alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7276a. Technical assistance

The Administrator may provide technical assistance to customers to, among other things, conduct integrated resource planning, implement applicable integrated resource plans, and otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 7275 to 7276c of this title. Technical assistance may include publications, workshops, conferences, one-to-one assistance, equipment loans, technology and resource assessment studies, marketing studies, and other mechanisms to transfer information on energy efficiency and renewable energy options and programs to customers. The Administrator shall give priority to providing technical assistance to customers that have limited capability to conduct integrated resource planning.

(Pub. L. 98–381, title II, §203, as added Pub. L. 102–486, title I, §114, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2800.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.
#### Richard I. Mulvey, Respondent, v Donald Hamilton et al., Defendants, and Thomas J. McCarthy, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of plaintiff, entered January 6, 1976 in Tompkins County, upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term, without a jury. This is an action for attorney’s fees instituted by the plaintiff against defendants Donald Hamilton, Thomas J. McCarthy and Barney Tapper. The trial court found that all three defendants entered into a joint venture to purchase and develop certain real estate; that defendant Tapper requested the plaintiff to represent him and Hamilton in the purchase of this land for the sum of $5,000 plus disbursements; that Tapper’s interest in the joint venture was taken over by McCarthy; and that plaintiff continued to represent Hamilton and McCarthy until his discharge on September 3, 1973. Finding that plaintiff performed services on behalf of all defendants jointly, the trial court awarded plaintiff the sum of $5,315.20 (the $5,000 fee agreed upon, plus $315.20 in disbursements) against all defendants. Only defendant McCarthy appeals. The problems in this case arise in large part from the fact that plaintiff, while a shareholder in the seller corporation, acted as the attorney for the seller and the purchaser at the same time. The appellant, an officer, director and shareholder in the seller corporation, was also actively involved with the purchaser. Plaintiff’s bill of particulars reflects some 8 office consultations and 26 telephone conversations with appellant concerning the transaction in question. The difficulty, of course, lies in distinguishing contacts between fellow shareholders or between an officer and the attorney for the seller and contacts between a member of the purchaser and the attorney for the purchaser. Appellant’s own testimony, as *996well as that of codefendant Hamilton, is consistent with the formation of an oral partnership agreement shortly after the time when plaintiff claims to have been retained by the partnership by Tapper, the third defendant. There is evidence that tends to establish that appellant held himself out to plaintiff as a partner in the project and that plaintiff performed services in reliance upon this representation. Under such circumstances, even if appellant were not actually a member of the partnership, he nevertheless could be found liable to plaintiff (Partnership Law, § 27). The primary issues in this case revolved around the credibility of the respective witnesses and, there being sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and the inferences it drew therefrom, we conclude that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed *(Porter v Lane Constr. Co.,*212 App Div 528, affd 244 NY 523). Judgment affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
DESCRIPTION OF THE CHAIRMAN’S AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE 

OF A SUBSTITUTE TO THE PROVISIONS OF H.R. 210, 

THE “STUDENT WORKER EXEMPTION ACT OF 2015” 

The Chairman’s amendment in the nature of a substitute modifies H.R. 210 by changing 

the short title to the “Student Worker Exemption Act of 2016” and by providing that the 

provisions of the bill relating to the employer shared responsibility requirement apply to months 

beginning after December 31, 2015. 

The following presents the estimated Federal fiscal year budget effects of the Chairman’s 

amendment [1]. 

Fiscal Years 

[Millions of Dollars] 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2017-21 2017-26

 

[2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] -1 -3

NOTE: Details do not add to totals due to rounding. 

[1] It is estimated that this provision would have a negligible effect on insurance coverage. 

[2] Loss of less than $500,000. 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION 

June 14, 2016 

JCX-59-16
. BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2012-· 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

· lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED 

DOCI<ETOST-...1&.- 00 70 ACTIONDATE JlAT IIi :;l&;/2. 

This approval ~rid p,rant of antitrust immunity is subject, where applicable, 

to condit1ow un;v'oesly !mposed . 

. Thi~ "''twn :' :1 ic:::t.iv,; aiter 7 days unless a petition is filed under 

14 CFR 3lS::·"'u or a review is undertaken on the Department's own motion. 

In view of the agreement's noncontroversial nature and the avaiJability of 

the abov rocedure, the 21-da perio in 4 CFR 303.42 is waived. 

8 May 2012 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

International Air Transport Association 

1776 K.St. N.W. #121

h Floor. 

Washington DC 20006
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00428

- CR

Jessica Yvette GARANZUAY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 420081

Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due on September 4, 2015. On September 15, 2015, we

granted appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief and ordered appellant’s brief to

be filed by October 5, 2015. Appellant’s brief has not been filed.

W e ORDER appellant’s attorney to file appellant’s brief on or before November 3, 2015

. If appellant’s brief is not filed by that date, we will abate this appeal to the trial court for an

abandonment hearing. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2).

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
** **

**EXHIBIT 31.2**

Principal Financial Officer

 

I, Michael G. Long, certify that:

 

I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Edge Petroleum Corporation (the “registrant”).

Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)                      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

(b)                     Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)                      Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions);

(a)                      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)                     Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | November 12, 2004 |   | /s/ Michael G. Long                                 |
|--------|-------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |              |   | Michael G. Long                                     |
|   |              |   | Senior Vice President and   Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
### §8483. Submission of reports

Copies of any report required by this chapter to be submitted to the Congress shall be separately submitted to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.

(Pub. L. 95–620, title VIII, §807, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3348.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–620, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3289, known as the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 8301 of this title and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives immediately prior to noon on Jan. 3, 1981, by House Resolution No. 549, Ninety-sixth Congress, Mar. 25, 1980. Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives treated as referring to Committee on Commerce of House of Representatives by section 1(a) of Pub. L. 104–14, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress. Committee on Commerce of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives, and jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges and insurance generally transferred to Committee on Financial Services of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Jan. 3, 2001.
Exhibit 99.4

                  INTERSTAR SECURITIES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
                  SERVICER OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE


The  undersigned,  a duly  authorized  representative  of  Interstar  Securities
(Australia) Pty Limited,  (the  "Servicer"),  pursuant to the agreement  between
Perpetual  Trustees  Victoria  Limited,  Interstar  Securities  (Australia)  Pty
Limited,  dated as of December 3, 1999 (the  "Agreement"),  does hereby  certify
that:

1.   Capitalized  terms used but not defined in this Officer's  Certificate have
     their  respective  meanings set forth in the Agreement,  unless the context
     requires   otherwise  or  unless   otherwise   defined  in  the   Officer's
     Certificate.

2.   As of the date hereof,  Interstar Securities (Australia) Pty Limited is the
     Servicer of Interstar Millennium Series 2003-1G.

3.   This officer's certificate is delivered pursuant to the Agreement.

4.   A review of the  activities of the Servicer  during the period July 1, 2003
     to December 31, 2003 and of its performance under the pooling and servicing
     agreement or similar agreements was made under my supervision.

5.   Based on such review,  to my  knowledge,  the Servicer  has  fulfilled  its
     obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement or similar agreements
     relating to the Trust  (including  the Master Trust Deed dated  December 2,
     1999 and the  Investment  Management  Agreement  dated  December  3, 1999),
     throughout  such  calendar  year and,  except as set forth in  paragraph  6
     below.

6.   The following is a description of any  exceptions to paragraph 5 above:  No
     significant deficiencies were detected.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of the Servicer,
has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 13th day of October, 2004.

INTERSTAR SECURITIES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, as servicer



  /S/ SAM KYRIACOU
---------------------------------
Name:    Sam Kyriacou
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
#### Henny Peine, Respondent, v. Kwik Bik Foods, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Claes Glassell, the Chief Executive Officer of Cerus Corporation (the Company) and Kevin D. Green, the Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, and to which
this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 15th day of November,
2010.



/s/ Claes GlassellClaes GlassellChief Executive Officer/s/ Kevin D. GreenKevin D. GreenVice President, Finance and Chief Accounting Officer
§ 901.1 Purpose and scope. The regulations contained in this chapter establish the internal organization of the Foreign Service Grievance Board and prescribe its procedures in: ( a ) Determining its jurisdiction in cases involving grievances and separation for cause proceedings;
( b ) Compiling a record in such cases;
( c ) Conducting hearings in such cases, when required or deemed necessary; and
( d ) Deciding such cases, or otherwise disposing of them, so as to ensure the fullest measure of due process for the members of the Foreign Service.
#### In the Matter of John C. Nunley, Petitioner, v Daniel Guido, as Commissioner of Police of the County of Nassau, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated *1001July 6, 1977, which, after a hearing, adjudged petitioner guilty of certain charges of misconduct and dismissed him from his position as a police officer. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion the denial of petitioner’s motion for substitution of counsel and an adjournment, made at the time the hearing was finally scheduled to commence after five previous adjournments, did not serve to deny petitioner his right to counsel since the motion appears to have been made solely for the purpose of delaying the hearing (cf. *Matter of Romeo v Union Free School Dist. No. 3, Town of Islip,*82 Misc 2d 336). In the light of the severity of the offense and the prior instances of misconduct on the part of petitioner, the penalty imposed was not shocking to one’s sense of fairness. Latham, J. P., Damiani, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith BROWN, a/k/a Clown, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deandre Myers, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 06-4377, 06-4640.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 7, 2007.

Decided: April 27, 2007.

*161Emanuel M. Levin, Emanuel M. Levin *&*Associates, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; William B. Purpura, Jr., Law Office of William B. Purpura, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Debra L. Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Keith Brown and Deandre Myers pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Brown claims his sentence at the low end of the properly calculated sentencing guidelines was unreasonable. Myers claims the district court erred by not granting his motion to dismiss the indictment. Find no error, we affirm.

At Brown’s sentencing, the district court properly arrived at his range of imprisonment under the advisory sentencing guidelines. The court also considered the statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3558(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006). “[A] sentence imposed “within the properly calculated Guidelines range ... is presumptively reasonable.’ ” *United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.2006) (quoting *United States v. Newsom,*428 F.3d 685, 687 (7th Cir.2005), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1455, 164 L.Ed.2d 151 (2006) (first alteration added)). We will affirm a sentence if it is both reasonable and within the statutorily prescribed range. *United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005). We find the sentence reasonable.

Myers claims the Government breached a plea agreement filed in a state case. The terms of the plea agreement are reviewed de novo. *See United States v. Snow,*234 F.3d 187, 189 (4th Cir.2000). Plea agreements are interpreted according to contract law, and “‘each party should receive the benefit of its bargain.’ ” *United States v. Peglera,*33 F.3d 412, 413 (4th Cir.1994) (quoting *United States v. Ringling, 988*F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir.1993)). We find according to the terms of the plea agreement that the Government was not under any obligation to establish that Myers breached the agreement prior to his sentencing on his state conviction or prior to issuing the indictment. We further find the Government did not waive its right to claim Myers breached the agreement by not raising such claim prior to his sentencing on his state conviction.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences. 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.*
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2022 Workiva-->
<!--r:d4249f1d-f347-4912-b2fd-bc7b0453166d,g:0f97fa70-4f30-4758-b214-75fc7a52634f-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cna="http://www.cna.com/20220502" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cna.com/20220502">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021/dei-2021.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/exch/2021" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/exch/2021/exch-2021.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cna-20220502_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cna-20220502_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cna-20220502_def.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/definitionLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cna.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0001001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

I N RE: HERITAGE OPERATING, L.P.

,

Relator. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 061

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

O R D E R

The Court has considered the Parties’ Agreed Motion to Consolidate Original Proceedings,

and concludes the motion should be GRANTED. The above styled and numbered cause shall be

consolidated with cause number 08

- 13

- 00064

- CV, styled In Re: Cathol ic Diocese of El Paso (San

Lorenzo Church) , for purposes of filing a response and oral argument only.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of April , 201 3

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.