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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7706 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7706

     To provide that funds made available under the Infrastructure 
 Investment and Jobs Act for lead service line replacement projects be 
 provided to disadvantaged communities in the form of forgivable loans 
                   or grants, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2024

Mr. Nunn of Iowa (for himself and Mrs. Sykes) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide that funds made available under the Infrastructure 
 Investment and Jobs Act for lead service line replacement projects be 
 provided to disadvantaged communities in the form of forgivable loans 
                   or grants, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Safe Drinking Water for 
Disadvantaged Communities Act''.

SEC. 2. DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all funds made 
available under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 
117-58) for capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State 
Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 
U.S.C. 300j-12) for lead service line replacement projects and 
associated activities directly connected to the identification, 
planning, design, and replacement of lead service lines shall be 
disbursed in the form of forgivable loans or grants to disadvantaged 
communities (as defined in section 1452(d)(3) of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(d)(3))).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015414EN.01003102.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung v OHIM (Cottonfeel)

(Case T-822/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Cottonfeel - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 414/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung GmbH (Gerolstein-Müllenborn, Germany) (represented by: M. Straub, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2014 (Case R 2579/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Cottonfeel as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

1

---
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of
the undersigned officers of Discovery Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby
certifies that our Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
April 30, 2009





/s/ W. Thomas AmickW.
      Thomas AmickChairman
      of the Boardand
      Chief Executive Officer/s/ John G. CooperJohn
      G. CooperExecutive
      VicePresident, Chief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.




This
certification is being furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section.  This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
# C_2018094EN.01001601.xml

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — BSCA v Commission

(Case T-818/14) (1)

1

((State aid - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of BSCA - Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the internal market - Legally binding act - Limitation period - Economic nature of the ILS - Proportion of economic use of the installations - Incorrect numerical data - Request for adjustment - Determination of the updated values - Obligation to state reasons - Distortions of competition - Legitimate expectations))

(2018/C 094/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: P. Frühling, S. Golinvaux, H. Tacheny and J. Delarue, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, R. Sauer and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer) (represented by: A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Brussels Airport Company SA (represented by: T. Janssens, F. Hoseinian and T. Oeyen, lawyers) and Brussels Airlines SA/NV (represented initially by: J. Derenne, J. Blockx, D. Vallindas and D. Dauchez, and subsequently by: J. Derenne and D. Vallindas, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of Articles 3 to 6 of Commission Decision C(2014) 6849 final of 1 October 2014 concerning measures SA. 14093 (C76/2002) implemented by Belgium in favour of BSCA and Ryanair.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA);

| 3. | Orders the Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer), Brussels Airport Company SA and Brussels Airlines SA/NV to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer), Brussels Airport Company SA and Brussels Airlines SA/NV to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

1

---
Exhibit 23.2

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-3 (Commission File Nos. 333-42253 and 333-51337) 
and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated February 27, 1998, 
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of  BAB Holdings, 
Inc. as of  and for the year ended November 30, 1997 included in this 
Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended November 30, 1998.

							/s/ Ernst & Young LLP



ERNST & YOUNG LLP
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
FEBRUARY 26, 1999
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6129

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. THERESA MUBANG , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:01

- cr - 00252

- LMB

- 1 )

Submitted : April 19, 2018 Decided: April 24, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Theresa Mubang, Appellant Pro Se. Leonard Oliver Evans, III , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Theresa Mubang seeks to appeal h er judgment of conviction. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, t he district court may grant an extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered judgment on October 5, 2001. Mubang filed the notice of

a ppeal on January 29, 2018, nearly 17 years after entry of judgment. In the notice, Mubang sought an order vacating that portion of the criminal judgment ordering restitution.
Because Mubang has previously sought an order vacating the restitution order, w e conclude that this is one of those circumstances when this court may invoke its sua sponte authority to dismiss the appeal as untimely. See United States v. Oliver , 878 F.3d 120, 128

- 30 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating that court may invoke sua sponte authority to dismiss an untimely direct criminal appeal after defendant has pursued collateral relief of the same judgment).
Because Mubang failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
§ 582.7115 Agar-agar. ( a ) *Product.* Agar-agar.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 5 -00 790 -CV
Wa nda F . Lo ok, as Tr ust e e of t he Dwig htLoo k Re vo c abl e Tr ustand a s In de pe nde nt

Exe c ut orof t he Est at e of D wightLoo k, D e c e as e d ,

App e lla nt
v. M ar ion Loo k- Ja m e so n, G uar dia n of t he Est at e of R . L. J. , aM ino rand L indaLoo k, Appellees
FROM THE PROBATE COUR T NO. 1 OF TR AV IS COUN TY, NO. 83,2 52, H ONO RAB LE G UY S. HERM AN, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellant W an d a F. L ook, as trustee of the Dw ight L ook Revoca ble Trust and a s independe nt executor of the Estate of Dwight L ook, dece ased, a nd appellee s Marion L ook-Jameson, Gu ard ian o f t

he Es tate of

R. L . J ., a min or , an d L ind a L oo k h ave fi le d a Joint Mo tio n to Di smi ss t

his
a pp e a l. T he y

re pr e se nt t

hat a ll p art ie s to the a

pp e a l ha ve se ttl e d th e ir

dis pute s. We gra nt t he Joint Mo tio n to Di smi ss a

nd dis mis s th is a

pp e a l.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Dismissed on J oint Moti on Filed: January

9, 2008
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Consumer Credit Control

              																	United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking and Currency, 1913-1970					 and 	Eightieth Congress, 1947-1949. 						*Consumer Credit Control : Hearings Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, Eightieth Congress, First Session, on Regulation W, June 25 and July 2, 1947*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										June 25 and July 2, 1947,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5330,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
##### 



Exhibit 12.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER REQUIRED BY
RULE 13A-14(A) OR RULE 15D-14(A) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 I, C. P. LI, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Deswell Industries, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report
is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal
control over financial reporting; and 5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit
committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting. Date: July 8, 2005 /s/ C. P. LiC. P. LIChief Financial Officer
§ 522.468 Colistimethate sodium powder for injection. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each vial contains colistimethate sodium equivalent to 10 grams colistin activity and mannitol to be reconstituted with 62.5 milliliters sterile saline or sterile water for injection. The resulting solution contains colistimethate sodium equivalent to 133 milligrams per milliliter colistin activity.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.167 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use.* (1) 1- to 3-day-old chickens. ( i ) *Dosage.* 0.2 milligram colistin activity per chicken.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* Control of early mortality associated with *Escherichia coli* organisms susceptible to colistin.
( iii ) *Limitations.* For subcutaneous injection in the neck of 1- to 3-day-old chickens. Not for use in laying hens producing eggs for human consumption. Do not use in turkeys. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
(2) [Reserved] [63 FR 13123, Mar. 18, 1998, as amended at 79 FR 16185, Mar. 25, 2014; 84 FR 32992, July 11, 2019]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM VOICESTREAM
WIRELESS CORPORATION'S UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          79,856
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,029
<INVENTORY>                                     18,068
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,954
<PP&E>                                         882,489
<DEPRECIATION>                                 202,751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,371,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,328
<BONDS>                                      1,025,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,039,926
<OTHER-SE>                                    (16,711)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,371,381
<SALES>                                         30,351
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,882
<CGS>                                           60,908
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  335,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,794
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,881
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (210,003)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (210,003)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (210,003)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.20)


</TABLE>
# C_2016118EN.01002801.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — Musso v Parliament

Musso

Parliament

(Joined Cases T-589/14 and T-772/14) (1)

1

((Emoluments of Members of the Parliament - Old-age pension - Obligation for French Members to claim their pension rights from the national schemes - Rule against overlapping - Implementing measures for the Statute for Members - Decision adopted at the conclusion of the complaint procedure - Debit note - Decision to suspend payment of the pension - Adversarial principle - Reasonable period - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 118/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: François Musso (Ajaccio, France) (represented by: A. Gross and L. Stachnik, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 26 June 2014 confirming the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 17 October 2011 which determined the monthly amount of pension rights, taking into account the sums received from two French pension schemes, and by which recovery of EUR 127 065,19 was determined and, second, application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 22 September 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Mr François Musso to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr François Musso to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 351 of 6.10.2014.

1

---
# C_2016305EN.01002801.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — CW v Council

(Case T-224/14) (1)

1

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Extension - Right to property - Proportionality - Error of fact - Misuse of powers - Non-contractual liability))

(2016/C 305/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CW (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014, amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2014 L 28, p. 38), in so far as it concerns the applicant and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CW to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CW to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.

1

---