alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1



## Chemical 

## Characterization/important properties of the test substance

Kathy Schechter September 10, 20142 

## Agenda  

### Class of Chemical  

### What makes a chemical difficult to test?  

### What Physical Chemical properties are desired?  

### Measured vs estimated  

### Conclusions3 

## Class of chemical  

### Class I – discrete substance  

### Class II– mixture of 2 or more substances 

### either formed or isolated together  

### Polymer– substances with repeating units 

### with varying molecular weights  provide Number Average Molecular Weight with percents below 500 and 1000  Indicate maximum monomer residuals4 

## What makes a chemical difficult to test?  Inherent properties of the chemical » Reactive (air, water) » Degradable » Volatile » Insoluble in water  Mixtures – 2 or more substances  Impurities  Analytical limitations » Instrumentation detection limits5 

## Substance to test  

### Neat substance (with high level of purity)
 

### Do not test substances in formulations– 

### e.g., those that include solvents, stabilizers, emulsifiers, etc.6 

## Physical Chemical Properties Desired  

### Melting Point  

### Boiling Point  

### Vapor Pressure  

### Water solubility  

### Partition Coefficient (log P)7 

## Pchem Property Details  

### MP– only necessary for solids  

### Boiling Point – measure at normal 

### atmosphere preferred, but reduced pressure is OK  

### Vapor pressure– should be reported at room temperature; values at elevated temperature can be extrapolated8 

## Pchem Property Details- contd.  

### Water Solubility – know your detection limits; pretest to determine method  

### Partition Coefficient– test water solubility first; not necessary for highly insoluble substances9 

## Measured vs estimated properties
 Measured preferred  If a substance cannot be measured, provide a reasonable estimate » Based on Analogs with measured data » Based on Model estimations (e.g., EPIsuite, ACD Labs) » Based on limit values (e.g., BP >500 °C, sH2O <0.000001 g/L, VP <0.000001 torr)10 

## Estimation limitations  

### For a class II substance, what do structure do you use to estimate?  Most abundant chemical?  Lowest molecular weight chemical?  Most soluble chemical?  

### Know the estimation model limitations11 

## Additional notes  

### Do not use qualitative terms  Soluble, partially soluble, insoluble  

### If a value cannot be determined (measured 

### or estimated) explain why!12 

## Conclusion  Understand your chemical and its limitations  Test what can be tested; estimate what cannot be tested  Provide values that are useful to fate, health and ecotoxicity assessors
EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (commission file No. 33-51584), on Form S-8 (commission
file No. 33-68890), and on Form S-8 (commission file No. 333-28571) of our
reports dated February 17, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Appliance Recycling Centers of
America, Inc., and subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended January 1, 2000.





                                              McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 24, 2000
#### Richard Lee CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Richard Lee CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

Nos. 73-1049, 74-165.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 28, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Ben Leroy OSTERBERG, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-483.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 1970.

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1970.

Coe & Coe, Pensacola, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K„ and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 6, 2019

NO. 03-17-00463-CV

Thomas & Lewin Associates, Inc., Appellant

v.

Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BAKER

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 13, 2017. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Exhibit
8.1
 
 List of
Subsidiaries of CC Jewelry Co., Ltd.
 
 Name
                  
                  Country of IncorporationSquare.
      C Commerce Company Limited
                  
                  British
      Virgin IslandsMassfit
      (HK) Corporation Limited
                  
                  Hong
      KongChongqing
      Yu Zhong Commerce Co., Ltd.
                  
                  People’s
      Republic of ChinaTaiyuan
      Basic Points Commerce Co., Ltd.
                  
                  People’s
      Republic of ChinaShanxi
      Zhong Yao Commerce Co., Ltd.
                  
                  People’s
      Republic of ChinaShanxi
      Bo Ye Commerce Co., Ltd.
                  
                  People’s
      Republic of ChinaLinfen
      Jimei Jewelry Co., Ltd.
                  
                  People’s
      Republic of ChinaYangquan
      Daoming Commerce Co., Ltd.
                  
                  People’s
      Republic of ChinaShanghai
      Zhong Yao Commerce Co., Ltd.
                  
                  People’s
      Republic of ChinaChangzhi
      Kamei Commerce Co., Ltd.
                  
                  People’s
      Republic of ChinaShuozhou
      Kamei Commerce Co., Ltd.
                  
                  People’s
      Republic of ChinaJincheng
      Kamei Commerce Co., Ltd.
                  
                  People’s
      Republic of ChinaDatong
      Kamei Commerce Co., Ltd.
                  
                  People’s
      Republic of
China
#### McDonald Air Conditioning, Appellant, v. 1041 CORPORATION, Inc., Appellee.

No. O-l.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 12, 1971.

*320Paul Bernardini, of Sands, Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson & Rosier, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Green & Strasser, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

SPECTOR, Chief Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment of the trial court granting appellee-plaintiff a jury verdict of $11,000. This suit is a negligence action to recover for damage caused by water leaks from air conditioning equipment that appellant installed in appellee’s apartment building. The former instituted suit against the latter prior to the instant litigation and recovered in excess of $22,000 for labor and materials supplied during the installation of the defective air conditioning system. The damages and defects which form the basis for recovery in the case at bar were incurred and known to appellee before the bringing of the antecedent action.

The first complaint resulted in the entry of a decree pro confesso in favor of appellant; a subsequent amended final judgment of foreclosure was rendered, but judicial sale of the apartment building was averted by payment of the aforesaid $22,000.

Appellant urges that this posture of the litigation below requires a determination that its motion for directed verdict should have been granted. We agree and reverse.

The gist of the applicable law is that the basis for recovery below, being known to appellee when the preceding dispute was aired, was a compulsory counterclaim that should have been asserted in the prior litigation. The record on appeal demonstrates that this basis of recovery arose out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the preceding cause of action, and did not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court could not have acquired jurisdiction. In addition, the previous lawsuit proceeded to a judgment. Thus, the action in the lower court must be identified as a compulsory counterclaim in the anterior case. See Rule 1.170, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., and Pesce v. Linaido, 123 So.2d 747 (Fla.App.3d 1960) [a much-cited Florida decision dealing with compulsory counterclaims].

Having disregarded the sole opportunity to present a compulsory counterclaim, ap-pellee now has no legal avenue of recovery that permits the affirmance of the judg*321ment appealed. We accordingly reverse the final judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.

Reversed and remanded.

WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Jacob WILSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1103.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 15, 1973.

Jacob Wilson, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

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

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. *69California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent-defendant and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File
No. 333-155811) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-99764, 33-41474, 333-50298, 333-111513, 333-135831, 333-135832,
333-152095, 333-159398) of Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. of our report dated February 24, 2010 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedules and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
February 24, 2010

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66883-66884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33407]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting; Notification of Items Added to Meeting 
Agenda

DATE OF MEETING: December 8, 1997.

STATUS: Closed.

PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 62 FR 63567, December 1, 1997.

CHANGE: At its meeting on December 8, 1997, the Board of Governors of 
the

[[Page 66884]]

United States Postal Service voted unanimously to add two items to the 
agenda of its closed meeting held on that date:
    1. Revisions to Guidelines on Governors' Official Expenses.
    2. Compensation Issues.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas J. Koerber, Secretary of 
the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.
Thomas J. Koerber,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33407 Filed 12-17-97; 4:29 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
#### Jack VOGEL, Petitioner, v. E. L. THOMPSON, LTD., American Foreign Insurance Association, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38373.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 30, 1969.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1969.

Richard A. Sicking, of Kaplan, Dorsey & Sicking, Miami, for petitioner.

John R. Beranek, of Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date February 6, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is, therefore denied. The petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees is also denied.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2161

LAURA LESKINEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UTZ QUALITY FOODS, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-3678-CCB)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 10, 1998

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Laura Leskinen, Appellant Pro Se. Joan E. Book, Jay Robert Fries,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Laura Leskinen appeals the district court’s order granting

Defendant summary judgment in Leskinen’s action alleging sexual

harassment, retaliatory discrimination and discrimination due to

her sex and disability under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to

2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), the Rehabilitation Act, 29

U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 797 (West 1985 & Supp. 1998), and the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213 (West

1995 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s memorandum and order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Leskinen

v. Utz Quality Foods, Inc. No. CA-97-3678-CCB (D. Md. July 22,

1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

 

**DPL Inc.**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

 

Theundersigned officers of DPL Inc. (the “Issuer”) hereby certifies pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2008, which this certificate accompanies,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained thereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Issuers as of the dates and for the periods expressedtherein.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has been provided to the Issuer and will beretained by the Issuers and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

Signed:

 

 

 
| /s/ Paul M. Barbas                     |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Paul M. Barbas                         |   |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

Date:April 23, 2008

 

Theforegoing certificate is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350and is not being filed as part of the Issuer’s Annual Report or as a separatedisclosure document.

 

52

----
Exhibit 13.1

---





Certification
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, each of the undersigned officers of Rio Tinto plc, registered in England and Wales (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2007 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.

|/s/                 | Tom
      Albanese |                     | /s/    | Guy
      Elliott
|------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------- | ------ | -----------------
|                    |                    |                     |        |                  
|Name:               | Tom Albanese       |                     | Name:  | Guy Elliott      
|Title:              | Chief executive    |                     | Title: | Finance director 
|                    |                    |                     |        |                  
|Date: 31 March 2008 |                    | Date: 31 March 2008

The foregoing certification is not deemed filed for purpose of Section 18 of the Exchange Act and not incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act.

---





Certification
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, each of the undersigned officers of Rio Tinto Limited, registered in Victoria, Australia,(the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2007 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.

|/s/                 | Tom
      Albanese |                         | /s/    | Guy
      Elliott
|------------------- | ------------------ | ----------------------- | ------ | -----------------
|                    |                    |                         |        |                  
|Name:               | Tom Albanese       |                         | Name:  | Guy Elliott      
|Title:              | Chief executive    |                         | Title: | Finance director 
|                    |                    |                         |        |                  
|Date: 31 March 2008 |                    | Date: 31
    March 2008

The foregoing certification is not deemed filed for purpose of Section 18 of the Exchange Act and not incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act.

---
No. 00-874.

#### Matthews *v.*Howard County, Maryland, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of Center for Equal Opportunity et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae*granted. Certiorari denied.
#### James E. HODGES, Petitioner, v. Frank ALTOBELLO, Respondent.

No. 71-86.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
Filed: July 11, 2001

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6129

(CR-98-53-CCB, CA-00-1565-CCB)

United States of America,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

Marvin Beeachie Garner,

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER

The court amends its opinion filed July 3, 2001, as follows:

On the cover sheet, section 5 -- the panel information is

corrected to read: “Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.”

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6129

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARVIN BEEACHIE GARNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR98-53-CCB, CA-00-1565-CCB)

Submitted: June 20, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Beeachie Garner, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Lee Evans, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Beeachie Garner seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Garner, Nos. CR-98-53-

CCB; CA-00-1565-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 6, 2000). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0722-15

RAUL VILLEGAS GARZA, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

HOOD COUNTY

PER CURIAM. KEASLER and HERVEY, JJ., dissent.

ORDER

The petition for discretionary review violates Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4(j),

and 9.4(i)(2)(D), because it does not contain a copy of the opinion of the court of appeals,

and the petition exceeds the proper page limits.

The petition is struck. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.6.

The petitioner may redraw the petition. The redrawn petition and copies must be

filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days after the date of this order.

Filed: October 14, 2015

Do Not Publish
<PAGE> 37

                                                                 Exhibit 32


                            Certifications


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2004 of American General Finance Corporation as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), each of, Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.



                                 /s/  Frederick W. Geissinger
                                      Frederick W. Geissinger
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer


                                 /s/  Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.
                                      Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.
                                 Senior Vice President and
                                   Chief Financial Officer


Date:  November 3, 2004