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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 262 

To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal 

Stamp, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

Mr. GRIMM (for himself, Mr. PIERLUISI, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. COHEN, 

Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. LANCE, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Ms. 

SLAUGHTER, Mr. MORAN, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. 

LOEBSACK, Mr. HANNA, Mr. COOPER, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. FITZPATRICK, 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. FARR, Ms. 

TSONGAS, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

QUIGLEY, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. 

CAPPS, Mr. STIVERS, and Mr. WITTMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 

Semipostal Stamp, 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, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 262 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Multinational Species 

3 Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

6 Section 2(c) of the Multinational Species Conserva7 tion Funds Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 (Public Law 

8 111–241; 39 U.S.C. 416 note) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘2 years’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘6 years’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(5) STAMP DEPICTIONS.—Members of the 

13 public shall be offered a choice of 5 stamps under 

14 this Act, depicting an African elephant or an Asian 

15 elephant, a rhinoceros, a tiger, a marine turtle, and 

16 a great ape, respectively.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Berger, Appellant.

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Balio, Law-ton and Davis, JJ.
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet 

Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

------------------------------------------- 

Appendix L.9 

New IMPROVE Equation 

 

Appendix L.9 - 1

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
KYDAQ letter to USEPA Region 4 requesting to use the new IMPROVE equation for BART 

Modeling........................................................................................................3 

Letter from USEPA Region 4 granting its approval for three Kentucky sources to use the new 

IMPROVE equation for BART Modeling. .................................................................6 

Appendix L.9 - 2

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 3

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 4

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 5

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 6

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 7

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 8

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 9

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 10

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
 

Aerosol Scattering vs. Nephelometer Scattering 

Using New or Old IMPROVE Algorithm and Daily f(RH) 

Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky 1995-2004 

New IMPROVE

y = 0.98x + 7.63

R2 = 0.80

0

50

100150200250300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

24-hr Nephelometer bsp (Mm-1)

24-hr Aerosol b sp (Mm-1)

Old IMPROVE

y = 0.79x + 14.80

R2 = 0.84

0

50

100150200250300

0 50 100 150 200 

24-hr Nephelometer bsp (M

24-hr Aerosol b sp (Mm-1)

Draf
Appendix L.9 - 12

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 13

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 14

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 15

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 16

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 17

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 18

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 19

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 20

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 21

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 22

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 23

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 24

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 25

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 26

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 27

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 28

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 29

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 30

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 31

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 32

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 33

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 34

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 35

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Appendix L.9 - 36

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           48105
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2084776
<ALLOWANCES>                                    132000
<INVENTORY>                                    6194581
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8852601
<PP&E>                                        10057916
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5717635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                18330101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7820670
<BONDS>                                        4553342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3803
<OTHER-SE>                                     3880086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  18330101
<SALES>                                        6846966
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6846966
<CGS>                                          4401930
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4401930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3024981
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              356043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (845068)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6279
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (851347)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (851347)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a §

BRAZOS LICENSING AND §

DEVELOPMENT § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-571[ADA]

§

v. §

§

GOOGLE LLC §

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Before the Court is Defendant Google LLC’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to 

Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. After consideration of said 

unopposed motion, the Court finds that it should be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Google LLC has up to and including September 11, 

2020 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing 

and Development’s First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement.

SIGNED this ______ day of ______________, 2020.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00571-ADA Document 16-1 Filed 08/19/20 Page 1 of 1
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 26004.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for violation of the liquor law, with a fine of $500.

The state has filed a motion to strike the statement of facts because the same was not filed within the ninety day period provided by law'. The notice of appeal was entered on April 5, 1952. The statement of facts was filed on July 7, 1952. On this showing of the record the state’s motion is granted.

We find no bills of exception in the record and the procedure appears to be regular. In the absence of a statement of facts nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed
#### EDWARDS v. STATE.

No. 25256.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 4, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of the liquor laws in Wheeler County and assessed a fine of $500.00.

The facts show a sale of six bottles of 'beer to an agent of the Texas Liquor Control Board for the sum of $3.00.

There are no bills of exception in the record. However, there appears in the transcript an affidavit of one of the jurors in which he states that he took into consideration the appellant’s failure to testify therein in arriving at his verdict. This is the effect of such affidavit.

A juror cannot be allowed to impeach his own verdict. See Hill v. State, 144 Tex.Cr. R. 415, 157 S.W.2d 369; Bell v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 106, 161 S.W.2d 109; Arnold v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 310, 186 S.W.2d 995, 158 A.L.R. 1356; Hill v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 217 S.W.2d 1009; Franco v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 246,147 S.W.2d 1089; Flanagan v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 177, 151 S.W.2d 803; Jureczki v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 211 S.W.2d 231.

No error being shown, the judgment will be affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Kronenberg, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.), imposed April 9, 1987, as, upon his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, directed him to make restitution in the amount of $68,521.04.

Ordered that the sentence is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination as to whether the defendant should be required to make restitution and, if so, the proper amount and the manner of performance.

While a probation department can serve as a preliminary fact finder with respect to the issue of restitution, the sentencing court has the duty to set the amount of restitution and the manner in which the restitution condition is to be satisfied *(see,*Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; *People v Fuller,*57 NY2d 152; *People v Barnes,*135 AD2d 825; *People v Miller,*133 AD2d 784; *People v Clougher,*95 AD2d 860). The failure of a sentencing court to afford a defendant a hearing in reference thereto constitutes a departure from the " 'essential nature’ of the *484right to be sentenced as provided by law” *(People v Fuller, supra,*at 156; *see also, People v Clougher, supra,*at 860).

As the People concede, in the instant case the sentencing court made no independent finding with respect to the amount and manner of restitution but rather improperly delegated its duty in this regard to the Nassau County Probation Department. The record is otherwise insufficient to support the sentencing court’s determination requiring the defendant to pay restitution. Accordingly, we conclude that the defendant was deprived of his right to be sentenced in accordance with law and, notwithstanding the defendant’s waiver of a hearing on the issue of restitution, the matter is remitted for a hearing on the proper amount of restitution and the manner of performance thereof *(see, People v Fuller, supra; People v Clougher, supra).*Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
H. R. 2650 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To allow the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in the State of Minnesota 

to lease or transfer certain land. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF CERTAIN LAND TRANSACTIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law 

(including regulations), and without further approval, ratification, 

or authorization by the United States, the Fond du Lac Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa in the State of Minnesota (referred 

to in this Act as the ‘‘Band’’) may lease, sell, convey, warrant, 

or otherwise transfer all or any portion of the interest of the 

Band in any real property that is not held in trust by the United 

States for the benefit of the Band. 

(b) NO EFFECT ON TRUST LAND.—Nothing in this Act— 

(1) authorizes the Band to lease, sell, convey, warrant, 

or otherwise transfer all or any portion of any interest in 

any real property that is held in trust by the United States 

for the benefit of the Band; or 

(2) affects any Federal law (including regulations) relating 

to leasing, selling, conveying, warranting, or otherwise transferring any interest in the real property described in paragraph 

(1). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                        (1681867)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4983533
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    2463507
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7794875
<PP&E>                                        22880164
<DEPRECIATION>                                  530125
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                32246743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4870600
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       2500000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    14335867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  32246743
<SALES>                                       12238562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12284748
<CGS>                                         11288871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 11751187
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                462316
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              280567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 533561
<INCOME-TAX>                                    202753
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             330808
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    330808
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       13
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit99.11**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the annual report of Canadian Superior Energy Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RogerHarman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

Dated:  March 30, 2007
|        | By:    | /s/ ROGER HARMAN |
|--------|--------|------------------|
|   |   | Name:            |   | Roger Harman |
|   |   | Title:           |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 1 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 2 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 3 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 4 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 5 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 6 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 7 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 8 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 9 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 10 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 11 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 12 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 13 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 14 of 15

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP   Document 64   Filed 11/08/21   Page 15 of 15
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The board of directors' general policy on director compensation is that compensation for independent directors should consist of both cash and equity-based compensation.  Directors who are our employees (currently Mr. Beattie) are not paid for board service in addition to their regular employee compensation.  Effective as of June 22, 2004, non-employee directors (currently Messrs. Berens, Dooley, Mauran, Tatham and Thomas) are paid an annual retainer of $25,000 and a fee of $1,000 for each meeting of our board of directors attended or a committee of the board attended on a date separate from a board meeting.  In the event a committee meeting is on the same date as a board meeting, the board member receives $500 for attending the committee meeting.  A $3,500 annual retainer is paid to the audit committee chairperson and a $2,500 annual retainer is paid to the compensation committee chairperson.  In addition to the cash compensation, non-employee directors receive a grant of stock options for 7,000 shares of our common stock under our Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan upon re-election to the board at each annual meeting of shareholders.  The options are exercisable three years after the date of grant, and the exercise price for each option is equal to the closing price of our common stock on the date of grant.  In addition, our board members were reimbursed for all expenses incurred in connection with their activities as directors.
**UNPUBLISHED**
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6886** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DAVID ISAAC MCGAHA , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. ( 7:09

- cr - 00131

- D

- 1 ; 7:12

- cv - 00068

- D )

Submitted : November 15, 2013 Decided: December 6, 2013

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion
.
Katherine Elaine Shea , OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas Gray Walker , United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz , Jennifer P. May

- Parker , Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Isaac McGaha seeks to appeal the district court’s order d enying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the deni al of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) . When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive proced ural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McGaha has not made the requisite showing. Accordingl y, we deny a certificate of appealabil ity, deny McGaha’s motion to extend the time for filing a reply brief, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is C ourt and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BRADFORD VERNON BLAKEWAY

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00280

- CR

Appeal from the

394th Judicial District Court

of Jeff Davis County, Texas

(TC# CR2300921)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the

judgment. W e therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment and set aside the conviction and sentence

for the retaliation offense. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2 9 TH DAY OF AUGUST 202 4

.

LISA J. SOTO

, Justice

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox , and Soto, JJ.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





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 The Stephan Co. (the "Company) on Form
10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank F. Ferola, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 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.





/s/
      Frank F. FerolaFrank
      F. FerolaChief
      Executive OfficerDecember
      7, 2009