alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p120351.sr

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0351

Standard Review Draft 6/28/2012

ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ AG \ AH

PV (kg/yr): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1
p120351.sr

 

SAT (concerns) (05/18/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Related Cases: Analogs: . Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P3B3T2 PMN: Health 1; Eco 1 // Perfluoro

Acid: Health 2 // High concern for toxicity of

incomplete incineration products to terrestrial organisms:

 Eco 3 // PMN: P3B1T1 // Deg Pdt: P3B3T2

Health: 1 Drinking Water, Inhalation, No exposures for PMN

/ Drinking water and inhalation for Perfluoro acid

Eco: 1 No releases to Water

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2B

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0351

Use: s

Number of Sites/ Location: 3

Paul Lashley Supply Inc. Shreveport LA 71107

Shawmut Corp. West Bridgewater MA 02379

INX International-INX Digital Dixon CA 95620

Days/yr: 100

Page 2
p120351.sr

 

 

 

Process Description: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

Water or Incineration or Landfill

High End: 6.6E+0 kg/site-day over 3 days/yr from 3 sites

or 5.9E+1 kg/yr

 

.

Water or Incineration or Landfill

Conservative: 5.7E-1 kg/site-day over 100 days/yr from 3

sites

or 1.7E+2 kg/yr

 

 

Water or Incineration or Landfill

High End: 1.4E-1 kg/site-day over 100 days/yr from 3 sites

or 4.1E+1 kg/yr

 

Air

Output 2: 2.1E+0 kg/site-day over 100 days/yr from 3 sites

Page 3
p120351.sr

 

 

Incineration or Landfill

Output 2: 1.9E+1 kg/site-day over 100 days/yr from 3 sites

or 5.7E+3 kg/yr

RELEASE TOTAL

6.6E+3 kg/yr - all sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 4
p120351.sr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 18

 

Inhalation:

 

Exposure to Particulate (Class I)

Upper Bound: 7.5E-1 mg/day over 100 days/yr

Number of workers (all sites) with inhalation exposure: 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INHALATION MONITORING DATA REVIEW

1) Uncertainty (estimate based on model, regulatory limit

Page 5
p120351.sr

 or data not specific to industry): Yes

2)a) Exposure level > 1 mg/day? No

 OR

 b) Hazard Rating for health of 2 or greater? 1 No

Inhalation Monitoring Data Desired? No

Dermal:

 

 

Exposure to Liquid at 99.93% concentration

High End: 1.8E+3 mg/day over 100 days/yr

Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure: 9

 



MEMORANDUM of CBI TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 6
p120351.sr

MEMORANDUM of CBI TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 7
#### Duane WHITMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. DANTE, C.O.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15305

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 15, 2018 * San Francisco, California

Filed February 22, 2018

Travis Norman Barrick, Attorney, Galli-an, Welker & Beckstrom, LC, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant

D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: HAWKINS and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Nevada state prisoner Duane Whitmore appeals from the district court’s'Summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims and the court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 *587U.S.C. § 1291, and review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), and denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion, *Phelps v. Alameida,*569 F.3d 1120, 1131 (9th Cir. 2009).

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Whitmore failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[Pjroper exhaustion of administrative remedies ... means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so *properly*(so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).”) (internal citation omitted); *Williams,*775 F.3d at 1191 (a prisoner who does not exhaust administrative remedies must show that “there is something particular in his case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him”). Moreover, the PLRA’s exhaustion language is mandatory. *See Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1856, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016).

Summary judgment for defendants was proper because Whitmore failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ requirement that Whitmore file an amended grievance under the first grievance number made generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Whitmore’s motion for reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5743]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION


Public Meeting

ACTION: Los Angeles PCCIP Public Meeting.

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

TIME & DATE: 10:00 am-1:00 pm, Thursday, March 13, 1997.

PLACE: Public Works Hearing Room, City Hall, Room 350, 3rd Floor, 200 
N. Spring Street, Los Angeles CA 90012.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Any concerned citizen, group or activity with 
advice/comments on assuring America's critical infrastructures.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Nelson McCouch, Public Affairs 
Director, (703) 696-9395, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#117f747d627e7f3f7c72727e6472795161727278613f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f59b9099869a9bdb9896969a80969db58596969c85db929a83">[email protected]</span></a>.
Robert E. Giovagnoni,
General Counsel, President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure 
Protection.
[FR Doc. 97-5743 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-$$-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 11-10544.

#### Barney *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2021278EN.01005701.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/57

---

Action brought on 19 May 2021 — The Topps Company v EUIPO — Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz (Shape of a baby’s bottle)

(Case T-273/21)

(2021/C 278/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Topps Company, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: D. Wieddekind and D. Wiemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz (Gdansk, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a baby’s bottle) — European Union trade mark No 1 400 407

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2021 in Case R 1326/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6243

EARL T. MARSHALL, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

W. J. THOMPSON, Warden; FEDERAL BUREAU OF

PRISONS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-140-1)

Submitted: November 3, 1998 Decided: November 18, 1998

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl T. Marshall, III, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Earl T. Marshall, III, appeals from a district court order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994).

In light of our recent decision in Pelissero v. Thompson, 155 F.3d

470 (4th Cir. 1998), we affirm the district court’s denial of

relief. 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.

AFFIRMED
tnib_ex1014.htm


Exhibit 10.14


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 


9
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8720 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8720

  To provide greater flexibility to agencies to make appointments to 
 positions for which there is a severe shortage of candidates, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 30, 2020

  Mr. Steube introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide greater flexibility to agencies to make appointments to 
 positions for which there is a severe shortage of candidates, 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. FEDERAL AGENCY APPOINTMENT FLEXIBILITY.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 31 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 3116 the following new section:
``Sec. 3117. Agency appointment flexibility
    ``(a) In General.--The head of an agency may, without regard to the 
provisions of section 3304 and sections 3309 through 3318, appoint a 
qualified individual to a position within the agency that is in the 
competitive service and for which the head of the agency determines 
that there is a severe shortage of candidates.
    ``(b) Rule of Construction.--This provision shall not be construed 
as superseding or otherwise affecting any authority granted to the head 
of any agency under any other provision of law to make appointments 
without regard to a provision of chapter 33.
    ``(c) Agency Defined.--The term `agency' has the meaning given such 
term under section 551.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 31 of 
title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
related to section 3116 the following item:

``3117. Agency appointment flexibility.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

I, John N. Bonfiglio, Ph.D., certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Immune Response Corporation;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
|                  |   |                                                    |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: August 19, 2003 | By:    | /s/ John N. Bonfiglio                                   |
|                  |   | John N. Bonfiglio, Ph.D.

 Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF 18 U.S.C.
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Immune Response Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), which this written
statement accompanies, I, John N. Bonfiglio, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of 18 U.S.C., 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.

Dated: November 12, 2004                                /s/ John N. Bonfiglio
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        John N. Bonfiglio
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     Dec-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                             3,160,000
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        280,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   2,666,000
<PP&E>                            15,077,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    21,183,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              6,024,000
<BONDS>                            8,345,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                         108,568,000
<OTHER-SE>                      (101,754,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      21,183,000
<SALES>                           41,787,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  42,529,000
<CGS>                              5,993,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      8,471,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     108,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 2,653,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   31,297,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      31,297,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           3.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                           3.27


</TABLE>
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE01957 A1

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41502

Summary Calendar

CLARENCE A. NUGENT, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

N. LEE CONNER,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(5:97-CV-249)

June 26, 1998

Before JOHNSON, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clarence A. Nugent, Jr., federal inmate #08922-035, appeals

the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his

petition, Nugent challenged the decision by the U.S. Bureau of

Prisons (BOP) to deny consideration of early release pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). Additionally, for the first time on

appeal, Nugent contends that the application of an amended BOP

regulation violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.

In reviewing habeas petitions, this court reviews the district

court’s determinations of law de novo and its findings of fact for
2

clear error. Venegas v. Henman, 126 F.3d 760, 761 (5th Cir. 1997).

Nugent challenges the BOP’s denial of consideration for his

early release, contending that the BOP failed to follow the

governing statutes and regulations. Specifically, Nugent argues

that the BOP impermissibly excluded an inmate convicted under 18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) from early release consideration under 19 U.S.C.

§ 3621(e)(2)(B). Our review of the controlling authorities and

and the appellate record confirms that the district court did not

err in denying habeas relief. See Venegas, 126 F.3d at 765.

Nugent also argues that a violation of the Ex Post Facto

Clause resulted from the use of 28 C.F.R. § 550.58, as amended, in

response to his request for early release. Because Nugent did not

raise the issue in the district court, the scope of our review is

limited to plain error. The district court did not plainly err in

determining that the BOP properly exercised its discretion in its

promulgation and application of § 550.58. See Wottlin v. Fleming,

136 F.3d 1032, 1037-38 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.