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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4560 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4560

To amend title 54, United States Code, to provide that State law shall 
   apply to the use of motor vehicles on roads within a System unit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 2024

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 54, United States Code, to provide that State law shall 
   apply to the use of motor vehicles on roads within a System unit.

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

SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF STATE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE USE OF MOTOR 
              VEHICLES ON ROADS WITHIN A SYSTEM UNIT.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 1015 of title 54, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 101513. State law
    ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) Off-highway vehicle.--The term `off-highway vehicle' 
        shall be defined by the State in which the applicable System 
        unit is located, in accordance with the law of the State.
            ``(2) Road.--The term `road' means the main-traveled 
        surface of a roadway open to motor vehicles that is owned, 
        controlled, or otherwise administered by the Service.
    ``(b) Applicable Law.--The law of the State in which a System unit 
is located shall apply to the use of motor vehicles (including off-
highway vehicles) on roads within a System unit.
    ``(c) Violations.--Violating a provision of State law applicable to 
a System unit under subsection (b) shall be prohibited in the 
applicable System unit.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter II of chapter 
1015 of title 54, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
the following:

``101513. State law.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 12.1
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 Years Ended December 31,Three Months EndedMarch 31, 2010
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005($ in thousands)Fixed charges (1):Total interest expense
    
    $
    67,517
    
    
    $
    437,713
    
    
    $
    693,357
    
    
    $
    859,180
    
    
    $
    621,666
    
    
    $
    199,805Interest capitalized
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    357
    
    
    
    414
    
    
    
    932Interest portion of rental expense
    
    
    798
    
    
    
    3,250
    
    
    
    1,994
    
    
    
    1,697
    
    
    
    1,327
    
    
    
    1,244Total fixed charges
    
    $
    68,315
    
    
    $
    440,963
    
    
    $
    695,351
    
    
    $
    861,234
    
    
    $
    623,407
    
    
    $
    201,981Earnings:Net (loss) income before noncontrolling interests and income taxes
    
    
    ($193,727
    )
    
    $
    (757,997
    )
    
    $
    (450,674
    )
    
    $
    216,607
    
    
    $
    335,808
    
    
    $
    255,202Fixed charges
    
    
    68,315
    
    
    
    440,963
    
    
    
    695,351
    
    
    
    861,234
    
    
    
    623,407
    
    
    
    201,981Less: Interest capitalized
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (357
    )
    
    
    (414
    )
    
    
    (932
    )Total earnings before fixed charges
    
    $
    (125,412
    )
    
    $
    (317,034
    )
    
    $
    244,677
    
    
    $
    1,077,484
    
    
    $
    958,801
    
    
    $
    456,251Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (2)
    
    
    -1.8x
    
    
    
    -0.7x
    
    
    
    0.4x
    
    
    
    1.3x
    
    
    
    1.5x
    
    
    
    2.3x
 
 (1)
    
    Excludes interest related to the application of accounting for uncertain tax positions in accordance with the Income Taxes Topic of the Accounting
Standards Codification.(2)
    
    The earnings for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and year ended December 31, 2009 were inadequate to cover fixed charges. The coverage deficiency for total fixed
charges for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and for the
year ended December 31, 2009 were $193.7 million and $758.0 million, respectively.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4465 

To reauthorize the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2024 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 

2020. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Uyghur Human Rights 

5 Policy Reauthorization Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

7 Section 6(h) of the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act 

8 of 2020 (Public Law 116–145; 22 U.S.C. 6901 note) is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘5 years after’’ and inserting ‘‘10 

10 years after’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 63083.

#### Arthur J. Humphreys *v.*United States,

protest 220296-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fresh or frozen boneless pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 59714, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                  Exhibit 12.2

                                      KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

                              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



                                            2002        2001            2000          1999          1998
                                                                    (Thousands)
<S>                                      <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>
Income before extraordinary item
   and cumulative effect of changes
   in accounting principle               $  98,699     $ 103,819      $ 128,631     $  81,915     $ 120,722
Add:
Equity investment losses                         -           501         19,441        24,951        11,683
Minority interests in subsidiaries               -        (5,038)             -             1        (2,222)
   Income subtotal                          98,699        99,282        148,072       106,867       130,183

Add:
Taxes on income                             62,867        30,288         53,166         3,180        32,800
Kansas City earnings tax                       635           583            421           602           864
   Total taxes on income                    63,502        30,871         53,587         3,782        33,664

Interest on value of leased
   property                                  7,093        10,679         11,806         8,577         8,482
Interest on long-term debt                  65,559        80,329         60,956        51,327        57,012
Interest on short-term debt                  1,218         8,883         11,537         4,362           295
Mandatorily redeemable Preferred
   Securities                               12,450        12,450         12,450        12,450        12,450
Other interest expense
   and amortization                          3,772         5,188          2,927         3,573         4,457

   Total fixed charges                      90,092       117,529         99,676        80,289        82,696

Earnings before taxes on
   income and fixed charges                252,293       247,682        301,335       190,938       246,543

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges            2.80          2.11           3.02          2.38          2.98
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2533
ELDER DEFORRORRORA LOCUST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. BILLY SMITH, Sheriff, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-38-BO) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elder Deforrorrora Locust, Ap pellant Pro Se. Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Locust v. Smith , No. CA-95-38-BO (E.D.N.C. July 20, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[No. 12157.

Department One.

July 14, 1914.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. F. S. Pitney, *Appellant.**2*

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Ronald, J., entered July 8, 1914, upon a plea of guilty of violating the “trading stamp act,” denying a motion in arrest of judgment.

Affirmed.

*Stroock & Stroock*and *Hughes, McMicken, Dovell & Ramsey,*for appellant.

*John F. Murphy, Robert H. Evans,*and *Brightman, Halverstadt & Tennant,*for respondent.

2

Reported in 141 Pac. 883.

Per Curiam.

On June 17, 1913, an information was filed in the superior court in and for King county, charging that the defendant had violated Chapter 134 of the Laws of 1913 of the state of Washington, commonly known as the “Trading Stamp Act.” [Laws 1913, p. 413; 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, §7069-1 *et*seg.] From an order sustaining defendant’s demurrer and dismissing the action, the state appealed. Upon consideration of that appeal, this court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause to the superior court with directions to overrule the demurrer. *State v. Pitney,*79 Wash. 608, 140 Pac. 918.

After remittitur, the demurrer was overruled and the defendant entered a plea of guilty. Thereafter the defendant interposed a mo*700tion in arrest of judgment. This motion was denied and sentence was imposed. The defendant has again appealed.

By his assignments, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the information, in overruling his motion in arrest of judgment, and in entering judgment and imposing sentence, for the reason that ch. 134, Laws of 1913, p. 413, upon which this prosecution is predicated is in violation of §§ 3, 12, and 14 of art. 1 of the constitution of the state of Washington, and is also in violation of art. 5, art. 8, and § 1 of art. 14 of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, and is therefore void.

These questions were all determined adversely to appellant’s contentions on the former appeal prosecuted by the state.

For the reasons announced in our former opinion in *State v. Pitney, supra,*the judgment of the trial court is now affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.6







FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

SHARE EXCHANGE AND

 PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AGREEMENT


This is a First Amendment to the Share Exchange and Plan of Reorganization Agreement (the "Amended Agreement") by and between The Waters Club Worldwide, Inc. ("WCW") and the Shareholders of WCW and Petrus Resources Corporation ("Petrus") dated as of the 15th day of October 2016.


WHEREAS, the parties entered into the Share Exchange and Plan of Reorganization Agreement on March 3, 2016 (the "Agreement");


WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement by providing that in lieu of exchanging Petrus shares of common stock for all the common shares of WCW that instead it will issue 20,000,000 shares of its common stock and 20,000,000 shares of its convertible preferred stock in exchange for all of the WCW common and preferred shares;


WHEREAS, Petrus has failed to timely complete an acquisition as prescribed by SEC rules and regulations;


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:


1.       WCW Preferred Stock.  WCW has amended its Articles of Incorporation to provide for the designation of a series of 20,000,000 shares of convertible preferred stock with super voting rights (the "WCW Preferred Stock"). The Preferred Stock has been issued to Andrew Deme in exchange for 20,000,000 shares of WCW common stock.


2.       Petrus Preferred Stock.  To facilitate the Agreement Petrus has designated a series of convertible preferred stock (the "Petrus Preferred Stock") with the same designations and preferences as the WCW Preferred Stock.


3.       The Exchange.  At closing Petrus shall exchange its common stock and Petrus Preferred Stock for all of the WCW common stock and WCW Preferred Stock.


4.       Reference to 419 Transaction.  Since Petrus was unable to complete the 419 transaction in the time period mandated by the federal securities laws, all reference to the 419 transaction is deleted.


5.       Ratification.  Except for the foregoing, all terms and conditions of the Agreement are ratified and confirmed.


This Amendment is made as of the date set forth above.
Before the Third Division,

March 10, 1945

No. 50051.

#### Protest 61779-K of Porters, Ltd. (Portland, Maine).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When the case was called for trial there was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff. An examination of the record failed to disclose evidence sufficient, to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s decision. The protest was therefore dismissed.
(Reap. Dec. 10745)

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2601.

*545(Decided May 5, 1964)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for *the*defendant.

OlxveR, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted this appeal for reappraisement on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeal to reappraisement herein consists of tires, tubes and tapes exported from Holland.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise as that specified below was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, were the following unit invoiced prices net packed:

> Invoice

> Tubes Per 100

> 6000 26 X 1.75 butyl $32. 48

> Tapes Per 100

> 6000 $2.77

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise as the remainder of the merchandise specified on the invoice herein was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States were the appraised unit prices less 3% net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND' AGREED that the appeal to reap-praisement herein may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is statutory export value and hold that such statutory value for the items enumerated below is as follows:

> Invoice

> Tubes Per 100

> 6, 000 26 X 1.75 butyl $32.48

> Tapes

> 6, 000 $2. 77

and that for all other merchandise included on the invoice, covered by the entry involved herein, said statutory value is the appraised unit prices, less 3 per centum, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kansas City Power & Light Company (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), William H. Downey, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Andrea F. Bielsker, as Senior Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 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 or her knowledge:

(1)       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.

|             | /s/William H. Downey                                                                       
|------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|             |                                                                                            
|Name:
Title: | William H. Downey
President and Chief Executive Officer                                    
|Date:        | March 7, 2005                                                                              
|             |                                                                                            
|             | /s/Andrea F. Bielsker                                                                      
|             |                                                                                            
|Name:
Title: | Andrea F. Bielsker 
Senior Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial 
Officer and Treasurer
|Date:        | March 7, 2005                                                                              

This certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.  This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 except to the extent this Exhibit 32.2 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

A 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 Kansas City Power & Light Company and will be retained by Kansas City Power & Light Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Luna Innovations Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dale E. Messick, Interim President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) 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.

This
certification accompanies this Report to which it relates, shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|/S/ DALE E. MESSICK                                                        
|Dale E. Messick                                                            
|Interim President and
Chief Operating Officer
(principal executive officer)

August 16, 2010
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION, )

) 2:04-cv-1752-GEB-PAN (JFM)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

) 

RAMON GUERRERO d/b/a EL )

GRULLENSE RESTAURANT II and RASIL )

G., INC., ) 

)

Defendants. )

)

The final pretrial conference scheduled for May 22, 2006,

is rescheduled to commence at 2:30 p.m. on June 26, 2006. The

parties shall file a joint document no later than 4:30 p.m. on 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN Document 37 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed January 10, 1

2005, provided the parties an example of how this should have been

done as follows: "Each pled claim or affirmative defense must be

accompanied by the elemental facts supporting it and the relief

sought, if applicable. For example: Plaintiff claims that

Defendant violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from

excessive force by applying the handcuffs too tightly and seeks

general damages." (Order at 5-6.)

Further, Defendants should be mindful of what really

constitutes an affirmative defense. “A defense which demonstrates

that plaintiff has not met [his] burden of proof is not an

affirmative defense. . . . [A] defense which points out a defect

in the plaintiff’s prima facie case is not an affirmative defense.”

Zivkovic v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir.

2002).

2

June 19, 2006, in which they specify Plaintiff’s claim and any duly

preserved affirmative defense.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN Document 37 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

September 26, 1950

No. 54679.

#### Amin Azizullahoff et al. v. United States,

protests 124637-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.