alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1/4/13 page of 

POST FOCUSEXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-13-0076 Reviewer: Tobias/SS 

 

 

Results Table: Dose, Concentration, and Days Exceeded Results Summary 

Exposure Scenario1 Water Landfill Stack Air Fugitive Air 

Drinking Water Fish Ingestion 

ADR LADD ADR LADD 7Q104 

CC = 2 

PDM 

Days 

Exceede

d 

LADD ADR LADD ADR LADD 

Release 

activity(ies)2; 

exposure 

calculation(s)3 

mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day μg/l # Days mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day 

max acute eco --- --- --- --- 6.23E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- 

1 Exposure scenario titles consist of release activity followed by exposure calculation abbreviation. 

2 Release activities are from engineering report's Manufacturing (Mfg), Processing (Proc) and Use release 

activity labels. 

 Multiple release activities are combined in one exposure scenario if their releases occur at same location. 

3 Exposure calculations are Acute Dose Rate (ADR), Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD), and 

Probabilistic Dilution 

 Model (PDM). There may be one, two, or all three exposure calculations per exposure scenario. 

 CC is the aquatic concentration of concern. 

4 This column displays concentration values for the 7Q10 streamflow, which is defined as the average daily 

streamflow 

 of the seven consecutive days of lowest flow within a ten year period. 

 

Fate test recommendations?: (default is NA)
1/4/13 page of 

 POST FOCUSEXPOSURE REPORT 

Chemical ID: P-13-0076 Assessor: Tobias/SS 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES 

 Scenario#:1 Number of Release Sites: 

 Release Activity: Max ADR 

 Release Description: WATER LANDFILL 

Non-sludge/Sludge 

STACK FUGITIVE 

Total Releases: 

 (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 

 

 Non-sludge/Sludge 

Release Days/yr: 

Per Site Release: 

 (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) 

Remarks: 
1/4/13 page of 

POST FOCUSEXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-13-0076 

SIC-CODE BASED HUMAN AND AQUATIC EXPOSURES TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES 

SCENARIO #: 1 Number of Sites: RELEASE ACTIVITY: Max 

ADR 

SIC-CODE DESCRIPTION: POTW's (All facilities) 

SIC-CODE (S): 4952 EXPOSED POPULATION: Adult 

WWT 

REMOVAL 

(%) 

RELEASE 

DAYS 

PRETREATMENT 

RELEASE 

(kg/site/day) 

POSTTREATMENT 

RELEASE 

(kg/site/day) 

DWT 

(%) BCF 

(L/kg) 

 0.00 0.00 

AQUATIC EXPOSURE ESTIMATES - SURFACE WATER 

PLANT 

TYPE 

% ILE 

FACILITY 

STREAM FLOW (MLD) STREAM CONC. (μg/l) 

Harmonic 

Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10 

Harmonic 

Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10 

ALL 50 125.56 44.02 26.80 22.53 5.26E-02 0.15 0.25 0.29 

ALL 10 11.11 1.94 1.06 0.96 0.59 3.40 6.23 6.87 

DRINKING WATER AND FISH INGESTION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES 

Exposure Units 

Drinking Water Results Drinking 

Water Units Fish Ingestion Results 

Fish 

Ingestion 

Units 

50% 10% 50% 10% 

Cancer 

LADDpot 1.12E-09 1.27E-08 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day 

LADCpot 5.76E-08 6.51E-07 mg/L 0.00 0.00 mg/kg 

Acute 

ADRpot 1.25E-05 2.84E-04 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day 

SIC Code Comments:
No. 10727.

#### Rizor *v.*Durkin et al.

Decided December 15, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Marion county.

*Messrs. Mouser & Quigley*and *Messrs. Scofield, Durfee & Scofield,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Cris singer & Guthery,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., .Shauck and Spear, JJ., cpncur.
Exhibit 32

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) UNDER

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. 1350

Each of the undersigned, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Gerber Scientific, Inc., hereby certifies that, on the date hereof:

(i)	The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gerber Scientific, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)	Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gerber Scientific, Inc.



|Date:  December 7, 2007 | /s/ Marc T. Giles                                                            | 
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                        | Marc T. Giles
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
EXHIBIT 11
                          GENRAD, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                              Three Months Ended                        Nine Months Ended
                                        -------------------------------         ---------------------------------
                                         October 3,       September 27,          October 3,         September 27,
                                            1998              1997                  1998                1997
                                        ------------      -------------         -----------         -------------
<S>                                     <C>               <C>                   <C>                 <C>
Basic earnings per share:
-------------------------

Net (loss) income available to
  common stockholders                   $(3,919,000)       $ 9,605,000          $( 6,948,000)        $29,243,000
                                        ============       ===========          =============        ===========

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding              28,289,000         26,992,000            28,028,000          26,636,000
                                        ============       ===========          =============        ===========

Basic earnings per share                $     (0.14)       $      0.36          $      (0.25)        $      1.10
                                        ============       ===========          =============        ===========

Diluted earnings per share:
---------------------------

Net (loss) income available to
  common stockholders                   $(3,919,000)       $ 9,605,000          $( 6,948,000)        $29,243,000
                                        ============       ===========          =============        ===========

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding              28,289,000         26,992,000            28,028,000          26,636,000

Weighted average incremental
  shares from the assumed conversion
  of stock options and restricted
  stock awards                                   --          2,220,000                    --           1,315,000
                                        ------------       -----------          -------------        -----------

        Total:                           28,289,000         29,212,000            28,028,000          27,951,000
                                        ============       ===========          =============        ===========

Diluted earnings per share              $     (0.14)       $      0.33          $      (0.25)        $      1.05
                                        ============       ===========          =============        ===========
</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 5, 2022

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D19

- 2369 Lower Tribunal No. F13

- 20045

________________



### Justin C. Allen , Appellant,

vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez , Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender , for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General , for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and GORDO , JJ. PER CURIAM.2 In this appeal from a con viction and sentence following a probation
violation , the issue is whether the trial court erred by not ordering an additional c ompetency hearing sua sponte

. “A trial court ’ s failure to hold a competency hearing is subject to the abuse of discretion standa rd.” Wall v. State , 326 So. 3d 1065, 1070 (Fla. 2021). Prior competency issues raised by defense counsel resulted in findings of incompetency until , after the passage of time, the Appellant’s competency was diagnosed as being restored by three medical pro fessionals. At the consequent probation violation hearing, the Appellant made comments which he now contends should have alerted the trial court to the need for further competency evaluations. At the time, however, these statements did
not cause the trial court or defense counsel to question the Appellant’s competency. The record reflects that the Appellant at the revocation hearing never stated that he did not understand the proceeding. To the contrary, he acknowledged that a plea had been offered, briefly spoke well about defense counsel, and accepted his sentence. This case ultimately turns on the trial court’s evaluation of the Appellant’s conduct and statements during the evidentiary hearing. These matters take meaning from their context , which the trial court is best situated to judge. In these circumstances, we cannot find that the trial court abused3 its discretion. Id. ; see also Dessaure v. State , 55 So. 3d 478, 482

– 83 (Fla. 2010)

. Affirmed.
Exhibit No. 99

Supplemental Segment Information

|In thousands                       | Three Months Ended
   January 31, | Nine Months Ended
  January 31,
|---------------------------------- | --------------------------------- | -------------------------------
|Orders Received:                   | 2005                              | 2004                           
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $  65,628                         | $  60,645                      
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 44,997                            | 42,467                         
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 17,263                            | 19,217                         
|                                   | $127,888                          | $122,329                       
|                                   | ======                            | ======                         
|                                   | January 31,2005                   | April 30,2004                  
|Backlog:                           |                                   |                                
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $      818                        | $     537                      
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 36,702                            | 30,957                         
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 3,434                             | 4,371                          
|                                   | $ 40,954                          | $35,865                        
|                                   | =====                             | =====
#### ABEL BENNETT *vs.*WILLIAM SHUTE.

Rule security for costs refused because it would continue the cause, the application not being made until the trial term.

Mr. *Booth*

moved for an order to stay proceedings in this case until the plaintiff gave security for costs ; on an affidavit setting forth that he did not reside in the state, and that the defendant had a just defence to the action.

Mr. *Bayard*

objected to the granting the order, on the ground that the application for it was too late. The defendant has appeared and pleaded; gone to issue; the witnesses are summoned and the case stands for trial at the present term. The effect of the order would be to continue the case and accumulate costs. He might have applied for it at the last term.

*J. Jl. Bayard,*for plaintiff.

*Booth,*for defendant.

*The Court*

said, that the rule security for costs was always in the discretion of the court; and, although they would not lay down the rule that application for it must be made at the appearance term, yet they would not grant it to the prejudice or delay of the other party. This case now stands for trial; the plaintiff is not here to give the security; and if he were here, would require time to do so. The motion if granted, would therefore, necessarily continue the cause, and increase the expense.

So Mr. Booth took nothing by his motion.
Office of Civil Rights

Findings of Discrimination

FY 2023 3

rd Quarter

Pursuant to the Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020

Date of 

Finding

Agency Date(s) Discrimination 

Occurred

Law Violated

2/2/2023 GSA 10/9/2019 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964

9/22/2022 GSA 10/25/19-2/13/20 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973

3/15/2022 GSA 10/4/2018 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964; and the Pregnancy 

Discrimination Act of 1978

12/16/2021 GSA 9/20/2016 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964

2/11/2021 GSA 6/2019-2/11/2021 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973

RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS: This Notice also informs all employees, former employees, and applicants for employment of the 

rights and protections available to them under Section 201 of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 

Retaliation Act of 2002, as amended (No FEAR Act), Federal Antidiscrimination Laws, and Whistleblower Protection Laws. Please 

see the No FEAR Act Notice at the following link for more information: No Fear Act
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF NUTRACEUTIX, INC. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE RELATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOUND ON THE FORM 10-KSB FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         149,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  936,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,746,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,944,443
<PP&E>                                       2,690,017
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,228,693)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,200,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,575,046
<BONDS>                                        781,878
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,489
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,826,373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,200,786
<SALES>                                     10,272,417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,272,417
<CGS>                                      (7,805,440)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (2,595,615)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (212,667)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (242,912)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (584,217)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (584,217)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (584,217)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.034)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.034)


</TABLE>
#### John A. DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-599.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 11, 1969.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Gregory B. Hoppenstand, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

*773PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Burchil v. State, Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 9; Nelson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 506; Pierson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 17; Rushing v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 481; Pate v. Holman, 5th Cir. 1965, 341 F.2d 764.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 12

                   GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARY
        STATEMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                             (Thousands of Dollars)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Nine Months Ended
                                                      September 30, 1996
                                                      ------------------
<S>                                                         <C>
Net earnings available for fixed charges:        
  Income from continuing operations                         $134,444
  Add - Income taxes                                          72,812
      - Fixed charges                                         42,215
                                                            --------
Adjusted earnings                                           $249,471
                                                            ========
                                                 
Fixed charges:                                   
  Interest expense                                          $ 39,531
  Portion of rent expense                        
     representing interest                                     2,684
                                                            --------
Adjusted fixed charges                                      $ 42,215
                                                            ========
                                                 
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                              5.91
</TABLE>
#### CLARK SEED COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. NA-CHURS PLANT FOOD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-12.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 4, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### In re ESTATE of Urlaville S. OTIS, Deceased.

No. 69-636.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 2, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Long, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 972]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered September 7, 1995, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDEN TIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRE CEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Raphael Alexander Wooden, Petitioner,

v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000001

Appeal From Aiken County Robert E. Hood, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2019-MO-036 Submitted September 16, 2019 – Filed October 2, 2019

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Mega n Harrigan Jameson, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We issued a writ of certiorari to review the post-conviction relief (PCR) court's dismissal of Raph ael Wooden's application for PCR . We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTRED GE, HEARN, FEW AND J AMES, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION Ill 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylyania 19103-2029

Honorable John Quigley, Secretary Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-2063

Dear Secretary Quigley: 

### OCT 1 42015

On October 1, 2015, EPA received a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection (PADEP). That revision, dated September 30, 2015, is entitled "State Implementation Plan Revision: 2011 Base Year Inventory for Pennsylvania Portion ofFive 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Areas: AllentownBethlehem-Easton, Lancaster, Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Reading". EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice (DFRN) action.
Ifmembers ofyour staffhave any questions, they may direct them to Maria A. Pino, Office ofAir Program Planning, at 215-814-2181, or pino.maria@epa.gov. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Enclosure Sincerely,

# J)r~~ Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division



## 0 Printedon 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100%post-consumer fiber andprocess chlorine free. Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474