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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1355 

To provide regulatory parity among alternative fuel vehicles, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2013 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. BLUNT, and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To provide regulatory parity among alternative fuel vehicles, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NATURAL GAS VEHICLES. 

4 (a) MAXIMUM FUEL ECONOMY INCREASE FOR AL5 TERNATIVE FUEL AUTOMOBILES.—Section 32906(a) of 

6 title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘(ex7 cept an electric automobile)’’ and inserting ‘‘(except an 

8 electric or natural gas automobile)’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1355 IS

1 (b) AUTOMOBILE FUEL ECONOMY DEFINITIONS.— 

2 Section 32901(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (8), by inserting ‘‘, but the in5 clusion of a reserve gasoline tank for incidental or 

6 emergency use in the event of alternative fuel deple7 tion shall not detract from the dedicated nature of 

8 the automobile’’ before the period at the end; and 

9 (2) in paragraph (9)(B), by striking ‘‘provides 

10 equal or superior energy efficiency’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘provides reasonably comparable energy efficiency’’. 

12 (c) MINIMUM DRIVING RANGES FOR DUAL FUELED

13 PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES.—Section 32901(c)(2) of title 

14 49, United States Code, is amended— 

15 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘(except 

16 electric automobiles)’’ and inserting ‘‘(except electric 

17 or natural gas automobiles)’’; and 

18 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘(except 

19 electric automobiles)’’ each place it appears and in20 serting ‘‘(except electric or natural gas auto21 mobiles)’’. 

22 (d) MANUFACTURING PROVISION FOR ALTERNATIVE

23 FUEL AUTOMOBILES.—Section 32905(d) of title 49, 

24 United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs 

25 (1) and (2) and inserting the following: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1355 IS

1 ‘‘(1) the percentage utilization of the model on 

2 gasoline or diesel fuel, as determined by a formula 

3 based on the model’s alternative fuel range, divided 

4 by the fuel economy measured under section 

5 32904(c); and 

6 ‘‘(2) the percentage utilization of the model on 

7 gaseous fuel, as determined by a formula based on 

8 the model’s alternative fuel range, divided by the 

9 fuel economy measured under subsection (c).’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Kinsey *v.*Dixon, Appellant.

*245Argued April 16, 1934.

Before Trexrer, P. J., Kerrer, Stadtferd, Parker and James, JJ.

*John D. Bay,*and with him *Harold F. Beed*of *Beed and Ewing,*for appellant.

*Lawrence M. Sebring,*for appellee.

October 3, 1934:

Opinion by

Trexler, P. J.,

This is an action in trespass brought by the plain*246tiff to recover damages growing out of a collision between the plaintiff’s automobile and a truck owned by the defendant and operated by his agent.

Clyne Kinsey, the appellee, was driving a sedan in a southerly direction on a public highway leading from Baden to Ambridge. The day was clear and the road was dry and level. He was going about forty miles an hour. He crossed the bridge and about fifty feet beyond he collided with the rear end of the appellant’s truck. The appellant’s driver had, immediately preceding the collision, turned into' a private driveway from the public highway. The turn was so sharp he was unable to enter the gate and the end of the truck and some iron bars loaded thereon projected into the roadway. The appellant’s witnesses testify that the truck was stationary. The plaintiff testified that as he came to the place of the collision the truck was backing into the street and that he could not avoid the collision. Although there was considerable testimony to the contrary, the jury could accept his version of it. The court made no reference to this feature of plaintiff’s case in his charge, nor was the matter called to its attention. The adequacy of the charge is not involved in the present appeal. The plaintiff further claims that his view was obstructed by poles along the roadway and lattice work at the end of the bridge. These were all matters for the jury, and we are all of the opinion that the verdict and the judgment entered thereon should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE WMA CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         2,091,718
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,091,718
<CASH>                                       2,711,102
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             299,524
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      58,330,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,140,247
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              4,651,435
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                             10,303,562
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,479,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,140,247
<PREMIUMS>                                   6,186,176
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            380,243
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                            (123,299)
<OTHER-INCOME>                              10,893,157
<BENEFITS>                                   3,421,008
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  3,371,907
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         3,736,775
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,109,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,737,265
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,372,339
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,372,339
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.1


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                SAFESCIENCE, INC.

           -----------------------------------------------------------
            Pursuant to Section 78.390 of the Nevada Revised Statutes
           -----------------------------------------------------------

      The undersigned, being the Senior Vice President and Secretary of
SafeScience, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Nevada, (the "Corporation") does hereby certify:

      1. The name of the Corporation is SafeScience, Inc.

      2. That the Board of Directors of said corporation at a meeting duly
convened, held on September 14, 2001, adopted a resolution to amend the articles
as follows:

            (a) That Section 1, which sets forth the name of the Corporation, be
removed in its entirety and the following be inserted in lieu thereof:

            The name of the Corporation is GlycoGenesys, Inc.

            (b) That Section 10, which prohibits preemptive rights, be removed
in its entirety and the following be inserted in lieu thereof:

            No shareholder of the Corporation shall have any preemptive rights
unless otherwise provided by these Articles of Incorporation or a contract duly
entered into by this Corporation.

      3. The total number of outstanding shares of Common Stock of the
Corporation having voting power as of September 14, 2001 was 29,183,533.

      4. The amendment set forth above was adopted, pursuant to Section 78.390
of the Nevada Revised Statutes, by the affirmative vote of stockholders owning
at least a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote therein given at
the special meeting of the stockholders held on October 31, 2001.

      5. Signature:

/s/ John W. Burns
------------------------------------
John W. Burns, Senior Vice President
and Secretary
252 La. 114

#### Dorothy Givens JENKINS v. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 49191.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1968.

In re: Liberty Life Assurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 198 So.2d 151.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law ,in its judgment.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1348 Referred in House (RFH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1348

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2013

        Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
              To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

    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 ``Congressional Award Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION.

    Section 108 of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 808) is 
amended by striking ``October 1, 2013'' and inserting ``October 1, 
2018''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect as of October 1, 2013.

            Passed the Senate September 26, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


The Board of Directors
TransMontaigne Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-23691) on Form S-3 and the registration statements (Nos. 333-04405, 333-
15055 and 333-34579) on Form S-8 of TransMontaigne Inc. of our report dated
August 25, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of TransMontaigne
Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years
ended June 30, 2000 and 1999, the two months ended June 30, 1998, and the year
ended April 30, 1998, which report appears in the June 30, 2000 annual report on
Form 10-K of TransMontaigne Inc.



                                    KPMG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
September 21, 2000
#### INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a corporation, Appellant, v. Howard MITCHELL and Arnold Mitchell, a co-partnership doing business as Mitchell Motors, and Standard Guaranty Insurance Company of Atlanta, Georgia, a corporation, Appellees.

No. N-162.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 29, 1970.

Hopkins & Wilson, Pensacola, for appellant.

Fisher, Hepner & Hertz, Pensacola, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13318-003]
 Take notice that the schedule for processing the following hydroelectric application has been modified. a. 
                    *Type of Application:*
                     Original License (Major Project). b. 
                    *Project No.:*
                     13318-003. c. 
                    *Date Filed:*
                     October 28, 2015. d. 
                    *Applicant:*
                     Swan Lake North Hydro LLC. e. 
                    *Name of Project:*
                     Swan Lake North Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project. f. 
                    *Location:*
                     The project would be located about 11 miles northeast of Klamath Falls, in Klamath County, Oregon. The project would occupy about 730 acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation, state lands, and private lands. g. 
                    *Filed Pursuant to:*
                     Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. 
                    *Applicant Contact:*
                     Erik Steimle, Rye Development LLC, 745 Atlantic Avenue, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02111. Telephone: (503) 998-0230; Email: 
                    *erik@ryedevelopment.com.* i. 
                    *FERC Contact:*
                     Dianne Rodman at (202) 502-6077 or 
                    *dianne.rodman@ferc.gov.* j. 
                    *Procedural Schedule:*
                     The Commission's December 20, 2017 Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis established August 2018 as the estimated date for issuing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The revised estimate for issuing the Draft EIS is now September 2018. As such, the application will be processed according to the following revised schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. If a date falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date will be the following business day. Milestone
Target dateCommission Issues Draft EIS
September 2018.Comments on Draft EIS
November 2018.Commission Issues Final EIS
January 2019.
 Dated: July 13, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2018-15485 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### James SMITH a/k/a Johnny Smith, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 72-873, 72-1002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1973.

*462Corlett, Merritt, Killian & Okell, and Charles W. Musgrove, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Linda C. Hertz, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HAVER-FIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By indictment of a grand jury of Palm Beach County, the appellant was charged with murder in the first degree, alleging he caused the death of one Milicent Gray Baker, in that county, by premeditated design by gunshot. A change of venue was granted, and jury trial was held in Dade County. The verdict rendered was “guilty of murder in the third degree.” Following denial of a motion for new trial the defendant was adjudged guilty of the offense named in the verdict and sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of twenty years. These consolidated appeals by the, defendant are from the judgment and sentence.

One of the participants, who had previously been conviqjed for a killing which occurred on the occasion in question, testified that the appellant and two other men or boys (of whom said witness was one) entered a 7-Eleven store; the appellant, with a gun, demanded money of the man in charge and shot him when he refused prompt obedience and reached for a gun; that the appellant then shot the woman customer for whose death he was charged in this case.

The appellant contends the court erred (1) by permitting the deceased victim to be identified by a relative; (2) by denying his motion for a new trial “where it appeared the prosecutor allowed a critical witness to testify falsely concerning his deal with the state” ; and (3) by submitting confusing instructions on the felony murder doctrine. On consideration thereof in the light of the record, briefs and argument we hold reversible error has not been shown.

In the circumstances of the case, as fully outlined with record references in the brief of the state, we are impelled to conclude that permitting identification of the victim by her brother did not constitute reversible error. The existence of a family of the victim was otherwise revealed. The evidence showed the victim’s seven year old child was with her at the time. The alibi defense relied on by the defendant prompted evidence as to the exact time of the occurrence, including testimony by the victim’s husband as to the time of her proceeding to the store with the boy. The error, if any, in that connection was not harmful.

The appellant’s contention that the prosecutor allowed the participant who had been convicted to “testify falsely concerning his deal with the state” is found to be without support in the record.

We have considered the appellant’s third contention and hold it is without merit.

The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
#### John David JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43019.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 23, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.

CARLTON, C. J, and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ, concur.
# C_2022340EN.01004201.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/42

---

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2022 — LW v Commission

(Case T-728/21) (1)

(Civil service - Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 340/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LW (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Hohenecker and T. Lilamand, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 8 January 2021 by which she was reassigned to another post within the same unit and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 July 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union against that decision and, second, compensation for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | LW shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

LW shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---
# C_2022463EN.01004402.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/44

---

Order of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No Tap’ v EIB

(Case T-514/21) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Environment - Financing of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline - Resolution of the Board of Directors of the EIB approving the financing - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for internal review - Answer given after the action was brought - Application for an injunction - Lack of jurisdiction - Plea of inadmissibility - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 463/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No Tap’ (Melendugno, Italy) (represented by: A. Calò, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 265 TFEU, the applicant asks the Court, first, to declare that the European Investment Bank (EIB) acted unlawfully by failing to act on its request for internal review of 19 December 2020 concerning the decision of the EIB of 6 February 2018 on the financing of the gas pipeline project from Greece to Italy through Albania and the Adriatic Sea and the loan agreement signed on 30 November 2018 pursuant to that decision and, second, to order the EIB to withdraw that loan.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the first head of claim of the Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No TAP’ seeking a declaration that the European Investment Bank (EIB) acted unlawfully by failing to act on its request for internal review of 19 December 2020 concerning the decision of the EIB of 6 February 2018 on the financing of the gas pipeline project from Greece to Italy through Albania and the Adriatic Sea and the loan agreement signed on 30 November 2018 pursuant to that decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the first head of claim of the Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No TAP’ seeking a declaration that the European Investment Bank (EIB) acted unlawfully by failing to act on its request for internal review of 19 December 2020 concerning the decision of the EIB of 6 February 2018 on the financing of the gas pipeline project from Greece to Italy through Albania and the Adriatic Sea and the loan agreement signed on 30 November 2018 pursuant to that decision.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as to the remainder.

| 3. | EIB is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No Tap’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

EIB is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No Tap’.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---