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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6132 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to 

promulgate a mandatory consumer product safety standard with respect to retractable awnings. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 6132 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Awning Safety Act 

3 of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARD FOR RE5 TRACTABLE AWNINGS. 

6 (a) CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARD RE7 QUIRED.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the 

8 enactment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety Com9 mission shall promulgate, under section 553 of title 5, 

10 United States Code, a final consumer product safety 

11 standard for fixed and freestanding retractable awnings 

12 within the jurisdiction of the Commission to protect 

13 against the risk of death or serious injury related to the 

14 hazards associated with such awnings, including the risk 

15 of death or serious injury related to the awning unexpect16 edly opening and striking a person while removing the 

17 bungee tie-downs for the cover of the awning. 

18 (b) CPSC DETERMINATION OF SCOPE.—The Con19 sumer Product Safety Commission shall specify the types 

20 of retractable awning devices within the jurisdiction of the 

21 Commission that are within the scope of subsection (a) 

22 as part of a standard promulgated under this section, as 

23 reasonably necessary to protect against hazards associated 

24 with retractable awnings. 

25 (c) TREATMENT OF STANDARD.—A consumer prod26 uct safety standard promulgated under subsection (a) 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 6132 RFS

1 shall be treated as a consumer product safety rule promul2 gated under sections 7 and 9 of the Consumer Product 

3 Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 and 2058). 

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 37



Consent of Bruno Borntraeger



I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F
of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection
with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on Feasibility Study for
the Blackwater Project”, dated January 22, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial
year ended December 31, 2014, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement
on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.



Dated this 27th day of March, 2015





|/s/ Bruno Borntraeger |                                                                                                                                   
|--------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:                 | Bruno Borntraeger, P.Eng.                                                                                                         
|Title:                | Specialist Engineer/Project Manager
                                                                           Knight Piésold Ltd.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 23, 2009 

d1116 

Order 

 

November 23, 2009 

139106 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139106 

 COA: 289264 

Ingham CC: 05-000286-FH 

TIMOTHY PAUL BAY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Garrick-Aug Associates Store Leasing, Inc., Appellant, v Hirschfeld Realty Club Corporation et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 618]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered July 11, 2002, after a nonjury trial, in an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, directing entry of judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the transaction that plaintiff attempted to bring about was abandoned; that the transaction subsequently concluded by defendant landlord with the new tenant was fundamentally different; that plaintiff did not play a significant role in the subsequent transaction and was not a procuring cause thereof; and that plaintiff therefore is not entitled to a commission even though the landlord and new tenant were introduced as a result of its efforts *(see Cushman & Wakefield v 214 E. 49th St. Corp.,*218 AD2d 464, 467-468 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 816 [1996]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs other claims, including that the subsequent transaction was part of a fraudulent scheme to deprive it of a commission. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.
Amador MALDONADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-17

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 29, 2018

Amador Maldonado, Crawfordville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Amador Maldonado appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Seven, and Eight. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Maldonado's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call witnesses, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Six and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evidentiary hearing. *See**Freeman v. State*, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing *Maharaj v. State*, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996) ) ).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
#### WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Shirley STALLARD, Widow and on behalf of Creed Stallard; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 16-2224

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 16, 2017

Decided: July 20, 2017

Paul E. Frampton, BOWLES RICE LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph E, Wolfe, WOLFE WILLIAMS *&*REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia; Barry H. Joyner, Gary K. Stearman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Westmoreland Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. ■§§ 901-944 (2012). Our review of the record discloses that the *208Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Stallard,*Nos. 15-0374 BLA & 15-0375 BLA (B.R.B. Aug. 23, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
Statement of the Air and Radiation Management Administration 

Department of the Environment 

for the Public Hearing Relating to Proposed Amendments to 

 Regulation .10 Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing and 

Proposed New Regulation .10-1 Flexible Packaging Printing under 

COMAR 26.11.19 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes 

held on January 21, 2010 Baltimore, MD 

My name is Husain Waheed. I am a Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer with 

the Regulation Development Division of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, 

Department of the Environment. 

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.102 

and Sections 2-301 et.seq. of the Environment Article, Annotated Code of Maryland. It is also 

being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State 

Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101. 

Notice of this hearing appeared in the: 

Maryland Register on December 18, 2009; 

MDE's website on December 17, 2009 to January 21, 2010; 

Baltimore Sun on December 18, 2009; 

Saint Mary's Enterprise on December 18, 2009; 

Cumberland Times-News on December 18, 2009; 

Frederick News-Post on December 18, 2009; 

Salisbury Daily Times on December 18, 2009; and the 

Washington Post on December 17, 2009. 

Copies of these notices were submitted for the record. 

Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents were submitted for review to 

the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record. Copies were 

also made available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation Management Administration 

offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air 

quality control offices. 

 The purpose of today's hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on 

proposed amendments to Regulation .10 and new Regulation 10-1 under COMAR 26.11.19.

Summary 

COMAR 26.11.19.10 is amended to state that the requirements for flexible packaging 

printing are in COMAR 26.11.19.10-1 Flexible Packaging Printing. 

Standards for flexible packaging printing lines are: 

1. 0.8 lb VOC/lb or kg VOC/kg solids applied; or 

1 
2 

2. 0.16 lb VOC/lb or kg VOC/kg materials applied; or 

If a control device is used: 

The dryer exhaust is required to be ducted to a control device that is constructed, 

operated, and maintained to achieve various overall control efficiencies based on the 

installation date of the flexible packaging line and air pollution control device. 

The work practice standards apply to the usage of all VOC containing materials. 

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

This action will be submitted to the EPA for approval as part of the SIP. 

Consideration of Comments 

The Department will consider all comments before making a decision to adopt the 

amendments and proposed new regulation.
Michael T. SHUTTLESWORTH v. BBVA COMPASS a/k/a Compass Bank

2160217

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Maurice SYMONETTE, Clyde McPhatter, Leroy Williams, Mack Wells and James Littlejohn, Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Appellee.

No. 4D17-2666

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 5, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy L. SHAW

NO. 2017-KO-1182

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1489 

To permit vicarious liability claims against an employer of a person who, 

under color of law, subjects another to the deprivation of rights, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2021 

Mr. COHEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit vicarious liability claims against an employer of 

a person who, under color of law, subjects another to 

the deprivation of rights, 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 ‘‘Civil Rights Enhance5 ment and Law Enforcement Accountability Improvement 

6 Act of 2021’’. 

7 SEC. 2. VICARIOUS LIABILITY. 

8 Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

9 1983) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1489 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘Every’’; and 

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

3 ‘‘(b) In any action brought under subsection (a), the 

4 employer of a law enforcement officer acting under color 

5 of any law described in such subsection shall be vicariously 

6 liable for the acts or omissions of the officer committed 

7 within the scope of employment in the same manner and 

8 to the same extent as a private employer is liable for the 

9 negligent acts of its employee under the laws of the State, 

10 Territory, or the District of Columbia. For purposes of 

11 this subsection, a law enforcement officer acting under 

12 color of law shall be deemed to be acting within the course 

13 and scope of employment (regardless of whether the act 

14 of the law enforcement officer was unconstitutional). 

15 ‘‘(c) It shall not be a defense against any claim for 

16 vicarious liability under subsection (b) that a law enforce17 ment officer has immunity in any action against the law 

18 enforcement officer under subsection (a). Nothing in this 

19 section shall be construed as limiting, providing, or ex20 tending any extant immunity to a law enforcement officer. 

21 ‘‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to pre22 clude liability under any other theory of law for depriva23 tions actionable under subsection (a) caused by a law enVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:30 Apr 16, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1489.IH H1489

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1489 IH

1 forcement officer or an employer of such law enforcement 

2 officer.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
EX PARTE Gina HILL

(In re: Gina Hill v. Joseph Lee Thomas)

2160353

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

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

**AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Stuart A. Tashlik, as Chief Financial Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the“Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September 30, 2003 asfiled with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  November 10, 2003 |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |  /s/ Stuart A.  Tashlik |   |
|                           | Stuart A. Tashlik, |
|                           | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_______________________________________

)

DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 09-0582 (PLF)

 )

LINDA SANDERS, )

)

Respondent. )

_______________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction This is a final

appealable Order. See Rule 4(a), Fed. R. App. P.

SO ORDERED.

/s/________________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

DATE: April 2, 2009 United States District Judge
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-89,672-01, -02, - 03, AND - 04

EX P ARTE MERCEDES M BIGG URS, Appli cant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. W08-57650-U(A) , W14-70971-U( A), W14-75674- U(A) , AND W14-70586-U( A) IN THE 291ST DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for wr i t s o f h ab ea s corpus. Ex parte Y o u n g , 4 1 8 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of sever al felony offe nses and se ntence d to imprisonment. On October 25, 2018, the trial court enter ed order s desig nating issues reg arding eac h habea s application. The habea s rec ords forwa rded to this Court, how ever , have no f indings fr om the trial court resolving the desig nated issues. These habea s applications are rema nded to the 291st District Court of Dallas County to allow t he t ri al judge to complete an evidentiar y investiga tion and enter finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law.These applications will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues.

The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this orde r. A supplemental transcr ipt c ontaining all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of this order. A ny extensions of t ime must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: April 17, 2019 Do not publish
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 29, 2021

Order 

Clerk

January 29, 2021

161051(36)

DOREEN ROTT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

SC: 161051

v COA: 347609

Oakland CC: 2015-148771-NO

ARTHUR ROTT, 

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time 

for her reply brief is GRANTED. The reply brief submitted on January 28, 2021, is 

accepted as timely filed.
K.C., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1773

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.38


IDACORP, Inc. and Idaho Power Company Compensation for
Non-Employee Directors of the Board of Directors
(Effective January 1, 2019)


All directors of IDACORP also serve as directors of Idaho Power.  The fees and other compensation discussed below are for service on both boards.  Employee directors receive no compensation for service on the boards.  


	
					
	Form of Fee
	 
	Amount

	Base Board Annual Retainer
	 
	$
	75,000
	


	 
	 
	 

	Base Committee Annual Retainers
	 
	 

	Audit Committee
	 
	12,000
	


	Compensation Committee
	 
	6,000
	


	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
	 
	6,000
	


	Executive Committee
	 
	3,000
	


	 
	 
	 

	Additional Chair Annual Retainers
	 
	 

	Chairperson of the Board of Directors
	 
	100,000
	


	Chair of the Audit Committee
	 
	12,500
	


	Chair of the Compensation Committee
	 
	10,000
	


	Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
	 
	8,000
	


	 
	 
	 

	Annual Stock Awards
	 
	105,000
	


	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 






Deferral Arrangements


Directors may defer all or a portion of their annual IDACORP, Idaho Power, IDACORP Financial Services, Inc., and Ida-West Energy retainers and meeting fees and receive a lump-sum payment of all amounts deferred with interest or a series of up to 10 equal annual payments after they separate from service with IDACORP and Idaho Power. Any cash fees that were deferred before 2009 for service as a member of the board of directors were credited with the preceding month’s average Moody’s Long-Term Corporate Bond Yield for utilities, or the Moody’s Rate, plus 3%, until January 1, 2019 when the interest rate changed to the Moody’s Rate. All cash fees that are deferred for service as a member of the board of directors after January 1, 2009 are credited with interest at the Moody’s Rate. Interest is calculated on a pro rata basis each month using a 360-day year and the average Moody’s Rate for the preceding month.


Directors may also defer their annual stock awards, which are then held as deferred stock units with dividend equivalents reinvested in additional deferred stock units. Upon separation from service with IDACORP and Idaho Power, directors will receive either a lump-sum distribution or a series of up to 10 equal annual installments. Upon a change in control the directors’ deferral accounts will be distributed to each participating director in a lump sum. The distributions will be in shares of IDACORP common stock, with each deferred stock unit equal to one share of IDACORP common stock and any fractional shares paid in cash.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRIS GRINDLING

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

DEREK KAAUKAI

,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 16254

D.C. No. 1:20

- cv

- 00206

- JAO

- KJM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2 1 , 2021 * *

Before: SILVERMAN

, WATFORD

, and BENNETT , Circuit Judges.

Chris Grindling appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza , 291 F.3d

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 29 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 1 6254

63 9, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Grindling’s

action because Grindling failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis

or pay the filing fee by the deadline set by the district court, and the district court

warned him that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id . at 640, 642

- 43

(discussing the five fac tors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to

comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent

“a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of

judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Grindling’s

motions for reconsideration because Grindling failed to establish any basis for

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for

reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) ).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.