alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-14-0158 SAT Date: 12/31/2013 Print Date: 1/31/2014

Related cases : Health related cases: Ecotox related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: Yes
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: IRR/CORR-S,E,L,MM; AQUATOX
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-14-0158-63 FATE: Estimations for typical 367.62 Liquid with MP < 25 C (E) log Kow = 5.45 (E) S = 0.74 mg/L at 25 C; Disp. (E;ICB) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) log Koc = 5.40 (E)log Fish BCF = 1.89 (E) log Fish BAF = 2.94(E) POTW removal (%) = 75-90 via sorption and biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is poor from the skin, moderate from the GI tract, and good from the lung (analog). Concern for severe irritation and possible corrosion from the

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.37 amide SAR daphnid 48-h LC50 0.068 green algal 96-h EC50 0.025 fish

_ chronic value 0.005 amide SAR daphnid

_ chronic value 0.008

algal

_ chronic value 0.011
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for amides ; SAR chemical class = amide, ; MW 368; log Kow 5.45 (EPI); liquid with mp unknown (P); S = 0.74 mg/L or dispersible (P); 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 ( p pb) 1 amide SAR

SARs amides SAR Class amide, Ecotox Category N one
Ecotox Factors Comments:SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
#### L. L. BOGLE, d/b/a Oil Field Maintenance Company, and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants, v. The CALIFORNIA COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 22989.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1966.

Meredith T. Holt, Donald E. Walter, Cavanaugh, Brame, Holt & Woodley, Lake Charles, La., for appellants.

Lloyd C. Melancon, New Orleans, La., Porteous & Johnson, New Orleans, La., of counsel, for appellee.

Before RIVES, THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee for proctor’s fees and expenses incurred in defense of a libel. The district court found that the appellants had contracted to defend the libel, but breached their obligation by failing to timely accept the defense. We agree with the findings and conclusions (R. 91-96) and with the separate opinion (R. 85-90) of the district court, 260 F.Supp. 586. The judgment was right, and it is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6395 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6395

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 4, 2024

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to require the Secretary of the 
   Interior to include the Secretary of Health and Human Services in 
 consultations regarding designations of critical minerals, elements, 
                       substances, and materials.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Recognizing the Importance of 
Critical Minerals in Healthcare Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRED CONSULTATION WITH THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
              SERVICES.

    Paragraphs (4)(C) and (5)(A) of section 7002(c) of the Energy Act 
of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606(c)(4)(C) and (5)(A)) are each amended by 
inserting ``Health and Human Services,'' after ``Agriculture,''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.L.R

. , a child

, * From the 3 26 th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 8863

- CX

.

No. 11

- 20

- 00 2 94

- C V * June 24 , 20 2 1

* Memorandum Opinion by Trotter , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that th ere is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the

order of the tr ia l court is in all things affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis VILLA-ZAVALA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41368 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

*145Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Luis Villa-Zavala, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Villa-Zavala 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). Villa-Zavala 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.
#### Manuel ESCAMILLA-DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70114

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Nadia Farah, Law Office of Nadia Fa-rah, Tracy, CA, for Petitioner.

Oil, Sunah Lee, TriaL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Escamilla-Dominguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo constitutional claims. *Hernandez-Mancilla, v. Holder,*633 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Escamilla-Domin-guez did not establish the required continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal, where Escamilla-Dominguez testified to a different entry date than the date stated on his application, the evidence he submitted regarding his entry date was contradictory, and he provided ho other corroborating evidence of an entry date that allowed him to meet the continuous physical presence requirement. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); *Hernandez-Mancilla,*633 F.3d at 1184 (under the deferential substantial evidence standard, the court will uphold the agency’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a *461contrary result). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Escamilla-Dominguez’s contention that the agency violated' due process by making factual findings contrary to the record. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).

Escamilla-Dominguez’s contention that the agency prevented him from presenting evidence is not supported by the record.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s unexhausted contentions regarding credibility. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Zurich American Insurance Co., Respondent, v Luis Bastos Construction et al., Defendants, and A.P. Roofing & Siding Corp., Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 628]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendant Luis Bastos Construction, in an underlying action entitled *Cruz v A.P. Roofing & Siding Corp.,*pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under Index No. 00-16320, the defendant A.E Roofing *&*Siding Corp. appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered November 13, 2002, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declared, in effect, that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify Luis Bastos Construction, Inc., in the underlying action, and denied its cross motion for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff was obligated to defend and indemnify Luis Bastos Construction, Inc., in the underlying action.

*531Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Co. (hereinafter Zurich) issued a workers’ compensation/employers’ liability insurance policy to the defendant Luis Bastos Construction, Inc. (hereinafter Bastos), a New Jersey corporation. While the policy was in effect, the defendant Hermilo Cruz, one of Bastos’s employees, was seriously injured while working on a job in New York that had nothing to do with any work being performed in New Jersey.

Cruz commenced an action to recover damages for his personal injuries. The defendants in that action impleaded Bastos as a third-party defendant. Zurich subsequently commenced the instant action, seeking a judgment declaring that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Bastos in the underlying action.

The subject policy effectively provides, in clear and unambiguous terms, that Bastos had employers’ liability coverage only for claims arising out of accidents occurring during work performed in New Jersey, or for claims arising out of accidents occurring during work performed in another state that was necessary or incidental to work being performed in New Jersey *(see*Chase *Manhattan Bank v Travelers Group,*269 AD2d 107, 108 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Zurich’s motion for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify Bastos in the underlying action.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Keith FRISTON v. STATE of Mississippi

2015-CT-01467-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 13, 2018 Closed: May 24, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West (the "Company")
        on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas T. Hawker,
        President and 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.














Date:
                August 9, 2006
            By:/s/
                Thomas T. HawkerThomas
                T. HawkerPresident
                andChief
                Executive Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RONALD P. GILLIS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-3887

)

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY )

AMERICAS, as Trustee for Residential )

Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset- )

Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series )

2006-QS8 and SUNTRUST BANK, )

)

Appellees. )

)

Opinion filed March 2, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte 

County; James R. Thompson, Senior 

Judge.

Mark A. Cullen of The Cullen Law Firm, 

P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

Kimberly S. Mello and Vitaliy Kats of 

Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa; and 

Michele L. Stocker of Greenberg Traurig, 

P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee 

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, 

as Trustee.

No appearance for Appellee SunTrust 

Bank.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
#### CASA COLINA HOSPITAL AND CENTERS FOR HEALTHCARE, dba Casa Colina Hospital for Rehabilitative Medicine, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Don WRIGHT, acting secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-56725

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 8, 2017

FILED OCTOBER 10, 2017

Ronald Connelly, Powers Pyles Sutter *&*Verville PC, Washington, DC, Dick Sem-erdjian, Esquire, Schwartz Semerdjian Haile Ballard *&*Cauley, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joshua Marc Salzman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: KOZINSKI and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE,* District Judge.

*

The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

1. Mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 “exists when [1] a plaintiff *407has a clear right to relief, [2] a defendant has a clear duty to act and [3] no other adequate remedy is available.” Piledrivers’ Local Union No. 2375 v. Smith, 695 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 1982). “The extraordinary remedy of mandamus lies within the discretion of the trial court, even if the three elements are satisfied.” Or. Nat. Res. Council v. Harrell, 52 F.3d 1499, 1508 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Indep. Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 505 (9th Cir. 1997). The district court appropriately concluded that granting relief would merely allow Casa Colina “to jump the queue of other identically situated parties” and would therefore achieve an arbitrary result and “encourage a barrage of mandamus actions by others.” Casa Colina has failed to show abuse of discretion.

2. “Judicial review of claims arising under the Medicare Act is available only after the Secretary renders a ‘final decision.’” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 605, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984). Although this dispute “hinges on the alleged right to timely appeals hearings on Medicare payments,” Casa Colina did not press its claims “through all designated levels of administrative review,” Ringer, 466 U.S. at 606, 104 S.Ct. 2013; see also 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.1130, 405.1132. Nor is judicial waiver of exhaustion requirements appropriate. See Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). Casa Colina lacks an irreparable injury because a future award of damages plus interest will make it whole. See Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991); 42 U.S.C. § 1395ddd(f)(2)(B). The district court didn’t err by dismissing Casa Coli-ña s Medicare Act, Administrative Procedure Act and Due Process claims.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COTELLIGENT, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENED 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001004963           
<NAME>                                         COTELLIGENT, INC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-1-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         22371
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  61898
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1682
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               95946
<PP&E>                                         15272
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          29566
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       137
<OTHER-SE>                                     94354
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124291
<SALES>                                        79728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               79728
<CGS>                                          55917
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (287)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6462
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2617
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3845
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.27
        



</TABLE>
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District 1

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3274

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Ronald Bruner, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 7, 1997

 Filed: May 13, 1997

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Bruner appeals the 192-month sentence imposed by the district

court after he pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to

1

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Bruner challenges the

court's reliance on a codefendant's testimony in determining that the

government had supported the presentence report's drug-quantity

calculations by a preponderance of the evidence. 

We conclude the district court properly considered the codefendant's

testimony and did not clearly err in its drug- quantity finding. See U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 6A1.3(a) 
-2-

(1995) (court may consider any relevant evidence in its sentencing

determination as long as it has "sufficient indicia of reliability to

support its probable accuracy"); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1

comment. (n.12) (1995) (drug quantities not specified in count of

conviction may be considered in determining offense level; where there is

no drug seizure or amount seized does not reflect scale of offense, court

must approximate drug quantity); United States v. Adipietro, 983 F.2d 1468,

1472 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review for drug-quantity finding). The

court acknowledged the codefendant's incentive to be untruthful, and

nonetheless found his testimony credible. See Adipietro, 983 F.2d at 1472

(court's credibility findings are virtually unassailable on appeal). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Application to Amend

Section 333 Exemption No. 12841

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-2079

October 27, 2015

Patti J. Rithamel, CFO

Redhawk Aerial Imaging, Inc.

341 Harden Street

Antioch, IL 60002

Tel: 844-344-8200

Greetings,

By letter from the FAA dated September 14, 2015, an exemption was granted to Redhawk Aerial Imaging 

for relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 12841 Regulatory Docket 

No. FAA-2015-2079.

Redhawk Aerial Imaging hereby requests that the exemption so granted be amended to include DJI 

Inspire 1 models. Relevant facts and reasoning are:

• Respecting the DJI Inspire 1, petitioner offers and incorporates by reference all of the data and

analyses included in prior grants of exemption for that model aircraft such as Exemption No.

11458 and 11463.

 The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the FAA’s Exemption No. 12841 apply

without modification to this application to include the DJI Inspire 1 model in Exemption No. 

12841.

Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any additional

information that is required.

Sincerely,

Patti J. Rithamel

CFO, Redhawk Aerial Imaging