alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20985

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRES GARCIA, also known as 

Adres Gamaz, also known as

Nestor Hugo Arbalaez,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-94-101-10

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Garcia appeals his sentence following conviction for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He argues that the district court

erred in refusing to grant him a downward departure based on his

family’s financial circumstances and in refusing to grant him a

four-level Sentencing Guidelines reduction for his role as

“minimal” participant in the offense. This court lacks
No. 95-20985

-2-

jurisdiction to address Garcia’s challenge to the district

court’s refusal to enter a downward departure. United States v.

DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v.

Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 283

(1994). The district court’s finding that Garcia was not a

“minimal” participant was not clearly erroneous. See United

States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

115 S. Ct. 214 (1994); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) & comment, (n.2). 

AFFIRMED.
* ASTERISK COMMUNICATIONS, INC, 

i'.ii:riTOF 

August 25.2010 

Aloha Ley 

Associate Director 

Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) 

aloha.lcv@dotgov 

Re: Small CommunUy Air Service Development Grant 

Dear Ms. Aloha, 

Asterisk Conununications fiilly supports the GainesvlUe-Alachua County Regional Aiiporl Authorify*s 

request for a Small Community Air Service Development grant to help support the new American Eagle 

Airlines service between Gainesville and Miami and the existing local air carriers, Delta Air Lines and 

US Airways. We recognize the importance of air service to economic development and tiie quality of life 

for residents and visitors in our region. 

We want to help ensure the success of the new American Airlines service between Gainesville end the 

Miami hub. We are already working closely with the Airport Authority and matching fimds spent. The 

lack of air service to South Florida and adequate connecting service to interaationat destinations has 

forced many to commute to and irom other airports or make the exhausting 5+ hour trip to Miami by 

automobile, AdditionaUy> American's extensive domestic and international route structure trom Miami 

will provide new travel options and a greater level of frequency. 

Due to the critical importance of quality air service for our region> vte are committed to supporting 

American's new service and continued improvement in air service. Therefore, we will match liinds q>eflt 

with 52,500 to help American Airlmes establish Its new route between GNV and NOA. With )00,000 of 

daily listeners, we believe our donation for advertising will help make the new service successful. 

I urge you to proceed with approving the Airport Authority's request for a grant to assist with marketing 

efforts for the next two years, tf you have any questions about our ofifer^ please feet in t to contact me 

Sincerely, 

>hn StanGeneral Manager 

352-339-3276 (Cell) 

"^99. 5 

r M m TAtn. iMttt KtvL 

"52 

4424 NW 13th St. Suite C-S • GAINESVILLE, FL • 32609 PH: 352-375-1317 • FAX: 352-375-6961 

MttiTAm.L*iMKrM. 

Page 66
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed February 23, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 1 4
- 00 358
- CR
BRIAN GLENN JORDAN , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Crimin al Distri ct Court No. 2 Dallas County, T exas Trial Court Cause No. F 0 9
- 33222
- I 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans Opinion b y Justice Evans Brian Glenn Jordan appeals his conviction, following the adjudication of his guilt , for possession of methampheta mine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. See
T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.115 (a), (c) (West 2010). The trial court assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment

. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief- 2

- to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro
se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining a ppellate court’s duty in Anders cases)

. We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/ David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE Do Not Publish T E X
. R. A PP
. P. 47 140358F.U05- 3

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

BRIAN GLENN JORDAN , Appellant No. 05

- 1 4

- 00358

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F09

- 33222

- I ). Opinion delivered by Justice Evans , Chief Justice Wright and Justice Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered February 23 , 2015.
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906


of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results of operations as of and for the periods covered therein.











/s/ J. Kimbrough Davis


J. Kimbrough Davis


Executive Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer







Date: March 7, 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRIAN TOOTLE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 520 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of June, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DAVID PEREZ-LEMOS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-50545

D.C. No. 3:08-cr-01191-DMS-2

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 4, 2009 

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Border Patrol agents received an anonymous tip stating that an SUV and a

white sedan were stopped together on Highway 94, and that the SUV was being

loaded with bodies. The agents could have reasonably concluded that this tip was

FILED

NOV 17 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

corroborated by their observation of two cars matching that description which were

traveling together north (away from the border) on Buckman Springs Road, a street

that connects with Highway 94 near where the SUV and white sedan reportedly

stopped. The agents observed silhouettes of people crouching behind the SUV’s

driver, and noted that the SUV appeared heavily laden, which provided further

corroboration for the tip. Moreover, the agents testified that, in their experience,

individuals involved in alien smuggling regularly make use of a load vehicle and

scout car to avoid detection. We must give due weight to the opinions of officers

who “draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences

from and deductions about the cumulative information available.” United States v. 

Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). Based on the tip and their own observations,

interpreted in light of their experience, the officers could reasonably infer that the

two vehicles were working together in an illegal alien smuggling operation. See

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884–85 (1975). Further supporting

this reasonable factual inference was the notoriety of the area for alien smuggling,

see United States v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2007), the fact

that the suspicious activities occurred at the time of day when smuggling most

frequently occurs, see Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 277, and the white sedan’s evasive

driving maneuvers, see Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 885. Therefore, in light of the
-3-

totality of the circumstances, and giving due weight to the expertise of the officers

involved, we conclude that the circumstances were sufficient to “paint a picture

that would create in the mind of a trained border patrol agent a reasonable

suspicion” that the white sedan was engaged in illegal activity. United States v.

Guzman-Padilla, 573 F.3d 865, 882 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v.

Franco-Munoz, 952 F.2d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

AFFIRMED.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-31034 

USDC No. CA-94-2556 

__________________

ROBERT E. LOVE,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD L. STALDER ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

- - - - - - - - - - -

December 19, 1995

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert E. Love moves this Court for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He has failed to present a

nonfrivolous appellate issue regarding why he failed to make a

good-faith effort to exhaust prison administrative remedies. 

Because Love's motion for IFP presents no issue of arguable

merit and is thus frivolous, IFP is DENIED. Because the appeal

is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
### Regulatory Evaluation Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 20 15 -CE-0 1 0-AD Add the work hours, parts cost , and number of

### U. S. registered products to the table below. When you are finished , click on the " Updat e Fie lds " button to automatically fill in the totals. 

### Update Fields 

# I Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing , (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products Aircraft Flight Manual . 5 0 360 Revision



# ., r

The known number ofproducts in compliance: Number Total Costs ofcompliance for 

### U.S. fleet: $15,300 Costs covered under warranty (if known) $War ranty On-Condition Costs: 

## @ Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour)

replacement) testing, and closeup) Inspection \ 

### 8

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regula tory action"? 

# G *Explanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: ls the AD 

### significant? 

# G *Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: YES* 

### 0
**NO~**


### YES* 

### 0 NO 

### 181 Will 

### the AD 

### have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. 

# G YES 

### 0
**NO~** 

### Explanat ion: Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affe. ct intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransportation? 

# G YES* 0 NO 

### 181 *Explanation:



### 9
AMENDMENT NO 7 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED 1996 DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN



 Exhibit 4(f) 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 7 
 TO 
 AMERICAN DENTAL PARTNERS, INC. 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 1996 DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN 
  
 The American Dental Partners, Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Directors Stock Option Plan, as previously amended (the “Plan”), is hereby amended pursuant to the following provisions: 
  

	 	1.	Definitions 

  
 All capitalized terms used in this amendment which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings given such terms in the Plan.

  

	 	2.	Shares Subject To Plan 

  
 The total number of Shares for which Options may be granted under the Plan, as provided under §4 of the Plan, as previously adjusted and increased,
is increased by 125,000 Shares to a total of 385,000 Shares. 
  

	 	3.	Effective Date; Construction 

  
 The effective date of this amendment is April 30, 2004, and this amendment shall be deemed to be a part of the Plan as of such date. In the event of any
inconsistencies between the provisions of the Plan and this amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall control. Except as modified by this amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect without change.
# -^^T M

. J^£^dfii^ei» 7 iS j TparffffS ^f^^^fi^ i O'PC^e.' ^ 

## .JiJjffJ/^^f^r>OCL^<^ir? ^ ^ S 3^4/ ^ 0 C D %!0i ; „i^2g*e ^ Jd^f ^ „ - .



# - ^ -^-^f d^,e.^ c CQj^-iL^ ^ <>^ . ^g^^^^^t.**^ ^ <5t<^^<^i ^ .-t::<J > i ^..d^a^/ l..^^g^*g^jgg;^:j^_^/g<^<j ^ e^ - / - fg^f c g— ^ '>-*^ ^ 

## ^^i^M--^^ ^ \,^J^tJ.^£uJK ^ ^.d^Af^^-i^u ^^<^;«^*<^^'^iir^.:^ ^d.ig ^^-i^^^ ^ \j.Jp ^ OL^ ^ 4^ ^ ^2^^i ? j^^<^af^a>^<^ci ^ .^4S^:/,,^tii£:^ „ «4?^;.^„ ^ „ (5%.x: .^^J2^.JA4<^~S^ ^d^ ^^^dMM ,

^ ^ ^ •/ •V'r- ^ ^ __j
_J ' ' ^ y -H**^— j ^<U^/Z ^ ^at^:^!^f.^j^4 ^^.4 ^^^J^Cjjt^^^ / ^*'*!^' ^ 

### ^j'iU^^Cicih^CUur ^ <^> ^
#### GULF OIL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Bob ALEXANDER, Respondent.

No. A-5986.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 24, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1956.

Kiser & Tabor, Levelland, David W. Stephens, Jesse P. Luton, Jr., John E. Thomason, Ft. Worth, Archie D. Gray, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.

Allison, Steele & Allison, Levelland, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

 Although both parties have filed applications for writs of error, it is evident that Bob Alexander, who was successful in both of the courts below, only seeks to preserve the judgment in his favor. We have concluded that there is evidence to support the jury findings of common law negligence and proximate cause, and both applications are denied with the notation “Refused. No reversible error.” This order must not be taken as indicating either approval or disapproval of the views expressed by the Court of Civil Appeals as to the legal effect of Rule 20 promulgated by the Railroad Commission of Texas. 291 S.W.2d 792.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

253) ll-K- (I) -66 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:57AM Sheet 253 of 325 
P.2 

P. i Pl 

n-K-CI)-66 

1985 BASE CASE RESULTS - SIXTH ROUND OF IFCAM RUNS. 

EEA, Inc. 

September 4, 1980. 

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

II-K-(I)-66
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**LEV
      PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**


**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 Lev Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas
      Beck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
      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 result of operations of
      the
      Company.




Date:August
                8,
                2008
            By:
            /s/
                Douglas BeckDouglas
                BeckChief
                Financial Officer




*This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the
      date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language
      contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required
      by Section 906 has been provided to Lev Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be
      retained by Lev Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Andrew Rackear, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|April 28, 2017 | /s/ Andrew Rackear                   
|-------------- | -------------------------------------
|               | Andrew Rackear                       
|               | Chief Executive Officer and Secretary
|               | (Principal Executive Officer)
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

# **Co-Registrant(Commission File Number 000-30761):**

# ** **

**UbiquiTelInc.**

**OneWest Elm Street**

**Suite400**

**Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428**

 

**Co-Registrant (Commission File Number333-39950):**

 

**UbiquiTel Operating Company**

**One West Elm Street**

**Suite 400**

**Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428**

 

 

# **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED**

## **PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTelOperating Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Donald A. Harris, Chief Executive Officer of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTelOperating Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company.

 
|   | UBIQUITEL INC.                        |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | */s/ Donald A. Harris*                |   |
|   | Donald A. Harris                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | UBIQUITEL OPERATING COMPANY           |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | */s/ Donald A. Harris*                |   |
|   | Donald A. Harris                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | May 10, 2006                          |

 

----
Facility 

Designation

Cancer 

MIR

Cancer

 Incidence

Noncancer 

Max HI

Target 

Organ

54003NEIWV0012 Major 3.84E-07 3.67E-05 2.94E-03 respiratory

NEI11202 Major 6.09E-06 1.26E-03 3.84E-02 respiratory

NEI11393 Major 9.01E-06 1.30E-03 6.68E-02 respiratory

NEI11431 Major 3.44E-06 2.99E-04 1.84E-02 respiratory

NEI12037 Major 3.06E-06 3.80E-03 2.42E-02 respiratory

NEI12758 Area 1.58E-06 4.09E-05 1.08E-02 respiratory

NEI19980 Area 3.25E-07 1.39E-05 1.73E-03 respiratory

NEI21588 Area 2.22E-06 1.78E-04 1.70E-02 respiratory

NEI25015 Area 2.10E-05 1.02E-02 1.66E-01 respiratory

NEI2AZT18199 Major 4.10E-08 1.79E-06 3.18E-04 respiratory

NEI2CAT18625 Area 3.17E-08 7.98E-06 2.34E-04 respiratory

NEI32453 Area 3.73E-07 7.44E-05 2.85E-03 respiratory

NEI32853 Major 1.16E-05 1.27E-02 1.27E-02 incidence

NEI32855 Area 8.99E-06 7.36E-03 7.08E-02 respiratory

NEI34985 Area 2.26E-06 5.28E-04 1.10E-02 respiratory

NEI42077 Major 7.56E-07 1.24E-04 5.88E-03 respiratory

NEI6410 Area 7.22E-07 8.67E-05 4.80E-03 respiratory

NEI8091 Area 1.81E-06 1.21E-04 1.28E-02 respiratory

NEI8099 Area 1.25E-06 1.75E-04 8.11E-03 respiratory

NEI8623 Area 5.05E-07 3.13E-05 2.48E-03 respiratory

NEIAZT$12365 Area 6.08E-07 1.54E-05 4.67E-03 respiratory

NEIFL1051050375 Area 6.09E-07 2.05E-04 4.49E-03 neurological

NEIGA1210021 Area 7.18E-06 7.07E-04 6.25E-02 respiratory

NEIIN641 Area 1.03E-08 3.96E-07 1.90E-04 neurological

NEIMIB7205 Area 2.36E-07 3.60E-05 1.82E-03 respiratory

NEIMS2803300 Area 1.43E-06 4.23E-04 1.12E-02 respiratory

NEIOH0950013 Major 2.75E-06 4.95E-04 5.72E-03 developmental

NEIOHWF025 Area 5.75E-08 3.11E-06 5.63E-04 developmental

NEISCGFG001 Major 2.98E-08 6.91E-06 2.28E-04 respiratory

1 BOLD indicates a cancer risk great than 1 in a million or a noncancer HI greater than 1

Table 2b – Maximum Predicted HEM-3 Chronic Risks (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing)

Facility NEI ID

Source Category Chronic Risk 1

1 of 1