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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1490 

To delay the application of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. 

BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To delay the application of the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF PATIENT PROTEC4 TION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. 

5 (1) ONE-YEAR DELAY IN PPACA PROVISIONS

6 SCHEDULED TO TAKE EFFECT ON OR AFTER JANU7 ARY 1, 2014.—Notwithstanding any other provision 

8 of law, any provision of (including any amendment 

9 made by) the Patient Protection and Affordable 

10 Care Act (Public Law 111–148) or of title I or subVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:30 Sep 11, 2013 Jkt 029060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1490.IS S1490

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1490 IS

1 title B of title II of the Health Care and Education 

2 Reconciliation Act of 2011 (Public Law 111–152) 

3 that is otherwise scheduled to take effect on or after 

4 January 1, 2014, shall not take effect until the date 

5 that is one year after the date on which such provi6 sion would otherwise have been scheduled to take ef7 fect. 

8 (2) ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN TAX

9 INCREASES ALREADY IN EFFECT.—Notwithstanding 

10 any other provision of law, in the case of any tax 

11 which is imposed or increased by any provision of 

12 (including any amendment made by) the Patient 

13 Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 

14 111–148) or of title I or subtitle B of title II of the 

15 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 

16 2011 (Public Law 111–152), if such tax or increase 

17 takes effect before January 1, 2014, such tax or in18 crease shall not apply during the 1-year period be19 ginning on such date. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

SMTEK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

 

All subsidiaries are 100% ownedby SMTEK International, Inc. and are included in the consolidated financialstatements.  Each subsidiary wasorganized in the jurisdiction specified under its name in the following list.

 

DDL Europe Limited

(holding company only)

Northern Ireland

 

SMTEK, Inc., dba SMTEK Moorpark

California

 

Technetics, Inc., dba SMTEK SanDiego

California

 

SMTEK New England, Inc.

Massachusetts

 

SMTEK Santa Clara, Inc.

California

 

SMTEK International (Thailand)Limited

Thailand

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Monroe J. Carell, Jr., certify that:

 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Central Parking
Corporation;

 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

 c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

 5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

 b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 13, 2004                     By: /s/ MONROE J. CARELL, JR.
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Monroe J. Carell, Jr.
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Baez, Appellant.

[737 NYS2d 338]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J., on dismissal motion; Bruce Allen, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered November 5, 1997, convicting defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of eight years and five years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court should have dismissed the indictment on the ground that he had been deprived of his right to testify before the grand jury was affirmatively waived when defendant, through counsel *(see, People v Ferguson,*67 NY2d 383, 390), withdrew the motion to dismiss, leaving nothing for the court to decide. Defendant expressly withdrew the motion itself, and not merely his request to testify before the grand jury *(compare, People v Mason,*176 AD2d 356, *lv denied*79 NY2d 921).

The court properly modified its *Sandoval*ruling to permit inquiry into defendant’s prior arrests after defendant’s direct testimony left the mistaken impression with the jury that he had no history of selling drugs *(see, People v Fardan,*82 NY2d 638; *People v Clark,*272 AD2d 197, *lv denied*95 NY2d 851). Similarly, defendant’s direct testimony concerning his success at passing through a metal detector at a dance club earlier in the evening of the incident also opened the door to questioning about the box cutter recovered from him at the time of his arrest.

Although the prosecutor’s questioning of defendant’s character witness in a manner that assumed defendant’s guilt of the instant charges was improper *(see, People v Pryor,*70 AD2d 805), the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we *373decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andidas, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Air Quality Program 

P.O. Box 97 

i Sacaton, AZ. 85247 

! 

Office: (520) 562-2234 Fax: (520) 562-2245 

Date: CQ - 2fi -06 

To: District . 7 

We would like to request placement on the agenda for the upcoming 

Community meeting on - 10- oCn . The air quality program will make a presentation on the following 

The presentation will be given by ~~~~~ Go 

Please call Janet Travis at (520) 562-2234 ext. 286 to confirm 

placement on the agenda. 

Than k-yo u
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-4891



# 
F REDERICK

B ELCHER , Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-956) Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 23, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Frederick Belcher pleaded guilty to cocaine base possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000). Belcher was sentenced to 235 months incarceration and 5 years of supervised release. Belcher’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting three claims. First, Belcher asserts the district court erred in conducting his plea colloquy. Because Belcher did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review this claim for plain error. United States v. General , 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002). This claim is meritless. The district court did not err in conducting Belcher’s plea colloquy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Second, Belcher asserts the district court erred in calculating his sentence. A sentencing court’s factual determinations are reviewedfor clear error, while its legal interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Bartley , 230 F.3d 667, 669(4th Cir. 2000). This claim is meritless. There was no error in Belcher’s sentence. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2000). Third, Belcher asserts his trial counsel was ineffective. This claimis meritless. The record does not reveal Belcher’s counsel was ineffective, and consequently, Belcher’s claim must be raised in a habeas motion. United States v. Richardson , 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. King , 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm Belcher’s conviction and sentence. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. This courtrequires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral 2 U NITED S TATES v. B ELCHERargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. B ELCHER
# C_2013054EN.01000302.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6823 — CD&R/B&M)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 54/03

On 15 February 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6823. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6823. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, David A. Husband, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VodaviTechnology, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and;
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize,and report financial information ; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   Date: July 26, 2004   /s/ David A. Husband David A. Husband Chief Financial Officer
19
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroom

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

## Ben Bolender

### U.S. Census Bureau

Ben Bolender has worked at the U.S. Census Bureau since 2010. In that time, he has been involved in several projects including estimates production, process improvement, audit coordination, data product reviews, external data requests, and research projects. Most recently, he was heavily involved in the Estimates Evaluation project that compared the Population Estimates Program postcensal estimates series to 2010 Census count results.

Ben leads teams responsible for national characteristics and state/county total population estimates, the production of the Modified Race file, and graphical review tools for data product review. He also coordinated the Statistical Quality Standards audit for the national estimates program in 2011. 

Ben received a doctorate in sociology from Kansas State University. His dissertation examined unconventional retirement migration destinations and the factors that lead to their unexpected migration patterns. While there, he conducted funded research on diverse topics including population aging in rural areas, ecoforecasting, and community development among others.

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
# C_2011321EN.01000301.xml

| 4.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 November 2011

2011/C 321/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3809 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 107,78 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,441 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,8619 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,073 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2166 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7585 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,145 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 305,36 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,703 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3725 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,348 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4528 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3303 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3977 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7303 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7387 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7587 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 547,96 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,0139 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,7785 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,499 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 331,89 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,325 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,097 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,135 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,504 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,6495 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,92 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3809

JPY

Japanese yen

107,78

DKK

Danish krone

7,441

GBP

Pound sterling

0,8619

SEK

Swedish krona

9,073

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2166

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7585

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,145

HUF

Hungarian forint

305,36

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,703

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3725

RON

Romanian leu

4,348

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4528

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3303

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3977

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7303

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7387

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7587

KRW

South Korean won

1 547,96

ZAR

South African rand

11,0139

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,7785

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,499

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 331,89

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,325

PHP

Philippine peso

59,097

RUB

Russian rouble

42,135

THB

Thai baht

42,504

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4

MXN

Mexican peso

18,6495

INR

Indian rupee

67,92

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LSP-COTTAGE GROVE, L.P. AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS
AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          18,280
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,892
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,093
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,386
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,783
<BONDS>                                        155,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   266,878
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,053
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,239
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,237
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6279

GEORGE J. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD HUTCHINSON; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-01-24-AW)

Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George J. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

George J. Taylor appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his motion, which the district court properly construed as a 28

U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and order and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny Taylor’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Taylor v. Hutchinson, No. CA-01-24-AW (D. Md. filed Jan.

17, 2001; entered Jan. 18, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED