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

PMN Number: P-12-0241

SAT Date: 3/30/2012

Print Date: 8/2/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 1 Health: PMN ; Eco: intact material

2 3 Health: Eco: high concern for toxicity of incomplete incinerat

products to terrestrial organisms

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 1 1 PMN

3 2 2 Incin Pdt

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Inhalation Drinking water and inhalaiton for 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ; PMN negl; Incin Pdt rapid

Keywords:

 Keywords: PMN: LUNG OVERLOAD

 LIVER; BLOOD; MALE REPRO; IMMUNOTOX; ONCO; AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-12-0241-42

FATE: 

S = Negl.

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)
POTW removal (%) = PMN 90 via sorption; Incin Pdt 0

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = PMN >mo; Incin Pdt >mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = PMN v.strong; Incin Pdt low

PBT Potential: PMN P3B1; Incin Pdt P3B2

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = PMN negl; Incin Pdt rapid

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes (pchem). Concern for lung 

toxicity if inhaled based on lung overload for high molecular weight polymers. For the potential 

incomplete incineration product, based on test data for the analogue 

concerns are liver toxicity, blood toxicity, and male reproductive toxicity [rat 28-day oral 

NOAEL = 50 mg/kg, LOAEL = 150 mg/kg with liver toxicity; rat 90-day oral LOAEL = 10 

mg/kg based on decreased body weight in males at all doses and liver toxicity and anemia at 200 

mg/kg; there were toxic effects on the testes in 2 males in the 90-day oral study that were judged 

by the reviewer to be indicative of the potential for male reproductive toxicity. There is also 

concern for immunosuppression and oncogenicity based on data for .

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic 

value

*

algal _ chronic 

value

*

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR 

chemical class = polymer-

 S < 0.001 mg/L at 20 C(P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 

100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; 

and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

*

SARs nonionic polymers

SAR Class polymer-nonionic
Ecotox Category Nonionic Polymers

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
TINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 5:22-CR-034-13-H

ROSA MAYELA BELTRAN-NUNEZ,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE I,INITED STATES MAGTSTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all lelevant mattels of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magisuate Judge, and no objections theleto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accoldance wi*r 28 U.S'C.

$ 636(bxl), the undersigned District Judge is ofthe opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED

-4

Dated September !:f ,2022.

JAMES DRIX

UNITED STATES DISTRICT ruDGE

/1,

Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BQ Document 465 Filed 09/27/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1301
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

WILLIE LEE HAVMMERI, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 3:22-cv-00594-E-BT

§

METHODIST HEALTH SYSTEM OF §

DALLAS, §

Defendant. §

ORDER

Plaintiff Willie Lee HavMmeri has filed numerous motions, proposed 

orders, and ‘letters’ to the Court all seeking miscellaneous relief. According to the 

docket, the following submissions remain pending: (i) “Proposed Order Requiring 

Back Pay and Continued Pay” (ECF No. 28); (ii) “Proposed Order Granting

Provisions to Secure Business Advisors/Counseling/Training” (ECF No. 29); and 

(iii) Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (ECF No. 63). In the first and last of these 

submissions, HavMmeri appears to ask the Court for an interlocutory award of 

damages, including back pay, medical benefits, and monthly wages. In his second 

submission, HavMmeri ask the Court to order Defendant to “provide [him] with 

the means of securing business advisors and business counseling so that [he] can 

be an effective entrepreneur.” Mot. 1. However, HavMmeri has not directed the 

Court to any authority—and the Court is aware of none—supporting his assertion 

that such relief is permitted or contemplated under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure or any substantive law under which he seeks to hold Defendant liable. 

Case 3:22-cv-00594-E-BT Document 74 Filed 06/16/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 320
2

Additionally, the Court has issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

that the District Judge grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismiss all of 

HavMmeri’s claims with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court DENIES HavMmeri’s 

requests for miscellaneous relief (ECF No. 28, 29 & 63).

SO ORDERED.

June 16, 2023.

___________________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00594-E-BT Document 74 Filed 06/16/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 321
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28706]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DC048-2022, MD096-3053, MD104-3057, MD106-3058, MD058-3036 & VA083-
5038; FRL-6899-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; Metropolitan Washington 
D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for a series of proposed 
rulemaking actions published on October 19, 2000. On this date, EPA 
proposed action on the following District of Columbia, Maryland, and 
Virginia provisions as revisions to their respective State 
Implementation Plans (SIP's): District of Columbia--Nitrogen Oxides 
Budget Program (65 FR 62679); Maryland--Nitrogen Oxides Budget Program 
(65 FR 62677), Nitrogen Oxides Reduction and Trading Program (65 FR 
62671), and Reasonably Available Control Technology for Oxides of 
Nitrogen (65 FR 62668); and Maryland and Virginia--Post-1996 Rate of 
Progress Plan for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Ozone Nonattainment 
Area (65 FR 62658).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone and 
Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    1. District of Columbia--Nitrogen Oxides Budget Program; Maryland--
Nitrogen Oxides Budget Program, and Maryland--Nitrogen Oxides Reduction 
and Trading Program: Cristina Fernandez, U.S. EPA Region III, (215) 
814-2178.
    2. Maryland--Reasonably Available Control Technology for Oxides of 
Nitrogen: Kelly Bunker, U.S. EPA Region III, (215) 814-2177.
    3. Maryland and Virginia--Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plan for the 
Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area: Janice Lewis, 
U.S. EPA Region III, (215) 814-2185, or Christopher Cripps at (215) 
814-2179.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
Bradley M. Campbell,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 00-28706 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Case 4:22-cr-00085-P Document 23 Filed 03/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 27
Case 4:22-cr-00085-P Document 23 Filed 03/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 28
#### BLACKBURN v. STATE.

No. 22392.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 17, 1943.

Rollie Fancher, of Seymour, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for possessing whisky and beer for the purpose of sale in a dry area,, the punishment being a fine, of $250.

Peace officers of Knox County (admittedly a dry area within the meaning of the Texas Liquor Control Act) searched the appellant’s home and premises, and found *663therein beer and whisky in sufficient quantities to warrant the jury’s conclusion under the prima facie evidence rule, Art. 666—23a and Art. 667—25, Vernon’s Annotated Penal Code) that same was possessed for the purpose of sale.

The appellant did not testify as a witness in his own behalf. _

Appellant objected to the admission in evidence of testimony showing the result of the search of his premises because the State did not, as a condition precedent to the introduction of said testimony exhibit a valid search warrant authorizing the search. The trial court’s qualification to the bill of exception presenting this matter shows that the objection was overruled and that the testimony showing the result of the search was admitted “for the reason that the defendant had assented to the search.”

The statement of facts shows that the sheriff, Mr. Cartwright, told appellant that he (the sheriff) had a search warrant and asked if appellant wanted it, and appellant said no, he had no use for the warrant, and told the officers to go ahead and search. Bills of exception numbers one and two both relate to objections interposed when the officers were asked to state what they found as a result of the search, the objection being that no search warrant had been “introduced in evidence.” The trial court’s qualification to each of said bills shows that the officers were permitted to testify as to the result of the search because appellant had consented thereto. So far as the record shows no search warrant was exhibited, and reliance was had on the claimed consent of appellant to the search.

The officers having told appellant they had a search warrant, his assent to the search under such circumstances is not a waiver of a valid warrant, and cannot be construed as consent to search. Lee v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 18, 70 S.W.2d 185, and cases therein cited; Aguirre v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 584, 7 S.W.2d 76, and cases cited.

When objection was interposed to evidence of the officers, mere proof that the officers had a search warrant is no evidence that such warrant was regular on its face, and contained recitals showing compliance with legal requirements. Henderson v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 167, 1 S.W.2d 300, and authorities cited; Humphreys v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 304, 31 S.W.2d 631.

The objections to the officers’ testimony, under the circumstances here shown, should have been sustained.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Snoden, Barbara (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Dan, 

Snoden, Barbara (OST) 

Friday, August 15, 2014 3:33 PM 

Dan Schroeder 

Gem Air 

I forgot to mention in the previous email... Please submit an updated resume indicating that you are 50% owner of 

Spirit. 

Thank you, 

Barbara 

Barbara A. Snoden 

Transportation Industry Analyst 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

202-366-4834 

1 

······· ''" ·. 

... :_;<'"· ... ) 

· ...... )
#### WHISTLER v. STATE.

No. 25619.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 9, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at a fine of fifty dollars.

The record is before us without a statement of facts, in the absence of which this court is unable to appraise the merits of the bill of exception complaining of the admission in evidence of certain testimony set out in the bill.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### FERGUSON et al. v. COMMISSIONER’S COURT OF SABINE COUNTY.

No. A-2596.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 22, 1950.

*1023Fisher & Tonahill and Joe J. Fisher, Jasper, for appellants.

L. E. King, County Attorney, and Min-ton & Minton, Hemphill, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that the certificate from the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals submits the whole case to .this court for decision, it is ordered that the certificate be dismissed. Falfurrias Immigration Co. v. Spielhagen, 103 Tex. 144, 124 S.W. 616; Taylor v. Higgins Oil & Fuel Co., 117 Tex. 149, 298 S.W. 891; Hedrick, Inc., v. Ratcliff, 122 Tex. 313, 58 S.W.2d 41.
Exhibit 12.1

---

ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.

                     Schedule of computation of Ratio and Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends

               (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)



`Years ended December 31
                                          -----------------------------------------------------
                                            2003       2002       2001       2000       1999
                                          ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
Earnings:
Income from continuing operations        $  60,017  $  68,583  $  72,038  $  67,109  $  60,211
Gain on sales of real estate                    --         --     (3,788)    (4,022)    (9,524)
Minority interests                             122        135        196        372        549
Interest expense(1)                         42,751     35,012     38,746     30,163     21,184
Amortization of deferred financing costs     1,008        605        657        639        566
                                          ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
Total earnings                           $ 103,898  $ 104,335  $ 107,849  $  94,261  $  72,986
                                          =========  =========  =========  =========  =========


Fixed charges:
Interest expense(1)                      $  42,751  $  35,012  $  38,746  $  30,163  $  21,184
Amortization of deferred financing costs     1,008        605        657        639        566
Capitalized interest                         4,084      6,139      3,917      2,906      5,172
Convertible preferred stock dividends           --         --         --        245      1,333
Preferred return to general partner-
    Series F                                   195         --         --         --         --
Perpetual preferred unit distributions      17,996     18,319     18,319     18,319     12,238
                                          ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
Total fixed charges and preferred
    stock dividends                      $  66,034  $  60,075  $  61,639  $  52,272  $  40,493
                                          =========  =========  =========  =========  =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    (excluding preferred return and
     preferred stock distributions)           2.16 X     2.50 X     2.49 X     2.80 X     2.71 X
                                          =========  =========  =========  =========  =========


Ratio of earnings to combined fixed
    charges and preferred stock dividends     1.57 X     1.74 X     1.75 X     1.80 X     1.80 X
                                          =========  =========  =========  =========  =========`
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28638]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-257-004]


Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

November 2, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 27, 2000, Ozark Gas Transmission, 
L.L.C. (Ozark) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, to be 
effective on November 1, 2000.

Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 13
First Revised Sheet No. 17
First Revised Sheet No. 46
First Revised Sheet No. 47
First Revised Sheet No. 80

    Ozark states that the purpose of this filing is to place into 
effect settlement rates on an interim basis pending Commission approval 
of the Offer of Settlement that was filed with the Commission in this 
proceeding on October 27, 2000, which proposes to resolve all issues in 
this proceeding and is supported by the majority of the parties hereto.
    Ozark further states that it has served copies of this filing upon 
the company's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions 
and all persons on the official service list for the proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
    Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet 
in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 
on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28638 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Presidential Documents

66483

Federal Register

Vol. 65, No. 215

Monday, November 6, 2000

Title 3—

The President

Presidential Determination No. 2001–03 of October 28, 2000

Determination to Waive Attachment Provisions Relating to

Blocked Property of Terrorist-List States

Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Secretary of the

Treasury

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws

of the United States of America, including section 2002(f) of H.R. 3244,

‘‘Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000,’’ (approved

October 28, 2000), I hereby determine that subsection (f)(1) of section 1610

of title 28, United States Code, which provides that any property with

respect to which financial transactions are prohibited or regulated pursuant

to section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S. App. 5(b),

section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2370(a)),

sections 202 and 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act

(50 U.S.C. 1701–1702), and proclamations, orders, regulations, and licenses

issued pursuant thereto, be subject to execution or attachment in aid of

execution of any judgment relating to a claim for which a foreign state

claiming such property is not immune from the jurisdiction of courts of

the United States or of the States under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United

States Code, would impede the ability of the President to conduct foreign

policy in the interest of national security and would, in particular, impede

the effectiveness of such prohibitions and regulations upon financial transactions. Therefore, pursuant to section 2002(f) of H.R. 3244, the ‘‘Victim’s

of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000,’’ I hereby waive subsection (f)(1) of section 1610 of title 28, United States Code, in the interest

of national security. This waiver, together with the amendment of subsection

(f)(2) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the repeal of the subsection

(b) of section 117 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations

Act, 1999, supersedes my prior waiver of the requirements of subsections

(a) and (b) of said section 117, executed on October 21, 1998.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register

œ–.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, October 28,2000.

[FR Doc. 00–28533

Filed 11–03–00; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
<PAGE>


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 Surge Global Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Fred W. Kelly, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

         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.


March 31, 2005                       /s/ Fred W. Kelly
                                    -----------------------
                                    Fred W. Kelly
                                    Chief Executive Officer