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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1748 

To authorize appropriations to the Secretary of Commerce to establish publicprivate partnerships under the Market Development Cooperator Program 

of the International Trade Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2013 

Mr. SCHATZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize appropriations to the Secretary of Commerce 

to establish public-private partnerships under the Market 

Development Cooperator Program of the International 

Trade Administration, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Export Pro5 motion Act of 2013’’. 


sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1748 IS

1 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE MARKET DEVELOP2 MENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM OF THE DE3 PARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro5 priated to the Secretary of Commerce, for the 18-month 

6 period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

7 $8,000,000 for the Industry and Analysis unit of the 

8 International Trade Administration— 

9 (1) to establish public-private partnerships 

10 under the Market Development Cooperator Program 

11 of the International Trade Administration; and 

12 (2) to underwrite a portion of the start-up costs 

13 for new projects carried out under that Program to 

14 strengthen the competitiveness and market share of 

15 United States industry, not to exceed, for each such 

16 project, the lesser of— 

(A) 1 17 ⁄2 of the total start-up costs for the 

18 project; or 

19 (B) $500,000. 

20 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—In obligating and expending 

21 the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a), the 

22 Secretary of Commerce shall give preference to activities 

23 that the Secretary determines will— 

24 (1) assist small- and medium-sized businesses 

25 in the United States; and 


sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1748 IS

1 (2)(A) create or sustain the greatest number of 

2 jobs in the United States; 

3 (B) obtain the maximum return on investment; 

4 (C) increase United States exports to the Asia 

5 and Pacific region; 

6 (D) increase United States exports in services; 

7 or 

8 (E) address export priorities set by the Depart9 ment of Commerce. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 7.1

Financial and operational statistics

Financial ratios



|                                                   |  |      |      |  |      |  |      |      |  |  |      |  |  |      |      |  |  |  |      | 
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ---- |  | ---- |  | ---- | ---- |  |  | ---- |  |  | ---- | ---- |  |  |  | ---- | 
|Year ended 31 March                                |  | 2018 |      |  | 2017 |  |      | 2016 |  |  | 2015 |  |  | 2014 |     
|Return on capital employed 
%a                    |  |      | 11.8 |  |      |  | 11.2 |      |  |  | 12.7 |  |  |      | 23.3 |  |  |  | 21.1 | 
|Adjustedb  %                                      |  |      | 14.0 |  |      |  | 14.6 |      |  |  | 13.5 |  |  |      | 24.9 |  |  |  | 22.9 | 
|Interest cover  timesc                            |  |      | 4.4  |  |      |  | 3.9  |      |  |  | 5.1  |  |  |      | 4.0  |  |  |  | 3.8  | 
|Adjustedb  times                                  |  |      | 7.3  |  |      |  | 7.0  |      |  |  | 7.9  |  |  |      | 6.5  |  |  |  | 5.8  | 
|Net debt to adjusted EBITDAb 
times               |  |      | 1.3  |  |      |  | 1.2  |      |  |  | 1.5  |  |  |      | 0.8  |  |  |  | 1.1  | 
|Capital expenditure as a percentage of
revenueb % |  |      | 14.8 |  |      |  | 14.3 |      |  |  | 13.9 |  |  |      | 13.0 |  |  |  | 12.8 | 



|a | The ratio is based on profit before taxation and net finance expense to capital employed. Capital employed is represented by total assets less current liabilities
(excluding corporation tax, current borrowings, derivative financial liabilities and finance lease creditors) less deferred and current tax assets, retirement benefit asset, cash and cash equivalents, derivative financial assets and investments.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|b | Before specific items.
|- | ----------------------

|c | The number of times net finance expense is covered by operating profit.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 99-51122 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
JORGE CARRERA-CARRILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (EP-99-CR-769-ALL-DB)

_________________________________________________________________ July 5, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Jorge Carrera-Carrillo appeals his conviction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326 for attempted illegal reentry into the United States following removal. Carrera-Carrillo claims the district court
erred in denying his motion to dismiss, in which he asserted that
his prior removal proceedings violated his right to due process.

He concedes that the only issue raised in this appeal is

foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte , 186 F.3d 651, 656-60 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___,

120 S. Ct. 838 (2000); and notes the issue is presented in order to preserve it for possible review by the Supreme Court.- 2 - AFFIRMED
#### James DANIEL, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Appellee.

No. 70-364.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 30, 1971.

*781Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

All points raised on appeal have been carefully considered, and, in view of the record, no reversible error has been made to appear or does appear.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 12.1  Consolidated Edison, Inc.  Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
Charges  (Millions of Dollars)  For the Twelve Months
  Ended December 31,2003
  
  2002
  
  2001
  
  2000
  
  1999EarningsNet Income for Common
  Stock
  
  $
  528
  
  $
  646
  
  $
  682
  
  $
  583
  
  $
  701Preferred Stock
  Dividend
  
  11
  
  13
  
  14
  
  14
  
  13Cumulative Effect of
  Changes in Accounting Principles
  
  (3
  )
  22
  
  
  
  
  
  (Income) or Loss from
  Equity Investees
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (1
  )
  1Minority Interest Loss
  
  2
  
  2
  
  2
  
  1
  
  Income Tax
  
  315
  
  376
  
  442
  
  307
  
  373Pre-Tax Income from
  Continuing Operations
  
  $
  853
  
  $
  1,059
  
  $
  1,140
  
  $
  904
  
  $
  1,088Add: Fixed Charges*
  
  491
  
  493
  
  480
  
  452
  
  378Add: Distributed Income
  of Equity Investees
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  1
  
  1Subtract: Interest
  Capitalized
  
  5
  
  14
  
  
  
  
  
  Subtract: Preferred
  Stock Dividend Requirement
  
  17
  
  19
  
  22
  
  21
  
  21Earnings
  
  $
  1,322
  
  $
  1,519
  
  $
  1,598
  
  $
  1,336
  
  $
  1,446*
  Fixed ChargesInterest on Long-term
  Debt
  
  $
  388
  
  $
  373
  
  $
  384
  
  $
  351
  
  $
  306Amortization of Debt
  Discount, Premium and Expense
  
  13
  
  12
  
  13
  
  12
  
  13Interest Capitalized
  
  5
  
  14
  
  
  
  
  
  Other Interest
  
  45
  
  61
  
  42
  
  50
  
  20Interest Component of
  Rentals
  
  22
  
  14
  
  19
  
  18
  
  18Preferred Stock
  Dividend Requirement
  
  18
  
  19
  
  22
  
  21
  
  21Fixed
  Charges
  
  $
  491
  
  $
  493
  
  $
  480
  
  $
  452
  
  $
  378Ratio of Earnings to
  Fixed Charges
  
  2.7
  
  3.1
  
  3.3
  
  3.0
  
  3.8
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States:  1965 to 2007
          (in percent)
   Year        First    Second     Third     Fourth
              Quarter   Quarter   Quarter   Quarter

2007....        68.4      68.2      68.2      67.8
2006....        68.5      68.7      69.0      68.9
2005....        69.1      68.6      68.8      69.0
2004....        68.6      69.2      69.0      69.2
2003....        68.0      68.0      68.4      68.6
2002\r...       67.8      67.6      68.0      68.3
2002....        67.8      67.6      68.0      68.3
2001....        67.5      67.7      68.1      68.0
2000....        67.1      67.2      67.7      67.5

1999....        66.7      66.6      67.0      66.9
1998....        65.9      66.0      66.8      66.4
1997....        65.4      65.7      66.0      65.7
1996....        65.1      65.4      65.6      65.4
1995....        64.2      64.7      65.0      65.1
1994....        63.8      63.8      64.1      64.2
1993\r....      63.7      63.9      64.2      64.2
1993....        64.2      64.4      64.7      64.6
1992....        64.0      63.9      64.3      64.4
1991....        63.9      63.9      64.2      64.2
1990....        64.0      63.7      64.0      64.1
1989\r....      63.9      63.8      64.1      63.8

1989....        63.9      63.9      64.0      63.8
1988....        63.7      63.7      64.0      63.8
1987....        63.8      63.8      64.2      64.1
1986....        63.6      63.8      63.8      63.9
1985....        64.1      64.1      63.9      63.5
1984....        64.6      64.6      64.6      64.1
1983......      64.7      64.7      64.8      64.4
1982....        64.8      64.9      64.9      64.5
1981....        65.6      65.3      65.6      65.2
1980....        65.5      65.5      65.8      65.5
1979\r....      64.8      64.9      65.8      65.4

1979....        65.3      65.1      66.0      65.8
1978....        64.8      64.4      65.2      65.4
1977....        64.8      64.5      65.0      64.9
1976....        64.6      64.6      64.9      64.8
1975....        64.4      64.9      64.6      64.5
1974....        64.8      64.8      64.6      64.4
1973....        64.9      64.4      64.4      64.4
1972....        64.3      64.5      64.3      64.4
1971....        64.0      64.1      64.4      64.5
1970....        64.3      64.0      64.4      64.0
1969....        64.1      64.4      64.4      64.4
1968....        63.6      64.1      64.1      63.6
1967....        63.3      63.9      63.8      63.5
1966....        63.5      63.2      63.3      63.8
1965....        62.9      62.9      62.9      63.4
\r Revised.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

American General Trading & Contracting, WLL ) ASBCA No. 56758 

) 

Under Contract No. DABM06-03-C-0009 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Vonda K. Vandaveer, Esq. 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

V.K. Vandaveer, P.L.L.C. 

Washington, DC 

Michael F. Brown, Esq. 

DVG Law Partner LLC 

Neenah, WI 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

L TC Brian J. Chapuran, JA 

MAJ Michael G. Pond, JA 

Trial Attorneys 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 11 February 2015 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 56758, Appeal of American General 

Trading & Contracting, WLL, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Table 11.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit, for the United States and Regions:
                  First Quarter 2001 and 2000

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                                   First quarter 2001


                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      8.9       6.9       7.8      11.4       7.6
      For rent...........................      2.6       1.8       2.4       3.4       2.1
      For sale only......................      0.9       0.7       1.0       1.2       0.7
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.7       0.5       0.6       0.7       0.7
      Held off market....................      4.7       4.0       3.9       6.1       4.0
        For occasional use...............      1.5       1.1       0.7       2.2       1.7
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      1.0       0.9       0.9       1.1       0.8
        For other reasons................      2.3       2.0       2.2       2.8       1.5

    Seasonal vacant......................      2.9       4.4       2.6       2.6       2.5

    Occupied.............................     88.2      88.7      89.5      86.0      90.0




                                                   First quarter 2000

Type of housing unit
                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      8.7       7.4       7.9      10.5       7.5
      For rent...........................      2.5       1.9       2.3       3.1       2.3
      For sale only......................      1.0       0.7       0.9       1.1       1.0
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.6       0.5       0.7       0.7       0.6
      Held off market....................      4.5       4.3       3.9       5.6       3.5
        For occasional use...............      1.6       1.5       0.9       2.1       1.4
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.8       0.8       0.9       0.9       0.7
        For other reasons................      2.2       2.1       2.2       2.6       1.4

    Seasonal vacant......................      2.9       3.9       2.6       2.8       2.8

    Occupied.............................     88.4      88.6      89.5      86.7      89.8
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DAVID M. SOCKO,

 Respondent

 v.

MID-ATLANTIC SYSTEMS OF CPA,

INC.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 544 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is GRANTED. The issues are:

(1) Did the Superior Court misconstrue the Uniform Written Obligations Act,

33 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6 (West 2014) (“UWOA”) considering the

UWOA is not a “substitute for consideration,” nor is it intended to “rectify a

lack of consideration” as the Superior Court asserts, but instead, is a

statute that merely prevents a party to a written agreement in which the

party expresses an intention to be legally bound from later challenging

that validity of the contract based upon lack of consideration?

(2) Did the Superior Court erroneously rely upon allegedly analogous “seal”

cases to support its determination that the UWOA does not provide

consideration for a non-competition restrictive covenant entered into

subsequent to the commencement of the employment relation,

considering a seal on a document has long been held to input

consideration, whereas, to the contrary, the UWOA does not input

consideration, and the authority relied upon by the Superior Court did not

support this conclusion[?]

(3) Did the Superior Court impermissibly amend the UWOA under the guise

of interpreting it?

DECIDED: December 11, 2014

M.D. Appeal Dkt.

142 MAP 2014
[544 MAL 2014] - 2
Table 11.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit, for the United States and Regions:

                  Second Quarter 1997 and 1996



(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)





                                                   Second quarter 1997



                                            United    North-      Mid-     South      West

                                            States      east      West



All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100



    Year-round vacant....................      8.9       7.9       7.5      10.7       8.6

      For rent...........................      2.6       2.4       2.4       2.9       2.6

      For sale only......................      1.0       0.9       0.7       1.1       1.0

      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.8       0.6       0.8       0.8       0.8

      Held off market....................      4.6       4.0       3.6       5.8       4.1

        For occasional use...............      1.7       1.3       0.8       2.3       1.8

        Temporarily occupied by persons

        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.8       0.9       0.8       0.8       0.8

        For other reasons................      2.1       1.8       2.0       2.7       1.5



    Seasonal vacant......................      2.9       3.9       2.7       2.5       2.6



    Occupied.............................     88.2      88.2      89.8      86.8      88.8



                                                   Second quarter 1996



Type of housing unit

                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West

                                           States     east      West



All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100



    Year-round vacant....................      8.7       8.0       7.4      10.3       8.1

      For rent...........................      2.6       2.8       2.1       2.7       2.8

      For sale only......................      0.9       0.8       0.7       1.1       0.7

      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.8       0.5       0.9       0.9       0.7

      Held off market....................      4.5       3.9       3.7       5.5       3.9

        For occasional use...............      1.5       1.2       0.7       2.0       1.8

        Temporarily occupied by persons

        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.8       0.7       0.8       0.8       0.7

        For other reasons................      2.2       2.0       2.2       2.8       1.4



    Seasonal vacant......................      2.8       4.0       2.5       2.7       2.1



    Occupied.............................     88.5      88.0      90.1      87.0      89.8

    

Source: U.S. Census Bureau
EXHIBIT 32.2



AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INC.

CERTIFICATION 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 quarterly report
of AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stanley J. Gadek, Senior Vice
President, Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|               |  |     |  |                                              
|-------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|August 9, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Stanley J. Gadek                         
|               |  |     |  | Stanley J. Gadek                             
|               |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and
|               |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Leroy HARDEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-669.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 10, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal quashed.
No. 11069.

#### The City of Columbus *v.*Coffman et al.

Decided October 5, 1909.

Error to *486Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. George S. Marshall,*city solicitor; *Mr. E. L. Weinland*and *Mr. F. R. Hoover,*assistant city solicitors, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. George D. Jones*and *Mr. O. H. Mosier,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.