alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Company sanitized

Does not contain Confidential Business

Information (CBI)

Appendix D



# Draft Facility Report on Product Content

## 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program



# Draft Facility Report on Product Content

I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION

Identify the product (e.g fluoropolymer dispersion) for which you are submitting information:

Product name:___Fluorinated Surfactant(oligomeric)_______

Product description (including concentrations of perfluoroalkyl chemicals

identified in Section IV below and year of production):

All products under the name of “Fluorinated Surfactant (Oligomeric)” are

considered to be precursors to PFOA and higher homologues.

II. COMPANY IDENTIFICATION

Identify the company and location of the facility submitting information:

Company name:_AGC SEIMI CHEMICAL CO.,LTD

Site location:3-2-10,Chigasaki,Ch igasaki City,Kanagawa,253-8585 Japan

:2276-2,Nada,Hirai,Kashima City,Ibaraki,314-0012 Japan

Identify a company technical contact who can respond to inquiries about the information

submitted:

Technical contact:_Shunji Odaka

Phone: _+81-467-82-4398____

Address: 3-2-10,Chigasaki,Chigasaki City,Kanagawa,253-8585 Japan

III. PRODUCTION

Calendar year for which you are reporting: Jan 1, 2012 to Dec 31, 2012

(Normalized data based on year end run rate.)

Provide the amount of the product for the reporting year at each specific site:

Imported ___0 ____kgs/yr

Manufactured _CBI_ kgs/yrIV. PRODUCT CONTENT

A. CONCENTRATIONS OF RELEVANT PERFLUOROALKYL CHEMICALS

Please provide the concentrations (ppb) of various perfluoroalkyl chemicals in your product. For

chemicals for which you do not have actual data, please provide range estimates.

CBI

B. ANALYTICAL METHODS

Analyses should be conducted using the most accurate instrumentation and procedures available

as of the time of testing. Please provide detailed information on the methods used (including

analytical standards used, sampling, sample treatment, analysis), assumptions made, uncertainties

and detection limits (LOD, LOQ) for the data provided.
**Exhibit31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Randall K. Gausman, certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/AAmendment No.1 of Tut Systems, 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.

 

Date: September 2, 2004

 

* *
| * * | * * | *By:*    | */s/ Randall K. Gausman*                                                                                           |
|----------|----------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| * * | * * | * * | *Randall K. Gausman,*                                                                                              |
| * * | * * | * * | *Vice-President, Finance and Administration,  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
<PAGE>79
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


                     STATE OF INCORPORATION         RELATIONSHIP
                     ----------------------         ------------
BNA Holdings Inc.               Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

BNA International Inc.          Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

BNA Washington Inc.             Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

Institute of Management
 and Administration, Inc.       New York           100% owned by Registrant

Kennedy Information, Inc.       Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

The McArdle Printing Co., Inc.  Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

Pike & Fischer, Inc.            Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

STF Services Corporation        New York           100% owned by Registrant

Tax Management Inc. (a)         Delaware           100% owned by Registrant



(a) Tax Management Inc. owns 100% of TM Holding Company Inc.,
     a Delaware corporation.
#### DENVER 1500, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Winger Real Estate Company, Involuntary Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William H. WALL, Jr., Richard H. Rossmiller, and J. Timothy Byrne, Individually and d/b/a Blackhawk Enterprises, a partnership, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 78-813.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Oct. 18, 1979.

Tague, Goss, Schilken & Beem, P.C., Clifford L. Beem, William A. Cohan, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Wehrle & Eggleston, Durant D. Davidson, Denver, for defendants-appellees.

COYTE, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying its recovery in a suit for a real estate commission. We affirm.

Defendants listed their property for sale with plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker. It found a purchaser who signed an agreement to buy the property by assuming the existing incumbrances on the property as the total purchase price. At the bottom of the contract form was a separate agreement wherein defendants agreed to pay a 7% commission to plaintiff on the gross sales price of the property. There was typed above defendants’ signature, “Commission shall be paid in cash at closing.”

The transaction was set for closing, but defendants were unable to raise the necessary cash to pay the broker’s fee. Two days prior to the next closing date, plaintiff’s employee advised defendants “not to appear at the closing unless they came up with cash or certified funds.” Defendants did not appear at the closing, and when called by plaintiff’s employee, defendants advised him that they did not have cash or certified funds with which to pay the commission. Defendants attempted to negotiate a method of payment of the commission, but none of the proposals were acceptable to plaintiff.

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found, on supporting evidence, that plaintiff had prevented the closing, and thus, was not entitled to a commission.

*904Plaintiff cites a number of cases to the effect that, where the broker has found a buyer ready, willing, and able to buy, the seller cannot defeat the right of the broker to a commission by failing to consummate the transaction. Here, however, the completion of the sale was not prevented through any fault of the defendants but because the broker told defendants “not to appear at the closing unless they came up with cash or certified funds.” Thus plaintiff itself thwarted the closing which would have entitled it to a commission. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to a commission. *See*§ 12-61-201, C.R.S.1973.

We reject plaintiff’s argument that there was one contract and that defendants breached the contract by not appearing at the closing with sufficient funds to pay the commission. As stated in *Lyons*v. *Giannoni,*168 Cal.App.2d 336, 335 P.2d 690:

> “The contract with the realtor is separate and apart from the contract between the appellant seller and the purchasers and one does not depend upon the other.” Judgment affirmed.

SILVERSTEIN and KELLY, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6429

AHMAD KAIS ABDUL-SATTAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE WELDON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-99-79-6-19AK) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ahmad Kais Abdul-Sattar, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ahmad Kais Abdul-Sattar, a South Carolina inmate, appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Abdul-Sattar’s 28U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. The district court dismissed AbdulSattar’s petition without prejudice because it raised claims properly brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999). Because a dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Hello, 

Brennan Lee-Namakaeha <keanu_1992@live.com> 

Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:21 PM 

EAS (OST) 

Support of Makani Kai for EAS in Kalaupapa 

i ,. 

·.: ,. _ _,, 

I fully support Makani Kai to have the EAS for Kalaupapa Settlement. They have serviced the peninsula 

superbly for the past couple of years and I wish for them to continue this remarkable air service. 

1
(b) 

(4)
(b) (4)
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                 May 16, 2007 |   | /s/Michael                Piazza                   |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    |   | Michael                Piazza                      |   |
|                                    |   | President                (Chief Executive Officer) |   |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1216 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1216

  To revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic 
Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail into Vermont to 
   connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2019

   Mr. Welch (for himself, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Pocan, Ms. 
McCollum, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Beyer, Mrs. Craig, Mr. Collins of New York, 
and Mr. Grothman) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic 
Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail into Vermont to 
   connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North Country National Scenic Trail 
Route Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. ROUTE ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
1244(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
            (1) by striking ``thirty-two hundred miles, extending from 
        eastern New York State'' and inserting ``4,600 miles, extending 
        from the Appalachian Trail in Vermont''; and
            (2) by striking ``Proposed North Country Trail'' and all 
        that follows through ``June 1975.'' and inserting ```North 
        Country National Scenic Trail, Authorized Route', dated 
        February 2014, and numbered 649/116870.''.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1411. KWOK C. CHAN v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.

Kwok C. Chan has filed a notice of direct appeal from the trial court’s order

holding him liable for OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fees. However, such awards are

subject to the discretionary appeal procedures. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10); Jones

v. Padgett, 186 Ga. App. 362, 363 (2) (367 SE2d 88) (1988). Chan’s failure to

comply with the discretionary appeal requirements deprivesthis Court of jurisdiction

to consider his appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/06/2015

April 06, 2015
**Exhibit21.1**

**BRIDGFORD FOODS CORPORATION**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**
| **Name of  Subsidiary**                                | ** ** | **State in which Incorporated** |
|--------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------|
| Bridgford Marketing Company                            |       | California                                     |
| Bridgford Meat Company                                 |       | California                                     |
| Bridgford Food Processing Corporation                  |       | California                                     |
| Bridgford Food Processing of Texas, L.P.**             |       | Texas                                          |
| A.S.I. Corporation                                     |       | California                                     |
| Bridgford Distributing Company of Delaware  (inactive) |       | Delaware                                       |
| American Ham Processors, Inc.*                         |       | Delaware                                       |
| Bert Packing Company (inactive)                        |       | Illinois                                       |
| Moriarty Meat Company (inactive)                       |       | Illinois                                       |

 

----

* - No shares have been issued.

** - Limited Partnership.

1

----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 14-4764

________________

TRINITY WALL STREET

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Appellant

________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-14-cv-00405)

District Judge: Honorable Leonard P. Stark

________________

Present: AMBRO, VANASKIE, and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Appellant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. filed a notice of appeal on December 16, 2014 from both 

the District Court’s December 8, 2014 order (1) granting Appellee Trinity Wall Street’s 

motion for summary judgment with respect to Count I of the Verified Amended 

Complaint and (2) entering a permanent injunction against Wal-Mart from excluding 

Trinity’s Proposal from its 2015 proxy materials. 

It is hereby ORDERED that: 

The District Court order entered on December 8, 2014 granting Appellee’s motion for 

summary judgment with respect to Count I of the Verified Amended Complaint is 

reversed and the permanent injunction it entered is vacated.1 

 

1

 Because the District Court’s entry of judgment against Trinity on Count II of the 

Verified Amended Complaint is not before us, we do not address the Court’s disposition 

of that Count. 
2

Consequently, Wal-Mart may exclude Trinity’s Proposal from its 2015 proxy materials. 

The Court will issue an Opinion in this matter at a later time. 

The mandate will issue forthwith. 

By the Court, 

s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: April 14,2 015

CLW/cc: Christopher M. Foulds, Esq.

 Joel E. Friedlander, Esq.

 Theodore J. Boutrous, Esq.

 Adam H. Offenhartz, Esq.

 Philip A. Rovner, Esq.

 Angela C. Whitesell, Esq.

 Aric H. Wu, Esq.

 Robert A. Long, Jr., Esq.

 Cory L. Andrews, Esq.

 Robert A. Long, Jr., Esq.

 Maureen Barden, Esq.

 Richard L. Wyatt, Esq.

 William B. Chandler, III, Esq.

 Paul J. Lockwood, Esq.

 Roland P. Bissell, Esq.

 Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
MEMORANDUM

February 22, 2011

To: Air Docket

FROM: Jaimee Dong

CISD, EPA

SUBJECT: Meeting Summary

On February 3, 2011, John Eichberger of NACS met with Mary Manners, Nancy 

Ketcham-Colwill, Robert Anderson, and Jaimee Dong of EPA to discuss issues associated with 

other mitigation measures applied to gasoline containing up to 15% ethanol (E15). The use of 

electronic keypads or touch screens for consumers to confirm that they want to fuel with E15 

was discussed. Also discussed was using a uniform color, texture, or text for hand warmers (also 

known as scuffguards or nozzle grips) on nozzles used to dispense E15. NACS was generally 

supportive of both ideas, but identified issues such as text on hand warmers interfering with 

advertising space as well as uncertainty regarding the cost of using electronic keypads or 

touchscreens for affirmative confirmation by consumers.
```

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of
Finlay Enterprises, Inc., (the "Company") does hereby certify with respect to
the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 29,
2006 (the "Report") 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.

Date: September 7, 2006
                                               /s/ Bruce E. Zurlnick
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Bruce E. Zurlnick
                                               Senior Vice President, Treasurer
                                               and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
```
**Exhibit31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Randall K. Gausman, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/AAmendment No.2 of Tut Systems, 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.

 
| Date:  September 2, 2004 |     |     |                                                                                                               |
|--------------------------|----------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |     |     |                                                                                                               |
| * *                 | *By:*    | * * | */s/ Randall K. Gausman*                                                                                           |
| * *                 | * * | * * | *Randall K. Gausman,*                                                                                              |
| * *                 | * * | * * | *Vice-President, Finance and Administration,  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)* |

* *

* *
Order filed, December 17, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00872-CR

____________

CARLOS ALBERTO BUSTOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1355620

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due December 08, 2014. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Pam Knobloch, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,565-01

IN RE ARTHUR LUNA, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1404117-A IN THE 263 DISTRICT COURT rd

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 263rd District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application and that the 180-day time frame set out in TEX. R. APP. P.

73.4(b)(5) has not expired shall also be submitted with the response. This application for leave to

file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate

response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: March 6, 2019

Do not publish