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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3249 

Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of the 

Federal Government, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 5, 2013 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

Making continuing appropriations for all departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government, 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 ‘‘Fiscal Sanity Act for 

5 Appropriations’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 There is hereby appropriated for 90 days after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act— 

9 (1) for each project or activity for which budget 

10 authority was provided in the Consolidated and FurVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:20 Oct 06, 2013 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3249.IH H3249

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3249 IH

1 ther Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public 

2 Law 113–6), an amount equal to the budget author3 ity provided in such Act, as reduced pursuant to the 

4 Presidential sequestration order dated March 1, 

5 2013, to remain available for a comparable period of 

6 availability; and 

7 (2) for entitlements and other mandatory pay8 ments whose budget authority was provided in ap9 propriations Acts for fiscal year 2013, and for activi10 ties under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, such 

11 amounts as may be necessary to maintain program 

12 levels as they existed on September 30, 2013. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ALLEGHENY INTERMEDIATE UNIT,

Respondent

v.

EAST ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 52 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of July, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### COMMONWEALTH v. PRATT.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 15, 1951.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Earl R. Cooper, Commonwealth’s Atty., Salyersville, Walter C. Herdman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Dan T. Martin and Clark Pratt, Hind-man, for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Wiley Pratt has been indicted for the murder of Hillard Amburgey. The attorney of the Commonwealth filed petition for a change of venue. KRS 452.220. A demurrer thereto was sustained. Conceiving that the court erred in its ruling, the Commonwealth has appealed seeking a certification of the law. Commonwealth v. Cooper, 295 Ky. 247, 173 S.W.2d 128. Under the circumstances, the only question presented is whether the petition states stifficient reasons for the change of venue.

It would encumber this opinion to enumerate, the many grounds set forth in the petition. Suffice it to say that we find that the reasons alleged are adequate. Keeling v. Commonwealth, 178 Ky. 624, 199 S.W. 789. If desired, the defendant may ■controvert them; thus making an issue for the court to determine.

Ordinarily the granting or refusing a change of venue is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, but the court cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 236 Ky. 349, 33 S.W.2d 1.

The court should overrule the demurrer and proceed not inconsistent with this opinion.

Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled in accordance with the provisions of Section 335, Criminal Code of Practice..

The law is so certified.
#### WATTS v. STATE.

No. 23382.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 5, 1946.

Earl Shelton, of Austin, and John J. Herrera, of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Burglary is the offense; the punishment, twelve years’ confinement in the State penitentiary

The State moves to strike out the statement of facts, because this was not filed in-the trial court within ninety days from the date the notice of appeal was given, as required by Sec. 5, Art. 760, C.C.P.

Notice of appeal was given on the-28th day of November, 1945. The statement was filed in the trial court on February -27, 1946. This was ninety-one days, after the notice of appeal was given.

The statement of facts, not having been-filed within the time required by law,-cannot be considered.

In the absence of statement of' facts, nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.'

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commis-sion of Appeals has been examined by the-Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the Court. ■
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                     |  |                                                                            
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 15, 2004 |  | /s/    GEORGE F. HORNER III                                                
|                     |  | George F. Horner III President and Chief
Executive Officer                 
|                     | 
|Date: March 15, 2004 |  | /s/    DOV A. GOLDSTEIN, M.D.                                              
|                     |  | Dov A. Goldstein, M.D. Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies this periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Having considered the petition and the attached documents, 

we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not 

warranted. See NRS 34.160; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. While 

we are concerned by petitioner's contention that this motion has been 

pending for over 14 months, we trust that the district court will resolve 

the matters pending before it as promptly as its calendar permits. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 1 

J. 

, J. 

Saitta 

1We direct the clerk of this court to file petitioner's February 27, 

2013, motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and we conclude that 

no action is necessary on this motion or on petitioner's July 17, 2013, 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis as an order waiving the filing fee has 

been entered. We also direct the clerk of this court to file the March 12, 

2013, proper person notice of change of address, and the May 8, 2013, 

proper person request for submission of pleadings, and we conclude that 

no action is necessary on these documents. Further, we direct the clerk of 

this court to file the proper person motion for leave to file a petition for a 

writ of mandamus, provisionally received on July 26, 2013, and in light of 

this order, we deny the motion as moot. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
cc: Felton L. Matthews, Jr. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A
Exhibit 11.1


      TEJAS GAS CORPORATION

                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)

                                         Three Months Ended  Nine Months Ended
                                           September 30,       September 30,
                                         ------------------- ------------------
                                           1997      1996     1997      1996
                                          ------    -----    ------    ------
                                            (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE
                                                       AMOUNTS)
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                      20,573    19,655   20,564    18,161
Incremental common shares resulting
  from assumed exercise of stock 
  options based on the stock's 
  daily average market price                   -         -        -         -
                                        --------   -------   ------    ------
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding and common 
  equivalent shares for primary 
  calculation                             20,573    19,655   20,564    18,161
Incremental common shares resulting
  from assumed exercise of stock 
  options based on the more dilutive 
  of the stock's daily average market 
  price or ending price                        -         -        -         -
                                        --------   -------   ------    ------
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding and common 
  equivalent shares assuming full 
  dilution                                20,573    19,655   20,564    18,161
                                       ========= ========= ======== =========
NET EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO 
  COMMON STOCK                         $   9,696 $   8,154 $ 28,188 $  22,911
                                       ========= ========= ======== =========
EARNINGS PER COMMON AND
  COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE:
    Primary                            $    0.47 $    0.41 $   1.37 $    1.26
                                       ========= ========= ======== =========
    Fully-diluted                      $    0.47 $    0.41 $   1.37 $    1.26
                                       ========= ========= ======== =========
#### Ex parte LUNCEFORD.

No. 23014.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 8, 1944.

Milton K. Norton, of Dallas, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Relator was held by virtue of a request upon the part of the Governor of California made to the Governor of this State for the extradition of relator, which request was by our Governor granted, and one Fred H. Doane, as an agent of the State of California, was finally granted custody of relator under our Governor’s warrant of arrest.

Relator filed his application for a writ of habeas corpus before District Judge Henry King at Dallas, which writ was granted, and a hearing had thereon, the district judge remanding r.elator to the custody of the sheriff of Dallas County, to be delivered by him to the California agent. Relator appeals from such judgment.

There is but one question presented to us herein, and that is a question of fact. Relator and two other witnesses testify that relator was in the city of Dallas, Texas, at the time set forth in the complaint as the date of the alleged offense of grand theft from the witness Mrs. Mary S. Woolf, and therefore he could not have been the guilty person, nor was he a fugitive from justice from California at the time of his arrest in Texas. Mrs. Woolf positively identifies relator as the person accused of theft of $814 in money from her in California on such date, and says that he was present therein at such time. Thus there arose a conflict in the testimony.

The trial court heard these witnesses, and evidently gave credence to the lady’s testimony relative to relator’s presence in Los Angeles, California, at her place of business at the time of the alleged theft. We think this was the prerogative of the trial court, see Ex parte Morris, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 596, 101 S.W.2d 259; Ex parte Woodland, Tex.Cr.App., 177 S.W.2d 62, and we see no reason to disturb his finding.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41541 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CRISTOBAL FLORES-ESCOBEDO, also

known as Juan Dominguez Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-242-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Cristobal Flores-Escobedo appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Flores contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate
No. 02-41541

-2-

offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in

his indictment. Flores maintains that he pleaded guilty to an

indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that

offense. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Flores acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 
No. 02-41541

-3-

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Deferred Compensaton Program Amendments






Deferred Compensation Program Amendments


 


Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code imposes new requirements for certain nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements.  The IRS has published transition relief and proposed regulations under Section 409A.  The regulations are not expected to be finalized until some time in 2006.  In this interim period before regulations are finalized, companies are required to comply in good faith with Section 409A.  Formal plan amendments to comply with Section 409A are not required to be adopted until December 31, 2006 (after the regulations have been finalized).  However, certain plan amendments, as summarized below, were adopted in order to comply with the IRS transition relief under Section 409A.  


 


Edison International Executive Severance Plan.  Provides that any cash severance payments will be made within the required timeframe to avoid application of Section 409A (generally, payments must be completed within two and a half months following the year in which the severance occurs).


 


Section 409A Transition Relief for SCE Executive Retirement Plan.  Allows participants to change certain payment elections under the plan, as permitted by the IRS transition relief under Section 409A.


 


Section 409A Transition Relief for EIX Executive Deferred Compensation Plan.  Allows participants to cancel certain deferral elections and change certain payment elections under the plan, as permitted by the IRS transition relief under Section 409A.  Terminates the Excess 401(k) deferral feature of the plan effective as of January 1, 2006.  Increases the matching contribution rate in the plan from 50% of base salary deferrals up to 6% of compensation not eligible for matching in the qualified 401(k) plan to 100% of base salary deferrals up to 6% of compensation not eligible for matching in the qualified 401(k) plan. 


 


Section 409A Transition Relief for EIX Director Deferred Compensation Plan.  Permits participants to cancel certain deferral elections and change certain payment elections under the plan, as permitted by the IRS transition relief under Section 409A.


 


Section 409A Transition Relief for Stock Option Dividend Equivalents.  Employees eligible to participate in the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan have been given a deferral opportunity under that plan with respect to dividend equivalents.  Dividend equivalent payments held in suspense pending greater clarity as to certain Section 409A implications of the awards will, to the extent not deferred, be made in a lump sum payment (with interest for the period the payments were held in suspense).  Dividend equivalents that are credited or vest after December 2005 will be paid each January (absent a deferral election).
Document Headings

                    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

          - [Docket No. RT01-10-000]

Take notice that on October 16, 2000, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation as agent for Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company, all doing business as Allegheny Power, filed an RTO Compliance Filing and Petition for Declaratory Order regarding its “PJM West” proposal.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene, comments, or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions, comments and protests should be filed on or before November 20, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper.                     *See*, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr., 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27556  Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

CEO Certification



In connection with the annual report of Getty Copper Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Corby G. Anderson, President & 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 the best of 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/ Corby G. Anderson

Name: Corby G. Anderson

Title: President & Chief Executive Officer

June 29, 2009

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 20-F to which it relates, is not to be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 20-F), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



---
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*ADOLPH WILLIAMS

*Richard Emmanuel,*in support of the petition.

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 361 (AC 15742), is denied.

NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

*908
      *Frederick W. Fawcett,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided June 10, 1998
EXHIBIT 32



                          CERTIFICATIONS 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 Bombay Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period  ended July 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date  hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
their 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/  JAMES  D.  CARREKER                      /S/ELAINE D. CROWLEY
James D. Carreker                             Elaine D. Crowley
Chairman of the Board and                     Senior Vice President,
Chief Executive Officer                       Chief Financial Officer
                                              and Treasurer


Dated:  September 8, 2004                     Dated:  September 8, 2004
No. 72-1149.

#### Carter et al. *v.*Straight et al.

Ct. App. Ohio, Gallia County. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.