisdiction.

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

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Filed: Jul y

3, 2012

2