alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Weideman, 2018-Ohio-1108.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2017-P-0011

 - vs - : 

JOSEPH W. WEIDEMAN, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Civil Appeal from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2013 CR 0433. 

Judgment: Appeal dismissed. 

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Kristina Reilly, Assistant Prosecutor, 

241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Joseph W. Weideman, pro se, PID# A644-593, Trumbull Correctional Institution, P.O. 

Box 901, 5701 Burnett Road, Leavittsburg, OH 44430-0901 (Defendant-Appellant). 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Joseph W. Weideman, attempts to appeal from a purported 

denial of his March 7, 2017 petition to vacate or set aside conviction and sentence in 

Portage County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2013 CR 0433. The record fails to 

indicate that a ruling on Mr. Weideman’s petition has been entered in the court below. As 

a result, there is no final, appealable order before us to review, and we are without 

jurisdiction to take any action except dismiss the appeal. 

{¶2} Attached to Mr. Weideman’s notice of appeal is a copy of an entry issued 
 2

by the trial court on March 10, 2017, which states: “The Defendant’s Motion to Vacate 

Conviction and Dismiss the Indictment is denied without hearing.” The entry, however, 

was issued in Portage County Case No. 2013 CR 0443, captioned “State of Ohio vs. 

Matthew M. Lusane.” 

{¶3} Mr. Lusane’s appeal is also presently before this court for review, and that 

record reveals Mr. Lusane filed a motion, similar to Mr. Weideman’s petition, on the same 

date, March 7, 2017. The record in Mr. Lusane’s appeal includes the original of the trial 

court’s March 10, 2017 entry denying his motion. 

{¶4} The record in Mr. Weideman’s appeal includes a copy, not an original, of 

the March 10, 2017 entry from Mr. Lusane’s case, and it does not include any ruling on 

Mr. Weideman’s petition. The online docket in Mr. Weideman’s appeal indicates, on 

March 10, 2017, that a “motion to vacate conviction and dismiss the indictment is denied 

without hearing (see image).” The image attached to this docket entry is, again, a copy 

of the March 10, 2017 entry from Mr. Lusane’s case. 

{¶5} The entry from which Mr. Weideman is attempting to appeal is a nullity as it 

pertains to his case, and his petition to vacate or set aside conviction and sentence 

remains pending before the trial court. As such, there is no final, appealable order before 

us, and we do not have jurisdiction to review Mr. Weideman’s assignments of error. See 

Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(2). 

{¶6} Appeal dismissed. 

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., concurs, 

COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J., dissents.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**AULTRA
      GOLD INC.**




**CERTIFICATION
      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 of Aultra Gold Inc. (the Company) on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rauno Perttu, President
      and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.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; and




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




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company **** and will be retained by the Company and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.






November
                19,
                2007
            By:
            /s/ *Rauno
              Perttu*Rauno
                PerttuPresident
                and Chief Executi
              Officer
#### G. P. Henry, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.

*In Banc.*

Writ of error to Circuit Court, Walton county; Lucius J. Reeves, Judge.

Fred T. Myers for plaintiff in error.

Attorney-General for the State.

This action was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant takes writ of error. Writ of error dismissed on- prajcipe of counsel for the plaintiff in error.
**EXHIBIT
31.1**
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I, Edward
B. Meyercord, III, certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Talk America Holdings,
Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on
my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this annual report;
 
 4.  The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)  [omitted
pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8283 (June 5, 2003)]
 
 c)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 
 d)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 a)  all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 
 b)  any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.
  
 March 28,
2005
 
 /s/
Edward B. Meyercord, III
 Edward B.
Meyercord, III
 Chief
Executive Officer and President
### :EI-VIRTMENTO P

ToddC . Emerson , #817 5 44 4 Sout h River Roa d St . George , Utah , 8479 0 Telephone : (435)634-353 0 Facsimile : (435)634-350 5 Email : temerson@skywesi.co m

- an d- Michae l L . Dworki n #6404 7 46 5 Californi aStreet , Suit e 21 0 Sa n Francisco , Californi a9410 4 Telephone : (415)421-0250 0 Facsimile : (415)421-256 0 Email : law@avialex.co m Attorney s fo

r SkyWes l Airlines , Inc . . lilANSPOniATIO N •^•::K!; TOPERATION S ^ 

# RECEIVE D OC T1 \ 20t t 

# HEARIN G DOCKE T ^•J n Oi \ n P I

UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C .

FAACaseNos . 2011NM06001 0 and 2011NM0600 n . . n'^S'l: , SKYWES T AIRLINES , INC.' S ASSOCIATIO N O FCOUNSE L Judge : RichardC . Goodwi n I n th e Matte r

of : SkyWes t Airlines , Inc .

PLEAS E B E ADVISE D tha t SkyWes t Airlines , Inc . andToddC . Emerson , Esq . ar e engagin g thi s offic e a s Co-Counse l i n th e abov e reference dmatter .I

n additio n to SkyWes t

Airlines , Inc. , pleas e cop y this offic e o n al l document s and pleading s filedi

n thes e matters . MICHAE L L . DWORKI N AND ASSOCIATE S

Michae l L . Dworki n Co-Counse l fo

r SkyWes t Airlines , Inc .CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E 

## S davofftt

k Th e undersigne dhereb y cenifie s tha t o n thi s ^ J da

y correc t cop y o f th e foregoing : , 2011 , atru e an d

SKYWES T AIRLINE S INC/ S ASSOCIATIO N O FCOUNSE L (2011NM0600I I and20nNM060011 )

wa s serve da s follows : Th e Honorabl e RichardC . Goodwi n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , RoomE12-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Fax:(202)366-753 6 {Facsimile } Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenu e S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docket

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0 Fax:(202)493-514 2 {Facsimile } Jeffre y M . Harper Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Northwes t Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 160 1 LindAvenu e S.W . Renton , Washingto n 9805 7 Fax:(425)227-100 7

{Facsimile } Ms . Moifair

Chi n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 160 1 LindAvenu e S.W . Renton , Washingto n 9805 7 Email : moifair.chin@faa.go v

{email }
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

34 36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.06 N 76.88 WMeters AGL
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,413,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,018,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   614,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,406,000
<PP&E>                                      13,241,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,107,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             129,142,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,572,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,000
<PREFERRED>                                      6,000
<COMMON>                                        49,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,036,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               129,142,000
<SALES>                                     45,025,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,583,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,740,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,995,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (278,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (278,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,785,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.18)
        


</TABLE>
J.S36024-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v.

DAVID REDMOND 

 Appellant No. 2855 EDA 2013 

Appeal from the PCRA Order September 30, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006047-2010 

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT BY FITZGERALD, J. 

:FILED AUGUST 07, 2014 

 I agree with the majority that Appellant was not entitled to relief based 

on his “newly discovered evidence” claim that the complainant allegedly lied 

about being sexually assaulted. In my view, however, the pleadings and 

documents submitted by the parties, as well as the PCRA court’s analysis of 

the record, raise genuine issues of fact regarding Appellant’s claim that trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to call Karlesio Davenport at trial. 

Specifically, there remain issues of fact as to whether Davenport was awake 

or asleep at the time of the assault, whether he was able to observe the 

assault perpetrated by Appellant and his codefendant, and whether he could 

 

*

 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 
J. S53041/13 

- 2 - 

credibly testify that Appellant and codefendant did not sexually assault the 

complainant. As these issues bear upon the PCRA court’s determinations 

that Davenport’s proposed exculpatory testimony was implausible and that 

no prejudice inured from trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness, I believe the 

court’s disposition of this issue based only on a review of the pleadings and 

the record was not appropriate. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(A)(2) (stating that 

“the judge shall order a hearing . . . when the petition for post-conviction 

relief or the Commonwealth’s answer, if any, raises material issues of 

fact.”). Thus, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the 

PCRA court’s decision to deny this claim and would remand this case for an 

evidentiary hearing to consider Davenport’s credibility, trial counsel’s 

performance, and whether the absence of Davenport’s proposed testimony 

resulted in prejudice.
#### The State, ex rel. Hawke, *v.*Weygandt, Chief Justice of The Supreme Court of Ohio, et al.

(No. 31075

Decided November 12, 1947.)

*455
      *Mr. George S. Hawke, in propria persona.*

*Mr. Hugh S. Jenkins,*attorney general, *Mr. E. G. Schuessler, Mr. Carson Hoy,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. C. Watson Hover,*for respondents.

By the Court.

No alternative writ of mandamus or prohibition was issued by this court in the present proceeding.

On May 14, 1947, relator filed a precipe in this proceeding, summonses were issued to the sheriffs of Hamilton and Franklin counties, returnable May 26, 1947, and. sheriff’s returns were made showing personal service on all the respondents on May 16, 1947, which was two days following the day relator’s petition alleges the cause in which he was appellant was set for hearing by the Court of Appeals. The judges of the Court of Appeals had held a hearing in the appeal proceeding in that court before being served with summons in the present proceeding in this court.

This court will take into consideration the facts and conditions existing at the time it determines whether to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus. *State, ex rel. Apple,*v. *Pence et al., Board of Education of Shelby County School District,*137 Ohio St., 569, 31 N. E. (2d), 841, approving and following *Trumbull County Board of Education*v. *State, ex rel. Van Wye,*122 Ohio St., 247, 171 N. E., 241, and *State, ex rel. Haines,*v. *Board of Education of Greene County School District,*131 Ohio St., 609, 3 N. E. (2d), 527.

It appeai-s from the records of this court that, after the petition was filed in the present proceeding in mandamus and prohibition, an appeal as of right and a motion to certify the record were filed in this court from a judgment entered by the three judges of the Court of Appeals for Hamilton county in the case in which present relator was appellant in that court.

*456The writs sought by the relator will not issue in order to have a determination of questions which have become moot in the Court of Appeals. *Miner*v. *Witt, City Clerk,*82 Ohio St., 237, 92 N. E., 21; *Hughes*v. *County Board of Revision of Butler County,*143 Ohio St., 559, 56 N. E. (2d), 63; and *State, ex rel.*Snyder, *a Taxpayer,*v. *Board of Elections of Lucas County,*146 Ohio St., 556, 67 N. E. (2d), 322.

The petition of the relator is dismissed.

*Petition dismissed.*

Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur. •

Weygandt, C. J., not participating.
### UAS FAR 333 Exemption Package Addendum Federal Registry Public Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0566

ARMDS Rotor Small Unmanned Air Vehicle Geological Mapping

Aircraft Registration #N5414P

Prepared by: Brian Zamudio Director
, Persistence Mining Inc. 5666 La Jolla Blvd #315 La Jolla, CA 92037 Zamudio@Me.com Public Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0566 Date: April 10, 2015

Dear	Sir	or	Madam: Persistence	Mining,	Inc.	seeks	exemption	from	the	following	rules: 91.1(b)(2) 91.9 (c) 91.103(b)(1) 91.103(b)(2) 91.105(a)(2) 91.109(a) 91.203(a)(1) 91.203(a)(2) 91.207(a)(2) 91.211(a) 91.405(a) 91.405(b) 91.407(a)(1) 91.409(a)(1) 91.409(b) 91.417(a)
Granting	Persistence	Mining,	Inc.	a	FAR	333	exemption	is	in	the	public	interest	to	facilitate the	reduction	of	negative	environmental	impact s	on	the	land	potentially	caused	by	the mining	of	industrial	minerals.	Mineral	discoveries	are	used	as	the	basic	inputs	into	all production	and	manufacturing.	Natural	resources	benefit	everyone;	unfortunately,	the mismanagement	of	these	resources	can	poten tially	harm	everyone.	Negative	impacts	to	the environment	can	and	have	had	long	lasting	ramifications	for	future	generations.		The	use	of sUAS	for	surveying	reduces	environmental	impacts	by	reducing	the	carbon	footprint	of manned	aircraft.	The	accuracy	pro vided	from	sUAS	versus	manned	aircraft	allow	surveyors to	accurately	determine	areas	conducive	to	mining.	Manned	aircraft	survey	leaves	room	for error	and	negative	environmental	impact.The	ARMDS	was	designed	to	increase	accuracy	of	mineral	surveying	to	re duce	the	negative

impact	on	the	land	and	planet	from	random	drilling	and	inaccurate	mining.	We	can	increase mineral	discoveries	while	decreasing	the	negative	impacts	to	the	earth	through	the	use	of the	ARMDS	sUAS.		Current	practices	include	driving	through virgin	environments potentially	causing	harm	to	vegetation,	animals	and	disturbing	the	land	in	an	effort	to identify	potential	mineral	discoveries.	Once	at	the	site,	geologists	then	start	to	walk	around further	disturbing	habitats	that	could	remain	pristi ne	and	untouched	through	the	use	of	the ARMDS	sUAS.

Through	an	exemption	we	can	operate	to	generate	a	large	benefit	to	the	public	good	while creating	sustainability	through	conservation.

Brian	Zamudio
Persistence	Mining,	INC.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7817

ROBERT LEE HARRIS, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Individually and in their Official 

Capacity under the Color of Law; KAREN WHITE, Regional 

Director; AL HAYNES, Warden of U.S.P. Hazelton; DUKE 

TERRELL, Warden of U.S.P. Leavenworth; A. W. JETT, Associate 

Warden of U.S.P. Leavenworth; G. DRENNAN, Hospital 

Administrator of U.S.P. Leavenworth; BOYLE, Hospital 

Administrator of U.S.P. Hazelton; MCCULLUM, Dr. - Clinical 

Director of U.S.P. Leavenworth; UNKNOWN PHYSICIAN'S 

ASSISTANT, Federal Bureau of Prisons Employee and is sued in 

his personal capacity; BILL CAREY, Lieutenant - Federal 

Bureau of Prisons Employee and is sued in his personal 

capacity; UNKNOWN FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS EMPLOYEE, and is 

sued in his personal capacity, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior 

District Judge. (2:07-cv-00058-REM-JSK) 

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
Robert Lee Harris, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
3 

PER CURIAM: 

Robert Lee Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order granting his motion for an extension of time to file a 

response to the magistrate judge’s recommendation in his 

underlying action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of 

the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen 

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order 

Harris seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
1

Additional information on PBPK modeling for Chlorpyrifos and Chlorpyrifos

- Oxon

Prepared by Paul Price, Dow Chemical Company

Submitted by George Oliver, Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Rd, Indianapolis, IN

Submitted : November 19, 2014

As requested by EPA, we have prepared the following table of the inputs used to generate the

estimates of the variation in response to CPF and CPF

- oxon. The target age group for our

simulation models are six month old individuals. Some of the inputs are sp ecific to this age.

Interindividual variations for all inputs are assumed to follow a lognormal distribution.

References cited in the table are listed in the report “Development of Chemical Specific

Adjustment Factors for Chlorpyrifos and Chlorpyrifos Oxon ” (MRID number 49248201).2

Parameter Mean value Standard

Deviation CV Variability Reference

Total Blood Volume (L/kg body

weight) 0.08 0.0022 0.027 P 3 M; Price et al., 2003

Plasma PON1 (μmol/hr×L) 162000 92000 0.57 Smith et al., 2011

Hepatic Blood Flow (L/hr×kg

tissue) 50 14 0.27 Materne et al., 2000

RBC ChE Inhibition Rate

(l/μmol×hr) 100 17 0.17 Dimitriadis and Syrmos,

2011

Hepatic PON1 (μmol/hr×kg

tissue) 154000 88000 0.57 Smith et al, 2011

Hematocrit (%) 0.45 0.031 0.068 P 3 M; Price et al., 2003

RBC ChE Degradation Rate (l/hr) 0.01 0.0014 0.14 Chapman et al., 1968

Hepatic P450 Bioactivation to

Oxon (μmol/hr×kg tissue) 690 410 0.59 Smith et al., 2011

Hepatic P450 Detoxification to

TCPy (μmol/hr×kg tissue) 1500 800 0.53 Smith et al., 2011

RBC ChE Reactivation Rate

(l/hr) 0.014 0.0050 0.36 Mason et al., 2000

Intestinal CYP Bioactivation to

Oxon (μmol/hr×kg tissue) 82 43 0.52 Obach et al., 2001

Intestinal CYP Detoxification to

TCPy (μmol/hr×kg tissue) 53 28 0.52 Obach et al., 2001

Transfer Rate to Intestine (hr

- 1) 0.31 0.081 0.26 Singh et al., 2006

Volume of the Liver (L/kg body

weight) 0.032 0.0010 0.032 P 3 M; Price et al., 2003

Hepatic Carboxyl Basal Activity

Rate (l/hr/kg tissue) 1270000 460000 0.36 Pope et al., 2005

Hepatic Carboxyl Reactivation

Rate (l/hr) 0.014 0.0050 0.36 Mason et al., 2000