alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PAFT: HFC-32

http://www.afeas.org/paft/hfc-32.html[20/07/2011 17:32:05]

Summary of Testing Results

HFC-32 has very low acute and

subchronic inhalation toxicity.

HFC-32 is not a developmental

toxicant.

HFC-32 is not mutagenic.

PAFT

Programme for Alternative

Fluorocarbon Toxicity Testing

HFC-32 is one of a series of fluorocarbon alternatives being studied as part of the Programme for Alternative

Fluorocarbon Toxicity Testing (PAFT). HFC-32 is being considered primarily as an alternative, in blends, for

refrigeration systems.

HFC-32 has very low toxicity by inhalation. The lowest concentration

that causes mortality in experimental animals -- the approximate lethal

concentration (ALC) -- for a 4-hour exposure is greater than 760,000

ppm (76%). Anaesthetic-like effects, such as lethargy and

incoordination, are observed in rats at very high inhalation

concentrations (greater than 110,000 ppm).

As with many other halocarbons and hydrocarbons, inhalation of HFC32 followed by intravenous injection of epinephrine, which simulates

human stress reactions, results in a cardiac sensitization response in

experimental screening studies with dogs. This cardiac sensitization response is observed at approximately 350,000

ppm of HFC-32, a level well above expected exposures. By comparison, a cardiac sensitization response is observed

with CFC-11 at approximately 5,000 ppm, and with CFC-12 at approximately 50,000 ppm.

In repeated inhalation exposure studies, the low toxicity of HFC-32 continues to be evident. No adverse effects were

observed in rats exposed by inhalation at concentrations of up to 50,000 ppm for up to 90 days.

Inhalation developmental toxicity studies with rats and rabbits have been completed. The results indicate that HFC-32

is not teratogenic, and does not cause fetal effects at inhalation concentrations of up to 50,000 ppm.

In genetic toxicity testing, HFC-32 was not mutagenic in an Ames assay, a Chinese Hamster Lung (CHL) assay, or a

chromosomal aberration study with human lymphocytes. These studies were in vitro assays. Also, HFC-32 was not

active in an in vivo mouse micronucleus study.

Metabolism studies with HFC-32 have indicated only very low levels of metabolism (less than 0.5%).

The testing of HFC-32 under PAFT V has been completed. The results are summarized in the sidebar above.

An exposure limit of 1,000 ppm (8-hour time-weighted average) for HFC-32 has been recommended by the American

Industrial Hygiene Association's Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) Committee.

As for all chemicals, PAFT recommends that exposures be kept to a practicable minimum.

September 1995

Last updated October 11, 1996
Louise R. RYTERSKI-HALL, Respondent, v. C. Michael HALL, Appellant.

No. ED 105439

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: March 13, 2018 Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 17, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Ronald James Wuebbeling, 4838 Greenburg Drive, St. Charles, MO 63304, THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN BELL P.C.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Scott Simpson, 131 Jefferson Street, St. Charles, MO 63301, NIEDNER LAW.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

C. Michael Hall appeals from the trial court's Judgment denying his Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Eleventh Amendment to 401(k) Savings and Profit Sharing Plan



 Exhibit 10.13 
 ELEVENTH AMENDMENT 
 OF 
 ENTEGRIS, INC. 
 401(k) SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN 
 (2005 Restatement) 
 WHEREAS, Entegris, Inc. (the “Principal Sponsor”) has heretofore established and maintains a 401(k) and profit sharing plan which
was amended and restated in a document effective August 5, 2005, and entitled “ENTEGRIS, INC. 401(k) SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN (2005 Restatement),” as amended (collectively, the “Plan Statement”); and 
 WHEREAS, The Principal Sponsor has reserved to itself the power to make further amendments of the Plan Statement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, The Plan Statement is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	MATCHING CONTRIBUTION REINSTATEMENT. Effective as of January 1, 2010 or as soon thereafter as administratively and legally feasible, Sections 3.3.1 and
3.3.2 of the Plan Statement shall be amended to read in full as follows: 

 3.3.1. Amount
and Eligibility. The Employer shall contribute to the Trustee for deposit in the Fund and for crediting to the Participant’s Employer Matching Account an amount which will equal one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of the first
three percent (3%) and fifty percent (50%) of the amount of the next two percent (2%) of reduction in Recognized Compensation for each pay period which was agreed to by the Participant pursuant to a Retirement Savings Election. Such
Employer matching contributions shall be delivered to the Trustee for deposit in the Fund not later than the time prescribed by federal law (including extensions) for filing the federal income tax return of the Employer for the taxable year in which
the Plan Year ends. 
 3.3.2. Matching Contributions Determined on an Annual Basis. If the matching
contributions made with respect to any Participant for the Plan Year are less than one hundred percent (100%) of the first three percent (3%) and fifty percent (50%) of the amount of the next two percent (2%) of reduction in
Recognized Compensation for such Plan Year, then the Employer shall make an additional matching contribution to the Plan so that the total matching contributions with respect to such Participant for such Plan Year will equal one hundred percent
(100%) of the first three percent (3%) and fifty percent (50%) of the amount of the next two percent (2%) of the Participant’s reduction in Recognized Compensation for such Plan Year. 
  

	 	2.	 CONFORMING CHANGES. Wherever the amount of Employer Matching Contributions is set forth in the Plan Statement, such language shall be amended to
read in full as follows: “one hundred percent (100%)











	 	 
of the first three percent (3%) and fifty percent (50%) of the amount of the next two percent (2%) of reduction in Recognized Compensation for such Plan Year.”



  

	 	3.	SAVINGS CLAUSE. Save and except as herein expressly amended, the Plan Statement shall continue in full force and effect.
ex10-1.htm


    Exhibit 10.1

     

    
 

    February
23, 2010

    


    Marani
Brands, Inc.

    13152
Raymer Street North Hollywood, CA 91605

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              Attn:
      Margrit Eyraud, CEO Ara Zartarian,
EVP

            


    

    


    The
undersigned, Ani Kevorkian, hereby resigns from the position as the Chief
Financial Officer of Marani Brands, Inc. (the "Company"), effective as of
February 23, 2010. I have made this decision in order to assist the Company in
its continuing initiative to reduce its operational expenses, and to permit me
to pursue other professional opportunities. I do intend to continue to serve in
my capacity as a member of the Company's Board of Directors, in accordance with
the Company's By-laws.

    


    It has been a great
pleasure to work for Marani Brands, Inc. and I know that I have benefited from
the experience, and trust the Company has as well. I wish the Company and its
management future success for the continued growth of the Company and will
participate therein for as long as I continue to serve on the Company's Board of
Directors

    


    Sincerely

    /s/ Ani Kevorkian      


    Ani
Kevorkian

    Board
Member
**UNPUBLISHED**
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13-7268**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JAMES R. NIBLOCK, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria . Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:02-cr-00568-GBL-1)
Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph A. Connors III, McAllen, Texas, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, William P. Jauquet, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James R. Niblock seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order s denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion s for reconsideration of the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order s are not appeal able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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 motion st ates a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Niblock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and d ismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.54






Exhibit 10.54




FIRST AMENDMENT TO AQUA AMERICA, INC.

SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION BENEFIT PLAN

FOR SALARIED EMPLOYEES




(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2008)




WHEREAS, Aqua America, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Aqua America, Inc. Supplemental
Pension Benefit Plan for Salaried Employees (the “Plan”) for the benefit of a select group of
management and highly compensated employees; and



WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the benefit payable to a Surviving
Spouse;



NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date set forth below, Section 1.16 of the Plan is hereby
amended to read as follows:




1.16 “Surviving Spouse Benefit” means the survivor annuity payable to the
Surviving Spouse determined as if the Participant had retired on the later of the day prior
to his death or on the date of his earliest retirement age (having survived to such date),
with an immediate joint and survivor annuity. The survivor annuity percentage shall be 75%
with respect to Participants in Part A of the Retirement Plan and 50% with respect to
Participants in Part C of the Retirement Plan. A Surviving Spouse Benefit shall be
determined in the form of a single life annuity (based on such survivor annuity) for the
life of the Surviving Spouse commencing on the later of the Participant’s date of death or
earliest retirement age. Earliest retirement age shall have the same meaning as under the
Retirement Plan.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Aqua America, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be duly executed, under
seal, this 10th day of December, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	AQUA AMERICA, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Maria Gordiany

	 	By:
	 	Roy H. Stahl
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Assistant Secretary

	 	 	 	Chief Administrative Officer,

General Counsel and Secretary






[Corporate Seal]
### dtnvi'ckin /2//W ftfinM' »'t '<*'" '/J"»» */>f>&c,»£*» /-I/ 

### f,AM. J' l.o£p'•$"<>* ty */>/«"<*&{]'«£ Jr/ht Jrv/JeJ/) >»A> M,i 'id4 i Pe{/)6//4<? 6 -tywutf

r, U/&Jtfo&oA depui /ifij aid U*t<^jtfle*n>A4*J«*> M*/ ^»u fill Ai6e)v&d P/id fl-ieitn/fee/ A 4#ii/6m£^ & //'/9-/Y RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JAN 15 2015 Abel Acosta, Oie»* J/4//J'Lhu
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Santon CLAY, Appellant.

No. ED 105630

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: August 7, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Jessica Hathaway, 120 South Central Ave., Ste. 130, St. Louis, MO 63105.

FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Julia E. Neidhardt, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Santon Clay appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict convicting him of three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2







WAIVER


 


In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States or any state or territory thereof or my employer or any of its directors, officers, employees and agents for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required in order to comply with Section 111 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, as amended (“EESA”), and rules, regulations, guidance or other requirements issued thereunder (collectively, the “EESA Restrictions”).


 


I acknowledge that the EESA Restrictions may require modification of the employment, compensation, bonus, incentive, severance, retention and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden parachute” agreements), whether or not in writing, that I have with my employer or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital Purchase Program and I hereby consent to all such modifications.  I further acknowledge and agree that if my employer notifies me in writing that I have received payments in violation of the EESA Restrictions, I shall repay the aggregate amount of such payments to my employer no later than fifteen business days following my receipt of such notice.


 


This waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any other jurisdiction related to the requirements imposed by the EESA Restrictions (including without limitation, any claim for any compensation or other payments or benefits I would otherwise receive absent the EESA Restrictions, any challenge to the process by which the EESA Restrictions were adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of the foregoing on my employment relationship) and I hereby agree that I will not at any time initiate, or cause or permit to be initiated on my behalf, any such claim against the United States, my employer or its directors, officers, employees or agents in or before any local, state, federal or other agency, court or body.


 


 


In witness whereof, I execute this waiver on my own behalf, thereby communicating my acceptance and acknowledgement to the provisions herein.


 


Respectfully,



	  	
 


 


        /Preston D. Pinkett, III/                         


Name:  Preston D. Pinkett, III


Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:   February 28, 2011
#### George L. Stoudemire, Jr., Appellant, v Jose E. Romere et al., Respondents.

[774 NYS2d 186]

*760In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated January 15, 2003, which granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as academic.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is denied, and the motion is granted.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). However, the affirmation of the plaintiff’s physician submitted in opposition to the defendants’ cross motion raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment.

Moreover, in this rear-end collision case, where the defendants failed to come forth with any reasonable explanation for the accident, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability *(see Krakowska v Niksa,*298 AD2d 561 [2002], *lv denied*1 NY3d 501 [2003]; *Reed v New York City Tr. Auth.,*299 AD2d 330 [2002]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1


                              PACIFIC STATE BANCORP

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
Regarding Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2004

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pacific State Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of their
knowledge, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
          15 (d) of the Securities and 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: November 15, 2004                    /s/ STEVEN A. ROSSO
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Steven A. Rosso
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer



Date: November 15, 2004,                   /s/ JOANNE ROBERTS
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           JoAnne Roberts
                                           Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer



                                       20
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000839950
<NAME> NORTH COAST ENERGY, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,578,984
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,407,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    189,223
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,247,989
<PP&E>                                      31,944,089
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,155,288
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,311,516
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,465,994
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,438
<COMMON>                                       166,129
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,169,720
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,311,516
<SALES>                                      8,590,632
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,590,632
<CGS>                                        7,556,714
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,556,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (67,562)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             839,342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                262,138
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            262,138
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   262,138
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>