alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SunChemicar <''·~·('F' ~ \l[;•c•) ~L .... ,.,. .... ~w L 

amemberoftheOICgroup Eft Oop·l·· cr!'j0 1 !.) \1 

Sun Chemical Corporation 

1506 Bushy Park Road 

Goose Creek, SC 29445 

(843) 820-6102 ' 

2014 Ht\R 19 Mi 8: 29 (843) 820-6836 Fax 

robert.mott@sunchemical.com 

February 4, 2014 II Scanned & Processed in 

CIS by: SHARON 

Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW Washington, DC 20460-0001 

Re: 40 CFR 799.5089- Test Rule Exemption Request 

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

Sun Chemical Corporation- CAS 127-68-4 

Dear Sir/madam, 

CBIC Control Number 

359036 

<' 

)'(.V!f r "'I ~) ?- -7 

This serves as an Application for Exemption, in Compliance40 CFR 790-82. We last imported this 

material in 2011 and this was always a minor portion of our supply chain for this chemical substance. 

Basis for Exemption: The tests required under the test rule have been completed by Tiarco Chemical. 

We have entered ari agreement with Tiarco Chemical whereby they have agreed to cover our obligation 

under their test plan as required under 40 CFR 790.99 for a fair and equitable reimbursement on our part. 

Therefore, pursuant to the requirements under 40 CFR 790.45 weare providing the following required 

information: 

Chemical Name: Benzenesulfonic acid, 3-nitro-, sodium salt (1:1) 

CAS Number: 127-68-4 

Molecular formula: C6HsNOsS.Na 

Chemical Purity: ~99% 

Verification of Identity: Method 2 - supplier information; verified through internal chemical 

characterization 

Impurities known to be present: ~1 %, Water, CAS 7732-18-5 

Known Trade Names: Ludigol, Reservol, Resist Salt 

Testing Requirements: 

The tests covered by the test plan from Tiarco Chemical are: 

A3. Vapor Pressure: ASTM E 1782-08 (thermal analysis); 

F2. Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test: 40 CPR 799.9355. 

Company Sponsoring: 

Sun Chemical Corporation 

35 Waterview Boulevard 

Parsippany, NJ 07054-1285 

United States of America 

973 404 6000 Tel 

973 404 6001 Fax 

RECEN£0 

[l.??- l 5 ?.0\4 

E.PA oocKET CENTER 
Sun Chemical® 

a membe):ofthe DICgroup Flffl 

Company Contact: 

Dr. Robert C. Mott 

1506 Bushy park Rd. 

Goose Creek, SC 29445 

843 820-6102 Tel 

843 820-6836 Fax 

Sun Chemical Corporation 

1506 Bushy Park Road 

Goose Creel{, SC 29445 

(843) 820-6102 

(843) 820-.6836 Fax 

robert.mott@sunchemical.com 

Please do not hesitate to contact me shouid you require any further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

~~~ 

Dr. Robert C. Mott 

Manager, Global Regulatory
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Provident Bankshares
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gary N.
Geisel, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by 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 as of and for the period covered by the
             Report.


                               /s/ Gary N. Geisel
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Gary N. Geisel
                               Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

May 13, 2005
Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Galaxy  Nutritional  Foods, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Salvatore J. Furnari, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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/ Salvatore J. Furnari
                                        -------------------------------
                                        Salvatore J. Furnari
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        July 16, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1999 AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         113,028
<SECURITIES>                                   111,396
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,619
<INVENTORY>                                     42,114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               354,654
<PP&E>                                       1,222,186
<DEPRECIATION>                                 743,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 852,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          184,091
<BONDS>                                        450,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                     164,401
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   852,052
<SALES>                                        174,766
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               174,766
<CGS>                                          193,421
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  193,421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                69,407
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (83,174)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (25,879)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (57,295)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (57,295)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.16)


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-5136

_____________________________

DEXTER FARMER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

February 27, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Dexter Farmer, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
No. 12-5376.

#### Piccone *v.*New York State Department of Health et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Submitted May 11;

portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed, otherwise affirmed June 14, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*DENNIS EUGENE JOHNSON, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Marion County Circuit Court

15CR08715; A160910

395 P3d 985

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and John Evans, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Haselton, Senior Judge.

*298PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of one count of driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, and was sentenced to 24 months’ bench probation. The court also imposed a fine of $1,755, a bench probation fee of $100, and court-appointed attorney fees in the amount of $322. On appeal, defendant argues that the prosecutor improperly vouched for a state’s witness during closing argument, and that the trial court erred in failing to *sua sponte*grant a mistrial or give a curative instruction in response to the vouching. He also argues that the trial court plainly erred in imposing court-appointed attorney fees, because the record is silent regarding his ability to pay them.

We reject without discussion defendant’s vouching arguments. With regard to court-appointed attorney fees, we accept the state’s concession that the trial court plainly erred in imposing attorney fees of $322 on this record. *See State v. Coverstone,*260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (holding that a trial court commits plain error by imposing court-appointed attorney fees where the record is silent as to the defendant’s ability to pay those fees). Further, we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error, for reasons similar to those expressed in *State v. Ramirez-Hernandez,*264 Or App 346, 349, 332 P3d 338 (2014) (exercising discretion to correct erroneous imposition of $400 in court-appointed attorney fees because the amount was substantial in light of the defendant’s circumstances).

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1907 DREAMA GOUGE, d/b/a Lifestyle Furniture, Incorporated, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PENN AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-1083-2) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dreama Gouge, Appellant Pro Se. Ancil Glenn Ramey, Angela D. Herdman, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia; Anders W. Lindberg, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dreama Gouge appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeGouge v. Penn America Ins. Co. , No. CA-04-1083-2 (S.D.W. Va. July 12, 2005). 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT MAYS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 217 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT MAYS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 218 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1777

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Raymond Damon Smith, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 19, 2009

Filed: October 26, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 2003, Raymond Smith received a sentence of 400 months after he was found

guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute

approximately 1,912 grams of cocaine base (commonly known as "crack"). Smith

brought a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) for a reduction in his sentence pursuant

to a guidelines amendment (Amendment 706) which reduced the advisory base

offense level for crack offenses by two levels. He also asked the district court1

 to

appoint counsel and conduct a full resentencing in order to weigh all the factors set
2

Smith also contends that the district court should have reduced his sentence to

a level below the low end of the guidelines range. This argument is foreclosed by

Starks, 551 F.3d at 840. 

-2-

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in support of a greater sentence reduction. The district

court calculated an amended advisory guidelines range of 324-405 months, but

declined to modify Smith's sentence, citing the scope and duration of Smith's criminal

activities.

Smith appeals, arguing the district court had authority to conduct a full

resentencing and erred by not doing so. He acknowledges his argument is foreclosed

by United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 843 (8th Cir. 2009) (concluding district

courts do not have authority, in resentencing proceedings resulting from the crack

cocaine amendments, to conduct full resentencings or grant reductions beyond the

two-level decrease authorized by the Sentencing Commission), but brings this appeal

in order to preserve the issue for further review.

Smith further argues the district court abused its discretion in failing to modify

Smith's sentence.2

 The district court's decision not to reduce a sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wyatt, 115 F.3d

606, 609 (8th Cir. 1997). Smith concedes his 400-month sentence falls within the

recalculated guidelines range, but nonetheless argues the court abused its discretion.

We disagree. The district court, in its order, based its decision on trial testimony

showing Smith was spotted by police in his yard with a brick of cocaine and a pistol.

Smith was arrested shortly thereafter in his residence, and the police seized a loaded

gun, scales, cash, a bullet proof vest, and surveillance cameras. The district court also

considered Smith's prior conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion

in declining to modify Smith's sentence.
-3-

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
No. 11-10582.

#### Barriera-Vera *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-5310.

#### Lachira *v.*Sutton Land LLC et al.

App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             705
<SECURITIES>                                     3,156
<RECEIVABLES>                                  153,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,910
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         339,843
<DEPRECIATION>                                 167,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 356,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        297,975
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   356,148
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,039
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,051
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,398
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 82,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             82,929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,929
<EPS-BASIC>                                      12.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    12.86


</TABLE>
No. 12-46.

#### Maloof *v.*Uhrich, Plan Administrator of the Consolidated Estate of Level Propane Gases, Inc.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 11, 2014

No. 04-13-00890-CR

Ramon GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-03-0040 CRA

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. 

Counsel certifies he has served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, has informed appellant of his right 

to review the record and file his own brief, and has explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the 

record. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 

S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that he do so on or before May 26, 2014. If 

appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after 

appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. Alternatively, if appellant does not file a timely pro se brief, the 

State may file a brief in response to counsel’s brief no later than thirty days after the pro se brief is due. 

We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance pending 

further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw 

should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel’s 

evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008) (same).

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his counsel, the 

attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 

11th day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 12-5045.

#### Scott *v.*Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
July 2015

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced on Federal and Indian Lands, FY 2003 through FY 2014 21

Table 10. Sales of natural gas plant liquids production from federal and Indian lands by state/area, FY 2003-14

million barrels

State 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Alabama 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 

Arizona - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 - - 

Arkansas - - - - - - - - - - - - 

California 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Colorado 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 8 9 11 6 7 

Florida - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Illinois - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Indiana - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Kentucky - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - 

Louisiana 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 

Michigan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mississippi 0 0 - - - - - - - 0 0 - 

Montana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Nebraska - - - - - 0 - - - - - - 

Nevada - - - - - - - - - - - - 

New Mexico 31 32 31 30 31 31 30 31 32 32 31 31 

New York - - - - - - - - - - - - 

North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 

Offshore Gulf 49 60 54 44 55 50 43 55 50 43 43 45 

Offshore Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ohio - - - - - - - - - 0 0 - 

Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 

Pennsylvania - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 

South Dakota - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Texas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Utah 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 5 6 8 7 8 

Virginia - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Washington - - - - - - - - - - - - 

West Virginia - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Wyoming 9 8 8 8 12 15 11 31 34 35 20 23 

Total 94 105 98 87 106 106 95 134 134 133 112 121 

Note: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration based on U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Natural Resources Revenue. “ONNR Statistical Information Site” (http://statistics.onrr.gov).