alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0143 0144 

Standard Review Report 2/19/2009 

ENGINEER: Arnold \ AG 

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 

O

MSDS: Yes Label: No 

Gen Eqpt: approved safety glasses or goggles / compatible 

chemical-resistant gloves and protective clothing / adequate 

ventilation to keep airborne concentrations low 

Respirator: Follow OSHA respirator regulations found in 29 CFR 

1910.134 or related country specific or EU standards 

Health Effects: irritating to eyes and respiratory system / 

slight skin irritation may occur / may irritate gastrointestinal 

tract / high concentrations of dusts may be irritating to eyes, 

skin, mucous membranes, and respiratory tract. toxicological 

properties have not been fully investigated 

TLV/PEL: 

None Established 

CRSS : 

Chemical Name: 3'H-Cyclopropa[8,25][5, 

6]fullerene-C70-D5h(6)-3'-butanoic acid, 3'-phenyl-, methyl ester 

S-H20: 0.000001 g/L @ 

VP: 1.0E-6 torr @ 

MW: 1031.00 %<500 %<1000 

Physical State and Misc CRSS Info: 

Neat: Mfg: 

Proc/Form: End Use: 

Consumer Use:

SAT (concerns) (01/13/2009): 

 

 

 

Migration to groundwater: Unknown 

PBT rating: PBT1 PBT rating: P Unknown; B Unknown; T1 

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation 
Eco: 1 No releases to Water 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2B 

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: 

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: 

P2 Claim:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No 
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0143 0144 

Number of Sites/ Location:

Days/yr: 

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may 

coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same 

medium.
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:

Basis: 

Inhalation: 

Dermal: 
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0143 0144 

Number of Sites/ Location:

Unknown Customer Sites 

Days/yr:

Basis: 

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may 

coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same 

medium. 
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:

Basis: 

Inhalation: 

Dermal:
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0143 0144 

Number of Sites/ Location:

Unknown Sites 

Days/yr:

Basis: 

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may 

coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same 

medium. 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:
Basis: 

Inhalation: 

Dermal:
#### Fred M. WARREN et al., Appellants, v. Donald E. TAYLOR et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 1, 1957.

*625Fred M. Warren, James B. Meadows, Newport, for appellant.

Morrison A. Fordyce, Newport, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This controversy concerns a claim for an attorneys’ fee against appellee Taylor. It is unnecessary to discuss the rather unusual manner in which this claim was presented. The trial court dismissed the claim and ordered stricken a lis pendens notice affecting Taylor’s real estate which had been filed by appellants.

In May, 1951, appellee Taylor executed a written contract under the terms of which he agreed to pay appellant attorneys for their legal services a sum equal to one-half of any sum or sums recovered by them from the estate of Taylor’s deceased mother. Pursuant to this contract of employment, appellants filed a suit against his great aunt, Margaret M. Yeager, who was then in possession of a house and lot devised by his mother’s will. The claim of Taylor, as presented by his attorneys, was that the great aunt held the property as trustee for Taylor, and recovery of possession and damages were sought on that basis.

In that suit it was adjudged that the great aunt had a life estate in the property, and Taylor’s claim was thereupon denied. Appellants appealed that case to this Court, and in Taylor v. Yeager, Ky., 261 S.W.2d 638, we affirmed the lower court judgment. As noted in that opinion, the question presented was whether or not Taylor’s great aunt had any beneficial interest in the property. It being adjudicated that she did, obviously Taylor was unsuccessful in asserting his claim.

Not long after the foregoing decision, the great aunt died, and under the terms of the will Taylor, as the remainderman, became vested with the fee in the real estate. It is now the contention of appellants that they recovered this property for Taylor and under the contract of employment are entitled to one-half of its value (approximately $6,000).

As did the trial court, we find no merit in appellants’ claim. The remainder interest of Taylor was not in dispute in the former litigation. What appellants had sought to recover was the claimed life interest of Taylor’s great aunt in the property. Appellants did not win this suit, but lost it. At no time have they recovered anything for Taylor.

It is true that by virtue of the terms of the will, and the subsequent death of the life tenant, Taylor was vested with the fee. However, the services of appellants neither accomplished this result nor accelerated it. Taylor received no benefits contemplated by the contract, and consequently appellants have no rightful claim to compensation.

The judgment is affirmed.
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 Amendment No.1 to the Annual Report of Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his or her 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 Company.







/s/ Renyi Hou


Renyi Hou


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


March 30, 2010








/s/ Xuefeng Li


Xuefeng Li


Interim Chief Financial Officer


March 30, 2010










A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Apollo Solar Energy Inc. and will be retained by Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Cite as 2023 Ark. 9 2



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Opinion Delivered May 25 , 2023 IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS FOR CIRCUIT COURTS AND DISTRICT COURTS

PER CURIAM
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 14
, amend ments to currently approved

a dministrative plans have been submitted by the Second Circuit, the Third Circuit, the

Twelfth Circuit
, and the Twenty

- Third Circuit. These amendments are approved and shall

be effective immediately.

Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1 8, an amendment to the currently approved

administrative plan h as been submitted by the Sixth District. The amendment is approved

and shall be effective immediately.

The a dministrative p lans currently in effect for all other circuit courts and district

courts remain in full force and effect until subsequent plan s are approved.
EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated January 17, 2001 included in Merchants Bancshares,
Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000 into
Merchants Bancshares, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statement No.
333-41051 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-34869 on Form S-8,
Registration Statement No. 333-34871 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement
No. 333-18845 on Form S-8, as amended by Post Effective Amendment No. 1 on
Form S-8/A.




/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 26, 2001
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




In connection with the Annual Report of Gateway Industries, Inc. (now known as Function (X) Inc.) (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Janet Scardino, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.




Dated:  April 8, 2011
By:
/s/ Janet ScardinoName:
Janet ScardinoTitle:
Chief Executive Officer and Director
#### In re: Randy Lowell DALE and Susan Page Dale, Debtors Randy Lowell Dale; Susan Page Dale, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Michael W. Puerner, Trustee, Defendant-Appellee

No. 01-1429.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 13, 2002.

Before MERRITT and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; and WEBER,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Herman J. Weber, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

In an opinion dated February 12, 2001, the District Court held in this bankruptcy case that the five individual retirement accounts (IRAs) of the debtors-appellant, are not exempt under § 552(d)(10)(E) of the Bankruptcy Code, codified in Title 11, U.S.C. The appellees now concede that a subsequent opinion by this Court in *In re Brucher,*243 F.3d 242 (6th Cir.2001), reversed the position taken by the District Court and requires us to reverse the District Court unless we overrule *Brucher.*Appellee now asks that this court reverse the holding in *In re Brucher*and affirm the bankruptcy court’s and the district court’s decision denying debtors’ exemption [of] the IRAs under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E). (Opin. p. 14.)

Under the rules and precedents of the Sixth Circuit, one panel of our Court may not in a subsequent case overrule the holding of a previous panel. Only the court *en banc*may do so. Hence this panel has no alternative but to follow *Brucher*and reverse the decision of the District Court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case remanded for further consideration in light *912of our decision here and our previous decision in *Brucher. Id.*
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 596

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow deductions for

advertising and promotional expenses for tobacco products.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 22 (legislative day, MARCH 16), 1995

Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. BRADLEY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow

deductions for advertising and promotional expenses for

tobacco products.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS FOR ADVER4 TISING AND PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES RE5 LATING TO TOBACCO PRODUCT USE.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part IX of subchapter B of chap7 ter 1 of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

8 (relating to items not deductible) is amended by adding

9 at the end the following new section:
2

•S 596 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 280I. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR TOBACCO

2 ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONAL EX3 PENSES.

4 No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for

5 expenses relating to advertising or promoting cigars, ciga6 rettes, smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco, or any similar to7 bacco product. For purposes of this section, any term used

8 in this section which is also used in section 5702 shall

9 have the same meaning given such term by section 5702.’’

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec11 tions for such part IX is amended by adding after the

12 item relating to section 280H the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 280I. Disallowance of deduction for tobacco advertising

and promotion expenses.’’

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

14 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after De15 cember 31, 1995.

Æ
April 1st , 2013

Sirs

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

REF. Comments in Support of Resolution 787

To Whom It May Concern,

By means of the following communication, we want to confirm th at Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A. and

Avianca and TACA Airlines, support IATA  ́s Resolution 787

– termed as New Distribution Capability

– NDC

taking into account that it constitutes an updated data transmission standard based on XML, and thus it will

m ake it easier, faster and more economic to provide the customer with more information about fare

alternatives, ancillary services, on board amenities and graphics such as pictures and seat maps

.

Given the fact that NDC will further include new technology using messaging through XML based protocols and

web services that will enable transparency and consistency in airline pricing, products and services across all

channels and greater customer personalization and o ffering in the shopping process, we consider that we

should support the initiative.

In addition to the above

, it is important to bear in mind that carriers and travel agents need real time dynamics

that allow interactive contact with their customers; and through the use of NDC, it seems that we wi ll be able

to avoid current constraints with existing EDIFACT messages.

NDC will also enable a dynamic distribution model that will provide a better access to distribution channels for

providers and customers that is currently possible only through the ai rlines’ own websites.

Yours sincerely,

Mario Zamora

President and General Manager

Mario.zamora @aviancataca.com

Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

DocumentJVumber: 

) ll-K- 0) 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:58 AM Sheet 272 of 325 
P.2 

'fa Pl 

M =, 0 

II-K-(A)-4 

OVERVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL BOILER CASE FOSSIL FUEL 

USE AND AIR EMISSION PROJECTIONS FOR 1990 and 1995 

EEA, Inc. 

January 28, 1983 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-MAM 

J
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6800** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. GEORGE MCLEOD, III, a/k/a Pimp Stick Quezzy , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 3:12

- cr - 00329

- CMC

- 1; 3:14

- cv - 00365

- CMC )

Submitted : September 29, 2015 Decided: October 16, 2015

Before NIEMEYER , MOTZ, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. George McLeod, III, Appellant Pro Se. Tommie DeWayne Pearson, Jamie L. Schoen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: George McLeod, III, seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) motion s following the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wr ong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McLeod has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending May 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Garrett Cecchini certify in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed as of July 20, 2010.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Garrett Cecchini   
|Garrett Cecchini       
|Chief Executive Officer

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by

the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of Syms Corp (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 1, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Philip A. Piscopo,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Philip A. PiscopoPhilip A. PiscopoChief Financial OfficerSyms CorpApril 25, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
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  In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merchants Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael R. Tuttle, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 the results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  Merchants Bancshares, Inc.By:/s/  Michael R. TuttleMichael R. TuttlePresident & Chief Executive OfficerMarch 16, 2010Date
August 11, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOHN EDWARD WALLAC E , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00533

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on May 13, 2015. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be p aid by appellant, John Edward Wallace. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130906 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130906 

 COA: 268128 

Mason CC: 04-191401-FC 

DONALD GENE CASE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 8, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk