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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6878 

To amend the Clean Air Act to exempt nonroad engines and vehicles that 

are used for agricultural purposes from the emission standards of that 

Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2023 

Mrs. SPARTZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to exempt nonroad engines 

and vehicles that are used for agricultural purposes from 

the emission standards of that 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 ‘‘Farm Equipment Safe5 ty Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6878 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF NONROAD FARM ENGINES AND VE2 HICLES FROM CLEAN AIR ACT EMISSION 

3 STANDARDS. 

4 Section 213 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7547) 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(e) EXEMPTION.—The standards under this section 

7 do not apply to emissions from nonroad engines and 

8 nonroad vehicles that are used for agricultural purposes.’’. 

Æ
ex10-09.htm




Exhibit 10.09

















 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 



5
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Detrek Manchel TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6310

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed March 15, 2017

(D.C. Nos. 5:10-CR-00056-F-1 and 5:14-CV-00183-F) (W-D. Oklahoma)

Steven W. Creager, Virginia Loreen Hines, Leslie M. Maye, Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee '

Virginia L. Grady, Grant Russell Smith, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER RESCINDING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Carolyn B. McHugh, Circuit Judge.

On February 22, 2017, we issued an *Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Certificate of Appealability,*in which we granted a certificate of appealability as to “[w]hether, *post-Johnson [v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) ], Mr. Tucker’s conviction under Oklahoma law for discharge of a firearm into a dwelling constitutes a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).” That same day, we issued an order appointing counsel to represent Mr. Tucker, and setting a supplemental briefing schedule.

On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145, 2017 WL 855781 (March 6, 2017). In light of that opinion, we have *787determined that the aforementioned certificate of appealability was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we RESCIND the certificate of appealability issued on February 22, 2017, and DISMISS this appeal.

*

This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### STEVENS *v.*CALDER.

No. 13276.

September 24, 1940.

*M. Price*and *W. P.*Mills, for plaintiff in error.

*0. 0.*Da-rsey, contra.

Keid, Chief Justice.

There was involved in this case one simple issue of fact — the location of a land line between plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff sought to have a true line determined, and to enjoin the defendant from erecting a fence on what plaintiff claimed was his land. There was evidence to support the contem tions of both plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff gave certain testimony in reference to an iron stake which he contended was located at the original corner, which would determine the line in accordance with a survey and plat made by a certain surveyor. In the single special ground of the motion for new trial, based on newly discovered evidence, it is contended by the defendant that, before the trial neither he nor counsel knew or with proper diligence could have known that it would be claimed by the plaintiff that the" iron stake was the key to determining the line, and that since the trial *746witnesses have been discovered, wlio would disprove the contention. The judge in overruling the motion for new trial recited that at an interlocutory hearing (which had occurred some time in advance of the trial on the question of the restraining order, and at which the defendant and his counsel were present) the plaintiff had testified fully what he claimed in accordance with this survey and plat, and therefore that the defendant, in the exercise of due diligence, could have discovered the facts now proposed to- be established. The court did not err in overruling the motion on the special ground of newly discovered evidence. *Field*v. *Proctor,*151 *Ga.*149 (106 S. E. 91); *Heath*v. *Clark,*141 *Ga.*65 (80 S. E. 288). .There was ample evidence to support the verdict, and the refusal of a new trial was not error. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### The President, Directors, and Company, of the Portland Bank *versus*The President, Directors, and Company, of the Maine Bank.

In computing the thirty days, from a judgment during which property attached on mesne process is holden, the day after the last day of the term is the first of the thirty.

This was an action of ejectment, submitted to the decision oí the Court upon the following agreement: —

In this case, the parties agree that the plaintiffs claim- the land demanded by virtue of a deed from *Woodbury Storer,*for a valuable consideration, made, executed, and duly * recorded, on the 16th of July, 1811, conveying the same to them.

The defendants claim under the levy of an execution made June 29, 1812; which execution issued upon a judgment recovered by them against said *Storer.*The said levy was regularly made and returned, and recorded within three months. The demanded premises had been attached on the original writ in the same action, before the conveyance by *Storer*to the plaintiffs. The Court at which the said judgment was recovered adjourned without day on the 30th of May, 1812, being the fifth day of its session at that term; and the judgment was entered in said action on the said 30th of May.

The parties agree that the Court shall enter such judgment as shall be conformable to law upon the foregoing statement, upon nonsuit or default.

*Whitman,*for the plaintiffs.

The question in this case is, whether the day on which the judgment was rendered is to be taken as part of the thirty days during which an attachment binds the estate attached. The general rule of law is, that, when computation is to be made *from*an act done, the day in which the act is done must be included, with the exception of bills of exchange. (1) This is the rule of law in computing a widow’s quarantine. (2)

*Longfellow,*for the demandants.

All the *English*authorities will be found to apply to criminal cases only, and to actions of trespass; the calculation being so made to excuse from a penalty. So was the case of *The King*vs. *Adderley,*cited from *Douglas,*which is the leading case upon the point. (3)

(1)

*Chitty on Bills,*138, cites 2 *Vent.*308, 310, *Clayton s*case. — 3 D. & *E.*623 — See, also, 3 *East,*407, *Glassington*vs. *Rawlins.*— 1 Lord *Raym.*280, 480. — *Doug*164, *Rex*vs. *Adderley.*

(2)

*Bac. Abr., Dower,*B, 1.

(3)

8 *Mass. Rep.*113, *Herring*vs. *Polly.*

*191*Per Curiam.*

The law knows no division of a day. By our practice, the last day of a term is considered the day on which all judgments are rendered, unless it appears otherwise from the record. Executions are not by law to issue until twenty-four hours after judgment is entered up. The whole of the last day of a term is therefore necessarily excluded, in computing the thirty days during which property ***attached on the original [ * 206 ] writ is holden to respond the judgment. The day after the adjournment is the first of the thirty days, *(a)*

*Plaintiffs nonsuit.*

(a)

*Alderman*vs. *Phelps,*15 *Mass. Rep.*225. — *Davis*vs. *Blunt,*6 *Mass. Rep.*487 — *Heywood*vs. *Hildreth,*9 *Mass. Rep.*393.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets and Consolidated Condensed Statements
of Earnings as reported on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jan-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Feb-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Aug-02-1997

<CASH>                                           226,500
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    158,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,972,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,429,200
<PP&E>                                         5,450,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,364,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,352,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,981,100
<BONDS>                                          905,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,089,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,352,600
<SALES>                                        3,913,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,913,100
<CGS>                                          2,681,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 111,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                35,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  104,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                      38,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               66,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      66,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .23
        


</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0005130

19-NOV-2014

09:10 AM
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 10-Q/A
                                  Amendment No.1

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
      EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                For the quarterly period ended June 28, 1997

                                       OR

[ ]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
      EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

               For the transition period from ________ to _______

                         Commission File Number: 0-27422

                             ARTHROCARE CORPORATION
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

         DELAWARE                                        94-3180312 
(State of incorporation)                    (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

                            595 North Pastoria Avenue
                           Sunnyvale, California 94086
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

                                 (408) 736-0224
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days. Yes  X    No 
                                      -----     -----

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant's common stock as of
August 4, 1997 was 8,809,967.







<PAGE>


This form 10-Q/A is being filed solely for the purpose of including a 
new Exhibit that supersedes an Exhibit previously filed.  Other than the 
Exhibit being filed herewith, all other information included in the 
initial filing is unchanged.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934, the Registrant has duly caused this amendment to be signed on its 
behalf by the Undersigned thereunto duly authorized.






ARTHROCARE CORPORATION
a Delaware corporation

Date: June 1, 1998

/s/ CHRISTINE E. HANNI  
Christine E. Hanni
Vice President of Finance, 
Chief Financial Officer and 
Assistant Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer 
and Accounting Officer)

Date: June 1, 1998

/s/ MICHAEL A. BAKER    
Michael A. Baker
President, Chief Executive 
Officer and Director 
(Principal Executive Officer)







                                  EXHIBIT INDEX




Exhibit
Number                        Exhibit Description
--------                     -------------------

10.24**         Employment Letter Agreement dated June 20, 1997, 
                between the Registrant and Michael A. Baker. 

11.1*            Computation of Net Loss per Share.

27.1*            Financial Data Schedule.


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

*     Previously filed with Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      for quarter ended June 28, 1997.
**    Supersedes Exhibit previously filed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION







<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 32.2



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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  accompanying  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Tombstone
Technologies,  Inc. for the year ended  December 31, 2009, I, Neil A. Cox, Chief
Financial  Officer,  Chairman of the Board and Principal  Accounting  Officer of
Tombstone Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to my
knowledge, that:

     a)   such Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Tombstone  Technologies,  Inc. for
          the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements
          of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     b)   the  information  contained  in such  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of
          Tombstone  Technologies,  Inc.  for the year ended  December 31, 2009,
          fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of Tombstone Technologies, Inc.


Date:  March 26, 2010


                                            /s/ Neil A. Cox
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Neil A. Cox, Chief Financial Officer
                                            and Chairman of the Board
                                            (Principal Accounting Officer)



This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 31

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT



I, James Ontiveros, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Reva, Inc.;

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 annual 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 annual 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 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 annual 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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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

<PAGE>

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 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. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether 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:  January 23, 2004

/s/ James Ontiveros
-----------------------
James Ontiveros,
CEO
# Úřední věstník C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0863
  doi:10.3000/19770863.CA2014.011.cze |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 11A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 5715. ledna 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0863

doi:10.3000/19770863.CA2014.011.cze

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 11A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 5715. ledna 2014

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Opravy |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Oprava oznámení o výběrovém řízení na místo výkonného ředitele Evropské agentury pro železnice (ERA), jejíž sídlo je ve Francii (Dočasný zaměstnanec – třída AD 14) – COM/2014/10345 (Úř. věst. C 6 A, 10.1.2014) | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

Opravy

2014/C 011A/01

Oprava oznámení o výběrovém řízení na místo výkonného ředitele Evropské agentury pro železnice (ERA), jejíž sídlo je ve Francii (Dočasný zaměstnanec – třída AD 14) – COM/2014/10345 (Úř. věst. C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

(Úř. věst. C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

1

PŘEHLED VÝBĚROVÝCH ŘÍZENÍ ZVEŘEJNĚNÝCH V ŘADĚ C A ÚŘEDNÍHO VĚSTNÍKU

Níže najdete seznam Úředních věstníků řady C A publikovaných v tomto roce.

Pokud není uvedeno jinak, jsou Úřední věstníky publikovány ve všech jazykových verzích.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |

5

6

11

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

Opravy

| 15.1.2014 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 11/1

---

Oprava oznámení o výběrovém řízení na místo výkonného ředitele Evropské agentury pro železnice (ERA), jejíž sídlo je ve Francii

(Dočasný zaměstnanec – třída AD 14)

COM/2014/10345

(
  Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 6 A ze dne 10. ledna 2014
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

Na straně 4 v oddíle „Postup při podávání přihlášky“ má adresa webové stránky v třetím odstavci znít takto:

„https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/“.

---
#### Samuel Gardner ELDREDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wale Olumuyiwa OLUKANMI, Physician Assistant, P.A., individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-55188

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 3, 2017

Samuel Gardner Eldredge, Pro Se

Elizabeth S. Angres, Assistant Chief Counsel, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Samuel Gardner Eldredge appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Eldredge fails to address how the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his deliberate indifference claims and thus this is*512sue is waived. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); *see also Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.... ”).

We do not consider Eldredge’s contentions regarding any alleged legal malpractice committed by the attorneys who represented him in the district court proceedings because such contentions are outside the scope of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.