alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Notes from Meeting with **NACDS et al**

**Attended by:** NACDS Staff: Dian e Darvey COSTCO staff: Jon McArthur CVS Staff: Pat Perry Walgreens Staff: Mary Hendrickson, Ed Kaleta, Andy Marks Walmart Staff: Richard Leah y, Mike Stephenson EPA Staff: Kristin Fitzgerald , Lisa Lauer, Jessica Young, Charlotte Mooney , Richard

Huggins **Date:** November 14, 2012
EPA m et with representative s of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and its members
. They conveyed some key concerns that they hope will be addressed b y the proposed hazardous waste pharmaceuticals rule: 1. Reverse Distribution 2. P
- listed pharmaceuticals (e.g., nicotine) driving large quantity generator (LQG) status They remarked that state Board of Pharmacy rules and FDA rules make reuse and donation of pharmaceuticals difficult.
Johnson Mathey Budgetary Proposal 

Hartenstein RFP 

(CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT)
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 360

To authorize the printing of a document entitled ‘‘Washington’s Farewell

Address’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules and Administration

OCTOBER 3 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize the printing of a document entitled

‘‘Washington’s Farewell Address’’.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION.

3 The booklet entitled ‘‘Washington’s Farewell Ad4 dress’’, prepared by the Senate Historical Office under the

5 direction of the Secretary of the Senate, shall be printed

6 as a Senate document.

7 SEC. 2. FORMAT.

8 The Senate document described in section 1 shall in9 clude illustrations and shall be in the style, form, manner,
2

SRES 360 ATS

1 and printing as directed by the Joint Committee on Print2 ing after consultation with the Secretary of the Senate.

3 SEC. 3. COPIES.

4 In addition to the usual number of copies, there shall

5 be printed 600 additional copies of the document specified

6 in section 1 for the use of the Secretary of the Senate.

Æ
#### Morgan Motor Vehicle Operator License Case.

*487Argued March 19, 1962.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

*James L.*Jubelirer, with him *Jubelirer*cG *Garothers,*for appellant.

*Elmer T. Bolla,*Deputy Attorney General, with him *David Stahl,*Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellee.

April 12, 1962:

Opinion by

Ervin, J.,

This is an appeal from the decree of the court below sustaining a suspension of the appellant’s operator’s *488privileges for a period of two months for a violation of the provisions of The Vehicle Code.

On April 28, 1960 at 6:30 a.m. appellant was apprehended by a state police officer for speeding at the rate of 60 miles per hour in a 50-mile per hour zone on the Pennsylvania Turnpike while the appellant was operating a truck and trailer. Appellant subsequently plead guilty before a justice of the peace and paid a fine and costs. Subsequently a departmental hearing was conducted at which time the appellant appeared and testified. Thereafter his license was suspended for two months under §1002-b-7 and §618-b-2 of The Vehicle Code. He then appealed to the court below which subsequently held a de novo hearing, after which it dismissed the appeal and sustained the Department of Revenue, Bureau of Highway Safety, which had issued the suspension order. Appellant’s attorney argues that the speed violation was occasioned by a “split minute” decision whereby he felt it was his duty to accelerate beyond the speed limit “and take the chance of being arrested rather than drop back and take a chance of having an accident. . . .”

The appellant testified that he was not exceeding the speed limit when he attempted to pass the “Florida rig,” that an elderly man had been following him, that as he was passing the “rig” the other driver accelerated, that he was going to brake down but because the elderly man was in a blind spot he was afraid to do so for fear the man would crash into him. He made the decision which he thought best to protect the man behind him and that was to exceed the speed limit in order to pass the “rig.”

The police officer testified that he observed the appellant traveling at a rate of speed of 60 miles per hour; that he followed the appellant for about a mile and then clocked him for another half mile at 60 miles per hour.

*489We agree with tbe court below that this did not constitute such an emergency as to excuse the appellant’s violation of The Vehicle Code. It is hornbook law that the sudden emergency rule cannot be invoked by one whose wrongful conduct created the emergency or gave rise to the situation of peril. An operator of a motor vehicle is not permitted to create an emergency by operating a vehicle at an unlawful rate of speed and then derive a benefit from such situation. In the present case there was no emergency to justify appellant’s act of driving 60 miles an hour for a distance of approximately one and one-half miles. We can find no abuse of discretion in the action of the court below.

Decree affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 17, 2012.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

                    1.                     *Bobbie R. Needham, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma; Matthew K. Needham and Amanda L. Needham, both of Basehor, Kansas; Michael L. Needham and Andrea M. Needham, both of Olathe Kansas; and Russ A. Hoffman and Megan L. Hoffman, both of Wichita, Kansas, all as members of the Needham Family Group,*                     to retain control of Overbrook Bankshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain control of The First Security Bank, both in Overbrook, Kansas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 28, 2012.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2012-7801 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Jeffery W.Sprick, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Mueller Water Products, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved]

(c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: February 3,2006

|        | /s/ JEFFERY W.  SPRICK         |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Name: Jeffery W. Sprick        |
|   | Title: Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices 

# Order

October 22, 2014

149592

- 3 & (18)(19)

JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3,

JOHN DOE 4, JOHN DOE 5, JOHN DOE 6,

and JOHN DOE 7, on behalf of themselves

and a class of all oth ers similarly situated,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 149592

- 3

COA: 321013; 321756

Washtenaw CC: 13

- 001196

- CZ

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

DIRECTOR OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR

OF MDOC CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

ADMINISTRATION, FORMER DEPUTY

DIRECTOR OF MDOC CORRECTIONAL

FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION, CHIEF

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MDOC

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

ADMINISTRATION, WARDEN OF CARSON

CITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WARDEN

OF CHARLES EGELER RECEPTION AND

GUIDANCE CENTER, WARDEN OF

EARNEST C. BROOKS CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, WARDEN OF GUS HARRISON

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WARDEN OF

RICHARD A. HANDLON CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, WARDEN OF OAKS

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WARDEN OF

THUMB CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

WARDEN OF CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, WARDEN OF MARQUETTE

BRANCH PRISON, and WARDEN OF

BELLAMY CREEK CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 22, 2014

d1015 2

Clerk On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals is

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of gra nting leave to appeal, we

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. The

motion for stay is DENIED.
#### Jeffrey R. CROSBY, Petitioner, v. Floyd GRISWOULD, Sheriff of Kiowa County, Respondent.

No. 82SA190.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Sept. 7, 1982.

*569James M. Smith, Denver, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey R. Crosby, the petitioner-appellant, appeals from an order of the Kiowa County District Court discharging a writ of habeas corpus and ordering the petitioner’s extradition to Mississippi. Crosby was arrested pursuant to a governor’s warrant after documents were filed by the State of Mississippi under section 16-19-104, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). It is admitted that the petitioner is the person named in the requisition documents and that he is substantially charged with a crime. It is also clear that he is in fact a fugitive from justice. In this appeal, the petitioner asserts that the evidence does not support the indictment and that he is not guilty of the offense of embezzlement.

Since no question exists as to the validity of the documents, the district court properly discharged the writ of habeas corpus. The sufficiency of the evidence to support the charge is an issue to be resolved by the demanding state. *Gerard v. Ossola,*649 P.2d 1110 (Colo. 1982); *Michigan v. Doran,*439 U.S. 282, 99 S.Ct. 530, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order to extradite Jeffrey R. Crosby to the State of Mississippi.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Beal es and Senior Judge Annunziata

SHAWN McCAULEY v. Record No. 2587-09-3
JESSICA HOOVER MEMORANDUM OPINION * SHAWN McCAULEY PER CURIAM JUNE 1, 2010 v. Record No. 2588-09-3
JESSICA HOOVER

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY James V. Lane, Judge (W. Andrew Harding; Eldridge, E lledge, Evans & Ha rding, PLC, on briefs), for appellant. Appellant submitting on briefs. No brief for appellee.
Shawn McCauley is currently incarcerated at the Augusta Correctional Center. Prior to a hearing regarding visitation with his two minor ch ildren, ages five and three, McCauley filed a motion for transportatio n in the Rockingham County Circuit Court (trial court). He sought to testify before the trial court to explai n why he should be permitted visitation with his children while incarcerated, as well as why Jessica Hoover, the children’s mother , should not retain discretion over decisions of visitation for the ch ildren. The trial court reviewed McCauley’s proffer outlining the nature of the testim ony he would give if permitt ed to testify. It determined McCauley’s guardian ad litem was capable of adequately addressing his co ncerns at trial, and denied his motion for transportation on October 8, 20 09. This appeal followed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Code § 8.01-410 provides, in pertinent part: Whenever any party in a civil acti on in any circuit court in this Commonwealth requires as a witness in his behalf, an inmate in a state or local correctional facility as defined in § 53.1-1, the court, on the application of such party or his attorney may, in its discretion and upon consideration of the importance of the personal appearance of the witness and the nature of the offense for which he is imprisoned, issue an order to the Director of the Department of Corrections to delive r such witness to the sheriff of the jurisdiction of the c ourt issuing the order. (Emphasis added.) “‘[A] trial court’s discretionary ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.’” Guill v. Commonwealth , 255 Va. 134, 146, 495 S.E.2d 489, 496 (1998) (quoting Coe v. Commonwealth , 231 Va. 83, 87, 340 S.E.2d 820, 823 (1986)). In this case, the trial court reviewed McCaul ey’s proffer, concluded McCauley’s presence would not aid the decisional proc ess, and found that the guardian ad litem’s testimony was sufficient to rule on the issue of visitation. From the evidence before us, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in reaching its co nclusion. As such, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

                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 XL Generation  International
Inc. (the  "Registrant")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2005, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned,  Flemming Munck,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Registrant,  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

            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 Registrant.


Date: September 13, 2005                By: /s/ Flemming Munck
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Name:  Flemming Munck
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer, and
                                                   Member of the Board of
                                                   Directors
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STEVEN ELLISON ,

Plaintiff ,

v.
ANDREW M. SAUL , Commissioner of Social Security ,

Defendant

. No. 20

- cv
- 0579 (DLF / GMH )

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey , which was filed on December 8 , 2020. Dkt. 15

. The 14

- day period for filing written objections to this Report and Recommendation has now passed, see LCvR 72.3(b) , and, as of this date, neither party has filed an objection.
Steven Ellison brought this case against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration challenging the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income
benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act

. See Dkt. 1. Ellison argued that the decision of
the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was not supported by substantial evidence and requested
reversal of the decision and a judgment that Ellison is entitled to benefits or, in th e alternative, remand for a new administrative hearing

. See id. at 1

– 2

. Magistrate Judge Harvey determined
that the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the “ALJ amply
addressed Plaintiff’s claims.” See Dkt. 15 at 18, 22. Consequently, Magistrate Judge Harvey
recommended that this Court affirm the Social Security Administration’s decision. Id . at 24

.2

The Court has reviewed and adopts Magistrate Judge Harvey’s thorough and well

reasoned 25

- page opinion. Accordingly, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the absence of objections, and the entire record, it is
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPT ED in its entirety . It is
further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment of Reversal, Dkt. 12 , is DENIED

. It is further
ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Affirmance, Dkt. 1 3 , is
GRANTED

.

________________________ DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH December 29 , 2020 United States District Judge
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-14-0060

SAT Date: 11/26/2013

Print Date: 1/8/2014

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: Analogs: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 1 1 PMN

3 1 1

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: UNCERT IRR-E,S,L

UNCERT SENS-S,L

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-14-0060

FATE: MW = 

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 
Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = 

Sorption to soils/sediments = 

PBT Potential: 

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption of the low molecular weight fraction 

is poor all routes, based on physical/chemical properties. The PMN 

substance is expected to react slowly. There are uncertain concerns for eye, skin, and lung 

irritation as well as for dermal and respiratory sensitization, especially through chronic 

exposures, based on i

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic 

value

*

algal _ chronic 

value

*

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR 

chemical class = polymer - nonionic - NCO; and 

with mp S = reacts with water at 20 C (P); ; effective concentrations based 

on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as 

CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

*

SARs nonionic polymers

SAR Class polymer-nonionic-NCO

Ecotox Category Nonionic Polymers

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: J. Kwiat, 564-7653
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Duaine David GUIDRY.

No. 86-K-2226.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Guidry, Duaine David; applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 86-KA-0081; Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 154154.

Prior report: La.App., 496 So.2d 650.

Denied.
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**Certificationof Chairman**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of HyperSpaceCommunications, Inc. (the “*Company*”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for thequarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “*Report*”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
|               | /s/  John Yeros |
|--------------------|-----------------|
| July 19, 2005 | John  Yeros     |
|               | Chairman        |

 

----