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

# Chemical Corporation A 6u6sMryof ICE kndustrlss Ms. 

# 01?07- 2oo7-05-,31

M R.#3337/6 3676 Davis Road N

.W . " Dover, Ohio 44622 " (330) 343-7711 - 1-800-321-8805 " Fax: (330) 364-9626 

### March 8, 2011 Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) -"- Office of Pollution Control and Toxics (OPPT) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , EPA East Building, RoomE6428 (202-564-8930) 1201 Constitution Ave., NW 

### Washington, D

.C . 20460 F3 F;, Attn: TSCA Section 4

_ . 40 CFR 790 (Docket # EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531) Re: Notice of Intent to Test Dear Sir or Madam

: This letter serves as Dover Chemical Corporation's notice of intention to test under the above TSCA Section 4 Test Rule covering Alkenes C12-C24, chloro (CAS # 68527-02-6) . Under this rule we are providing the following required information: 

### 1 . Identification of Test Rule - 76 Fed. Reg. 1067 (Jan 7, 2011) 2 . Name, Address, Telephone of Sponsoring Firm- Dover Chemical Corporation 3676 Davis Road N

.W . Dover, Ohio 44622 3. Name, Address, Telephone of Individual Contact - Melissa Clark-Dross 3676 Davis Road N

.W . Dover, Ohio 44622 (330)-365-3628 4. Signatory Authority for Testing ConsortiumMembers - N/A 5. List of Intended Testing Requirements -Al-A5, B, C1, E2, F2 6 . Testing of Representative Substances - N/A Although Dover Chemical Corporation commits to testing we believe that these testing requirements have been fulfilled through data previously submitted to the Agency. We will followup with additional information regarding this data and the reason it fulfills the Agency's data requirements . a 

### 7C'J

ca 

# CONTAINS hucei YIIVI,IMYVIW~IMNBIIIIIIN0 I0I~,IroJNlll

# .3 tlv C emical

AA ; ;4 Ll !1

Uri!Ej! :iIn 3676 Davis Road N

.W . " Dover, Ohio 44622 " (330) 343-7711 " 1-800-321-8805 " Fax : (330) 364-9626

In addition, we would like to take this opportunity to reiterate a chemical nomenclature issue that relates to alkenes . This is an issue that has been previously communicated to the Agency. Specifically, alkenes when chlorinated become alkanes. Thus, for the substance at issue for this rule, a more technically accurate nomenclature would be to refer to these substances as alkanes C12-C24, chloro. Atechnically clear and consistent nomenclature would ensure the Agency and the regulated community avoid confusion in the future about the regulatory status of these chemicals . Regards,

Melissa Clark-Dross Corporate EHS &Regulatory Manager
|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                               
|View History:                                                
|                                                             
|Idaho Marketed Production of Natural Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                             
|                                                             
|Idaho Marketed Production of Natural Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | 1,078  | 4,637  | 3,791  | 1,860  | 1,033 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 108    | 1,374  | 2,580  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 20, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00194-CV 

HME EXECUTIVE COACH, INC. AND SHAHZAD AZIZ CHAUDHRY, Appellants 

V. 

SAMROD CORPORATION D/B/A BIG D TRAVEL CENTER, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-12150 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Brown 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Before the Court is appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellants 

request the appeal be dismissed because the “parties desire to complete the terms of a mediated 

settlement agreement.” Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

150194F.P05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

HME EXECUTIVE COACH, INC. AND 

SHAHZAD AZIZ CHAUDHRY, Appellants

No. 05-15-00194-CV V. 

SAMROD CORPORATION D/B/A BIG D 

TRAVEL CENTER, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas. 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-12150. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Fillmore and Brown, participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee SAMROD 

CORPORATION D/B/A BIG D TRAVEL CENTER recover its costs of this appeal from 

appellants HME EXECUTIVE COACH, INC. and SHAHZAD AZIZ CHAUDHRY. 

Judgment entered February 20, 2015.
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | -6     | -1     | -153   | -246   | 147    | -20    | -22    | 190    | 56     | 23    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | -17    | -20    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
### 3 Attachments

Dear Dr. Edelstein,

Your understanding is correct. 3M intends to import te trabromobisphenol A only for research and development purposes at this time, and we do not consider this information to be CBI.

Best Regards,

Jon M. Gerber | Senior Regulatory Analyst
3M Medical Department - Material EHS 3M Center, 220-6E-03 | St. Paul, MN 55144 Office: 651 733 0226 | Fax: 651 733 1773
j m g erber1@mmm.com | www.3M.com

Edelstein.Rebecca---09/27/20 11 08:03:42 AM---Dear Mr. Gerber: As we discussed yesterday by phone, your letter dated September 14, 2011 

### Re: waiver request under 40 CFR 766 j mgerber1

to:

Rebecca Edelstein

09/27/2011 03:27 PM

Cc: Lynn Vendinello

Hide Details From: jmgerber1@mmm.com

To: Rebecca Edelstei n/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Lynn Vendinello/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

8C469176.gi f graycol.gi f ecblank.gi f 

### Page 1 of 2

9/27/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\redelste\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notes87944B\~web6358.htmDear Mr. Gerber:

A s we discussed yesterday by phone, your letter dated September 14, 2011 requesting a waiver from testing under 40 CFR 766.32(a)(2)(i) states that 3M intends to import less than 100 kilograms of tetrabromobisphenol A as part of an experimental product fo rmulation for R&D purposes. However, th e letter doesn't specify that 3M will exclusively use tetrabromobisphenol A for R&D purposes. I asked whether you could cl arify whether the imported chemical will only be used for research and development purposes. You responded that ye s, 3M intends to import
tetrabromobisphenol A only for research and development purposes at this time.

We also discussed whether 3M is making any CBI claims to this additional information, and you responded that
3M is not making any CBI claims.

Please confirm my understanding by respo nding to this email message. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Edelstein, Ph.D., Chemist Fibers and Organics Branch National Program Chemicals Division

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics US Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (7404T) Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-8566

Fax: 202-566-0473 From: Edelstein.Rebecca@epamail.epa.gov

To: j mgerber1@mmm.com

Cc: Vendinello.Lynn@epamail.epa.gov

Date: 09/27/2011 08:03 AM

Subject: waiver request under 40 CFR 766 

### Page 2 of 2

9/27/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\redelste\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notes87944B\~web6358.htm
Long. Sharon (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

To: David Mackey 

Mitchell, Scott E (FAA) 

Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:07 AM 

Richard Simon; Marsha Moutrie; slewis@andersonkreiger.com; 

dmackey@andersonkre·lger.com 

9-AWA-AGC-Part-16 (FAA); Cason, Cathryn G (FAA); Brockman, Kathy (FAA) 

ORDER: Smith et al. v. City of Santa Monica (FAA Docket No. 16-16-02) 

Your assented to motion to extend the time to file a rebuttal to complainants' reply in the above-captioned matter is 

GRANTED. The rebuttal is due on or before September 13, 2016. 

Scott E. Mitchell 

Senior Attorney, Airport Law (AGC-610) 

202 267 9676 

Please note my new cell phone number: 202 251 7974 

1
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      | 1      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### BATES v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 6, 1953.

*185Francis M. Burke, Pikeville, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Atty. Gen., W. Owen Keller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

Lula Bates, of bad reputation, operated a soft drink place and restaurant on Indian Creek in Pike County know as the “Mickey Mouse.” She lived in the rear of the building with three of her five children. In a connecting three-room house lived Vida Maynard with her three children and an occasional gentleman friend, and Ruby Mullins and two of Mrs. Bates’ children. The sheriff and his deputies searched these premises under a warrant on a Saturday night in February, 1951, and found 61 cans of beer, 5 of which were in Lula’s personal refrigerator, and the remainder in the rooms occupied by Vida and Ruby. An unopened bottle of whiskey was on the floor of the restaurant where 12 or 15 people had assembled. Mrs. Bates was not at home at the time.

On her trial under an indictment for possessing intoxicating liquor for sale in local option territory, Mrs. Bates testified she did not own any of the liquor and did not know that there was any on the place. Ruby Mullins testified that “just at the edge of dark” that afternoon she had bought two and a half cases of beer, part of which was found in her room, from a woman who had stopped in front of the place. She did not know her, had never seen her before or since the transaction. Vida Maynard’s sister and husband from Detroit had bought a case of beer and the three of them had drunk about half of it, leaving the remainder in her room. Dan Damron, who was removed from the place drunk, testified that he, Bobby Bates, a son of the defendant, and a stranger had brought some beer and whiskey to the place, which they had obtained in West Virginia, and had been drinking when the officers came in. He got scared and put the bottle on the floor. They had put the beer in Mrs. Bates’ refrigerator in her absence. The three witnesses told the jury that the defendant, Lula Bates, knew nothing about the several stocks of beer they had brought there. It is manifest the jury did not believe any of this testimony for they found the defendant guilty of the charge, placing her penalty at 30 days in jail and a $50 fine.

Unfortunately, the court did not give an affirmative instruction covering the defense, namely, that the defendant did not possess any of this plentiful supply of liquor and that it belonged to and was in the possession of the other persons. The case cannot be distinguished from Blevins v. Commonwealth, Ky., 258 S.W.2d 501, and the cases cited therein, which hold the omission of an affirmative instruction under such circumstances to be prejudicial error We are constrained, therefore, to sustain, the motion for an appeal and reverse the judgment.

Judgment reversed.

CAMMACK and COMBS, JJ., dissenting.
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 Kandi Technologies, Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) on the date hereof, we, Hu Xiaoming, President and Chief Executive Officer and Zhu Xiaoying, Chief Financial Officer, certify, 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) 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/ Hu XiaomingHu XiaomingPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Zhu XiaoyingZhu XiaoyingChief Financial Officer





July 29, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8142

TROY EUGENE MOBLEY, JR., Petitioner - Appellant,

v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cv-01593-GRA)

Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 20, 2009

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Eugene Mobley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Troy Eugene Mobley, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Mobley that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Mobley failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Mobley has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2149 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2149

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
            the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  4354 Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu, Hawaii, as the ``Cecil L. Heftel Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CECIL L. HEFTEL POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4354 Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu, Hawaii, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cecil L. 
Heftel Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 6/28/2015 3:05:00 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk