alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF 

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND 

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM DATE: 2 October 2009

SUBJECT: Reply to Formal Response Concerning Use of Two Avian Reproduction 

Studies to Fulfill Notice of Registration Requirement for Chlorophacinone

FROM: Andrew Shelby, Physical Scientist

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Environmental Risk Branch II

THRU: Tom Bailey, Branch Chief

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Environmental Risk Branch II

TO: Dan Peacock, Biologist

Registration Division, Insecticide Rodenticide Branch

The Agency has reviewed the request to waive the avian reproduction study data 

requirement for chlorophacinone submitted by Liphatech Inc. The Agency is unable to accept the

two studies suggested to fulfill this requirement for the reasons outlined below.

The first suggested study was “Subacute and Subchronic Toxicity of Chlorophacinone in 

Japanese Quail” (MRID 47323201) published in the Archives of Experimental Veterinary

Medicine. While we reserve the discretion to include open literature studies in our risk 

assessments, we cannot accept this open literature study as a replacement for the avian 

reproduction study requirement. Over 90% of the avian reproduction endpoints are not 

measured. Though total mass of eggs and eggs per hen are measured, embryo survival endpoints, 

hatching endpoints and hatchling survival endpoints are not determined. Finally, raw data is not 

included disallowing independent validation of the results. 

The second suggested study was “Avian Reproduction Study with Difenacoum in the 

Japanese Quail” (MRID 46799101). Chlorophacinone and difenacoum are very distinct 

chemicals. Treating difenacoum as a surrogate chemical is inappropriate and cannot be justified 

without an acceptable bridging strategy. Disparate chemical structures preclude the acceptance 

of this study for fulfilling the avian reproduction data gap for chlorophacinone. 

Please refer to OPPTS Harmonized Test Guideline 850.2300 for a more thorough 

explanation as to how to fulfill this data requirement. The Agency welcomes constructive 

comments and suggestions through the registration process. However, your formal response does 

not satisfy conditions of our May 13, 2009 Notice of Registration to your company. For further 

consideration of this new use registration of Rozol, acceptable avian reproduction studies on two 

species must be submitted in accordance with registration timelines.
#### Donald V. URSO et al., Petitioners, v. Felicia TORRES et vir, Respondents.

No. 42146.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 5, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 27, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 258 So.2d 523.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### James Alexander ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-945.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Global Marine Inc. and subsidiaries
as of 6-30-98 and the related condensed consolidated statement of operations
for the six months ended 6-30-98, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          38,600
<SECURITIES>                                     1,700
<RECEIVABLES>                                  206,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               338,400
<PP&E>                                       1,705,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 348,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,785,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          140,600
<BONDS>                                        595,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,300
<OTHER-SE>                                     940,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,785,000
<SALES>                                          2,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               631,100
<CGS>                                            1,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  428,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                183,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                    42,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            141,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   141,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
        



</TABLE>
#### James Burrell BLAIR and Dorothy Agnes Blair, Appellants, v. CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 71-953.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 11, 1972.

William M. Moran, Richard M. Gale, Miami, for appellants.

Matthews, Mandina & Lipsky, Coconut Grove, for appellee.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and GROSSMAN, RHEA P., Associate Judge.

PEARSON, Judge.

This action was instituted to recover damages for false imprisonment. In the trial court, the plaintiffs were the beneficiaries of jury verdicts awarding compensatory damages. The jury awarded $3,640 to James Burrell Blair, while $7,640 was awarded to his wife, Dorothy Agnes. After the verdicts were awarded, the defendant-appellee moved for remittitur or, in the alternative, a new trial. As a consequence of this motion, the trial court entered an order declaring that the “damages were excessive and the jury verdict was based upon sympathy, passion and/or prejudice.” Remittitur was then ordered in the amount of $1,500 for Mr. Blair and $3,500 for his wife. In the event the plaintiffs rejected remittitur, the court order provided for a new trial. The plaintiffs rejected remittitur and the instant appeal results.

The claim for damages submitted to the jury was one in which the amount to be awarded was peculiarly within the province of the jury. Lincoln v. Miggins, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 88; Kraus v. Osteen, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 885; Ratner v. Arrington, Fla.App.1959, 111 So.2d 82. An examination of the record reveals no reasonable basis on which the trial judge could determine that the amount of the excess was apparent or readily ascertainable. See Turner v. Kreider, 154 Fla. 832, 19 So.2d 408 (1944); Smith v. Jackson County, 134 Fla. 354, 183 So. 738 (1938); Price v. Jordan, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 444; Kovacs v. Venetian Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 611. Therefore, we determine that the remittitur cannot stand since it is clearly an invasion of the jury’s function to decide the amount of damages; the trial judge has substituted his judgment for that of the jury as to the amount of damages.

*237A further examination of the record reveals that the order appealed cannot stand as an order granting a new trial inasmuch as the trial judge’s determination that the jury’s verdict was based on sympathy, passion and/or prejudice is not supported by the record. Appellee’s argument in his brief has not suggested any basis for a determination of passion and prejudice. It is argued that the jury may have failed to follow the judge’s instructions at the time that he directed a verdict for the defendant as to punitive damages. We find nothing, however, in the record to support such a conclusion. Cf. Silvia v. Zayre Corporation, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 856; North Dade Imported Motors, Inc. v. Brundage Motors, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 170.

The order is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the final judgment entered on the jury verdicts.

Reversed and remanded with directions.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

February 10, 2021 

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2020-1611

IN RE: KENTON ABEL,

Appellant

Decided: January 7, 2021

Non-Precedential Opinion

______________________

Please make the following change:

On page 8, line 28, change “undermine” to 

“undermines”

Case: 20-1611 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 02/10/2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul McKnight, Appellant.

[722 NYS2d 152]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 19, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts) and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 years to life, 7 years to life, and 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s mistrial motion based on the introduction of “surprise” evidence of purported uncharged crimes. The drug transactions in question constituted evidence of the charged crime of conspiracy. Moreover, defendant was on notice, through disclosure of the videotapes, that evidence of drug transactions with individuals other than the undercover officer would be introduced *(see, People v Ribowsky,*77 NY2d 284, 294).

The court also properly denied defendant’s mistrial motion based on a People’s witness’s brief mention of defendant’s prior incarceration, volunteered in response to a broad question on cross-examination *(see, People v Vasquez,*88 NY2d 561, 577-578). A curative instruction would have sufficed but defendant expressly declined the court’s offer of that remedy.

The court properly denied defendant’s request to instruct the jury on multiple conspiracies, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that there was more than one conspiracy *294in operation *(see, United States v Maldonado-Rivera,*922 F2d 934, 963, *cert denied*501 US 1233). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          49,769
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,084
<PP&E>                                         461,391
<DEPRECIATION>                               (485,213)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 615,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,254
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           849
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,379,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   615,764
<SALES>                                         82,564
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,564
<CGS>                                           19,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               152,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (90,144)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (90,144)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
# C_2022472EN.01001101.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — BT v Laudamotion GmbH

(Case C-111/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Montreal Convention - Article 17(1) - Liability of air carriers for death or bodily injuries sustained by passengers - Concept of ‘bodily injury’ - Post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by a passenger during the emergency evacuation of an aircraft)

(2022/C 472/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BT

Defendant: Laudamotion GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001,

must be interpreted as meaning that a psychological injury caused to a passenger by an ‘accident’, within the meaning of that provision, which is not linked to ‘bodily injury’, within the meaning of that provision, must be compensated in the same way as such a bodily injury, provided that the aggrieved passenger demonstrates the existence of an adverse effect on his or her psychological integrity of such gravity or intensity that it affects his or her general state of health and that it cannot be resolved without medical treatment.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
#### CITY OF MIAMI SPRINGS v. Robert G. MAXWELL.

No. 38743.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 223 So.2d 387.
# C_2022095EN.01001601.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/16

---

Appeal brought on 6 December 2021 by Pilatus Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2021 in Case T-139/19, Pilatus Bank v ECB

(Case C-750/21 P)

(2022/C 95/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Pilatus Bank plc (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | declare void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU the ECB’s decision of 21 December 2018 declaring to the appellant that it was no longer competent to ensure its direct prudential supervision and to take measures concerning it; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU the ECB’s decision of 21 December 2018 declaring to the appellant that it was no longer competent to ensure its direct prudential supervision and to take measures concerning it;

| — | to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to take a decision on the merits to refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to take a decision on the merits to refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and

| — | order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal alleging that the General Court misinterpreted the provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) by falsely assuming that the ECB has no further competence with respect to the appellant as a result of the appellant’s loss of license.

Second ground of appeal alleging that the General Court fails to address appropriately the pleas in law of the appellant which do not concern the alleged lack of competence of the ECB.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                9
<MULTIPLIER>             1000
       
<S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                 2059
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                 11384
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            68324
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                 7730
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                   7772
<LOANS>                                274554
<ALLOWANCE>                            2252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         380051
<DEPOSITS>                             258074
<SHORT-TERM>                           52471
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                    4259
<LONG-TERM>                            7386
<COMMON>                               425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                             57436
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>         380051
<INTEREST-LOAN>                        5693
<INTEREST-INVEST>                      1405
<INTEREST-OTHER>                       58
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                       7156
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                     2954
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     3880
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                  3277
<LOAN-LOSSES>                          111
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                     56
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                        1850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        1932
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           1160
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                         8.02
<LOANS-NON>                            1474
<LOANS-PAST>                           0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                        0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                       2419
<CHARGE-OFFS>                          305
<RECOVERIES>                           27
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                      2252
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                   395
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                1857
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5                                                       
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PROSOURCE, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997             DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                      16,998,000               2,763,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              213,433,000             221,674,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,041,000               2,334,000
<INVENTORY>                                140,165,000             144,040,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           391,435,000             387,377,000
<PP&E>                                      85,416,000              77,131,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              25,883,000              27,494,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             516,053,000             506,671,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      255,953,000             301,829,000
<BONDS>                                    180,300,000             113,084,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        93,000                  94,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,918,000              78,421,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               516,053,000             506,671,000
<SALES>                                  1,987,845,000           4,125,054,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,987,845,000           4,125,054,000
<CGS>                                    1,831,036,000           3,806,811,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,831,036,000           3,806,811,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           151,716,000             345,494,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               804,000               1,682,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,558,000              14,824,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                547,000            (40,381,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (241,000)              15,410,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            306,000            (24,971,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (6,262,000)                 610,000
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,956,000)            (24,361,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.64)                  (4.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.64)                  (4.19)
        

</TABLE>
#### SIMS CRANE SERVICE, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. AM-CAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, and Leo T. Cote, Appellees.

No. HH-384.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 19, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 13, 1978.

Carl D. Dawson, of Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Sulik & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Cowles, of Cowles, Coker & Myers; Joseph 0. Stroud, Jr., of Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Upon considering the briefs, the record and oral argument, we find no reversible error.

Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.

BOOTH, J., dissents.

BOOTH, Judge,

dissenting.

The third party complaint in this case, states a cause of action and should not have been dismissed. *Florida Gas Company v. Spaulding,*243 So.2d 129 (Fla.1970); *Sunspan Engineering and Construction Company v. Spring-Lock Scaffold Company,*310 So.2d 4 (Fla.1975); *Florida Power Corp. v. Taylor,*332 So.2d 687 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976).
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2004 of Golf Host Resorts, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date hereof (the
Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Merrick Kleeman, President of the
Company, certify, 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;
and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the company. /s/ Merrick Kleeman
Name: Merrick KleemanTitle:
    
    President(Chief Executive Officer)Date:
    
    September 24, 2004