alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §8235e. Authority of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to exempt application of certain laws

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may exempt from any provisions in sections 4, 5, and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717c, 717d, and 717f) and titles II and IV of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3341 through 3348 and 3391 through 3394) the sale or transportation, by any public utility, local distribution company, interstate or intrastate pipeline, or any other person, of any natural gas which is determined (in the case of a regulated utility, company, pipeline, or person) by the State regulatory authority having rate-making authority over such utility, company, pipeline, or person, or (in the case of a nonregulated utility, company, pipeline, or person) by such utility, company, pipeline, or person, to have been conserved because of a prototype residential energy efficiency program which is established under a plan approved under section 8235a(a) of this title, if the Commission determines that such exemption is necessary to make feasible the demonstration of such prototype residential energy efficiency program.

(Pub. L. 95–619, title II, §266, as added Pub. L. 96–294, title V, §562, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 749; amended Pub. L. 105–388, §5(c)(4), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3479.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 95–621, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3350. Title II of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 was classified generally to subchapter II (§3341 et seq.) of chapter 60 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, prior to its repeal by Pub. L. 100–42, §2(a), May 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 314. Title IV of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 is classified generally to subchapter IV (§3391 et seq.) of chapter 60 of Title 15. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3301 of Title 15 and Tables.

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–388 substituted "(15 U.S.C. 717c" for "(17 U.S.C. 717c".
-  Bureau of Fiscal Service 
- Debt Management
- Resources
- Reports to Congress and to the President

# Reports to Congress and to the President

## Annual Report to the Congress:                    U.S. Government Debt Collection Activities of Federal Agencies

- Fiscal Year 2023  (1.5 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2022  (1.5 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2021  (2.0 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2020  (2.0 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2019  (2.0 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2018  (428 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2017  (3.3 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2016  (3.4 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2015  (3.0 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2014  (2.9 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2013  (2.8 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2012  (33.7 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2011  (5.2 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2010  (110 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2009  (105 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2008  (105 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2007  (104 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2006  (148 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2005  (1.3 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2004  (280 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2003  (503 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2002  (718 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2001  (371 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2000  (778 kb)
- Fiscal Year 1999  (211 kb)

## Annual Report to the President:                    Implementation of Executive Order 13019 Supporting Families:                    Collecting Delinquent Child Support Obligations

- Fiscal Year 2023  (146 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2022  (247 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2021  (218 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2020  (292 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2019  (244 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2018  (430 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2017  (629 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2016  (173 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2015  (341 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2014  (525 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2013  (2.4 mb)
- Fiscal Year 2012  (155 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2011  (171 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2010  (77 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2009  (62 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2008  (85 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2007  (93 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2006  (145 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2005  (127 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2004  (109 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2003  (115 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2002  (371 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2001  (356 kb)
- Fiscal Year 2000  (506 kb)
- Fiscal Year 1999  (376 kb)
- Fiscal Year 1997-98  (745 kb)

Last modified 09/25/24
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA SHAWALI KHAN, P etitioner , v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -1 10 1 ( JD B) BARACK

OBAMA, et

al., Re spo nde nt s. OR DE R Respondents in this case a re r equire d to produce upon reque st a dec lassified fa ctual re tur n. Se e Ca se Mana g e me nt O rd e r ( F e b. 20 , 2 00 9) at § I .A(d kt. e nt. #8 1) . A c c or din gto re sp on de nts , th e de c la ssi fi e d r e tur n ma y be sh are d o nly

wi th t he pe tit ion e r h ims e lf

in l ig ht o f i ts "pr otected" status. At present, then, pe titioner' s counsel may not share the decla ssified retur n wi th o the r i nd ivi du a ls - - f or e xamp le , e xpe rt s o r o the r w itn e sse s - - who may ne e d to re vie w i t in pre- hear ing pr epar ations. Respondents appea r to have rec og nized the difficulty with this posi tion an d th e y h av e r e p r e s e n t e d

th atth e y ar e r e e v a l u at i n gi t . A c c o r d i n g l y, i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D that responde nts shall provide a status re port, in writing a nd by not later than Ma

rch 11, 2009, updatingthe Court with reg ard to their position on this matter. SO OR DE RE D . / s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Date: Ma

rch 4, 2009
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ JAMES A. CALDERJames A. CalderChief Financial Officer
#### BELL v. CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 23, 1903.)

Action by Mary Bell against the city of New York.

No opinion. Motion to confirm report granted.
#### MADDEN, Respondent, v. GERMANIA SAV. BANK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

Action by Michael J. Madden, guardian ad litem of Helen T. Madden, against the Germania Savings Bank.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

HOOKER, J., not voting.
From: "Suarez-Murias, Christine@ARB" <csuarezm@arb.ca.gov> To: Gregory Nudd/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Zulawnick, Sylvia@ARB" <szulawni@arb.ca.gov>, "Magliano, Karen@ARB" <kmaglian@arb.ca.gov> Date: 02/11/2011 11:19 AM Subject: CA Q&D

GregPlease call me if you need further information or would like to discuss this chart. Tina

Christine M. Suarez-Murias, AICP Air Pollution Specialist California Air Resources Board

1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95812 (916) 323-1495 (916) 327-8524 FAX Find ways to reduce energy usage and your carbon footprint at http://www.arb.ca.gov
### Relation between specific gravity and iron content of rocks from the Red Mountain Formation, Alabama

By: R.P. Sheldon

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1182D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### § 1219.416 When will ONRR disburse funds to Gulf producing States and coastal political subdivisions?

ONRR will disburse GOMESA revenues as soon as authorized and practicable within the fiscal year following the year that we collect qualified OCS revenues (Phase I).
39–008

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–84

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE

RESOLUTION 129, THE COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION

APRIL 30, 1997.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 136]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 136, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of House Resolution

129, the ‘‘Committee Funding Resolution’’ under a closed rule. The

rule provides 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

House Oversight. The rule provides for consideration in the House

without the intervention of any point of order. It provides that the

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I Richard P. Sommerfeld, Jr., Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2)
    
    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.  /s/ Richard P. Sommerfeld, Jr.Richard P. Sommerfeld, Jr.Chief Financial OfficerJuly 21, 2005
Exhibit 15.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-152150 on Form F-3 and No. 333-161022 on Form F-3 of our report dated April 11, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Top Ships Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company"), (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and financial statements schedule and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern and an explanatory paragraph relating to the presentation of discontinued operations), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2011.





We also consent to the reference to us under the headings "Selected Financial Data" in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.














/s/ Deloitte Hadjipavlou, Sofianos & Cambanis S.A.





Athens, Greece


April 11, 2012
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3017530-SEP-201008:43 AM
#### (A) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dewey Johnson, Appellant. (B) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward Leis, Appellant. (C) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Otis H. Brown, Appellant. (D) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William A. Tarpley, Appellant.

[In each action] Motion granted and time for argument of appeal enlarged to include January 1961 Term, on condition that appellant’s brief is filed and served on or before December 8, 1960. Respondent directed to file and serve brief on or before December 23, 1960.
#### Leila Holdsworth, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Chester Holdsworth, Deceased, Appellant, v. Town of Mendon et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously reversed, with $25' costs and disbursements and defendant’s motion denied, with $10 costs. Plaintiff’s cross motion treated as academic. Memorandum: This case presents a picture of inordinate and inexcusable delay and lack of diligence and co-operation on the part of attorney for the Town of Mendon (not counsel for defendants on the present appeal). About 18 months after the summons and complaint had been served the defendants had neither answered nor appeared in the action. Notices of application for judgment given to defendants by plaintiff’s lawyer apparently were not heeded, and the entry of judgment was not opposed. The many acts of courtesy of the plaintiff’s attorney extended beyond legal procedural necessities were in no way reciprocated. Instead they were met with procrastination, disregard and almost disdain. Highly important statements in the affidavits submitted by plaintiff are not controverted. For instance, plaintiff’s attorney claimed that defendants’ attorney promised to pay the judgment if execution would be withheld and told him by telephone that a certified check was in the mail, but it was never received. Defendants’ attorney does not deny this statement. No reasonable explanation of defendants’ attorney’s inactivities was given. His neglect was not the result of mistake, inadvertence or surprise, but seemed to be almost deliberate. It may not be excused. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term which granted the motion of defendants to vacate the default judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion to validate the default judgment.) Present—' Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3242 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on propanil. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2005 

Mr. BUYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on propanil. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROPANIL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.89 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 propanamide, N-(3, 4-dichloropheny 1)- is amended by 

7 striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### Janice STEWART, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent, and Department of Veterans Affairs, Intervenor.

No. 2007-3070.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 5, 2007.

Janice Stewart, of Dublin, Georgia, pro se.

Sara B. Rearden, Acting Associate General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were B. Chad Bungard, General Counsel, and Rosa M. Koppel, Deputy General Counsel.

William P. Rayel, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for intervenor. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director.

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge and PROST, Circuit Judge.

*903PER CURIAM.

Janice Stewart appeals the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board, denying her petition for review of its initial decision dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *Stewart v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,*No. AT-0752-06-0585-I-1, 104 M.S.P.R. 266 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 17, 2006). We *affirm.*

Neither statute cited by Stewart gives the board jurisdiction over voluntary downgradings. An employee’s acceptance of a lower-graded position is generally presumed voluntary absent duress, coercion, or a showing that a reasonable person would have been misled by the agency’s actions. Stewart has made no such showing here; the record lacks any evidence of duress, coercion, or misleading actions by the agency.
----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----
### **CHAPTER 73—MERCHANT MARINERS' DOCUMENTS**

Sec.
7301.
General.
7302.
Issuing merchant mariners' documents and continuous discharge books.
7303.
Possession and description of merchant mariners' documents.
7304.
Citizenship notation on merchant mariners' documents.
7305.
Oaths for holders of merchant mariners' documents.
7306.
General requirements and classifications for able seamen.
7307.
Able seamen—unlimited.
7308.
Able seamen—limited.
7309.
Able seamen—special.
7310.
Able seamen—offshore supply vessels.
7311.
Able seamen—sail.
7311a.
Able seamen—fishing industry.
7312.
Scale of employment.
7313.
General requirements for members of engine departments.
7314.
Service requirements for qualified members of engine departments.
7315.
Training.
7316.
Lifeboatmen.
7317.
Tankermen.
7318.
Radiotelegraph operators on Great Lakes.
7319.
Records of merchant mariners' documents.

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Chapter 73 establishes the general requirements for the issuance of a merchant mariners' document to those individuals who are required to have a document prior to engagement or employment on certain vessels of the United States.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–364, title IV, §402(9)(A), July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 448, added item 7311a.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01


                        FIREARMS TRAINING SYSTEMS, INC.
          STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                     (In thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           BASIC EARNINGS         DILUTED EARNINGS
                                            PER SHARE(1)            PER SHARE(1)
                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED      THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                              JUNE 30,                JUNE 30,
                                         -------------------     -------------------
                                           1999        1998        1999        1998
                                         -------     -------     -------     -------
<S>                                      <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Weighted average common and common
  shares outstanding                      20,734      20,664      20,734      20,664

Shares issued upon assumed exercise
  of outstanding options                       -           -           -           -
                                         -------     -------     -------     -------
Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding           20,734      20,664      20,734      20,664
                                         =======     =======     =======     =======

Net income                               $  (195)    $(2,018)    $  (195)    $(2,018)
                                         =======     =======     =======     =======

Earnings per share                       $ (0.01)    $ (0.10)    $ (0.01)    $ (0.10)
                                         =======     =======     =======     =======
</TABLE>

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

(1) Shares reflect a 100,000-for-one stock split in July 1996 in connection
with the recapitalization and a split of 1.66-for-one in October 1996.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**536 KA 13-00450**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JONATHAN MORRIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

TYSON BLUE, MACEDON, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
RICHARD M. HEALY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LYONS (BRUCE A. ROSEKRANS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), rendered November 20, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same Memorandum as in People v Morris ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [May 9, 2014]).

Entered: May 9, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 4.21
 Share Transfer Agreement
 Transferor Transferee Company
 1.
    
    The Transferor agrees to transfer 70% equity interest representing investment capital of RMB
1,050,000.00 in Wuhan Mei Hao Qian Cheng Advertising Company Limited to the Transferee.2.
    
    The Transferee agrees to accept 70% equity interest representing investment capital of RMB
1,050,000.00 in Wuhan Mei Hao Qian Cheng Advertising Company Limited from the Transferor.3.
    
    The equity interest will be formally transferred on June 19, 2009. After the transfer date,
the Transferor shall no longer have any shareholder rights or obligations and the Transferee
shall have shareholder rights and obligations based on the amount of investment capital it has
in the Company.4.
    
    This agreement has four counterparts, one counterpart each held by the Transferor, the
Transferee, the Company and the department of commerce and industry.
  Transferor:
    
    Transferee:[Company seal of Shanghai Qianjin
Advertising Company Limited]
    
    [Company seal of Beijing Qian Cheng
Si Jin Advertising Company Limited]Company seal[Company seal of Wuhan Mei Hao Qian
Cheng Advertising Company Limited]June 19, 2009
#### EASTMAN KODAK CO., Respondent, v. KLEINHANS et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department-

March 1, 1905.)

Action by the Eastman Kodak Company against Jacob Kleinhans and others. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.