alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Re: HPV 2 Review of Data for C6 Testing on MEA Triazine CASRN 4719-04-4

( SOCMA)

David Brooks to: Paul Campanella 09/24/2012 02:00 PM

Cc: John Schaeffer, Marcus Aguilar, Mark Townsend

Hi Paul,

We have reviewed our contractor's report and it is acceptable. Please see attached file.

Dave

4719-04-4_HPV2 DA_FINAL New Algae Study_09.14.2012.docx

Paul Campanella 08/01/2012 01:06:03 PM Dave, Attached is the one and only test (C6) req...

From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US

To: David Brooks/DC/USEPA/US

Cc: John Schaeffer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marcus Aguilar/DC/USEPA/US

Date: 08/01/2012 01:06 PM

Subject: HPV 2 Review of Data for C6 Testing on MEA Triazine CASRN 4719-04-4 ( SOCMA)

Dave, Attached is the one and only test (C6) required under the HPV 2 test rule for this chemical (

CASRN 4719-04-4). Please review for us. Can you give me some estimate of when this will be finished?

Thanks

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D.

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C.

202-564-8091

----- Forwarded by Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US on 08/01/2012 01:01 PM -----

From: Tucker Helmes <HelmesT@socma.com>

To: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Reisa Tomlinson <tomlinsonr@socma.com>

Date: 07/30/2012 02:03 PM

Subject: Final MEA Triazine Reporting

Hi Paul,

Attached is the cover letter and PDF copies of the Final Report and Robust Summary on MEA Triazine

(CAS 4719

‐ 04

‐ 4) that were delivered today to the EPA docket office for the 2 nd HPV test rule. This should

complete our reporting obligations under the test rule.

Please let me know if there is further information you need or if you have any questions. Otherwise we

look forward to receiving EPA’s comments in due course.Best regards,

Tucker

Dr. C. T. Helmes

Senior Director

Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates

1850 M Street, NW Suite 700

Washington, DC 20036

Tel 202-721-4154 / Fax 202-296-8120

helmest@socma.com

[attachment "EPA Final MeaT Submission 073012.pdf" deleted by David Brooks/DC/USEPA/US]

[attachment "Final Report 062912.pdf" deleted by David Brooks/DC/USEPA/US] [attachment "Robust

summary algal toxicity MEA Triazine 073012.pdf" deleted by David Brooks/DC/USEPA/US]
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-79547)on Form S-8 of Bridgford Foods Corporation of our report dated January 30, 2008,with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Bridgford Foods Corporationas of November 2, 2007 and November 3, 2006, and the relatedstatements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income andcash flows for the fiscal years ended November 2, 2007, November 3,2006 and October 28, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule,which report appears in the November 2, 2007 annual report on Form 10-Kof Bridgford Foods Corporation.

 

 
|                  |   |   |   | /s/    | HASKELL &  WHITE LLP |
|-----------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                  |   |   |   |   |                          |
| Irvine, California    |   |   |   |   |                          |
| January 30, 2008 |   |   |   |   |                          |

 

----
Thank you for holding this listening session as I support the reclassification of hemp and other plant compounds to further strategies to develop this and similar industries that rely on science, agriculture and medical backbones and infrastructure.

I've been working a paper since a former Fellowship monitoring the changes that cannabis has had on our communities. Uniformity and application of law are really (to me) the most notable issues of deploying programs related to this in different states and identifying ways to include all community stakeholders is crucial to the success of these programs as they often get run hand in hand with other justice reform efforts. 

I believe hemp and other types of cannabis that have undergone recent legal status changes or approvals with other plants that have had huge impacts on society such as marijuana, largely due to inaccurate science and agricultural policies in the US and abroad. 

These are opportunities for us to reverse course on really destructive health, agriculture, and economic policies especially the burdensome impact of miscommunication about the hazards of hemp that have grossly impacted the corrections systems, prisons and cut short the future of millions of American families. 

It's time to identify and further improve programs tasked with the administration of these laws in various ways such as criminal justice reforms, legal reclassification, new innovative partnerships, research policies and avenues that include people impacted by the war on drugs. 

This will help identify and develop new 'exit strategies' for the war on drugs through programs such as hemp small business development and I believe other agencies are currently reviewing and working agencies such as the SBIR to help roll out new drug development and small business ownership opportunities.

The FDA has issued botanical drug guidance that may be a template to review as everyone moves forward.

On a personal note I use cannabis/hemp based compounds in my diet and as opioid replacement since legalization in Alaska and my health has not only been maintained but it has also considerably improved. 

I think hemp has a bright future and I encourage the USDA to continue their efforts to develop new innovative programs that include hemp products. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comment in advance of the hemp listening session.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Bowie@dreamgbutterfly botanicals
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~** 

# <!Court of**~eaI~** 

# for tbejf 

# eberaI <!Circuit

CHARLES A. MOTT,

Claimant-Appellant, 

### v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee. 2012-7083 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no.1O-1585, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr. ON MOTION ORDER Charles A. Mott moves for leave to proceed in forma paupens. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT:MOTTv.DVA The motion is granted. 

## MAR 09 2012 Date

cc: Robert P. Walsh, Esq. Jeanne A. Davidson, Esq. s21 FOR THE COURT lsI Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 2

ALED U.S. COURTOFAPPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT



### MAR 092012

JAN

### IIOIIIIAIY 

### WIll
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1260 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1260

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the charitable 
 deduction to all taxpayers regardless of whether a taxpayer itemizes 
    deductions in order to encourage and increase charitable giving.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2019

Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the charitable 
 deduction to all taxpayers regardless of whether a taxpayer itemizes 
    deductions in order to encourage and increase charitable giving.

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

SECTION 1. UNIVERSAL DEDUCTION FOR CHARITABLE GIVING.

    (a) In General.--Section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by inserting after paragraph (21) the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(22) Charitable contributions.--The deduction allowed by 
        section 170 (reduced by the portion thereof disallowed under 
        section 68).''.
    (b) Application of Overall Limitation on Itemized Deductions.--
Section 68 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
new subsection:
    ``(g) Application to Deduction for Charitable Contributions.--
            ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
        deduction allowed by section 170 shall be treated as an 
        itemized deduction.
            ``(2) Application of limitation to above-the-line 
        deduction.--For purposes of section 62(a)(22), the portion of 
        the deduction allowed by section 170 for any taxable year which 
        is disallowed under this section is the portion bearing the 
        same ratio as--
                    ``(A) the amount of the reduction under subsection 
                (a) for such taxable year, bears to
                    ``(B) the amount of the itemized deductions 
                otherwise allowable for such taxable year.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 170(b)(1)(H) of such Code is 
amended by inserting ``this section and'' after ``computed without 
regard to''.
    (d) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
        apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
            (2) Cross reference.--For suspension of the application of 
        section 68 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (including the 
        amendments to such section made by subsection (b)), see section 
        68(f) of such Code.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered November 6, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01421-CV

AKBAR ALESHA, LLC, Appellant

V.

QUIK-WAY RETAIL ASSOCIATES II, LTD., Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-01224-D

ORDER

On October 17, 2013, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file notice of 

appeal. The timeliness of the notice of appeal was dependent on the trial court granting 

appellant’s pending “Rule 306a motion.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a4-5; TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2. On 

October 28, 2013, appellant informed the Court that the trial court had denied appellant’s rule 

306a motion. Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s extension motion. 

In its extension motion, appellant urged that if the trial court denied its rule 306a motion, 

appellant’s notice of appeal could serve as a notice of restricted appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.1(d)(7), 30. Appellant’s notice of appeal, however, does not comply with the requirements of 

a notice of restricted appeal. See id. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(7). Accordingly, we ORDER

appellant to file, within ten days of the date of this order, an amended notice of restricted appeal 
that is in compliance with the rules. See id. We caution appellant that failure to comply with 

this Order will result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. 

 

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fred Simpson, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered *443March 22, 1988, convicting defendant after jury trial of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing defendant as a persistent violent felony offender to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 8 years to life, on the burglary count, and *3Vi*to 7 years on the remaining counts, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing from third degree to fourth degree defendant’s convictions for grand larceny and possession of stolen property, vacating the sentences imposed on those two counts and resentencing defendant to *IVi*to 3 years on his convictions of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, such sentences to run concurrently with his sentence of 8 years to life for burglary in the second degree, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, we find that the record provides an ample basis for a rational trier of fact to determine that defendant was the person who committed the burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. *(See, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620.) However, with respect to defendant’s convictions for grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, it appears that the People failed to prove that the value of the property stolen was in excess of $3,000 in accordance with Penal Law § 155.20. [The unpublished decision and order of this Court entered May 7, 1991 is recalled and vacated.] Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Smith, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CAPSTEAD
SECURITIES CORPORATION IV'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              96
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               68
<BONDS>                                        156,465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,638
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,718
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   372
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,355
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (9)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (9)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (9)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9672]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Fifth Amendment To Consent Decree Pursuant to 
the Clean Air Act

    In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on 
April 16, 2012, a proposed consent decree amendment in United States v. 
Sinclair Wyoming Refining Co., et al., Case No. 08-cv-020-WFD, was 
lodged with the United States District Court for the District of 
Wyoming.
    The proposed Fifth Amendment To Consent Decree would resolve the 
United States' claims against Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company 
(``SWRC'') under the original consent decree and Section 113(b) of the 
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), that resulted from the January 22, 
2011 fire at SWRC's refinery in Sinclair, Wyoming, that damaged the 
facility's electrostatic precipitator (an emissions control device). 
Under the terms of the Fifth Amendment To Consent Decree, the SWRC will 
take action to obtain additional emissions reductions at SWRC's 
refinery in Sinclair, Wyoming, that will more than offset the emissions 
that resulted from the fire.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree amendment for a period of thirty (30) days from 
the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer 
to United States v. Sinclair Wyoming Refining Co., et al., Case No. 08-
cv-020-WFD, and Department of Justice Reference No. 90-5-2-1-07793.
    During the public comment period, the consent decree amendment may 
be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the consent decree 
amendment may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 
P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or 
by faxing or emailing a request to ``Consent Decree Copy'' 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afeaeafcecebecc0dfd681cac1ddcbefdadccbc0c581c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96d3d3c5d5d2d5f9e6efb8f3f8e4f2d6e3e5f2f9fcb8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation 
number (202) 514-5271. If requesting a copy from the Consent Decree 
Library by mail, please enclose a check in the amount of $4.50 ($.25 
per page) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by email or fax, forward 
a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the address 
given above.

Robert D. Brook,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-9672 Filed 4-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9651]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-101-000]

Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on April 3, 2012 Carolina Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Carolina Gas), 601 Old Taylor Road, Cayce, South Carolina, 
29033, filed in the above Docket, a prior notice request pursuant to 
sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations 
under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for authorization to replace 
approximately 7.6 miles of Carolina Gas existing Line 1 within the 
existing easement in Aiken Country, South Carolina, all as more fully 
set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket 
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to 
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support 
at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, 
contact (202) 502-8659.
    Carolina Gas proposes to replace two segments of the existing 16-
inch-diameter natural gas pipeline Line 1 for a total of 7.6 miles, 
within the existing right of way. Carolina Gas states that the 
estimated cost of the project is $15,005,105.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Randy 
D. Traylor, Jr., Manager-System Planning, Carolina Gas Transmission 
Corporation, 601 Old Taylor Road, Cayce, South Carolina 29033 at (803) 
217-2255, or by email at [email protected].
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant 
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's 
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of 
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff 
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under 
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not 
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, 
the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, 
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web 
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: April 13, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9651 Filed 4-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
Order entered August 15, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00629-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.C. AND K.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-16417

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 15, 2018 amended motion to abate the appeal. 

Appellant seeks the abatement because the trial court has not filed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law despite a proper request under the rules of civil procedure. Appellant also 

asks the Court to provide the parties with additional time to seek additional and/or amended 

findings once the trial court has filed its findings and to set a deadline by which the trial court 

must file any such additional or amended findings. We GRANT the motion as follows. 

We ORDER the Honorable David Lopez, Presiding Judge of the 256th Judicial District 

Court, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Texas Family Code 

section 153.258(a) and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 297 no later than September 4, 2018. The 

findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed in a supplemental clerk’s record with this 

Court no later than September 7, 2018. We further ORDER any request for specified additional 

or amended findings or conclusions be made by September 12, 2018 and any additional or 
amended findings and conclusions be filed by September 18, 2018. Any additional or amended 

findings and conclusions shall be filed in a supplemental clerk’s record with this Court no later 

than September 21, 2018. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic 

transmission to Judge Lopez, Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre, and all counsel of 

record.

We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court an opportunity to comply with this order. 

The appeal will be reinstated no later than September 27, 2018. 

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE