alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-14-0267

SAT Date: 1/31/2014

Print Date: 3/19/2014

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 1 1 PMN

2 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ; PMN negl; Hyd Pdt slow

Keywords:

 Keywords: ONCO; MUTA; SENS-L,S; IRR-L,MM

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-14-0267

FATE: 

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

S = Reacts

Hydrolysis half-life = min

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = PMN 99 via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 50-90 via sorption and possible 

partial biodeg
Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Hyd Pdt wk-mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = Hyd Pdt strong

PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P2B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = PMN negl; Hyd Pdt slow

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption of low molecular weight fraction is poor all 

routes (pchem); expected to react, especially in the lung. Concern for oncogenicity based on 

 mutagenicity based on 

; respiratory and dermal sensitization and lung and mucous membrane irritation based 

on the .

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic 

value

*

algal _ chronic 

value

*

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based onthe hydrolysis products and SARs for 

; SAR chemical class = 

liquid with mp unknown (P); S = reacts(P); Log Kow > 8 (EPI, based on 

predictions); effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured 

concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

low concern for toxicity;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb) *

SARs

SAR Class

Ecotox Category 
Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
**COASTAL        CARIBBEAN OILS & MINERALS, LTD.**

**FORM        10-Q**

**PART        II - OTHER INFORMATION**

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

|   | (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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                |                                                                                            |                             |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| Date:              November 7, 2007 | By                                                                                    | /s/              Phillip W. Ware |
|                                | Phillip              W. Ware                                                                    |
|                                | Chief                Executive Officer,President and Principal Financial                Officer |

----
#### In re Petition for Re-Instatement of Stanley S. STEIN.

No. 42210.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 9, 1972.

Norman A. Faulkner, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law in Florida upon a judgment of this Court rendered February 28, 1964, reported as State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Stein, 161 So.2d 209 (Fla.1964). We *2have received a petition for reinstatement which is supported both by the referee below and the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar.

Our examination of the petition, the reinstatement hearing transcripts and supporting documentation leads us to conclude that the petition should be granted. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that petitioner, Stanley S. Stein, should be reinstated into membership in The Florida Bar. Costs of these proceedings are hereby charged against petitioner.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J„ and CARLTON, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
No. 99-7791.

No. 00-38.

#### Zadvydas *v.*Davis et al. Holder, Acting Attorney General, et al. *v.*Kim Ho Ma.

C. A. 5th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, *ante,*p. 923]; and

C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted *sub nom. Reno*v. *Kim Ho Ma, ante,*p. 924.] Motion of respondent Kim Ho Ma and petitioner Kestutis Zadvydas for additional time for oral argument and for divided argument granted.
# L_2006133EN.01003501.xml

| 19.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 133/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 133/35

---

Corrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of Eurojust for the financial year 2006

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 67 of 8 March 2006
  )

The text and tables on pages 574 to 576 are to be replaced by the following text and tables:

REVENUE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Financial year 2006 | Financial year 2005 | Financial year 2004 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 9 | INCOME |
| 9 0 | ANNUAL INCOME | 14 700 000 | 13 000 000 | 9 300 000 |
| | Title 9 — Total | 14 700 000 | 13 000 000 | 9 300 000 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 14 700 000 | 13 000 000 | 9 300 000 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Financial year 2006

Financial year 2005

Financial year 2004

9

INCOME

9 0

ANNUAL INCOME

14 700 000

13 000 000

9 300 000

Title 9 — Total

14 700 000

13 000 000

9 300 000

GRAND TOTAL

14 700 000

14 700 000

13 000 000

13 000 000

9 300 000

9 300 000

TITLE 9

INCOME

| Article
  Item | Heading | Financial year 2006 | Financial year 2005 | Financial year 2004 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | CHAPTER 9 0 |
| 9 0 1 | Subsidy from the EU general budget | 14 700 000 | 13 000 000 | 9 300 000 |
| 9 0 2 | Others | p.m. | p.m. | p.m. |
| | CHAPTER 9 0 — TOTAL | 14 700 000 | 13 000 000 | 9 300 000 |
| | Title 9 — Total | 14 700 000 | 13 000 000 | 9 300 000 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 14 700 000 | 13 000 000 | 9 300 000 |
| CHAPTER 9 0 — ANNUAL INCOME |

Article

Item

Heading

Financial year 2006

Financial year 2005

Financial year 2004

CHAPTER 9 0

9 0 1

9 0 1

Subsidy from the EU general budget

Subsidy from the EU general budget

14 700 000

13 000 000

9 300 000

9 0 2

9 0 2

Others

Others

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

CHAPTER 9 0 — TOTAL

14 700 000

13 000 000

9 300 000

Title 9 — Total

14 700 000

14 700 000

13 000 000

13 000 000

9 300 000

9 300 000

GRAND TOTAL

14 700 000

14 700 000

13 000 000

13 000 000

9 300 000

9 300 000

CHAPTER 9 0 — ANNUAL INCOME

CHAPTER 9 0 —ANNUAL INCOME

9 0 1Subsidy from the EU general budget

| Financial year 2006 | Financial year 2005 | Financial year 2004 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 14 700 000 | 13 000 000 | 9 300 000 |

Financial year 2006

Financial year 2005

Financial year 2004

14 700 000

13 000 000

9 300 000

9 0 2Others

| Financial year 2006 | Financial year 2005 | Financial year 2004 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| p.m. | p.m. | p.m. |

Financial year 2006

Financial year 2005

Financial year 2004

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

---
#### Leslie GRZELAK and Michael Mackover, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 77-989, 77-1388.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 9, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by one of two co-defendants from an adjudication of guilt after *813jury verdict. Appellant questions the Court’s allowing two impeachment witnesses to testify who were not disclosed in pretrial discovery procedures. These witnesses were pure impeachment witnesses, and their testimony became relevant only subsequent to the testimony of the one defendant who took the stand. There was no reason to disclose the names of these witnesses prior to trial because the State could not have known that their testimony would be relevant until this defendant testified. However, in accord with *Grant v. State,*354 So.2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), the failure to supply the names should be enquired into. In this case such was done.

Appellant also questions the Court’s charge on attempts and the failure to grant a severance. Both of these assertions are without merit and the actions of the trial court are affirmed.

LETTS, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54846-54847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27912]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3561-001]


Virginia Electric & Power Company; Notice of Filing

October 16, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 23, 1997, Virginia Electric & Power 
Company tendered for filing its compliance filing in the above-
referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before October 28, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies

[[Page 54847]]

of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27912 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
September 20, 2016

Exemption No. 16496A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–7476

Mr. Jim Lockheed

RoseCity 3D dba Aerotel Unmanned Systems

422 SW 13th Avenue, #734

Portland, OR 97209

Dear Mr. Lockheed:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter posted to the public docket on July 21, 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of RoseCity 3D dba Aerotel Unmanned Systems (hereinafter 

petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your current exemption. That exemption from 

§§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 

91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations. You 

requested an amendment to change the company name from RoseCity 3D to RoseCity 3D dba 

Aerotel Unmanned Systems

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. 

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 16496

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 
2

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to change the operator name.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, RoseCity 3D dba Aerotel Unmanned Systems is hereafter 

referred to as the operator. All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 

16496 remain in effect. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
#### Rossie D. COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-II4.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 5, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Vera Winter Lee, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joseph DeMember, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of the order denying his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence, entered upon his guilty plea, for the offense of escape from lawful confinement.

Our examination of the record and consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties indicate that no reversible error was committed in arriving at the judgment appealed herein. Horton v. Mayo, 153 Fla. 611, 15 So.2d 327 (1943); State v. Hickman, 189 So.2d 254 (Fla.App.2nd, 1966). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3640 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

155 South Main Street in Mount Clemens, Michigan, as the ‘‘Lieutenant 

Colonel Alexander Jefferson Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23, 2024 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 155 South Main Street in Mount Clemens, 

Michigan, as the ‘‘Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Jefferson Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER JEFFER4 SON POST OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 155 South Main Street in Mount 

7 Clemens, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Jefferson Post Office’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3640 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lieutenant Colonel 

5 Alexander Jefferson Post Office’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
258 La. 911

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John EASOM v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51461.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1971.

In re: John Easom applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. Showing made does not justify the exercise of our jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion that an evidentiary hearing should be ordered. If any of the five (5) guilty pleas have been the subject of hearings on post conviction applications in the lower court, we should order a record of that evidence to be forwarded. On the face of the record before us accused did not have counsel or waive counsel on the plea in 1958 or on the four pleas in 1962.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION





Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code).





In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Zoom
Telephonics, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31,
2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Frank B.
Manning, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:





(1) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and





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





Date:
April 30, 2019
By:
/s/
Frank B.
ManningFrank
B. Manning
Chief
Executive Officer and
Acting
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal
Executive Officer and
Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.4852-2850-6261.2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60698-60699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29694]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-33-000]


Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

November 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 31, 1997, Mississippi River 
Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, tariff sheets listed below to 
be effective November 30, 1997.

Third Revised Sheet No. 2
Second Revised Sheet No. 252
First Revised Sheet No. 320
First Revised Sheet No. 321
Third Revised Sheet No. 322
Second Revised Sheet No. 323
First Revised Sheet No. 325

    MRT states that this filing is being made to make minor 
housekeeping

[[Page 60699]]

changes including removing the Index of Firm Transportation, Storage 
and Sales Customers from the Tariff.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29694 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Charlie Eugene MALOY, a/k/a Charlie Brown, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 19, 1977.

Opinion Adhered to On Rehearing Aug. 20, 1977.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation and from two subsequent convictions for sale and possession of heroin. Defendant was sentenced to three years on each of the subsequent convictions to run consecutively with the sentence upon revocation of probation. It is contended that the sentences were illegal in that they did not specify whether they were for the sale or possession. The sentences are affirmed upon authority of the reasoning in *English v. State,*301 So.2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Affirmed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3181

JACQUELINE MCEACHIN,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

DC0432080740-1-1.

ON MOTION

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge LOURIE and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The court treats Jacqueline McEachin's correspondence concerning the

timeliness of her petition for review as a motion for reconsideration of the court's

previous rejection of her petition for review as untimely.

On March 6, 2009, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued a final decision in

McEachin v. Department of Health and Human Servs., No. DC-0432-08-0740-I-1,

specifying that its decision was final and that any petition for review must be received by

this court within 60 calendar days of receipt of the Board's decision. The court received

McEachin's petition for review on May 6, 2009.

The Board's records reflect that McEachin was registered as an e-filer. Pursuant

to the Board's regulations, an e-filer is deemed to receive a decision on the date it is
served via electronic mail. See 5 CFR § 1201.14(m)(2) ("MSPB documents served

electronically on registered e-filers are deemed received on the date of electronic

submission"). Thus, McEachin is deemed to have received the Board's decision on

March 6, 2009. McEachin's petition for review seeking review of the Board's decision

was received by the court 61 days later, on May 6, 2009.

A petition for review of a Board decision must be filed within 60 days of receipt of

the decision. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1).	The 60-day filing period is "statutory,

mandatory, [and] jurisdictional." Monzo v. Dept. of Transp. , 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.

Cir. 1984); see also Oia v. Department of the Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed. Cir.

2005) ("[c]ompliance with the filing deadline of 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is a prerequisite to

our exercise of jurisdiction"). Because McEachin's petition for review was received on

May 6, one day late, this court must dismiss McEachin's petition as untimely.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is denied. The petition for review is dismissed as untimely.

Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

JUL 0 2 2009	/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date	 Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	Jacqueline McEachin

Joseph Keller, Esq.

s17

FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

JUL 0 2 2009

JAN HOlititud

CLERK

2009-3181	 2