alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         170,091
<SECURITIES>                                10,887,863
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,876
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,607,201
<PP&E>                                         777,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                  95,711
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            (17,516,146)
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,107,966
<BONDS>                                        548,216
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,672
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,853,292
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,570,667
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,293,528
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,314,621)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,314,621)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,314,621)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.65)
        

</TABLE>
_____________ No. 96-1078ND

_____________ Patricia Elliott, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of North Dakota. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * of Social Security * [UNPUBLISHED] Administration, * *

Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: November 22, 1996 Filed: November 27, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Patric iaElliott appeals the district court's grant of summar y judgment affirming the Commissioner's decision t o deny Elliott a waiver of anove rpayment of supplemental security income benefits. After carefu l review of the parties' briefs and the administra tive record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's rec ommendation adopted by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
RE CEIVED 

OPPT CBIC 

ll.SOCMA 

Society of Chemical l'1anuf<Jct11rers & Affiliates 

Document Control Office (7 407 M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA East Building, Room E6428 (202-564-8930) 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Attention: TSCA Section 4 

Docket 10 Number EPA-HQ-OPPT -2009-0112 

To Whom It May Concern: 

January 28, 2015 

CBIC Control Number 

363905 

,....., 

c= 

en 

-n 

rr1 

C1? 

N 

-o 

::I: 

.I:" 

.. 

0 

RE: Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Third Group of Chemicals. 

Federal Register 76 (204), 65385-65410, October 21, 2011 . 

1-Propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propen-1-yloxy)-, sodium salt (1:1) (CAS 

No. 52556-42-0) 

Extension Request for Final Reporting Deadline 

The COPS-1 Consortium, a cost-sharing consortium formed and managed under the 

Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) submits this request to extend the 

final reporting deadline under the subject test rule for 1-propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-(2-

propen-1-yloxy)-, sodium salt (1:1) (CAS No. 52556-42-0), also known as COPS-1 . 

On June 16, 2014 the COPS-1 Consortium submitted a new test plan to respond to a 

request from EPA's Dr. Paul Lewis on April 28, 2014 to repeat the gene mutation and 

chromosome aberration studies. The results of those tests had been submitted earlier (August 

28, 2013) but were found by EPA reviewers to be inadequate to satisfy the HPV 3 test rule. The 

Consortium agreed to repeat those studies accordingly and submit final reports by the deadline 

of February 16, 2015. 

The studies to be repeated are: 

• Gene Mutations: Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test (in vitro): 40 CFR 799.9510 

(OECD471 ). 

• Mammalian (chromosomal damage): In vitro mammalian chromosome 

aberration, 40 CFR 799.9537 (OECD473). 

O:;:;o 

-orq 

""'OC) 

-tr.J 

0<: 

C:Or-1 

ocJ 

r/;ff .Z-jZf 

_.1 pvU tl .... ChemStewards 

AllulGtMio SOCMA 1 HSO f"l St NW ~UI!C' 100 • Wasl11ngwn, DC 20036 5810 • Tel: 202. 12.1 4 100 • F.tx: 202. 2.% 8120 .. d ... ~OUilJ..COill 
The Consortium requests an extension to July 31 , 2015. A delay in receipt of EPA's 

review of the test plan submitted June 16, 2014 prevented scheduling the repeat studies 

sooner. Because of other commitments scheduled, the contract laboratory that will do the work 

is unable to start until February 2015. The requested extension allows sufficient time for the lab 

to complete the studies and prepare final reports and for the consortium members to review the 

reports and submit them to EPA. 

Members of the COPS-1 consortium are the following companies: 

AkzoNobel Surface Chemistry LLC 

Ashland Inc. 

Bimax Inc. 

GE Water & Process Technologies 

Solvay USA, Inc. 

Thank you for considering this request. For further information or questions, please 

contact the undersigned directly at 202-721-4154 or helmest@socma.com. 

Cc: Dr. John Schaeffer 

C. Tucker Helmes, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

COPS-1 Consortium
# Službeni list C 273/2015

| | ISSN 1977-1088 |
| --- | --- |
| Službeni list
  Europske unije | C 273 |
| | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Informacije i objave | Svezak 58.18. kolovoza 2015. |

ISSN 1977-1088

Službeni list

Europske unije

C 273

Hrvatsko izdanje

Informacije i objave

Svezak 58.18. kolovoza 2015.

---

| Obavijest br. | Sadržaj | Stranica |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Ispravci |
| 2015/C 273/01 | Ispravak Stajališta Vijeća (EU) br. 10/2015 u prvom čitanju s ciljem donošenja Uredbe Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 515/97 o uzajamnoj pomoći upravnih tijela država članica i o suradnji potonjih s Komisijom radi osiguravanja pravilne primjene propisa o carinskim i poljoprivrednim pitanjima – Usvojeno od strane Vijeća 15. lipnja 2015.( SL C 239, 21.7.2015. ) | 1 |

Obavijest br.

Sadržaj

Stranica

Ispravci

2015/C 273/01

Ispravak Stajališta Vijeća (EU) br. 10/2015 u prvom čitanju s ciljem donošenja Uredbe Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 515/97 o uzajamnoj pomoći upravnih tijela država članica i o suradnji potonjih s Komisijom radi osiguravanja pravilne primjene propisa o carinskim i poljoprivrednim pitanjima – Usvojeno od strane Vijeća 15. lipnja 2015.( SL C 239, 21.7.2015. )

( SL C 239, 21.7.2015. )

1

---

| HR | |
| --- | --- |

HR

---

Ispravci

| 18.8.2015 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | C 273/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2015

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

C 273/1

---

Ispravak Stajališta Vijeća (EU) br. 10/2015 u prvom čitanju s ciljem donošenja Uredbe Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 515/97 o uzajamnoj pomoći upravnih tijela država članica i o suradnji potonjih s Komisijom radi osiguravanja pravilne primjene propisa o carinskim i poljoprivrednim pitanjima – Usvojeno od strane Vijeća 15. lipnja 2015.

(
  Službeni list Europske unije C 239 od 21. srpnja 2015.
  )

(2015/C 273/01)

Na stranici 10., u članku 1. točki 15.:

dodaje se sljedeća točka:

| „(c) | stavak 3. briše se;”. |
| --- | --- |

„(c)

stavak 3. briše se;”.

---
#### HOME BENEV. SOC. v. REED.

No. 8089.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

March 13, 1935.

Cofer & Cofer, of Austin, for appellant.

G.N. Brubaker, of San Marcos, for appel-lee.

BLAIR, Justice.

Appellee, Miss Myrtle Reed, the daughter and beneficiary of J. S. Reed, deceased, sued appellant, Home Benevolent Society, on a policy of insurance covering the life of the said J. S. Reed for $500, being policy No, 1323-S, issued by Bankers’ Guaranty Life Insurance Company, of Dallas, Tex., alleging in her original petition that appellant had taken over the assets and liabilities of said Bankers’ Guaranty Company; and by a supplemental petition that appellant had taken over and assumed the obligations of said Bankers’ Guaranty Company on the policy in suit, attaching same to, and making it a part of, her pleadings by reference.

Two special issues were submitted to the jury, as follows:

> “Did the Home Benevolent Society take •over and assume the obligations of the Banker’s Guaranty Life policy issued to James S. Reed?”

> “What amount of money, if any, does the defendant owe the plaintiff, Miss Myrtle Reed?”

> The jury answered “Yes” to the first issue, and $450 to the second issue. Judgment was .accordingly rendered in favor of appellee for $450.

> Appellant objected to the charge and issues submitted, because they did not require the jury to answer the questions submitted “from a preponderance of the evidence.” The objection was well taken. The issues should have been so framed as to have required the jury to find “from a preponderance of the evidence” the fact or facts elicited by each issue. Thus the burden of proof would, have been properly placed upon appellee. Stevenson v. H. & T. C. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 19 S.W.(2d) 207; Id. (Tex. Com. App.) 29 S.W.(2d) 995; Speer on Special Issues, 184, § 134.

We overrule appellant’s contentions that its request for an instructed verdict should have been given, because of insufficient pleadings and evidence to show that it had taken over and assumed the obligations of the Bankers’ Guaranty Life Company policy issued to James S. Reed. Since we are reversing the case because of the failure to instruct the jury as to the burden of proof, we pretermit a discussion of the facts. We suggest, however, that appellee amend her pleadings so as to allege her cause of action by an amended original petition, before another trial of the case.

The judgment of the trial court will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
From: McKaughan, Colleen

Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 5:36:00 PM To: edward.barry@Lhoist.com Cc: Nudd, Gregory; Webb, Thomas Subject: New Court

- Ordered Deadline for Regional Haze FIP

Dear Ed,

I’m writing to let you know that the court

- ordered deadline for EPA to propose a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing regional haze in Arizona has been extended to September 6, 2013. Our deadline for final action on Arizona’s State Implementation P lan (SIP) remains July 15, 2013. The deadline for commenting on our December 20, 2012 proposed action on Arizona’s SIP is March 6, 2013.

If EPA finalizes disapproval of any aspect of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, we are obligated to propose and later fin alize a FIP to address these disapproved portions. The deadlines for these proposed and final actions are set in a consent decree. The parties to the consent decree recently agreed to extend these deadlines and the United States District Court for the Dis trict of Columbia issued an order granting a motion to amend the consent decree to reflect these new deadlines. The new deadlines of September 6, 2013 for the proposed action and February 6, 2014 for the final action provide the agency more time for the te chnical work that will form the basis of the FIP.

If you are planning to provide technical information that you think would be helpful to EPA in preparing our FIP proposal, please provide that information no later than May 10, 2013 . This will allow us eno ugh time to review and consider the information in preparing the proposal.

In the case of the Chemical Lime Plant in Nelson, Arizona, we are particularly interested in getting your feedback on whether the emission rates used in the baseline visibility mo deling are representative of the plant’s highest 24

- hour emissions. In addition, we would appreciate any feedback regarding the effectiveness of potential controls and the control costs estimated by our contractor.

If you have any questions, please let me know. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Colleen McKaughan

520

- 498

- 0118
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24(a)



February 23, 2001

Mr. Alan M. Wright and
Mr. Thomas A. McNish
CMS Energy Corporation
Fairlane Plaza South, Suite 1100
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

CMS Energy Corporation is required to file an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2000 with the Securities and Exchange Commission within
90 days after the end of the year.

We hereby make, constitute and appoint each of you our true and lawful attorney
for each of us and in each of our names, places and steads to sign and cause to
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission said Annual Report with any
necessary exhibits, and any amendments thereto that may be required.

Very truly yours,

<TABLE>
<S>                                                        <C>
       /s/ William T. McCormick, Jr.                           /s/ William U. Parfet
------------------------------------------------           ---------------------------------------------
           William T. McCormick, Jr.                               William U. Parfet


       /s/ John M. Deutch                                      /s/ Percy A. Pierre
------------------------------------------------          ----------------------------------------------
           John M. Deutch                                          Percy A. Pierre


       /s/ James J. Duderstadt                                 /s/ Kenneth L. Way
------------------------------------------------          ----------------------------------------------
           James J. Duderstadt                                     Kenneth L. Way


       /s/ Kathleen R. Flaherty
------------------------------------------------          ----------------------------------------------
           Kathleen R. Flaherty                                    Kenneth Whipple


       /s/ Earl D. Holton                                      /s/ John B. Yasinsky
------------------------------------------------          ----------------------------------------------
           Earl D. Holton                                          John B. Yasinsky
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6630

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LLOYD EMMANUEL BEST,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00132-H-1)

Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd Emmanuel Best, Appellant Pro Se. Gaston Williams, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lloyd Emmanuel Best appeals the district court’s order 

denying his self-styled “Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Lack 

of Exclusive Legislative and Subject Matter Jurisdiction 

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[.]” 

We have reviewed the record and agree that Best’s motion is 

meritless. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

United States v. Best, No. 7:09-cr-00132-H-1 (E.D.N.C. March 31, 

2014). 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 21**

** **

**SUBSIDIARIESOF OSMONICS, INC.**

 
| **Percentage  Ownership** |   |                                   |   |                         |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
| 100                       | %      | PORETICS CORPORATION                   |   | A Delaware Corporation       |
| 100                       | %      | OSMONICS ASIA/PACIFIC LTD.             |   | A Hong Kong Corporation      |
| 100                       | %      | AUTOTROL CORPORATION                   |   | A Wisconsin Corporation      |
| 100                       | %      | OSMONICS S.A.                          |   | A France Corporation         |
| 100                       | %      | OSMONICS INTL. SALES CORP.             |   | A Virgin Islands Corporation |
| 100                       | %      | DESALINATION SYSTEMS, INC.             |   | A California Corporation     |
| 50                        | %      | NIPPON AUTOTROL K.K.                   |   | A Japan Corporation          |
| 100                       | %      | AQUAMATIC, INC.                        |   | A Delaware Corporation       |
| 100                       | %      | MEMBREX, INC.                          |   | A Delaware Corporation       |
| 100                       | %      | MICRON SEPARATIONS, INC.               |   | A New York Corporation       |
| 100                       | %      | MICRON SEPARATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC. |   | A Virgin Island Corporation  |
| 100                       | %      | OSMONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION       |   | A Minnesota Corporation      |
| 100                       | %      | OSMONICS DEUTSCHLAND GmbH              |   | A German GmbH                |

 

1

----
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2549 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1234 Saint Johns Place in Brooklyn, New York, as the ‘‘Major Robert 

Odell Owens Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2018 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1234 Saint Johns Place in Brooklyn, New 

York, as the ‘‘Major Robert Odell Owens Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MAJOR ROBERT ODELL OWENS POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1234 Saint Johns Place in 

6 Brooklyn, New York, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Major Robert Odell Owens Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2549 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Major Robert Odell 

3 Owens Post Office’’. 

Æ 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN:___SE00413____________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21343]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 315 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-648, CP2024-657.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21343 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Docket No. FAA-2013-1067
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 19, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-01097-CV

SHACOREYA LAMB, Appellant

V.

FOREST 9750 LP, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-03960-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Smith, Miskel, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Breedlove

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to respond to 

our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without 

a reporter’s record and for appellant’s brief to be filed by March 10, 2024. By 

postcard dated March 12, 2024, we informed appellant her brief was overdue and 

directed appellant to file a brief within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure 

to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed a brief nor otherwise 

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c).

231097f.p05 /Maricela Breedlove/

MARICELA BREEDLOVE

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SHACOREYA LAMB, Appellant

No. 05-23-01097-CV V.

FOREST 9750 LP, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-03960-

A.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Breedlove. Justices Smith and Miskel 

participating.

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

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 19th day of April, 2024.
**Exhibit 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     The Board of Directors    CytoCore, Inc.     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following    Registration Statements on    Form S-8(333-97863)    and    Form S-4    as amended    (333-61666)    of CytoCore, Inc. of our report dated April 16, 2007, with    respect to the consolidated balance sheet of CytoCore, Inc. as    of December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated    statement of operations, stockholders’ deficit and cash    flow for the year ended December 31, 2006, which report    appears in the Annual Report on    Form 10-KSB/A    of CytoCore, Inc for the year ended December 31, 2006.     Our report dated April 16, 2007, contains an explanatory    paragraph that states that the Company has suffered recurring    losses from operations and is dependent upon access to    additional external financing, which raises substantial doubt    about its ability to continue as a going concern. The    consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments    that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty. /s/  Amper,    Politziner & Mattia, P.C.     Edison, New Jersey    April 27, 2007