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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3136 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue guidelines relating to civil 

fines imposed for violations of the Animal Welfare Act, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2015 

Mr. BLUM (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. BENISHEK) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue guidelines 

relating to civil fines imposed for violations of the Animal 

Welfare Act, 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 ‘‘Enforcement Trans5 parency Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO ISSUE GUIDELINES RELATING 

7 TO FINES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

9 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of AgriVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:23 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3136.IH H3136

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3136 IH

1 culture shall publish on the public Internet Web site of 

2 the Department of Agriculture guidelines relating to the 

3 calculation of civil fines under section 19 of the Animal 

4 Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149) for violations of such Act 

5 (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.). 

6 (b) UPDATES.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall— 

7 (1) update the guidelines published under para8 graph (1) on a quarterly basis; 

9 (2) not later than 10 days before making such 

10 updates, publish a notice on the public Internet Web 

11 site of the Department of Agriculture of such up12 dates; and 

13 (3) publish such updates in the Federal Reg14 ister. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 1.5

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert A. Hamstead,Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer,certify that;

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Pittsburgh & West
   Virginia Railroad;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
   in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others
      within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
      report is being prepared;

   b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

   c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
      Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
   our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
   committee of registrant's Board of Trustees:

   a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

   b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
   report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or
   in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
   subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
   corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
   weaknesses.

Date: March 29, 2007    /s/ Robert A. Hamstead
                        Robert A. Hamstead
                        Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
First Amendment to Executive Severance Agreement
This First Amendment to Executive Severance Agreement (“Amendment”) by and between American Superconductor Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and John W. Kosiba (the “Executive”) is made as of July 31, 2017. 
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to an Executive Severance Agreement, dated as of January 13, 2012 (the “Agreement”); 
WHEREAS, the Company recently promoted the Executive to Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and desires to adjust the Executive’s severance payment period from 6 months to 18 months in connection therewith; 
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to effectuate such adjustment to the Executive’s severance payment period; and  
WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the Company and the Executive agree as follows: 
1.Effective as of July 31, 2017, the definition of “Severance Period” set forth in Section 1.6 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting said section and by substituting therefor: 


“‘Severance Period’ shall mean the period of eighteen (18) months immediately following the Date of Termination (as defined in Section 3.2(a) below).” 


2.All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect according to their respective terms, and nothing contained herein shall be deemed a waiver of any right or abrogation of any obligation otherwise existing under the Agreement except to the extent specifically provided for herein. 


3.The validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Amendment shall be governed by the internal laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without regard to conflicts of law principles. 


4.This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but both of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 


[signature page follows]


1





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to Executive Severance Agreement as of this 31st day of July, 2017.
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION


Signature:    /s/ Daniel P. McGahn             
Print name:    Daniel P. McGahn 
Title:         President and Chief Executive Officer


EXECUTIVE


Signature:    /s/ John W. Kosiba             
Print name:    John W. Kosiba




2
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 23, 2018

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00275- CR

TOREY TERRELL BANKS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 264th District Court

Bell County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 67505

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Torey Terrell Banks appeals the trial court’s order adjudicating him guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (West 2017). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a
brief in which he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by prese nting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim.2

App. 1978).
A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advise d
of his right to inspect the appellate record and file a pro se response to the brief. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date , more than 60 days have passed, and no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the
record . We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher , Jamison, and Brown Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME OF J. C.
PENNEY FUNDING CORPORATION AS OF JANUARY 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,129
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,942
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           145
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,129
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (54)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     54
<INCOME-TAX>                                        19
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 35
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        35
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
##### 










NEWS
    
    Contact: Clay Williams(713) 346-7606


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO ANNOUNCES
RESIGNATION OF KEVIN NEVEU


HOUSTON, TX, August 14, 2007 3⁄4
#### STEWART v. STATE.

No. 18514.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1936.

A. L. Lewis, B. L. Palmer, and John A. Niedermann, all of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. .

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of operating an open saloon and being interested in operating an open saloon, and her punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

Appellant’s main contention is that the court erred in overruling her motion to quash the information on the ground that it was uncertain, vague, and indefinite, and does not apprise the defendant of the exact nature of the offense with which she is charged, etc. Omitting the formal parts, the information reads as follows: “That Lola Stewart, heretofore on the 9th day of January, A. D., 1936, in said county and State, did then and there operate and assist in operating an open saloon, and was then and there directly interested and indirectly interested in the operation of an open saloon.”

The information in this case is identical as the information in the case of J. Weinberger v. State, 98 S.W.(2d) 356, this day. decided by this- court and upon the authority of that case we hold the information insufficient to cfcarge an offense.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the trial court be, and the same is, reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Raminder Badyal, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Kitcher Resources,
     Inc.;

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 period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
11th day of December, 2007.


/s/ Raminder Badyal
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### MOSQUEDO v. STATE.

No. 16385.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 21, 1934.

Alex F. Cox, of Beeville, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The facts reveal that four officers, believing that persons were unlawfully transporting whisky while riding on a railroad train, took a position at nighttime near the railroad track in the town of Three Rivers. A freight train arrived about 1 o’clock at night. According to the officers, Pedro Mosquedo, the appellant, and his brother, Escolástico Mos-quedo, were transporting whisky. The four officers present were Smith, Sinor, Everett, and York. They recovered a total of two gallons of whisky. The testimony of Smith and Sinor that both appellant and his brother were transporting whisky is apparently conclusive. Appellant introduced no testimony.

 In bill of exception No. 1 appellant contends that he was surprised that officers Everett and York were not present at the trial; that he expected to develop from them his defensive theory, namely, that he was not transporting intoxicating liquor. Appellant did not testify that he was not transporting whisky, and did not claim that Everett would so testify, but the assumption that he would do so seems merely speculative. It appears that Everett had not been subpoenaed by' the appellant, and nothing in the record discloses any diligence upon the part of appellant to secure the attendance of Everett, nor is he able, except by conjecture, to point to any material fact favorable to him that might be disclosed by Everett In the bill, appellant states that he does not know that Everett’s testimony would avail him in contradiction of that of Sinor. In overruling the application for a continuance on account of the absence of Everett, it is thought that the court committed no error. See Davis v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 620, 132 S. W. 932; Evans v. State, 13 Tex. App. 225; Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., p. 195. See, also, Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 551; also Acton v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 282 S. W. 805; Kennison v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 391, 283 S. W. 813.

Bill No. 3 presents exceptions to the charge of the court in submitting the law of prima facie evidence. Apparently the charge was in accord with the statute and approved precedents. Each one of the exceptions is in general terms and points out no specific defect. Comparison of the exceptions to the charge with the charge given by the court in-*507dieates that no error was committed in failing to amend the charge upon the suggestions contained in the exceptions thereto.

The complaint of the failure of the court to charge upon the law of circumstantial evidence presents no error. The evidence was direct and not circumstantial.

The motion for new trial embraced in bill No. 5 presents no new matter but reiterates the contention to which reference ¡has been made above. Further discussion of it is deemed unnecessary.

The judgment is affirmed.
Page 1 of 1 

United States Environmental Protection OMB Approval2070-174 

Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 

REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE 

. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form. 

2. Case# and Name 3. Date and Type of DCI and Number 

Chemical #and Name 

Flumetsulam 

 

mistry Data Requirements (Conventional 

orption 

ata Requirements (Conventional Chemical) 

creening battery (1 ,2) 

y 

129016 

p 

R Progress 

Reports 

0 

g t--r---,.....--1 

L 1 2 3 

N 

N 

N 

6. Use 

Pattern 

A,B 

A, B A,B 

DD-MMM-YYYY 

GENERIC 

ID # GDCI-129016-NNNNN 

7. Test Substance 

PAI;TGAI 

TGAI 

TGAI 

8. Time 

Frame 

(Months) 

8 

24 

12 

nts made on this form and all attachments are true, accurate, and complete. I acknowledge that any 11. Date 

y be punishable by fine, imprisonment or both under applicable law 

 Representative 

13. Phone Number 

9. Registrant 

Response 
United States Environmental Protection 

Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 

FOOTNOTES AND KEY DEFINITIONS FOR GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS 

Case # and Name: 

DCI Number: GDCI-129016-NNNNN 

Technical Grade of the Active Ingredient; TGAI = Technical Grade Active Ingredient [TGAI) 

eferenced In column two (5. Study File) of the REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE form.) 

 additional measurements may also be required, such as cholinesterase activity for 

ganophosphates and some carbamates. The route of exposure must correspond with the 

 in rats can be designed to simultaneously fulfill the requirements of the 90-day 

eparate groups of animals for testing. Although the subchronic guidelines include the 

al endpoints, they do not meet the requirement of the 90-day neurotoxicity study. 

 additional measurements may also be required, such as cholinesterase activity for 

anophosphates and some carbamates. The route of exposure must correspond with the 

Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 324 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.324

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   11662 Gravois Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Lt. Daniel P. 
                         Riordan Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LT. DANIEL P. RIORDAN POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 11662 Gravois Road in St. Louis, Missouri, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Lt. Daniel P. Riordan Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lt. Daniel 
P. Riordan Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6725

DJOUDI DJADI, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 3446-AMD) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Lawrence Gitomer, CARDIN & GITOMER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Djadi v. Warden , No. CA-97-3446-AMD (D. Md. Apr. 30, 1998). 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