alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 111–380—JAN. 4, 2011 124 STAT. 4131 

Public Law 111–380 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reduce lead in drinking water. 

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 ‘‘Reduction of Lead in Drinking 

Water Act’’. 

SEC. 2. REDUCING LEAD IN DRINKING WATER. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (42 U.S.C. 300g–6) is amended— 

(1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: 

‘‘(4) EXEMPTIONS.—The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and 

(3) shall not apply to— 

‘‘(A) pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, or fixtures, 

including backflow preventers, that are used exclusively 

for nonpotable services such as manufacturing, industrial 

processing, irrigation, outdoor watering, or any other uses 

where the water is not anticipated to be used for human 

consumption; or 

‘‘(B) toilets, bidets, urinals, fill valves, flushometer 

valves, tub fillers, shower valves, service saddles, or water 

distribution main gate valves that are 2 inches in diameter 

or larger.’’; and 

(2) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows: 

‘‘(d) DEFINITION OF LEAD FREE.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For the purposes of this section, the 

term ‘lead free’ means— 

‘‘(A) not containing more than 0.2 percent lead when 

used with respect to solder and flux; and 

‘‘(B) not more than a weighted average of 0.25 percent 

lead when used with respect to the wetted surfaces of 

pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures. 

‘‘(2) CALCULATION.—The weighted average lead content of 

a pipe, pipe fitting, plumbing fitting, or fixture shall be calculated by using the following formula: For each wetted component, the percentage of lead in the component shall be multiplied by the ratio of the wetted surface area of that component 

to the total wetted surface area of the entire product to arrive 

at the weighted percentage of lead of the component. The 

weighted percentage of lead of each wetted component shall 

be added together, and the sum of these weighted percentages 

shall constitute the weighted average lead content of the 

product. The lead content of the material used to produce 

42 USC 1201 

note. 

Reduction of 

Lead in Drinking 

Water Act. 

Jan. 4, 2011 

[S. 3874] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
124 STAT. 4132 PUBLIC LAW 111–380—JAN. 4, 2011 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3874: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Dec. 16, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 17, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

wetted components shall be used to determine compliance with 

paragraph (1)(B). For lead content of materials that are provided as a range, the maximum content of the range shall 

be used.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The provisions of subsections (a)(4) and 

(d) of section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as added 

by this section, apply beginning on the day that is 36 months 

after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Approved January 4, 2011. 

42 USC 300g–6 

note. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

SUSAN SMITH AND CHRISTOPHER ROBIN WEATHERLEY,

Petitioners

v.

BECKMAN COULTER, INC., BRYAN STEAM, LLC, BURNHAM, LLC, CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, CRANE CO., DEMMING DIVISION, DICKINSON COLLEGE, FISHER SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, INC., FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GOULDS PUMPS, INC., GRINNELL LLC,

HARSCO INDUSTRIAL PATTERSON

KELLEY, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., ITT CORPORATION, JOHN CRANE, INC., METROPOLITA N LIFE INSURANCE CO., PEERLESS INDUSTRIES, INC., THOMAS SCIENTIFIC, TRANE US INC., UNIVAR USA, INC., UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, VWR INTERNATIONAL, INC., WEIL MCLAIN, CO., CBS CORPORATION,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 289 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of March, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
§ 53.4944-4 Special rules. ( a ) *Joint and several liability.* In any case where more than one foundation manager is liable for the tax imposed under section 4944 (a)(2) or (b)(2) with respect to any one jeopardizing investment, all such foundation managers shall be jointly and severally liable for the tax imposed under each such paragraph with respect to such investment.
( b ) *Limits on liability for management.* With respect to anyone jeopardizing investment, the maximum aggregate amount of tax collectible under section 4944(a)(2) from all foundation managers shall not exceed $5,000, and the maximum aggregate amount of tax collectible under section 4944(b)(2) from all foundation managers shall not exceed $10,000.
( c ) *Examples.* The provisions of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. A, B, and C are foundation managers of X, a private foundation. Assume that A, B, and C are liable for both initial and additional taxes under sections 4944(a)(2) and 4944(b)(2), respectively, for the following investments by X: an investment of $5,000 in the common stock of corporation M, and an investment of $10,000 in the common stock of corporation N. A, B, and C will be jointly and severally liable for the following initial taxes under section 4944(a)(2): a tax of $250 (*i.e.*, 5 percent of $5,000) for each year (or part thereof) in the taxable period (as defined in section 4944(e)(1)) for the investment in M, and a tax of $500 (*i.e.*, 5 percent of $10,000) for each year (or part thereof) in the taxable period for the investment in N. Further, A, B, and C will be jointly and severally liable for the following additional taxes under section 4944(b)(2): a tax of $250 (*i.e.*, 5 percent of $5,000) for the investment in M, and a tax of $500 (*i.e.*, 5 percent of $10,000) for the investment in N.
Example 2. Assume the facts as stated in Example (1), except that X has invested $500,000 in the common stock of M, and $1 million in the common stock of N. A, B, and C will be jointly and severally liable for the following initial taxes under section 4944(a)(2): a tax of $5,000 for the investment in M, and a tax of $5,000 for the investment in N. Further, A, B, and C will be jointly and severally liable for the following additional taxes under section 4944(b) (2): a tax of $10,000 for the investment in M, and a tax of $10,000 for the investment in N.
#### In the Matter of Frankie T., Appellant. Monroe County Attorney, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 501]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joan S. Kohout, J.), entered June 2, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order adjudged respondent to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months for placement in a limited secure facility.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Matter of Alex N.,*255 AD2d 626, 627 [1998]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Edin Dzinovic, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 321]

Kane, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 21, 2004, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits under the temporary extended unemployment compensation program for displaced airline-related workers.

Claimant was employed by a nonprofit organization which provides assistance to refugees resettling in the United States and other countries. He performed his duties in the employer’s Manhattan office and at John F. Kennedy International Airport. *793Due to a decrease in refugees entering the United States after changes in federal immigration policies following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the employer laid claimant off. After exhausting his basic unemployment insurance benefits, claimant filed a claim for extended benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (hereinafter TEUC-A), which provides extended benefits to eligible airline-related workers *(see*Pub L 108-11, 117 US Stat 559, 607). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately denied claimant’s application, prompting this appeal.

To qualify for extended benefits under TEUC-A, a claimant must establish that he or she experienced a qualifying separation from “qualifying employment” (Pub L 108-11, 117 US Stat at 607, § 4002 [a] [2]). A qualifying separation means the claimant must have lost his or her employment due to reductions in service by an air carrier as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks or related security measures, closure of an airport as a result of the terrorist attacks or responsive security measures, or the military conflict in Iraq *(see*Pub L 108-11, 117 US Stat at 607, § 4002 [a] [2] [B]). Claimant did not lose his job due to any air carrier’s reduction in service, the airport did not close and the reduction in refugee traffic is not directly related to the military conflict in Iraq. Thus, claimant was not eligible for TEUC-A benefits because he did not experience a qualifying separation from employment *(see Matter of Almeda [Commissioner of Labor],*17 AD3d 897, 897-898 [2005]; *Guma v Globe Sec. Screeners,*2004 WL 1965851, 2004 Minn App LEXIS 1019 [Sept. 7, 2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
§ 513.11 Refund of income tax withheld during 1951. ( a ) If United States tax withheld at the source during the year 1951 from dividends, interest, royalties, natural resource royalties, real property rentals, pensions, or life annuities is in excess of the tax imposed by Chapter 1 (relating to the income tax) of the Internal Revenue Code, as modified by the convention, claim by the taxpayer for the refund of any overpayment shall be made under section 322 of the Internal Revenue Code by filing Form 843 together with Form 1040NB, Form 1040NB-a, Form 1040B, or Form 1120NB, whichever is applicable, or with an amended return.
( b ) The taxpayer's total gross income from sources within the United States, including every item of capital gain subject to tax under the provisions of section 211(a)(1)(B) or 211(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, shall be disclosed on the return. In the event that securities are held in the name of a person other than the actual or beneficial owner, the name and address of such person must be furnished with the claim. There shall also be included in such claim for refund a statement: ( 1 ) That the taxpayer was, at the time when the item or items of income were derived, ( i ) a nonresident alien (including a nonresident alien individual, fiduciary, or partnership) who at such time was resident in Ireland for the purposes of Irish tax, or
( ii ) a foreign corporation whose business at such time was managed and controlled in Ireland.
( 2 ) That the taxpayer at no time during the taxable year in which the income was derived had a permanent establishment in the United States.
( 3 ) That the taxpayer is subject to Irish tax on the item or items of income for which the benefit of the convention is claimed.
( c ) If, however, the taxpayer is an individual who during the taxable year derived from sources within the United States income which consists exclusively of pensions or life annuities entitled to the benefit of Article XII of the convention, the statements specified in paragraph (b) (2) and (3) of this section will not be required.
( d ) As to additional information required in the case of a foreign corporation claiming the benefit of the 5 percent rate on dividends, or in certain doubtful cases the benefit of the exemption with respect to interest, paid by a domestic corporation, see § 513.2(b) or § 513.3(c).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 174 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 174

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                protect the rights of victims of crime.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 1996

Mr. Hyde introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                protect the rights of victims of crime.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. To ensure that the victim is treated with fairness, 
dignity, and respect, from the occurrence of a crime of violence and 
other crimes as may be defined by law pursuant to section 2 of this 
article, and throughout the criminal, military, and juvenile justice 
processes, as a matter of fundamental rights to liberty, justice, and 
due process, the victim shall have the following rights: to be informed 
of and given the opportunity to be present at every proceeding in which 
those rights are extended to the accused or convicted offender; to be 
heard at any proceeding involving sentencing, including the right to 
object to a previously negotiated plea, or a release from custody; to 
be informed of any release or escape; and to a speedy trial, a final 
conclusion free from unreasonable delay, full restitution from the 
convicted offender, reasonable measures to protect the victim from 
violence or intimidation by the accused or convicted offender, and 
notice of the victim's rights.
    ``Section 2. The several States, with respect to a proceeding in a 
State forum, and the Congress, with respect to a proceeding in a United 
States forum, shall have the power to implement further this article by 
appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2



SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, the undersigned officer of Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge,
that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kevin T. Thompson                               
|Kevin T. Thompson                                   
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer



October 28, 2005



The signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
www.gpo.gov

### §5731. Reporting requirement

Not later than March 31, 1993, March 31, 1995, March 31, 1996, March 31, 1997, March 31, 1998, March 31, 1999, and March 31, 2000, the Secretary of State shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on conditions in Hong Kong of interest to the United States. This report shall cover (in the case of the initial report) the period since October 5, 1992, or (in the case of subsequent reports) the period since the most recent report pursuant to this section and shall describe—

(1) significant developments in United States relations with Hong Kong, including a description of agreements that have entered into force between the United States and Hong Kong;

(2) other matters, including developments related to the change in the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, affecting United States interests in Hong Kong or United States relations with Hong Kong;

(3) the nature and extent of United States-Hong Kong cultural, education, scientific, and academic exchanges, both official and unofficial;

(4) the laws of the United States with respect to which the application of section 5721(a) of this title has been suspended pursuant to section 5722(a) of this title or with respect to which such a suspension has been terminated pursuant to section 5722(d) of this title, and the reasons for the suspension or termination, as the case may be;

(5) treaties and other international agreements with respect to which the President has made a determination described in the last sentence of section 5721(b) of this title, and the reasons for each such determination;

(6) significant problems in cooperation between Hong Kong and the United States in the area of export controls;

(7) the development of democratic institutions in Hong Kong; and

(8) the nature and extent of Hong Kong's participation in multilateral forums.

(Pub. L. 102–383, title III, §301, Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1453; Pub. L. 104–107, title V, §576(a), Feb. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 750.)

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–107 inserted “March 31, 1996,” after “March 31, 1995,” in introductory provisions.

#### Report on Sino-British Joint Declaration on Question of Hong Kong

Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, §101(c) [title V, §571], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–121, 3009–167, which directed that the additional report required to be submitted during 1997 under this section include detailed information on the status of, and other developments affecting, implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, was from the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, and was not repeated in subsequent appropriations acts. Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation act:

Pub. L. 104–107, title V, §576(b), Feb. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 750.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 5721 of this title.
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors andshareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance,that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the "Company"),a subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forthin Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB forall loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which theCompany served as the commercial tax service provider (the"Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended,only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi),1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which theCompany has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed byit with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company'scompliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Companyperformed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activitiesperformed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Ourprocedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors thatmay have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affectedthe balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the periodcovered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determinationon the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicableservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for all loansfor commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company servedas the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas TX 75201-2997*

*T: 214-746-6500, F:214-712-6660,*www.pwc.com
#### William A. FISHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Page True, Warden Sussex I Prison, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-6210.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 30, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

William A. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

William A. Fisher seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2001) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, *see*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on December 6, 2001. Fisher’s notice of appeal was filed on January 9, 2002.* Because Fisher failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Fisher’s motion requesting an evidentiary hearing, release from prison, a new bond hearing, a new trial and a dismissal of the charges. We dispense with oral argument *617because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on Fisher's notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been given to prison officials for mailing. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).