alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 206 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 206

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Providing for an adjournment of the House from Thursday, February 10, 
1994, through Friday, February 18, 1994, to Tuesday, February 22, 1994, 
and an adjournment or recess of the Senate from Thursday, February 10, 
1994, through Friday, February 18, 1994, to Tuesday, February 22, 1994.






103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 206

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on Thursday, February 10, 1994, Friday, 
February 11, 1994, Saturday, February 12, 1994, Sunday, February 13, 
1994, Monday, February 14, 1994, Tuesday, February 15, 1994, Wednesday, 
February 16, 1994, Thursday, February 17, 1994, or Friday, February 18, 
1994, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or his designee, 
it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, February 22, 1994, or until 
noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first; and that when the Senate
recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, February 10, 
1994, Friday, February 11, 1994, Saturday, February 12, 1994, Sunday, 
February 13, 1994, Monday, February 14, 1994, Tuesday, February 15, 
1994, Wednesday, February 16, 1994, Thursday, February 17, 1994, or 
Friday, February 18, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority 
Leader or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand 
recessed or adjourned until noon on Tuesday, February 22, 1994, or at 
such time as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee in 
the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after 
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 10, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

                         AEROSOL SERVICES COMPANY, INC.
                         FIXED CHARGE RATIO COMPUTATION
                                (GUARANTORS ONLY)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                            -------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1997           1998            1999            2000
                                                            --------       --------        --------        --------
                                                                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>             <C>           <C>
Income (loss) before taxes ..........................       $    322       $     (5)       $     11      $  2,204
Fixed charges reflected in income (loss) before taxes
   Interest expense .................................          2,946          2,662              (2)           --
   One third of rental expenses .....................            336            339             358           364
                                                            --------       --------        --------      --------
Total fixed charges .................................       $  3,282       $  3,001        $    356      $    364
                                                            ========       ========        ========      ========


Income before taxes plus fixed charges above.........       $  3,604       $  2,996        $    367      $  2,568
                                                            ========       ========        ========      ========
Fixed charge ratio ..................................          1.10x          1.00x           1.03x         7.05x
</TABLE>
MAY TERM, 1729.

#### John Digges’s Lessee *against*William Coomes.

THIS was an ejectment for the tract of land called *Barbadoes,*situate in *Charles*County, part of the manor of *Panguy a,*containing 1,000 acres.

At the assises held for *Charles*County, in *April,*1729, the plaintiff offered in evidence to the Jury a grant, dated the 10th of *March,*1673, to *Elizabeth Wharton,*from whom he deduced his title to the land in question; in which grant the tract of land called *Barbadoes*was described as “ Beginning on the east side óf the Main Run “ of *Port Tobacco*Creek, at the bound white-oak of the “ land formerly laid out for *William Herd,*and with the “ said *Herd's*line up a small branch from the said Main w Run E. to the bound gum of the said *Herd,*and thence “ with a continued line *east*and *bounding on the said small*“ *branch for the length of six hundred and forty perches, (i to a bounded white-oak standing close by the said Main*“ *Run of Port Tobacco Creek*as aforesaid, on the north “ thence bounding with the said *Main Run*to the first {{. bound tree, containing 1,000 acres.”

And the defendant gave in evidence the survey returned to the Provincial Court in this cause of the land in dispute, and insisted, that, by the words of the plaintiff’s grant, he was to have but 1,000 acres of land called *Barbadoes,*part of the Manor of *Panguya,*and proved that the manor lines run no further from the beginning tree of *Barbadoes*than 640 perches; and gave in evidence, that the defendant had his Lordship’s grant, dated the 14th of *October,*1725, for 275 acres of land, for which he took his defence in this suit.

The plaintiff thereupon prayed the Judges to give in charge to the Jury, that this grant was full and conclusive evidence, that the plaintiff should run 640 perches from *82the gum, being the second bounded tree of the plaintiff’s pretensions, as mentioned in the return of the warrant of resurvey. Nevertheless the Justices gave in charge to the Jury the words of the grant only, without informing them that the grant was full and conclusive evidence on the behalf of the plaintiff. To which direction the plaintiff excepted.

Verdict for the defendant.

The exception was overruled by the Provincial Court, and judgment rendered for the defendant.

Lib. R. B. No. 2. fol. 24.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14


                      RESTATED INTERCOMPANY NOTE: SOMERSET

$34,800,000                                                    February 22, 2000


                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, SOMERSET POWER LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, (the "Borrower"), hereby promises to pay to the order of NRG
NORTHEAST GENERATING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its successors
and assigns (the "Lender"), on demand in lawful money of the United States in
immediately available funds, at the office of the Lender located at 1221
Nicollet Mall, Suite 700, Minneapolis, MN 55403, the principal sum of
THIRTY-FOUR MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($34,800,000) or, if less,
the aggregate unpaid principal amount of the loan remaining outstanding
hereunder.

                  The Borrower also promises to pay as interest on the unpaid
principal amount hereof semi-annually on June 15 and December 15 of each year,
beginning on June 15, 2000 in like money at said office from the date hereof
until paid, an amount equal to four and five tenths percent (4.5%) (its
"Proportionate Share") of the interest due in respect of certain bonds issued by
the Issuer pursuant to an indenture entered into by the Issuer, certain
guarantors thereto and the Chase Manhattan Bank, as trustee, of even date
herewith.

                  The Borrower may voluntarily prepay this Note, in whole or in
part provided, however, the Borrower may not prepay more than its Proportionate
Share of the principal amounts set forth in Schedule A hereto before the date
specified on such schedule without the prior written consent of the Lender. The
Lender shall record all such prepayments of principal, and the principal sum due
under this Note shall be reduced accordingly.

                  The Borrower hereby waives presentment, demand, protest or
notice of any kind in connection with this Note. All amounts payable under this
Note are payable without relief from valuation and appraisement laws.


<PAGE>   2


                  This Restated Intercompany Note shall be construed in
accordance with and be governed by the law of the State of New York.

                                            SOMERSET POWER LLC

                                            By:   /s/ Brian B. Bird
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name:  Brian B. Bird
                                                  Title: Treasurer


                                        2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF GOLF TECHNOLOGY HOLDING, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         319,439
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,511,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                   167,009
<INVENTORY>                                    845,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,116,634
<PP&E>                                         459,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                 157,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,798,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          770,690
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        403
<COMMON>                                         4,735
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,022,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,798,065
<SALES>                                      1,684,920
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,734,950
<CGS>                                          753,394
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  621,532
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               320,456
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (41,123)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,569
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,569
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,569
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 118

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any limitation under Federal

tax law on the deductibility of compensation exceeding $1 million paid

to executives individually should be expanded to apply to compensation

paid to entertainers and athletes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 1, 1993

Mr. SOLOMON submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any limitation

under Federal tax law on the deductibility of compensation exceeding $1 million paid to executives individually

should be expanded to apply to compensation paid to

entertainers and athletes.

Whereas, under current Federal tax law, a taxpayer carrying

on a trade or business may deduct from income a reasonable amount for compensation paid for personal services

actually rendered;

Whereas the provision in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

Act of 1993 limiting the deductibility of executive compensation applies only to the chief executive officers and

the other four highest compensated officers in publically

held corporations;
2

•HCON 118 IH

Whereas individuals other than chief executive officers and

the other four highest compensated officers in publically

held corporations, such as professional athletes and entertainers, are highly compensated;

Whereas limiting deductions for the compensation paid to

corporate executives only, and not such other individuals,

singles out that sector of the economy that reinvests its

funds, creates new jobs, and spurs economic growth;

Whereas corporate executives are more likely than entertainers and professional athletes to invest their compensation

in stocks and other economically productive investments;

and

Whereas exempting compensation paid to entertainers and

athletes from the limitation on deductions is incompatible

with efforts to improve tax fairness and to encourage

productive investment: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that any

3 limitation under Federal tax law on the deductibility of

4 compensation exceeding $1 million paid to executives indi5 vidually should be expanded to apply to compensation paid

6 to entertainers and athletes.

Æ
Filed 7/15/24 P. v. Young CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JESSIE A NNE YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B333755

(Super. Ct. No. SCS314955)

(Ventura County)

In August 2020

, police stopped a vehicle that had entered

the United States through the San Ysidro Port of Entry. During

a subsequent search, they found narcotics in the vehicle . Jessie

Anne Young, a passenger in the vehicle, later revealed she had

fentanyl in her rectum. She sai d she had bought the fentanyl in

Mexico to sell in the United States.

Young pleaded guilty to transporting fentanyl fo r sale in

San Diego County Superior Court . (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351 .)

The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, and ordered

Young to serve two years of formal probation. The matter was

then transferred to Ventura County for probation supervi sion.2 Over the next few months, the trial court twice found that

Young had violated the terms of her probation. After the second

violation, the court revoked probation and sentenced Young to

three years in county jail.

We appointed counsel to represent Young in this appeal.

After counsel examined the record, he filed an opening brief that

raises no arguable issues. On April 18 , 2024 , we advised Young

by mail that s he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues

s he wished us to consider. We have no t received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that

Young ’ s attorney fully complied with his responsibilities and that

no arguable issue exists. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,

441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO B E PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

CODY, J.Kristi J. Peariso, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of

Appeal, for Defendant and Appel lant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
#### In re Copland.

(No. 28480

Decided February 19, 1941.)

*Mr. James C. Connell*and *Mr. Howell Leuck,*for appellant, David Copland.

*Mr. Adrian G. Newcomb, Mr. Isador Grossman*and *Mr. Thomas A. Burke, Jr.,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000939728
<NAME> RED OAK HEREFORD FARMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,931
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10
<INVENTORY>                                      1,136
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,174
<PP&E>                                             578
<DEPRECIATION>                                     239
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,001
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,057
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,209
<SALES>                                         16,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,499
<CGS>                                           16,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   913
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,517)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,517)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,517)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2 to 10-QSB
                                                          ----------------------

                            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 Prologic Management Systems,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Edwin G. Hubert, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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; and

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



                                               /s/  Edwin G. Hubert
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Edwin G. Hubert
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               Prologic Management Systems, Inc.
                                               November 19, 2003
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

District Department of the Environment 

Office of the Director 

July 17, 2014 

Shawn M. Garvin 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region III (Mail Code: 3RAOO) 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, P A 19103-2029 

*** 

Subje/cf t: District of Columbia's Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide StandardsRequest for a SIP Revision 

~W/\ Dear r. Garvin: 

Pursuant to the authority set forth in the District of Columbia Air Pollution Control Act of 1984 

as amended, effective March 15, 1985 (D.C. Law 5-165; D.C. Official Code§§ 8-101.01 et seq. 

(2013 Repl.), Mayor's Order 98-44, dated AprillO, 1998, and Mayor's Order 2006-61, dated 

June 14, 2006, the District of Columbia (District) is hereby requesting approval of a revision to 

its State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted in accordance with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 

Part 51. The District is requesting approval of this SIP revision to meet certain federal Clean Air 

Act requirements under Sections 11 O(a)(2). The SIP revision is a compilation of elements that 

describe how the District is implementing the "infrastructure" elements of the 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (S02) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

A Notice ofPublic Hearing and Public Comment Period was posted in the D.C. Register on 

April18, 2014 (61 DCR 17:003978, Notice ID 4852248). 

The following are included with this SIP submittal package: 

DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 

OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

One paper copy of the Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 S02 NAAQS; 

One paper copy ofthe D.C. Official Code§ 8-101.05 (2013 Repl.) as a reference; 

One paper copy ofthe D.C. Official Code§ 8-151.07 (2013 Repl.) as a reference; 

Public hearing notice; 

Hearing officer's certification; 

One paper copy of comments submitted during the public comment period; 

One paper copy ofDDOE's response to comments; 

One disk containing an electronic version of the SIP revision. The electronic version 

includes an exact duplicate of the paper copy of the SIP revision submittal. 

greenforward .. ~ x 

1200 First St. NE, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 200021 tel: 202.535.2600 I web:ddoe.dc.gov 
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (202) 535-

2615, or Ms. Cecily Beall, Associate Director for the Air Quality Division, at (202) 535-2626. 

Director 

Enclosure 

cc: Diana Esher, Director, Air Protection Division, EPA Region 3 

Cecily Beall, Associate Director, Air Quality Division, DDOE