alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Date: February 27, 2012

From: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Subject: Comments on EPA’s Toxicological Review of Ammonia

To: Environmental Protection Agency

ATSDR’s Division of Toxicology and Environmental Me dicine (DTEM) has completed a second round of review of the IRIS toxicological re view of ammonia. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this revised version of t he ammonia documents. As this is our second review, we offer only a few clarifying c omments. Overall, we consider the document well-written and appropriate.

Page 6, Table 1-1: Respiratory effects in humans fo llowing inhalation exposure. The first entry for the Holness et al., 1989 study (in Result s) should indicate that the values presented represent percentages, as is done with th e second entry in this table.

Page 9, Table 1-2: Respiratory effects in animals f ollowing inhalation exposure. Consider revising the first entry in the table for clarity. This entry combines data from 5 different species into one entry for the Coon et al ., 1970 study. The first entry states "Nonspecific lung inflammation observed in guinea p igs and rats but not in other species at 183 mg/m3" and the LOAEL is shown as = 183 mg/m3 . We suggest specifying the species for which the NOAEL or LOAEL was identified , i.e., NOAEL = 183 mg/m3 for dog and rabbit, LOAEL = 183 mg/m3 for rats and guin ea pigs. This entry also states "focal pneumonitis in 1 of 3 monkeys at 36.9 mg/m3. ” We suggest listing this value as a LOAEL for squirrel monkeys.

Executive Summary, page xx, line 14. Change “biolo gical” to “biologically” plausible. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry



## Memorandum
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J EF FR EY J . RI CE , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. H O U S E H O L D F IN A N C E C O R P . , II ; et a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 35889 D . C. N o . 1 : 0 8 - c v - 0 3 1 3 1 - PA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon O w e n M . P anne r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r25, 2011 ** B e f o r e : T R O T T , G O U L D , an dR A W L I N S O N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J e f f r e yJ . R ic e ap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s u m m aryju d g m e n t in hi s a c t i on a r i s i ng outof f or e c l os ur e pr oc e e di ngs . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . U ni ted States v. John son C on trol s, Inc. , 457 

# FI LED NO V 03 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 35889 2 F .3 d1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e a f f irm . Su mmaryj u d g me n tw a s p r o p e ro n Ri c e ’ s Tru th i n Le n d i n g A c tc l a i ms se eki ng re sc i ss i on and d am ages because R i ce brou gh thi s a ct i on m ore than three ye ar s a ft erthe l oan’ s c l osi ng and m ore than o ne ye araf t erhi s a l l eged no t i ce s e e k in g r e s c is s io n , a n d , th u s , th e s e c la im s w e r e tim e - b arr e d . See 1 5 U .S .C . § 1635( f ) ( “ A n obl i gor ’ s r i ghtof r e s c i s s i on s ha l l e xpi r e thr e e y e ar s a f t e rthe da t e of c o n s u mma t i o n o f

th e tr a n s a c t i o n o rup o n th e s a l e o f th e p r o p e rty. . . . ” ) ; 1 5 U . S. C. § 1640( e ) ( a n a c t i on f

orda m a ge s m us tbe br oughtw i thi n one y e arof the da t e of al l eged vi ol at i on ). C o n tr a ryto R ic e ’s c o n te n tio n s , th e s e c u r ityin te r e s t d idn o t b e c o m e v o id upon hi s uni l a t e r a l not i f i c a t i on of

c anc e l l at i on l e s s than one m onth be f or e the f o r e c lo s u r e s a le . Se e Ya m a m o to v . Ba n k o f N. Y. , 32 9 F . 3d 11 67 , 11 72 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) . R i c e ’ s r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons , i nc l udi ng thos e c onc e rni ng di s c ove rya nd d e f e n d a n ts ’ la c ko f

s tan d in g to in itia te f

o r e c lo s u r e p r o c e e d in g s , ar e u n p e r s u a s iv e . W e do n otconsi der m att er s notspec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y r ai se d and ar gu ed i n the ope ni ng br i e f

, nora r gum e nt s a nd a l l e ga t i ons r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on ap p e a l. Se e P adge t t

v . W r i ght , 58 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 5 n . 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( per c uri am ). AF F I RME D.
#### John Cristobal DURAN, Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 4576.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

March 4, 1976.

*435King Tristani, Asst. Public Defender, Laramie County, Cheyenne, for appellant.

V. Frank Mendicino, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., and James L. Edwards, Legal Intern, Cheyenne, for ap-pellee.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and. Mc-CLINTOCK, RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of assault and battery while armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon, committed upon his ex-wife, Olivia Montoya, by shooting her with a pistol in violation of § 6-70B, W.S.1957.

Defendant raises two questions in his appeal, seeking reversal of a guilty verdict and sentence. He contends that the trial court should have given a “requested instruction advising the jury of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency.” Although he recognizes that this was decided adversely to his position in *Lonquest v. State,*Wyo., 495 P.2d 575, certiorari denied 409 U.S. 1006, 93 S.Ct. 432, 34 L.Ed.2d 299, he now asserts that because of procedural changes which affect the disposal of a defendant after such verdict (§ 7-242.-6(a), W.S.1957, 1975 Cum.Supp.), it is proper that such an instruction be given. The reasons given in the *Lonquest*case, at 584, are equally applicable to the changed statutory scheme, and such an instruction would be improper.

The second claim asserts that there was prejudicial error occurring in the remarks of an attorney for the State in his argument, and that this amounts to a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify. The portion of the argument upon which this claim was based is as follows :

> “There is [sic] many points of innuendo in cross examination by counsel relative to the conduct of Mrs’. Montoya. Some name like William Vigil kept creeping up. I don’t know why. Is there anything put on by the defendant, by William Vigil ?”

After objection, the court admonished the jury in these words:

> “ * * * You are so instructed, counsel, and the jury are reminded of the instruction of the court which provides that the defendant has no obligation to produce any evidence of any nature and may rely entirely upon cross examination of witnesses for the state, and any suggestion by counsel that the defendant had such an obligation to produce evidence you will disregard.”

And this was followed by the attorney representing the State explaining his comment in these words:

> “I don’t think I was trying to tell you that they have an obligation to put on anyone; I think I am commenting on *436the evidence, I have a right to do that. You cannot draw any inferences from that. All I am saying is that there has been nothing presented to the contrary. * * * »

The judge admonished the jury, apparently to the satisfaction of counsel, as he raised no further question; and we find that this argument was not error under the rule of *Oldham v. State,*Wyo., 534 P.2d 107, 111, 112.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2105

LAVERN R. CRUMP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; JERRY D. WEAST; CARMEN 

L. VAN ZUTPHEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:12-

cv-03378-PWG)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lavern R. Crump, Appellant Pro Se. Christine M. Collins, Edward 

Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lavern R. Crump seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing her employment discrimination action. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on October 25, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on October 

14, 2014. Because Crump failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NORMA FLORES,

Appellant,

v.

VANLEX CLOTHING CORP.,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 17, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Sylvia Medina-Shore, Judge.

Date of Accident: May 21, 2011.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale and Monica De Feria 

Cooper of Richard E. Zaldivar, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Based on Castellanos v. Next Door Co., 124 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), 

we AFFIRM. In so doing, we certify that our disposition of the instant case passes 
upon the same question we certified in Castellanos. Id. at 394. See Jollie v. State,

405 So. 2d 418, 421 n.* (Fla. 1981).

ROWE, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FINLAY ENTERPRISES, INC. FORM 10-Q 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>                              FEB-03-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 FEB-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                         1,652
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  26,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    249,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               290,773
<PP&E>                                         75,992
<DEPRECIATION>                                 27,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 445,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          231,416
<BONDS>                                        209,169
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       76
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   445,468
<SALES>                                        404,047
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               404,047
<CGS>                                          195,663
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  195,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               197,547
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             23,422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12,585)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,981)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,604)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,604)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.15)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016203EN.01001501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/15

---

Article 23

After the lapse of one year, the decisions of the Arbitration Committee or the appropriate national authorities may, if there are new facts to justify it, be revised with respect to the terms of the licence.

Such revision shall be a matter for the body which gave the decision.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60617

Summary Calendar

JOSEPH G. ALBE, 

 Petitioner

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; 

HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED, 

formerly known as Northrop Grumman 

Shipbuilding, Incorporated, 

 Respondents

________________________

Petition for Review of an Order 

of the Benefits Review Board

BRB No. 14-0015

________________________

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is an appeal from an adverse Benefits Review Board decision by a 

longshoreman’s attorney to recover fees owed by his client directly from the 

employer pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60617 Document: 00513009818 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2015
No. 14-60617

33 U.S.C. § 928(c). Previously, this court upheld the denial of employer-paid 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 928(a) or (b). See Simmons v. Dir.,

OWCP, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 509 F. App’x 337 (5th Cir. 2013).

Albe’s new claim stems from his contention that in addition to an 

approved fee contract with his client Simmons, he had a lien on the 

compensation benefits, and the employer became obliged to deduct fees from 

its payments to Simmons (who unfortunately died before Albe could pursue 

payment from him). The Benefits Review Board rejected Albe’s new claim in 

a succinct and clear opinion, which points out that Albe did not fulfill his duty 

to have the district director and administrative law judge “fix in the award 

approving the fee, such lien and manner of payment.” 33 U.S.C. § 928(c) 

(emphasis added).

This court reviews Benefits Review Board decisions for substantial 

evidence and errors of law. Conoco, Inc. v. Dir., OWCP, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 

194 F.3d 684, 687 (5th Cir. 1999). Albe does not challenge the Benefits Review 

Board’s recitation of the facts, and we find no error of law in its interpretation 

of Albe’s duty to perfect, or have “fixed” a lien against the employer’s payment 

of benefits.

The petition for review of the judgment of the Benefits Review Board is 

DENIED.

2

 Case: 14-60617 Document: 00513009818 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2015
Third Department,

June, 1991

(June 5, 1991)

#### In the Matter of Harvey L. Weiss, for Reinstatement as an Attorney, Petitioner.

—Application for reinstatement granted and petitioner, Harvey L. Weiss, reinstated as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York, effective immediately, Order filed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Sidney M.Bresler, certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bresler & Reiner, Inc.(“the Company”);

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 Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

4.                The Company’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theCompany and have:

a)                Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

b)               Evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c)                Disclosed in thisreport any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

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

a)                All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)               Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April2, 2007

|   | /s/ SIDNEY M. BRESLER                        |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Sidney M. Bresler                            |
|   | Chief Executive Officer,                     |
|   | Assistant Secretary of the Company |

 

----
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.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# TIME AND DATE:

 10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 10, 2013.

# PLACE:

 Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

# STATUS:

 Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

1. Board Briefing on the Interagency Final Rule, “Higher-Priced Mortgage” Loans.

2. NCUA Annual Performance Plan 2013.

3. Final Rule—Parts 702, 741 and 791 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations and Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 13-1, Regulatory Relief for Small Credit Unions.

4. Final Rule—Section 701.34 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Low-Income Designation, Acceptance Deadline.

5. Final Rule—Section 701.37 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Technical Amendments—Treasury Tax and Loan Depositaries; Depositaries and Financial Agents of the Government.

6. Final Rule—Section 701.14 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, “Troubled Condition” Definition.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304

Mary Rupp,

Board Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2013-00205 Filed 1-4-13; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
Exhibit 23(a)













Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers





The undersigned firm of Independent Petroleum Engineers, of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, knows that it is named as having prepared an evaluation of the interests of Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd., dated March 22, 2004, prepared for filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, and hereby gives its consent to the use of its name and to the use of the said estimates.











Calgary, Canada

/s/ Keith M. Braaten

March 24, 2004

Keith M. Braaten, P. Eng.

Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.

Vice-president
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 114TH DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 17th

day of December, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

LARRY JOE SMITH, Appellant

NO. 12-13-00033-CR; Trial Court No. 114-0770-12

Opinion by James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 13th day of April, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
##### 



EXHIBIT 21
  SUBSIDIARIES
    OF THE REGISTRANT
  State of

Name under which Subsidiary doesName of Subsidiary

Incorporation/Organization

BusinessCHW LLC

Delaware

CHW LLCProvidence Insurance Company,
    Limited

A Bermudian Company

Providence Insurance Company,
    LimitedCatoSouth LLC

North Carolina

CatoSouth LLCCato of Texas L.P.

Texas

Cato of Texas L.P.Cato Southwest, Inc.

Delaware

Cato Southwest, Inc.CaDel LLC

Delaware

CaDel LLCCatoWest LLC

Nevada

CatoWest LLCCedar Hill National Bank

A Nationally Chartered Bank

Cedar Hill National Bankcatocorp.com, LLC

Delaware

catocorp.com, LLC  50