alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0468 SAT Date: 6/7/2013 Print Date: 7/2/2013

Related cases : Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

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

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: SENS-S,L; MUTA; ONCO; DEVEL; MALE REPRO; LIVER; KIDNEY; AQUATOX
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0468 FATE: Liquid with MP < 25 C (E) log Kow = 0.37 (E) S > 10 g/L at 25 C (E) VP = 8.72 torr at 25 C (E) BP = 138 C (E) H = 1.95E-5 (E) log Koc = 0.91 (E) log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E)log Fish BAF = 0.03 (E) POTW removal (%) = 0 Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk Sorption to soils/sediments = low Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 33 hrs Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 19 da Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 2 hr via OH radical Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 9.7 hr via ozone PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = rapid

Health : Health Summary: Absorbed all routes (analog). Concern for skin and lung sensitization, mutagenicity, oncogenicity, developmental toxicity, male reproductive, liver, and kidney toxicity based on the epoxide moiety.

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

fish 96-h LC50 4.4 daphnid 48-h LC50 >100 green algal 96-h EC50 >100 fish

_ chronic value 0.37 daphnid

_ chronic value >10

algal

_ chronic value >10

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for vinyl ethers and monoepoxides; SAR chemical class = vinyl ether, monoepoxide; MW 114; log Kow = 0.37 (EPI); liquid with mp unknown (P); S = 108 g/L at 25 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 37

SARs vinyl ethers and monoepoxides SAR Class vinyl ether, monoepoxide Ecotox Category N oneEcotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
#### Jerry GILLIAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debbie Sue MAGISTRADO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15081

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

Jerry Gilliam, Pro Se

Debbie Sue Magistrado, Pro Se

Marsha A. McHugh, Pro Se

James Robert Gilliam, Pro Se

Betsy S. Kimball, Esquire, Attorney, Klinedinst PC, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jerry Gilliam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims arising from a custody dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gilliam’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Gilliam’s claims were raised, or could have been raised, in a prior action between the parties that resulted in a final judgment. *See Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara,*604 F.3d 1142, 1148-49, 1149 n.5 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of res judicata under California law and explaining that it bars subsequent litigation of claims that were raised and claims that could have been raised in the prior action); *see also Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp,*297 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that a dismissal for failure to state a claim constitutes a final judgment on the merits).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Gilliam’s action without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. *See Serra v. Lappin,*600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied if amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gilliam’s motion for a new trial or to amend the judgment because Gilliam failed to establish any basis for such relief. *See State of Idaho Potato Comm’n v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc.,*425 F.3d 708, 718 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review); *see also Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

We do not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

*838Aulakh’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 5) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# L_2014239DE.01008101.xml

| 12.8.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 239/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 239/81

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2001/83/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 6. November 2001 zur Schaffung eines Gemeinschaftskodexes für Humanarzneimittel

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 311 vom 28. November 2001
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 311 vom 28. November 2001

Auf Seite 73, Artikel 3 Nummer 5:

anstatt:

„5.   Radioaktive Arzneimittel zur Anwendung beim Menschen, mit Ausnahme von Radionukliden in Form geschlossener Quellen;“

muss es heißen:

„5.   Radionuklide in Form geschlossener Quellen;“

.

---
#### Robert Lawrence WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve KEEFER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15661

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Robert Lawrence Williams, Pro Se

Stanley H. Brown, Jr., Attorney, Stanley H. Brown, Jr., Chartered, Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Steve Keefer, City of Sparks, Sparks Police Dept., Sparks Chief of Police

Stanley H. Brown, Jr., Attorney, Stanley H. Brown, Jr., Chartered, Reno, NV, Chester H. Adams, Esquire, Sparks City Attorney’s Office, Sparks, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Keating, Fye, Scott Hale-Byron

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

*861Robert Lawrence Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Oyama v. Univ. of Hawaii,*813 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the force used during his arrest was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances. *See Graham v. Connor,*490 U.S. 386, 395-97, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (setting forth the objective reasonableness standard for excessive force determinations).

AFFIRMED.

***

 diSp0Siti0n not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Nildelson PALACIOS-GERARDO, AKA Rifo Moniker, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70047

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed July 3, 2017

Nildelson Palacios-Gerardo, Pro Se

*930David Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, OIL, David J. Schor, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nildelson Palacios-Gerardo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding Palac-ios-Gerardo failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. *See Reyes v. Lynch,*842 F.3d 1125, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2016) (proposed social group of former gang members who have returned to El Salvador is not cognizable); *Arteaga v. Mukasey,*511 F.3d 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2007) (tattooed former gang members does not constitute a particular social group). Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Palacios-Gerardo’s CAT claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1595 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1595

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1595/2001 of 2 August 2001 amending representative prices and additional duties for the import of certain products in the sugar sector **

*
Official Journal L 210 , 03/08/2001 P. 0023 - 0024 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1595/2001

of 2 August 2001

amending representative prices and additional duties for the import of certain products in the sugar sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector(1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed implementing rules for the import of products in the sugar sector other than molasses(2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 624/98(3), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 1(2), and Article 3(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The amounts of the representative prices and additional duties applicable to the import of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1309/2001(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1523/2001(5).

(2) It follows from applying the general and detailed fixing rules contained in Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 to the information known to the Commission that the representative prices and additional duties at present in force should be altered to the amounts set out in the Annex hereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The representative prices and additional duties on imports of the products referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 August 2001.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 August 2001.

For the Commission

Frederik Bolkestein

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 141, 24.6.1995, p. 16.

(3) OJ L 85, 20.3.1998, p. 5.

(4) OJ L 177, 30.6.2001, p. 21.

(5) OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p. 23.

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 2 August 2001 amending representative prices and the amounts of additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and products covered by CN code 1702 90 99

>TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6975 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6975

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 500 West Pike 
 Street in Clarksburg, West Virginia, as the ``Irene M. Keeley United 
              States Courthouse'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2024

 Mr. Mooney (for himself and Mrs. Miller of West Virginia) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 500 West Pike 
 Street in Clarksburg, West Virginia, as the ``Irene M. Keeley United 
              States Courthouse'', and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. IRENE M. KEELEY UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse located at 500 West 
Pike Street in Clarksburg, West Virginia, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Irene M. Keeley United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Irene M. Keeley United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6337 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6337

 To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to the definition 
               of urbanized area, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2016

   Mr. Weber of Texas (for himself, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Gene Green of 
Texas, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Babin, and Mr. Smith of Texas) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to the definition 
               of urbanized area, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF URBANIZED AREA.

    Section 5302(23) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The term'' and inserting the following:
                    ``(A) In general.--The term''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Additional areas.--Notwithstanding 
                subparagraph (A), an area shall be treated as an 
                `urbanized area' if the Secretary of Commerce 
                determines that--
                            ``(i) the area was defined and designated 
                        in a previous decennial census as an `urbanized 
                        area';
                            ``(ii) the area was not defined and 
                        designated in the most recent decennial census 
                        as an `urbanized area' as the result of a 
                        natural disaster that caused the population of 
                        the area to fall below 50,000 people; and
                            ``(iii) the most recent annual estimate of 
                        the Bureau of the Census estimates the 
                        population of the area to be restored to 50,000 
                        or more people.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Samuel L. GASKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy COOPER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6409

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 11, 2017

Decided: August 16, 2017

Samuel L. Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel L. Gaskins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order *760is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed- the record and conclude that Gaskins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20273 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DOMINGO RODRIGUEZ-NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-746-ALL

-------------------- October 29, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Domingo Rodriguez-Nunez appeals his sentence from his guilty-plea conviction for being found illegally in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). He argues that the district court erred in applying a 16-level “aggravated felony” increase, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), because the rule of lenity requires the court to interpret the term “drug trafficking crime” under the guideline and the relevant statutes to exclude his state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Rodriguez-Nunez acknowledges that hisNo. 01-20273 -2- argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). He seeks to preserve the issue for possible review by the Supreme Court. The district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d at 693-94; see United States v. Hernandez-Avalos , 251 F.3d 505, 508-09 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , (U.S. Oct. 1, 2001) (No. 01-5773). AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ChiRex Inc's third
quarter 1999 Form 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
Form 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001005407
<NAME> CHIREX INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             857
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,995
<PP&E>                                         178,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 249,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,461
<BONDS>                                         29,149
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           149
<OTHER-SE>                                     155,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   249,965
<SALES>                                         37,851
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,013
<CGS>                                         (24,005)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (986)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,061
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (359)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                702
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       702
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the Report), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); 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: February 18, 2008 |  | By: | /s/ Allen E. Kahn       | 
|                        |  |     | Allen E. Kahn           | 
|                        |  |     | Chief Financial Officer | 



The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.