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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1930 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1930

  To require the Administration of General Services to issue guidance 
         relating to the procurement of reclaimed refrigerants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2017

 Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois (for himself and Mr. Peters) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Administration of General Services to issue guidance 
         relating to the procurement of reclaimed refrigerants.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Refrigerant Management and 
Stewardship Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. PROMOTING USE OF RECLAIMED REFRIGERANTS IN FEDERAL FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services shall 
issue guidance relating to the procurement of reclaimed refrigerants to 
service existing equipment in Federal facilities.
    (b) Preference.--The guidance issued under subsection (a) shall 
give preference to the use of reclaimed refrigerants if--
            (1) the refrigerant has been reclaimed by an individual or 
        entity that is certified under the laboratory certification 
        program of the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 
        Institute; and
            (2) the price of the reclaimed refrigerant does not exceed 
        the price of a newly manufactured refrigerant.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roland Barnes, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 675]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J., at hearing; Renee White, J., at trial and sentence), rendered January 5, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts each of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years and 4 to 8 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, his showup identification was not suggestive merely because the complainants were together when they accidentally viewed defendant. Group identifications are not per se impermissible *(People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023). Here, the complainants spontaneously identified defendant in close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime. Thus, it cannot be concluded that they influenced one another in making their identifications. Nor was the showup rendered suggestive because the complainants were told beforehand that they would be viewing the possible perpetrator. The record does not support defendant’s argument that he was surrounded by police and security guards when the complainants identified him.

As the trial court properly held in denying defendant’s *Bat-son*challenge, defendant failed to make prima facie showing of discrimination on the basis of the prosecutor’s use of three peremptory challenges to exclude African-Americans *(People v Jenkins,*84 NY2d 1001). Although the prosecutor supplied her race-neutral reasons for excluding the three African-Americans, having concluded that defendant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the court properly declined to rule on the question whether the reasons offered were a pretext. We find, in any event, that these reasons were not pretextual *(People v Allen,*86 NY2d 101).

Defendant has failed to establish that the court vindictively *528enhanced his sentence for exercising his right to a trial. Although the sentencing court was influenced by defendant’s refusal of a plea offer by the People, it relied on appropriate factors such as defendant’s unwillingness to accept responsibility for his crimes and his poor behavior at trial in sentencing him *(compare, People v Cox,*122 AD2d 487, 488-489). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 30, 2021

NO. 03

- 20

- 00405

- CV

Appellant, Double Happiness Development, Inc.// Cross

- Appellant, River Oaks Ranch

Homeowners Association

v.

Appellee, River Oaks Ranch Homeowners Association// Cross

- Appellee, Double Happiness Development, Inc.

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, AND SMITH

DISMISSED ON JOINT MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the tr i a l court on July 14, 2020

. The

parties have fi led a joint motion to dismiss the appeal and the c ross appeal , and having

considered the motion , the Court agrees that the motion should be granted . Therefore, the Court

grants the motion and dismiss es the parties ’ respective appeal s

. Each party shall bear their own

costs relating to th e i r respective appeal s , both in this Court and in the co urt below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Atlantic 
International Entertainment, Ltd.'s financial statements as of  June 30, 1998 
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>
                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                         3,457,834
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  1,568,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     (20,296)
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               5,301,795
<PP&E>                                                         2,558,563
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   637,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                12,811,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          2,090,679
<BONDS>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                          20,540
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                           10
<OTHER-SE>                                                    10,666,633
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  12,811,317
<SALES>                                                        2,708,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               2,708,268
<CGS>                                                            375,404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  2,332,864
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               1,446,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 171,539
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                25,389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  689,435
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     146,469
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              542,966
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     542,966
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        .04
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 11.1**

 

**DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIPRATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXEDCHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS(in thousands)**

 
|                                                                              |   | **Nine Months  Ended September 30, 2003** |    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|---------|
|                                                                              |   |                                           |    |
| Net income from continuing operations less  preferred distributions               |   | $                                              | 117,664 |   |
| Preferred distributions                                                           |   | 31,124                                         |    |
| Earnings from land and depreciated property  dispositions                         |   | (12,539                                        | )       |
| Interest expense                                                                  |   | 98,764                                         |    |
| Earnings before fixed charges                                                     |   | $                                              | 235,013 |   |
|                                                                              |   |                                           |    |
| Interest expense                                                                  |   | $                                              | 98,764  |   |
| Preferred distributions                                                           |   | 31,124                                         |    |
| Interest costs capitalized                                                        |   | 5,006                                          |    |
| Total fixed charges                                                               |   | $                                              | 134,894 |   |
|                                                                              |   |                                           |    |
| **Ratio of earnings  to combined fixed charges and preferred unit distributions** |   | **1.74**                                       |    |

 

----
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Guidance for Performance-Based Regulation (NUREG/BR-0303)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0303 (PDF – 355 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**November 2002**Date Published:**December 2002

**Prepared by:** N.P. Kadambi

Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

## Abstract

This document provides guidance on a process for developing a performance-based alternative for consideration, along with other more prescriptive alternatives, in regulatory decisionmaking. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Management Directive 6.3, "Rulemaking," calls for the consideration of a performance-based alternative. Such an alternative differs significantly from a prescriptive one in which licensees are provided detailed direction for obtaining safety results. Performance-based approaches focus primarily on results. They can improve the objectivity and transparency of NRC decisionmaking, promote flexibility that can reduce licensee burden, and promote safety by focusing on safety-successful outcomes. These attributes are reflected in the process described in this document. The process is set up to develop answers to questions that, in turn, provide the information to formulate an alternative that can be compared against others in a management review process. The five steps in the process are (1) defining the regulatory issue and its context, (2) identifying the safety functions, (3) identifying safety margins, (4) selecting performance parameters and criteria, and (5) formulating a performance-based alternative. Examples are provided to illustrate the process. The formal high-level guidelines for performance-based activities are shown in Appendix A. For broadly scoped and complex issues, a more rigorous consideration of performance issues may be appropriate; accordingly, Appendix B provides supplementary guidance and background information.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
1

Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:50 PM

To: 'info@terraimaging.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Terra Imaging LLC

Dear Mr. Karl Engstrom:  

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA‐2015‐

0386).  This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

* Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1,

Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1.  If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed‐set filming from

your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.  

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e‐mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov.  If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 5/20/2015.  If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.  

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267‐9521.  

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202‐267‐9521
#### In re Francesco SCARDINO, a/k/a Francis G., Frank G., individually and jointly, and Anne C. Scardino, individually and jointly, Debtors. LINCOLN BANK, Plaintiff, v. Francesco SCARDINO, a/k/a Francis G., Frank G., individually and jointly, and Anne C. Scardino, individually and jointly, Defendants.

Bankruptcy No. 80-00573 T.

Adv. No. 80-0434.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 19, 1984.

Jay G. Fischer, Downingtown, Pa., for debtors.

Walter Weir, Jr., Fellheimer, Eichen & Goodman, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS M. TWARDOWSKI, Bankruptcy Judge.

In this adversary proceeding, the plaintiff has filed, pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B), a complaint objecting to the discharge of the debtors’ joint debt to the plaintiff in the amount of $80,000.00. For the reasons hereinafter given,- we find that the debt is nondischargeable as to Francesco Scardino, but is dischargeable as to Anne Scardino, his wife.1

*311Through grossly fraudulent conduct, involving both oral and written statements, Mr. Scardino induced the plaintiff to extend a $100,000.00 line of credit to a corporation with which Mr. Scardino had no connection, and which was not involved in the transaction. Mr. Scardino fraudulently used the $100,000.00 for his own purposes. Subsequently, after the plaintiff learned of Mr. Scardino’s fraudulent conduct, and because of that fraudulent conduct, the debtors repaid $20,000.00 to the plaintiff and signed a judgment note payable to the plaintiff for the remaining $80,000.00. It is this $80,-000.00 judgment note debt which is the subject of the present proceeding.

The debtors argue that they committed no fraud with regard to the judgment note itself and that they did not receive any money, property, or consideration of any kind in return for signing the judgment note. Therefore, they contend that the judgment note debt is dischargeable.

We find no merit whatsoever in the debtors’ argument. It is abundantly clear to us that the judgment note debt is the direct result of Mr. Scardino’s prior grossly fraudulent conduct and cannot be considered separately from such conduct for dischargeability purposes. Therefore, we conclude that the debt is nondischargeable as to Mr. Scardino.

We find, however, that the plaintiff has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Scardino took part in her husband’s fraudulent conduct. Therefore, we conclude that the debt is dis-chargeable as to Mrs. Scardino.

1

. This Memorandum Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Rule 7052 of the Bankruptcy Rules.
#### Ryan, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *McCoy & Hansen*of Duluth, Minnesota, and *Otin & Butler*of Madison.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *Or land S. Loomis,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

*By the Court.*—

Judgment affirmed.
|   | (i)      the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended      December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), fully complies with the      requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,      and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                     |
| /S/ RONALD JANKOV                                                        |
| Ronald      JankovPresident      and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 4,2009 |

|   | A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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 disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERESA DE JESUS LOSADA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 04-76512

Agency No. A023-452-545

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Teresa De Jesus Losada, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her

motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

MAR 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 04-76512

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538

F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Losada’s motion to remand

on the ground that she failed to submit evidence showing prima facie eligibility for

cancellation of removal. See id. at 1063-64 (motion to remand must be

accompanied by proof of prima facie eligibility for the relief sought).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### W. T. Raleigh Company and another, Appellants, vs. Greene and others, Respondents.

For the appellants: *W. G. Haddow*of Ellsworth.

For the respondents: *Irwin E. Magee*of Ellsworth.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04

- 14

- 00587

- CV IN RE Richard ALVAREZ , Petra Davina Trevino

- Rodriguez, and Eliberto Roy Trevino Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 3, 2014 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On August 13, 2014 , relator s Richard Alvarez, Petra Davina Trevino

- Rodriguez, and Eliberto Roy Trevino filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s ex parte temporary restraining order granted on August 12, 2014
. Respondent signed an ex parte temporary restraining order w hich prevented relators from engaging in their duties as mayor, city council member, and city manager for the City of Pearsall
. Relators commenced this original proceeding, challeng ing the restraining order as a voi d order issued without authority . Relators also requested emergency relief to te mporarily stay the enforcement o f the challenged order
. On August 14, 2014 , this court issued an order temporarily

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 14

- 08

- 00236

- CVF, styled Concerned Ci tizens of Pearsall and Henry Martinez v. City of Pearsall, TX; Petra Davina Trevino

- Rodriguez, Individually; Eliberto Roy Trevin o, Individually; and Richard Al varez, Individually , pending in the 218th Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas, the Honorable Dick Alcala presiding.04

- 14

- 00587

- CV staying the enforcement of the temporary restraining order an d requesting a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. Relators did not request that this court stay the expiration of the temporary restraining order, and we did not do so. The temporary restraining order expired by its own terms on August 26, 2014
. Ordinarily, the expiration of a temporary restraining order renders challenges to its issuance moot. See Hermann Hosp. v. Tran , 730 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ). Because the temporary restraining order challenged in this p roceeding has expired by its own terms, we conclude , without reaching the merits of the challenges asserted, that the petition for writ of mandamus has become moot and should be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lac k of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gon zalez , 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000) ( holding that appellate courts have no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions where issues raised in a pending matter have become moot).
PER CURIAM

- 2

-