alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §470w–5. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 89–665, title III, §306, as added Pub. L. 96–515, title V, §501, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3002, related to National Museum for the Building Arts. Subsecs. (a) to (c), (e), and (f) were repealed and restated in sections 305501 to 305505 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs. Subsec. (d), which provided for renovation of the site of the Museum, was repealed as obsolete.
#### § 814.11 Interest, penalties, and administrative costs.

Debts owed to the Agency shall be assessed interest, penalties and administrative costs in accordance with FCCS, 31 CFR 901.9.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 476 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 476

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase for 2 years the 
residential energy credit and the investment tax credit with respect to 
  solar property with a nameplate capacity of less than 20 kilowatts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2019

  Mr. Neguse introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase for 2 years the 
residential energy credit and the investment tax credit with respect to 
  solar property with a nameplate capacity of less than 20 kilowatts.

    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 ``Solar Expansion of Distributed 
Generation Exponentially Act'' or the ``Solar EDGE Act''.

SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR INCREASE FOR CERTAIN SOLAR PROPERTY EXPENDITURES.

    (a) In General.--Section 25D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i) and by 
inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
    ``(h) Two-Year Increase for Certain Solar Property Expenditures.--
Notwithstanding subsection (g), in the case of qualified solar electric 
property expenditures for taxable years beginning during 2020 or 2021 
with respect to property which has a nameplate capacity of less than 20 
kilowatts (or thermal energy equivalent), the applicable percentage 
under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2019.

SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR INCREASE FOR CERTAIN SOLAR PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 48 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(5) Two-year increase for certain solar property.--
        Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in the 
        case of property--
                    ``(A) described in subsection (a)(3)(A)(i),
                    ``(B) the construction of which begins during 2020 
                or 2021, and
                    ``(C) which has a nameplate capacity of less than 
                20 kilowatts (or thermal energy equivalent),
        the energy percentage shall be 50 percent.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to property construction of which begins after December 31, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
HERCULES INCORPORATED

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.5

                            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 Annual Report of Hercules Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William H. Joyce, 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.


/s/ William H. Joyce
-----------------------
William H. Joyce
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
May 1, 2003
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ROBERT WESLEY WARDEN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30239 

D.C. No. 

3:13-po-00211-EJL-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 9, 2018**

Seattle, Washington

Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,*** Chief District 

Judge.

Robert Warden, an enrolled member of the Nez Perce Indian Tribe (the 

“Tribe”), appeals his convictions for assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge 

for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 17 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

§ 1291, and we affirm.

1. Warden argues that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction under 

18 U.S.C. § 1152. “Crimes [committed in Indian country] in which the 

perpetrator, but not the victim, is Indian are subject to . . . federal jurisdiction under 

§ 1152 . . . except where the tribe has already imposed punishment.” United States 

v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. 2005). Neither Kamiah Deputy Marshal 

Matt Taylor nor the Nez Perce Tribal Officers whom Warden assaulted are 

members of the Tribe. And Warden has presented no evidence that he was

punished because he was detained by the Tribe pending trial, when the Tribe 

ultimately decided to dismiss the charges against Warden and release him. See 

United States v. Strong, 778 F.2d 1393, 1396 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Bell v. 

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979) (“Not every disability imposed during pretrial 

detention amounts to ‘punishment’” and “the fact that such detention interferes 

with the detainee’s understandable desire to live as comfortably as possible and 

with as little restraint as possible during confinement does not convert the 

conditions or restrictions of detention into ‘punishment.’”). The magistrate judge 

had jurisdiction under § 1152.

2. We disagree with Warden that he was resisting an unlawful arrest

when he assaulted Deputy Taylor. Deputy Taylor was not attempting to arrest 

Warden, and instead the physical altercation between the two came about only 
3 

because Deputy Taylor was attempting to protect Pennie Moffett and her 

daughters. Deputy Taylor was entitled to act to protect Moffett, who was the wife 

whom Warden had allegedly battered earlier that night, from the present threat of 

danger Warden posed. See United States v. Lemon, 824 F.2d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 

1987). We conclude that the magistrate judge correctly held that Warden’s 

conduct in attempting to bite Deputy Taylor was not part of resisting an unlawful 

arrest. 

AFFIRMED.
§ 1225.12 Procedures affecting States in noncompliance. ( a ) Each fiscal year, each State determined to be in noncompliance with 23 U.S.C. 163 and this part, based on NHTSA and FHWA's preliminary review of its certification, will be advised of the amount of funds expected to be withheld under § 1225.8 from apportionment, as part of the advance notice of apportionments required under 23 U.S.C. 104(e), which is ordinarily issued on July 1 of each fiscal year.
( b ) If NHTSA and FHWA determine that any State is not in compliance with 23 U.S.C. 163 and this part, based on the agencies' preliminary review, the State may submit documentation showing why it is in compliance. States will have until September 30 to rebut the initial determination or to come into compliance with 23 U.S.C. and this part. Documentation shall be submitted through NHTSA's Regional Administrators, who will refer the requests to appropriate NHTSA and FHWA offices for review.
( c ) Each fiscal year, each State determined not to be in compliance with 23 U.S.C. 163 and this part, based on NHTSA's and FHWA's final determination, will receive notice of the funds being withheld under § 1225.8 from apportionment, as part of the certification of apportionments required under 23 U.S.C. 104(e), which normally occurs on October 1 of each fiscal year.
#### Rosena W. BRADSHAW, Movant, v. SORRENTO RESTAURANTS, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 13, 1941.

Wheeler & Shelbourne for movant.

Alexander & Reed, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied; judgment affirmed.
CS 315822-I 09/16/2020

10 bagay ou ka fè pou jere sentòm COVID-19 

ou yo lakay ou

Vèsyon Aksesib: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html

Si ou gen COVID-19 posib oswa konfime:

1. Rete lakay ou, pa ale nan 

travay ni lekòl. Epitou rete 

lwen lòt andwa piblik yo. Si 

ou dwe sòti deyò, evite pran 

nenpòt kalite transpò piblik, 

pataj woulib, oswa taksi.

2. Siveye sentòm ou yo

avèk anpil atansyon. Si 

sentòm ou yo vin pi mal, 

rele founisè swen sante ou 

touswit. 

3. Pran repo epi rete 

idrate. 

4. Si ou gen yon randevou 

medikal, rele founisè 

swen sante a davans 

epi di li ou gen oswa ou 

petèt gen COVID-19.

5. Pou ijans medikal yo, rele 

911 epi enfòme pèsonèl 

dispatchè a ke ou gen 

oswa ou petèt gen 

COVID-19.

6. Kouvri tous ak etènye 

ou avèk yon klinèks 

oswa sèvi avèk andedan 

koudbra ou.

7. Lave men ou souvan avèk 

savon ak dlo pandan omwen 

20 segonn oswa netwaye men 

ou avèk yon dezenfektan pou 

men abaz alkòl ki gen omwen 

60% alkòl ladan. 

8. Ou dwe rete nan yon chanm 

byen presi epi lwen lòt moun

nan kay ou otank posib. Epitou, 

ou dwe itilize yon twalèt apa, 

si gen disponib. Si ou dwe 

ozalantou lòt moun oswa bèt 

andedan oswa deyò kay la, 

mete yon mask.

9. Evite pataje atik pèsonèl 

avèk lòt moun nan kay ou, 

tankou asyèt, sèvyèt, ak atik 

kabann.

10. Netwaye tout sifas moun 

manyen souvan yo, tankou 

kontwa, anlè tab ak manch 

pòt yo. Sèvi ak spre oswa 

ti sèvyèt netwayaj pou kay 

dapre machaswiv ki sou 

etikèt la. 

cdc.gov/coronavirus
### §470w. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 89–665, title III, §301, as added Pub. L. 96–515, title V, §501, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3001; amended Pub. L. 102–575, title XL, §4019(a), Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4763; Pub. L. 106–208, §5(a)(10), May 26, 2000, 114 Stat. 319, provided definitions for this subchapter. Provisions of section were restated in numerous sections in chapter 3003 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs. For disposition of section, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.
# Official Journal C 84A/4 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 84A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 594 March 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 84A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 594 March 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 084A/1 | DG Economic and Financial Affairs — Vacancy notice for a Deputy Director-General function (AD 15) Brussels — (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2016/10364 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2016/C 084A/1

DG Economic and Financial Affairs — Vacancy notice for a Deputy Director-General function (AD 15) Brussels — (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2016/10364

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
----

(2004/C 70 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2696/03

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Export refunds for ovalbumin

The production of egg products generates greater quantities of albumin than the European market can absorb, while third countries have a substantial need for high-grade albumin. In order to be capable of competing on the world market, the European egg production industry is dependent on export refunds.

Ovalbumin is regarded as a non-Annex I product (CN Code 3502) and so, for the purpose of export refunds, is bracketed with wheat and milk products rather than eggs in shell (CN Code 0408). On account of increased exports in the wheat and milk products sectors, the Commission recently introduced a reduction of over 90 % for export licence applications, a reduction which also applies to ovalbumin, although exports in that sector have not increased.

Ovalbumin accounts for a very small proportion of the total products covered by CN Code 3502, but is very important for small and medium-sized undertakings in the egg production industry.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Egg albumin falling under CN subheading 3502 is indeed not included in Annex I of the EC Treaty. Together with other Non Annex I products containing cereals, sugar, milk and eggs it is however eligible to benefit of export refunds for the amount of agricultural products of the four sectors mentioned which are used for their manufacture.

In the Uruguay Round the Union agreed to limit its export refunds for agricultural products. These commitments were made separately for the various agricultural product sectors and for Non Annex I products.

The recent strong rise of applications for refund licences of Non Annex I products during 2002/2003 has indeed led to ever increasing reduction coefficients (42 % first tranche, 95 % last tranche) in order to respect the Union's World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitments. These reductions were particularly felt by the egg product industry in view of the quite unique position of egg albumin amongst the many Non Annex I products being manufactured from one raw material alone. According to trade statistics available until June 2003, no dramatic drop of export can yet be observed.

----
#### The LI SECOND FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, and Chou H. LI, Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, v. TOSHIBA CORPORATION and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., Defendants/Counterclaimants-Appellees.

No. 02-1157.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 3, 2002.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
###### Editorial Note on Part 1240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1240 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and at 68 FR 10355, Mar. 3, 2003.

#### § 1240.31 Authority of immigration judges.

In determining cases referred for further inquiry as provided in section 235 of the Act, immigration judges shall have the powers and authority conferred upon them by the Act and this chapter, including the adjudication of applications for adjustment of status pursuant to section 202 of Pub. L. 105-100, or section 902 of Pub. L. 105-277. Subject to any specific limitation prescribed by the Act and this chapter, immigration judges shall also exercise the discretion and authority conferred upon the Attorney General by the Act as is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases.

[62 FR 10367, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 27829, May 21, 1998; 64 FR 25766, May 12, 1999]
### Memo to the Docket

MEMORANDUM

Subject: Meeting with Representative from Brazilian Embassy on RFS RVO Rule

Kenneth F.H. Da Nobrega, Minister Counselor, Embassy of Brazil

Larissa G. F. Karydakis, Secretary, Embassy of Brazil

From: Paul Argyropoulos, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Ben Hengst, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality

To: EPA Air Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2015

- 0111



### Date: November 24, 2015

Discussions were held on their general interests of the RVO rule. They wer e appreciative of our past engagements and the opportunity to meet again with them today. They expressed broad interest in the ongoing energy security relationship between our countries and the role the RVO plays in this area. They further explained their support for the expanded use of lower GHG biofuels and how Brazil can support this through the use of advanced biofuels. They noted the last time we visited Brazil was when a US delegation visited in 2009 and offered an invitation to
our office to visit with Brazilian government and industry officials this year or next year. Finally, they were interested in the long term / next steps the Agency may take under the current law

. We thanked them for the information and offered to continue our engagement on t hese and related issues going forward.
#### § 630.403 Initiation of projects.

All projects shall be coordinated by the FHWA Division Administrator, the State highway department and the National Ocean Survey.
* P ursuant 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. 97-30850

Summary Calendar

________________________

BETTY P. McCLENDON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RANDY SMITH; CLEO CRUTCHFIELD;

THE BOGALUSA HOUSING AUTHORITY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-4054-N)

________________________________________________________________________________

April 21, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The appellant, Betty McClendon, a white female, appeals the district court’s entry of summary

judgment against her on her claims a g ainst her employer, the Bogalusa Housing Authority, Randy

Smith, a white male who is the director of the Housing Authority, and Cleo Crutchfield, an AfricanAmerican male who is the chairman of the Housing Authority. In her complaint, McClendon argues

that the defendants have engaged in a prolonged campaign to replace her with an African-American

employee. In support of her claim, McClendon has advanced the following arguments: 1) she claims

that since Smith became director, al mo st all personnel hired by the Housing Authority have been

African-American; 2) she claims that the defendants arranged for a resident of the Housing Authority

to attack her in her office; 3) she claims that Smith, in an attempt to frighten her into resigning, has2

ordered that a security door, apparently installed after the aforementioned assualt, be tied open; 4)

she claims that she has been ignored and denied the opportuni ty to do meaningful work because she

is white; and 5) she claims that she was denied the Civil Service position of “administrative secretary,”

a position that apparently has never existed at the Housing Authority, because she is white. Plaint iff

asserts four claims in her complaint : 1) a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the defendants’ allege d racial

discrimination; 2) a substantive due process claim under § 1983 based on the Housing Authority’s

alleged policy of “intimidation and social isolation”; 3) a claim for intentional inflict ion of emotional

distress under Louisiana law; and 4) a state law claim for retaliation for asserting a right secured by

Lousiana law. After a de novo review of the record, we affirm for essentially the same reasons set

forth by the district court in its Order and Reasons, dated July 31, 1997.

AFFIRMED.
**HEI Exhibit 21**

Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

The following is a list of all direct and indirect subsidiaries of the registrant as of February 28, 2007. The state/place of incorporation ororganization is noted in parentheses and subsidiaries of intermediate parent companies are designated by indentations. 

Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.(Hawaii) 

Maui Electric Company, Limited (Hawaii) 

Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. (Hawaii) 

Renewable Hawaii, Inc. (Hawaii) 

HECO Capital Trust III (Delaware) 

HEI Diversified, Inc.(Hawaii) 

American Savings Bank, F.S.B. (federally chartered) 

American Savings Investment Services Corp. (Hawaii) 

Bishop Insurance Agency of Hawaii, Inc. (Hawaii)

AdCommunications, Inc. (Hawaii) 

PacificEnergy Conservation Services, Inc. (Hawaii) 

HEI Investments, Inc. (Hawaii) 

HEI Properties, Inc. (Hawaii) 

Hycap Management, Inc. (Delaware) (in dissolution) 

Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust II (a statutory trust) (Delaware) (potential financing entity) 

Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust III (a statutory trust) (Delaware) (potential financing entity) 

The Old Oahu TugService, Inc. (Hawaii) 

**Discontinued operations:**

HEI Power Corp. (Hawaii) (dissolved in 2006)
§ 54.505 Employment criteria. A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for any employment opportunity that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless: ( a ) Use of such test or other criterion is shown to predict validly successful performance in the position in question; and
( b ) Alternative tests or criteria for such purpose, which do not have such disproportionately adverse effect, are shown to be unavailable.
<PAGE>
                                 EXHIBIT 11
                 HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


    Net income per share is based on net income divided by the total of the
     weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the year,
     plus the equivalent shares relating to the assumed exercise of stock
          options.  The calculation of common shares is as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             1995        1994          1993
                                          ----------  ----------   -----------
<S>                                       <C>         <C>           <C>
Shares outstanding January 1              48,114,723   47,846,854   47,677,922
Stock option-weighted average
  exercises                                   18,538       22,484       14,078
Outstanding when market price
  exceeds exercise price at
  end of periods                           1,367,325    1,220,560      999,033
Less shares assumed purchased
  with proceeds                             (977,468)    (805,555)    (709,285)
                                          ----------   ----------   ----------
COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT
  SHARES                                  48,523,118   48,284,343   47,981,748
                                          ==========   ==========   ==========

Net Income (in millions)                      $172.8       $121.7        106.1
                                          ==========   ==========   ==========
Earnings per share                             $3.56         2.52         2.21
                                          ==========   ==========   ==========
</TABLE>