alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
39–008 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–440 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 4438) TO AMEND THE 

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 TO SIMPLIFY AND MAKE PERMANENT THE RESEARCH CREDIT 

MAY 6, 2014.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. COLE, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 569] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 569, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4438, the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014, under a closed 

rule. The resolution provides 90 minutes of debate equally divided 

and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Ways and Means. The resolution waives all points 

of order against consideration of the bill. The resolution provides 

that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 

the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall 

be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The resolution waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The resolution provides one motion 

to recommit with or without instructions. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill 

includes a waiver of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, 

which prohibits consideration of legislation that would cause revenues to be less than the level of total revenues set forth in the concurrent resolution on the budget. 

Although the resolution waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, the Committee is not aware of any 

points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 42279 

[FR Doc. E9–20011 Filed 8–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 09–43] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 09–43 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: August 12, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
42280 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESEN21AU09.037</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 42281 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESEN21AU09.038</GPH>
42282 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESEN21AU09.039</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 42283 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESEN21AU09.040</GPH>
42284 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E9–20009 Filed 8–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 09–48] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 09–48 

with attached transmittal and policy 

justification. 

Dated: August 12, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
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 PATTERSONKELLEY, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., ITT CORPORATION, JOHN CRANE, 

INC., METROPOLITAN 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.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED DANIEL LEE WHITE ,

Appellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 1677 LT Case No. 2010

- CF

- 4908

- A STATE OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed January 10, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, William S. Orth, Judge. Daniel Lee White, Lake Butler, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, a nd Whitney Brown Hartless, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
10/20/14

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Review of Submitted Ready Biodegradability Study on CASRN 31138-65-5

for Adequacy to Fulfill Testing Required under the HPV 2 TSCA Section 4 Test Rule 

FROM: David G. Lynch

Assessment Branch 5

Risk Assessment Division (7403M)

THRU: Nhan Nguyen, Chief

Assessment Branch 5

Risk Assessment Division (7403M)

TO: John Schaeffer

CITB

Chemical Control Division (7405M)

The submitted study, titled “Sodium Glucoheptanoate: Assessment of Ready Biodegradability; 

Manometric Respirometry Test” conducted by Harlan Laboratories Ltd has been reviewed. The Study 

was conducted under GLP with a minor exception not expected to impact the outcome. The study used 

a standard protocol for Ready Biodegradation testing (OECD Guideline 301F/OPPTS 835.3110) and met 

all criteria for validity. 

It is recommended that the study be accepted as fulfilling the requirement for Ready Biodegradation 

testing under the HPV 2 TSCA Section 4 Test Rule. 

Please let me know if you have any questions.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

VERNON E. MCGINNIS, JR., 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 207 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
§ 31.6414-1 Credit or refund of income tax withheld from wages. ( a ) *In general.* ( 1 ) Any employer who pays to the IRS more than the correct amount of income tax required to be withheld from wages under section 3402 or interest, addition to the tax, additional amount, or penalty with respect to such tax, may file a claim for refund of the overpayment in the manner and subject to the conditions stated in this section on the form prescribed by the IRS. The claim for refund must designate the return period to which the claim relates, explain in detail the grounds and facts relied upon to support the claim, and set forth such other information as may be required by the regulations in this section and by the instructions relating to the form used to make such claim. No refund to the employer will be allowed under this section for the amount of any overpayment of tax which the employer deducted or withheld from an employee.
( 2 ) For provisions related to furnishing employee statements and corrected employee statements reporting wages and withheld taxes, see sections 6041 and 6051 and §§ 1.6041-2 and 31.6051-1. For provisions relating to filing information returns and corrected information returns reporting wages and withheld taxes, see sections 6041 and 6051 and §§ 1.6041-2 and 31.6051-2.
( 3 ) For interest-free adjustments of overpayments of income tax withheld from wages, see § 31.6413(a)-2.
( b ) *Period of limitation.* For the period of limitation upon credit or refund of taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, see § 301.6511(a)-1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For the period of limitation upon credit or refund of any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, see the regulations applicable with respect to such tax.
[T.D. 6516, 25 FR 13032, Dec. 20, 1960, as amended by T.D. 9405, 73 FR 37382, July 1, 2008]
#### § 23.18 Age distinctions contained in Treasury regulations.

Any age distinctions contained in a rule or regulation issued by Treasury shall be presumed to be necessary to the achievement of a statutory objective of the program or activity to which the rule or regulation applies, notwithstanding the provisions of § 23.13.
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.7507-10 Collection of tax after termination of immunity.

If, in the case of a bank within section 7507(b), segregated assets (including earnings therefrom), in excess of those necessary for payment of outstanding deposits become available, such excess of segregated assets shall be applied toward satisfaction of accumulated outstanding taxes previously immune under the section, and not barred by the statute of limitations. But see § 301.7507-3. Where sufficient segregated or unsegregated assets are available, statutory interest shall be collected with the tax. When unsegregated assets or earnings therefrom previously immune become available for tax collection, they will be available only for collection of taxes (including interest and other additions) becoming due after immunity ceases. See the example in paragraph (b) of § 301.7507-5.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellant,

v.

CHRISTOPHE A. CREMERS
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3723

[ April 28, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Gary L. Sweet , Judge; L.T. Case No. 562016CF002993A

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Christine C. Geraghty,

Assist ant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

O N M OTION F OR C LARIFICATION

P ER C URIAM

.

We grant the appellee’s motion for clarification, withdraw our opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

The State appeals an order entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) on defendant’s motion to correct his sentence reducing the costs of prosecution assessed from $200 to $100. 1 On

1 Defendant filed an appeal and then filed a motion to correct a sentencing error (the prosecution costs) pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The S tate then cross

- appealed the judge’s ruling granting relief. The

defendant then volun tarily dismissed his appeal. Section 924.07 , Florida

Statutes

, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.14 0 set forth what matters may be appealed by the S tate. Section 924.07(1)(d) permits the S tate to appeal a question of law when the defendant appeals , and permits the S tate appeal to continue even when the defendant dismisses the appeal . Because the parties have stipulated that there was a lack of p re se r vation of the cost issue at2 appeal, the defendant concedes error, because he affirmatively tol d the

court at the sentencing hearing that he had no objection to the imposition

of these costs after the State requested them

. Pursuant to section 938.27(8) , Florida Statutes, a court shal l impose $100 as the costs of prosecution for a felony and may impose a greater amount upon sufficient proof of such costs. However, an objection to the sufficiency of the proof must be made contemporaneously with the assessment of c osts . Because the pro per documentation of the costs of prosecution is an evidentiary error in the sentencing process, it cannot be preserved through a r ule 3.800(b)(2) motion. See Rivera v. State , 34 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010);

see also Mapp v. State , 71 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 2 011) (finding that insufficiency of the evidence at a restitution hearing is not cognizable under r ule 3.800(b)). Therefore, the court erred in granting relief. We reverse and remand for reinstatement of the original judgment for costs including $200

in prosecution costs.

Reversed and remanded.

W ARNER
, M AY and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Final Upon Release; No Motion For Rehearing Will Be Entertained

.

sentencing, they stipulated to the facts

, and the issu e presented in this case is

one of law.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 153 Received in Senate (RDS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 153

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 1996

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES ON CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association (hereinafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Association'') shall be permitted 
to sponsor a public event, soap box derby races, on the Capitol grounds 
on July 13, 1996, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly 
designate.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

    The event to be carried out under this resolution shall be free of 
admission charge to the public and arranged not to interfere with the 
needs of Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board; except that the 
Association shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and 
liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

    For the purposes of this resolution, the Association is authorized 
to erect upon the Capitol grounds, subject to the approval of the 
Architect of the Capitol, such stage, sound amplification devices, and 
other related structures and equipment as may be required for the event 
to be carried out under this resolution.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

    The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are 
authorized to make any such additional arrangements that may be 
required to carry out the event under this resolution.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.

                              By Jeff Trandahl,

                                                Assistant to the Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony DONOFRIO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50710.

D.C. No. CR-00-01612-IEG.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 14, 2002.

*882Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Anthony Donofrio appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for one count of importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

Donofrio first contends that 21 U.S.C. § 960 is unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and *United States v. Nordby,*225 F.3d 1053, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2000), *overruled in part by United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 564 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (overruling Nordby’s conclusion that Congress committed drug quantity to the sentencing judge to decide by a preponderance of the evidence), *cert, denied,*2002 WL 764233 (U.S. May 28, 2002). This contention is foreclosed by our decision *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2002).

Donofrio’s second contention is that even if § 960 is constitutional, the mens rea requirement applies to drug quantity and type. This contention is foreclosed by our decision in *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.1

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Donofrio’s motion to file supplemental briefing on the application of *United States v. Buckland,*259 F.3d 1157, (9th Cir.2001), *superceded by,*289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), *cert. denied,*2002 WL 764233 (U.S. May 28, 2002), is denied as moot.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The undersigned hereby certifies, in
his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of China Green Agriculture, Inc. (the
“Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:





(1) The
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Dated:
May 12, 2010





/s/ Tao Li


Name: Tao
Li


President
and Chief Executive Officer


(principal
executive officer)








This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original 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.
Public Hearing for Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Economy Standards for

Model Year 2017

- 2025 Light

- duty Vehicles

Hard Copies of Testimony and Other Material Provided by Testifiers

Detroit Public Hearing

January 17, 2012

Docket Attachment 1: Hard copies of testimony provided by testifiers to EPA/NHTSA panel

Name Affiliation Page

John Dingell U.S. Representative 1

Susan M. Cischke Ford Motor Company 2

John Juriga Kia Motors 8

Don Chalmers National Automobile Dealers Association 10

Doug Richman Aluminum Association’s Aluminum Transportation Group 1 4

Karyn Schmidt American Chemistry Council 1 9

Dr. Andrew Brown Jr. Delphi Corporation 2 3

Dr. James Jacobs Macomb Community Collge 2 7

Jonathan Tobias Small Business Majority/Michigan Green Cabs 3 1

Rhett Buttle Small Business Majority 3 4

Danny Pelissier UAW local 163 3 6

Kerry Ebersole Pew Environment Group 3 8

Charles Morris St. Christopher Parish 40

Bruce Brenda Bayer Material Science 4 2

John German International Council on Clean Transportation 4 6

Ronald P. Krupitzer American Iron and Steel Institute 5 2

Ralph McKee Citizen 5 7

Docket Attachment 2: Submitted by Aluminum Association’s Aluminum Transportation Group

- Survey

of North American Automotive Materials, conducted by Ducker Worldwide

Docket Attachment 3: Submitted by Aluminum Association’s Aluminum Transportation Group

–

Survey of Trends in Automotive Materials, conducted by DuPont

Docket Attachment 4: Submitted by Aluminum Association’s Aluminum Transportation Group

–

Statement made by Honda at the recent International Automotive Body Congress (Wards Auto)

Docket Attachment 5: Submitted by Aluminum Association’s Aluminum Transportation Group

–

Automotive Materials Life Cycle Cost Analysi s, commissioned by the European Union, titled “Support

for the Revisions of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 on CO2 Emissions from Cars”

Docket Attachment 6: Submitted by Jobs with Justice

- About Jobs with Justice
HomeAdvancing Global Health Diplomacy

# 									Advancing Global Health Diplomacy							

Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy

The Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy collaborates within the State Department, across the U.S. government, and in coordination with our international partners to empower foreign governments to work with us to combat future global health threats.
        - We work with the Office of Foreign Assistance on requests, allocation, and use of State Department foreign assistance resources for global health emergencies to ensure the U.S. government can respond quickly, transparently, equitably, and efficiently to outbreaks.
        - We engage diplomatically to support building capacity and strengthening national health systems, including developing and implementing national action plans for health security.
        - We strengthen regional early-warning disease surveillance systems by building capacity and strong collaboration at national and regional levels, including through the support of new regional public health platforms.
        - We support health workers by providing training to prevent, detect, and respond to disease threats, encouraging adequate security and compensation, and focusing on recruitment/retention efforts, while collaborating with stakeholders to improve financing opportunities dedicated to this purpose.
        - We increase attention and political will to address antimicrobial resistance and One Health issues including zoonotic spillover and climate sensitive diseases by establishing and strengthening national and regional platforms.

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top