alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-09-0199 SAT Date: 2/13/2009 Print Date: 3/7/2013

Related cases : Yes

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 U2

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Inhalation, dermal, drinking water Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: IRR-E,S,MM LUNG IMMUNO ONCO
Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-09-0198-99 FATE: Solid S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 EC (E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 EC (E) BP > 400 EC (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E)POTW removal (%) = U via U Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = U Sorption to soils/sediments = U PBT Potential: P3BU *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = U

Health : Health Summary: Expect poor absorption via all routes (analog). Concern for irritation to eye, skin, and mucous membranes (including respiratory tract) based on analogs. Concern for lung overload for a poorly soluble particulate, and for lung effects, based on submitted test data. Possible concern for immunotoxicity and oncogenicity, based on analogs. Test Data: Submitted with
Five-day rat inhalation study NOAEC 0.1 mg/m3, with increased protein concentrations, enzyme activity, cytokine and chemokine concentrations, and lymphocyte counts, observed to the end of the 28-day recovery period. In the lung, increased cytokine and chemokine concentrations, organ weights, and numbers of macrophages, and granulomatous inflammation.

Submitted with
Pulmonary bioassay screening study in rats (intratracheal instillation): 15% mortality within 12 hours at 1.5 mg/kg, suffocation at 5 mg/kg, with transient pulmonary inflammatory response after 24 hours, and presence of multifocal granulomas.

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 neutral organic chemicals; SAR chemical class = ; MW>1,000,000; solid; log Kow >> 10 (P); S = negligible; p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; DW hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC <2.0 mg/L;Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *

SARs neutral organic compounds SAR Class Ecotox Category

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
Thiamond KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3676

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              24,709
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      36,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,852,121
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           118,989
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,815,912)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        36,209
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      199,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (192,498)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (6,971)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (6,971)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0)



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


Certification
      of Periodic Financial Report


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of M~Wave, Inc.
      (the “Company”) certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
      Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
      information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Dated:
                May 15, 2006
            /s/
                Jim MayerJim
                MayerInterim
                Chief Executive Officer








/s/
                Jeff FiglewiczJeff
                FiglewiczController
                and Principal Accounting Officer








This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
~ NORTH DAKOTA ~ DEPARTMENT of HEALTH 

March 8, 2012 

Mr. Carl Daly (SP-AR) 

Chief, Air Programs 

U.S. EPA, Region 8 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Re: Section 128 Commitment 

Dear Mr. Daly: 

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION 

Gold Seal Center, 918 E. Divide Ave. 

Bismarck, N D 58501-194 7 

701.328.5200 (fax) 

www.ndhealth.gov 

FILE 

This letter is written to provide a commitment by the North Dakota Department of Health to comply with the 

requirements of Section 128 of the Clean Air Act. The Department will incorporate the following 

requirements of the North Dakota Department of Health's Ethics Policy in the State Implementation Plan for 

the Control of Air Pollution: 

Conflicts oflnterest 

A conflict of interest is defined as the conflict between the duties assigned to the employee and the self-interest 

or other interests of the employee. Employees must avoid any interest, influence or relationship that might 

conflict or appear to conflict with the best interests of the Department of Health or the State of North Dakota, 

or that might affect one's working judgment or loyalty. Employees must avoid any situation in which their 

loyalty may be divided and promptly disclose to their division director any situation where an actual or 

potential conflict may exist. 

If employees have a potential conflict of interest in any program, contract or legal matter involving the 

Department of Health or reasonably related to their position with the Department of Health, the employ(!..es must 

notifY ihe division director, section chief or supervisor in writing of the potential conflict and the cause of the 

potential conflict and remove themselves from any negotiations, deliberations or decisions involving the 

conflict. 

The SIP revision will be applicable to anyone who approves permits or enforcement actions under North 

Dakota's Implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act. We believe these requirements fulfill the stipulations 

of Section 128 ofthe Federal Clean Air Act. The SIP revision will be submitted by May 31, 2013. 

If you have any questions, please contact me. 

~~~ Terry L. O'Clair, P.E. 

Director 

Division of Air Quality 

TLO/TB:saj 

xc: Margaret Olson, Ass't. Attorney General 

Environmental Health 

Section Chief's Office 

701.328.5150 

Division of 

Air Quality 

701.328.5188 

Division of 

Municipal Facilities 

701.328.5211 

Printed on recycled paper. 

Division of 

Waste Management 

701.328.5166 

Division of 

Water Quality 

701.328.5210
Stephanie M. SOUSIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1703

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This appeal pursuant to *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), involves three Walton County cases-a 2014 conviction as to which Appellant violated her probation, and two new law offenses in 2016 that triggered the violation. We affirm Appellant's convictions and sentences, and instruct the lower court to correct a scrivener's error on the judgment, which includes a count that had been dismissed.

The 2014 conviction was charged as grand theft under sections 812.014(1)(a), (b), (2)(b), Florida Statutes (2014). The judgment on appeal cites this crime as Count I of Case No. 14-CF-598, "Larceny greater than $20K but less than $100k." The record reflects, however, that this count was dismissed during the original proceedings. It does not appear on the original judgment, the order revoking probation, or the scoresheets in the record. On remand the trial court shall enter an amended judgment deleting this reference. *See**King v. State* , 201 So.3d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming an *Anders* appeal but remanding for correction of scrivener's errors in the written judgment); *Washington v. State* , 37 So.3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (same).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

Lewis, Kelsey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
L.H. MANNING v. Robert PERRY

2016-CT-00444-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 20, 2018 Closed: May 17, 2018

Certiorari-Denied
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,565-02

EX P ARTE ARTHUR LUNA, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1404117-A IN THE 263 DISTRICT COURT R D F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of capital murder and sentenc ed to life imprisonment. The Four teenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Luna

v. State , No. 14-16-00844- CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14 Dist.] Mar. 22, 2018)(not desig nated for t h publication). Applicant contends that his trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance by failing to object, failing to prepa

re him to testify , and fa iling to cr oss-examine and ca ll severa l key witnesses. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington ,2

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court signe d an order to obta in a n aff idavit f rom trial counsel. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hear ing, it sha ll de termine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall ap p o i nt an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t an d conclusions of law as to whether the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s trial counsel was defic ient and, if so , wh et her counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fact and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be re s o l v ed wi t h in 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: May

1, 2019 Do not publish
### IN THE UNITED STATES C O URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 18

- 50668

___________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

DIEGO SANTOS

- FERRUFINO,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:18

- CR

- 64

- 1

_______________________

Before OWEN, WILLETT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM *:

We DENY the government’s unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal as
moot. The district court lacked jurisdiction to modify its sentence while this
appeal was pending. See United States v. Lucero

, --- F. App’x

---- , No.17

- 50709,
2018 WL 6200326, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2018).

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be publish ed and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 18, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce ClerkNo. 18

- 50668

2 We GRANT the government’s alternative motion to extend time to file
its brief for 30 days from the entry of this order. If the government (the movant
below) wishes to tak e advantage of the indicative ruling scheme, then it should
comply with that scheme’s procedures. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 37(b); F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 12.1(a).
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-89,672-01, -02, -03, AND -04

EX PARTE MERCEDES M BIGGURS, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. W08-57650-U(A), W14-70971-U(A), W14-75674-U(A), AND

W14-70586-U(A) IN THE 291ST DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of several

felony offenses and sentenced to imprisonment. 

On October 25, 2018, the trial court entered orders designating issues regarding each habeas

application. The habeas records forwarded to this Court, however, have no findings from the trial

court resolving the designated issues. These habeas applications are remanded to the 291st District

Court of Dallas County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation and enter

findings of fact and conclusions of law.
These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. 

The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: April 17, 2019

Do not publish
Alfred Lorenzo CHATMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2617

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>

                          PREMIER AUTO TRUST 1999-1
      FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 1999 (INCEPTION) THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999
                           FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                   PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X
                                  $ Millions
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          $         5
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,334
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    22
<BONDS>                               1,317
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,339
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              0
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel Flores REYDONDO Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1903

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 5, 2017

Filed: October 11, 2017

John E. Beamer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Daniel Flores Reydondo, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Flores Reydondo directly appeals after he pled guilty to an immigration offense and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term at the high end of the calculated guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has ñled a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. *See United States v. Feemster,*572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions; if sentence is within guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Rebecca Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Vitalstate, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Heather Baker,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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


         /s/ Heather Baker
----------------------------------
Name:    Heather Baker
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:    March 28, 2003



                                       58
<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7218

GERALD JOSE WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL T. BELL, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-00-677-5-H) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Jose Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gerald Jose Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Bell , No. CA-00- 677-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed June 20, 2001 & entered June 21, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nyssa Kathian CALDERON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50174 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nyssa Kathian Calderon, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nyssa Kathian Calderon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Calderon has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.