alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9888 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to update guidance for the National 

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program to increase the flexibility of States related to the location of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 

Mr. TRONE (for himself and Mr. RUPPERSBERGER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 

in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to update guidance 

for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula 

Program to increase the flexibility of States related to 

the location of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, 

and for other purposes. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9888 IH

1 SECTION 1. NATIONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUC2 TURE FORMULA PROGRAM GUIDANCE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation 

4 shall update the guidance for the National Electric Vehicle 

5 Infrastructure Formula Program established in paragraph 

6 (2) under the heading ‘‘Department of Transportation— 

7 Federal Highway Administration—Highway Infrastruc8 ture Program’’ in title VIII of division J of the Infrastruc9 ture Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117–58) to 

10 specify that a State may certify and the Secretary may 

11 determine that a State is fully built out with electric vehi12 cle charging infrastructure which is located more than 1 

13 mile from the highway, as long as that electric vehicle 

14 charging infrastructure was selected considering the po15 tential economic benefit to communities and small busi16 nesses along an alternative fuel corridor. 

17 (b) ALTERNATIVE FUEL CORRIDOR DEFINED.—In 

18 this Act, the term ‘‘alternative fuel corridor’’ means a na19 tional electric vehicle charging and hydrogen, propane, 

20 and natural gas fueling corridor designated by the Sec21 retary under section 151 of title 23, United States Code. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0631 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. JAMES HOUSTON PARKER, Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 5 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 3 2024

03/04/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0631
================================================================================




                                  UNITED STATES

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                Current Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
                       the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

         Date of Report (Date of earliest reported event): July 25, 2003

                               Saffron Fund, Inc.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 Maryland                          811-8284                    133777647
 (State or other jurisdiction of  (Commission File No.)      (IRS Employer
  incorporation or organization)                          Identification Number)

 c/o UBS Global Asset Management (US) Inc., 51 West 52nd Street, New York 10019

                                  212-882-5977
               (Address, including zip code, and telephone number,
                 including area code, of registrant's principal
                               executive offices)

                        Jardine Fleming India Fund, Inc.
          (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)




================================================================================

<PAGE>


Item 7.   Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits
          ------------------------------------------------------------------

     (a) Not applicable.

     (b) Not applicable.

     (c) Exhibits:


          Exhibit Number       Description
          --------------       -----------

          99.1                Press Release dated July 25, 2003.


<PAGE>



                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                                Saffron Fund, Inc.


                                                By: /s/ Kevin Mahoney
                                                    ------------------------
                                                    Kevin Mahoney
                                                    Assistant Secretary


Date:  July 28, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSE SANTIAGO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 676 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of March, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, the  undersigned  officer of GPS Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

                  (i) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
         quarter ended September 30, 2007 (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.



Dated:  November 19, 2007                            /s/ ROBERT C. SILZER, SR.
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Robert C. Silzer, Sr.
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
#### § 1633.8 Basis of classification.

The registrant's classification shall be determined on the basis of the official forms of the Selective Service System and other written information in his file, oral statements, if made by the registrant at his personal appearance before the board, and oral statements, if made by the registrant's witnesses at his personal appearance. Any information in any written summary of the oral information presented at a registrant's personal appearance that was prepared by an official of the Selective Service System or by the registrant will be placed in the registrant's file. The file shall be subject to review by the registrant during normal business hours.
§ 875.11 Applicability. ( a ) If you are a State or Indian tribe that has not certified under section 411(a) of SMCRA, you must follow these noncoal reclamation requirements when you use State share funds under § 872.16, Tribal share funds under § 872.19, or historic coal funds under § 872.23 to conduct reclamation projects on lands or water affected by mining of minerals and materials other than coal.
( b ) If you are a State or Indian tribe that has certified under section 411(a) of the Act— ( 1 ) You must use State share or Tribal share funds distributed to you under section 402(g)(1) of the Act before October 1, 2007, in accordance with this part; and
( 2 ) You may use prior balance replacement funds distributed to you under section 411(h)(1) of the Act, certified in lieu funds distributed to you under section 411(h)(2) of the Act, or both, to— ( i ) Maintain certification as required by §§ 875.13 and 875.14 of this part; or
( ii ) Conduct a noncoal reclamation project in accordance with the requirements of this part.
[73 FR 67640, Nov. 14, 2008, as amended at 80 FR 6446, Feb. 5, 2015]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T NI A A ND AL I A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71657 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 824- 913 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N i aA nda l i a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um and w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED JU N 22 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71657 2 s ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e f

a c tu a l f in d in g s , W

akkaryv. H

older , 5 5 8 F .3 d1 0 4 9 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) , an dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ub stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e B IA ’s fin d in g th at th e th re ats to A n d alia’s f a m ilyd idn o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . See Mendez- G ut i errez v . A s h c r o ft , 340 F . 3d 865, 870 n. 6 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( “ uns pe c i f i e d thr e a t s ” r e c e i ve d by M exi can n at i on alno t“ suff i ci ent l y m enac i ng t o con st i tut e pas tpers ec ut i on ”) . In addi t i on , the re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on thatA nd al i a has dem on strat ed aw e ll- f o u n d e df e aro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . Se e Na g o u lko v . I NS , 333 F . 3d 1012, 1 0 1 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e titio n e r ’s c la im s “to o s p e c u la tiv e to b e c r e d ite da s ab a s is f o rf e aro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n ” ) . A c c o r d in g ly , A n d a liaf a ile dto e s tab lis h e lig ib ility f o ra s y lu m . F urthe r , be c aus e A nda l i af a i l e d t o m e e tthe l ow e rbur de n of pr oof f or asyl u m , h er cl ai m fo r w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al n ecessaril y fai l s. See Zehat ye v. G on zales , 45 3 F . 3d 11 82 , 11 90 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
### §407. Complaints by employees

(a) Receipt and Investigation.—The Inspector General may receive and investigate complaints or information from an employee of the establishment concerning the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.

(b) Prohibition on Disclosure of Identity.—The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines the disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.

(c) Prohibition on Reprisal.—Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to that authority, take or threaten to take any action against any employee as a reprisal for making a complaint or disclosing information to an Inspector General, unless the complaint was made or the information disclosed with the knowledge that it was false or with willful disregard for its truth or falsity.

(Pub. L. 117–286, §3(b), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4224.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 407 | 5 U.S.C. App. (IGA §7) | Pub. L. 95–452, §7, Oct. 12, 1978, 92 Stat. 1105. |

Section
### §1105. Administrative procedure

Subject to section 1103(b) of this title, in the exercise of the functions assigned under this chapter, the Director shall be subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 553 of this title, notwithstanding subsection (a) of such section 553.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 400; Pub. L. 95–454, title II, §201(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1121.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 635 (less last 24 words of 6th sentence, and less 7th sentence). | Jan. 16, 1883, ch. 27, §3 (less last 24 words of 6th sentence, and less 7th sentence), 22 Stat. 404. |
| | [Uncodified]. | 1949 Reorg. Plan No. 5, §4, eff. Aug. 19, 1949, 63 Stat. 1069. |

Statutes at Large

In subsection (a), the words "the District of Columbia" are substituted for "Washington". The words "at least three individuals in the service of the United States" are substituted for a "a suitable number of persons, not less than three, in the official service of the United States". So much of the first three sentences of former section 635 as related to the offices of the Chief Examiner and the Secretary are omitted because the offices were abolished by 1949 Reorg. Plan No. 5, §4. So much of the first sentence as imposed a duty on the Chief Examiner, under the Commission's direction, to act with the examining boards to secure accuracy, uniformity, and justice in all their proceedings is restated in section 1104(a)(1). The fourth sentence of former section 635, authorizing the Commission to employ a stenographer and a messenger, is omitted as obsolete. The remainder is rewritten for clarity. The text of 1949 Reorg. Plan No. 5, §4, is omitted as executed.

In subsection (b), the words "Chairman, United States Civil Service Commission" are substituted for "chief examiner" on authority of 1949 Reorg. Plan No. 5, §2(a)(2). The words "at all times" are omitted as surplusage.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–454 substituted "Administrative procedure" for "Boards of examiners" in section catchline, and in text provisions relating to administrative procedure applicable to administration of this chapter for provisions relating to boards of examiners for the United States Civil Service Commission.

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

- )

)

A Plus Industries, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 62101, 62434

)

Under Contract No. FA4418

- 16

- C

- 0009 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Terrence L. Brennan, Esq.

Brian S. Schaps

, Esq.

Deutsch Kerrigan, L.L.P.

New Orleans, LA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Danielle A. Runyan, Esq.

Josephine R. Farinelli, Esq.

Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: July 28 , 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62101, 62434

, Appeals of A Plus

Industries, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: July 28, 2021 STEPHANIE CATES

- HARMAN

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
M. P. No. 77-220.

#### Barry J. Farrands *v.*William Laurie *et al.*

*Anthony T. Jackvony, John E. Fornaro, Jr.,*for petitioner.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, for respondents.

Respondent is directed to file his answer to the petition for habeas corpus and therein to show cause, if any he has, why the writ should not issue as prayed, said answer to be made in compliance with the provisions of Rule 14, to which reference is made herein.
### §3332. Officer affidavit; no consideration paid for appointment

An officer, within 30 days after the effective date of his appointment, shall file with the oath of office required by section 3331 of this title an affidavit that neither he nor anyone acting in his behalf has given, transferred, promised, or paid any consideration for or in the expectation or hope of receiving assistance in securing the appointment.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 21a. | Dec. 11, 1926, ch. 4, §1, 44 Stat. 918.Mar. 2, 1927, ch. 284, 44 Stat. 1346.Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1010, §10, 64 Stat. 987. |

Statutes at Large

Mar. 2, 1927, ch. 284, 44 Stat. 1346.

Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1010, §10, 64 Stat. 987.

The section is restated for clarity and conciseness. The term "officer" is coextensive with and substituted for "Each individual appointed hereafter as a civil officer of the United States by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or by the President alone, or by a court of law, or by the head of a department" in view of the definition of "officer" in section 2104.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
- 000100fc
- 000200fi
- 000300tp
- 00040000
- 00050000
- 00060000
- 00070001
- 00080002
- 00090003
- 00100004
- 00110000
- 00120000
- 00130005
- 00140006
- 00150007
- 00160008
- 00170009
- 00180010
- 00190011
- 00200012
- 002100bi
- 002200bc
#### State Trust & Savings Bank, appellee, v. W. N. Van Matre, Jr., and T. M. Ellis, Jr., appellants.

Gen. No. 7,773.

Motion to vacate a judgment by confession. Denied. Appeal from the City Court of Mattoon; the Hon. Isaac B. Craig, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 6, 1925.

Emery Andrews and Baymond G. Beal, for appellants; Fisher, North, Linseott & Gibboney, of counsel.

Bryan H. Tivnen, for appellee; Thomas B. Figenbaum and Carus S. Ieenogle, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Crow

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Dorothy Munsie, Respondent, v. Ben Di Fiore et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Upon remittal after a prior appeal (9 A D 2d 806), the board, after additional hearings, made an award upon finding that death resulted from delirium tremens, precipitated by the trauma of the conceded industrial accident. Although another trier of the facts might have denied credence to the testimony of the *917claimant widow as to decedent’s hallucinations or delusions, the board chose to accept it and we find no legal basis upon which it could be rejected here; and we cannot account as less than substantial either the claimant widow’s testimony or that of her medical expert which was in part predicated upon it. The board was warranted in finding that the accidental death was not due solely to intoxication even though, contrary to the board’s conclusion, it may have been a contributing factor. (Of. *Matter of Swanson*v. *Williams é Go.,*278 App. Div. 477, affid. 304 N. Y. 624.) Appellants’ procedural objection is rendered academic by the concession in the board’s brief. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
# C_2010024EN.01004601.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/46

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2009 — France v Commission

(Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05) (1)

1

(State aid - France Télécom’s business tax regime for the years 1994 to 2002 - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Limitation period - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Breach of essential procedural requirements - Collegiality - Rights of defence and procedural rights of other interested parties)

2010/C 24/79

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented initially by G. de Bergues, R. Abraham and S. Ramet, then by G. de Bergues, S. Ramet and E. Belliard and finally by G. de Bergues, E. Belliard and A.-L. Vendrolini, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and J. Buendia Sierra, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/709/EC of 2 August 2004 concerning State aid paid by France to France Télécom (OJ 2005 L 269, p. 30).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the Republic of France and France Télécom SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Republic of France and France Télécom SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.

1

---