alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Draft Proposal E-10

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC).

Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft code

change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/deve lopment/iebc_concepts



## Documentation (E-10)

Objective: Require plans and specifications to provide detailed information needed to verify compliance with energy efficiency provisions.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Add new Section [A] 106.2.5 as follows:

[A] 106.2.5 Energy Efficiency. Construction documents for all work affecting the energy using systems of the building shall describe th e existing conditions and proposed work in sufficient detail to determine the degree to whic h it is subject to this code and compliance with the applicable provisions of this code. This includes, but is not limited to building thermal envelope, mechanical systems and equipment, service water heating systems and equipment and lighting systems The construc tion documents shall provide details on the

insulation materials and R-values; fenestration U-factors and SHGC’s; means and methods for air leakage reduction; mechanical system design criteria; mechanical and service water heating system and equipment ty pes ,sizes, efficiencies and controls; duct sealing; duct and piping insulation and loca tion; and lighting fixture schedule with wattage and details on lighti ng control type and location.

Reason: The issue of energy efficiency in existi ng buildings is addressed numerous times in the International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC; e.g., Sections 610, 707, 811, 908, and 1106), but there is nothing in the provisions of Sect ion 106 that provides the designer or permittee guidance on what is supposed to be submitted on or with the plans and specifications. As a consequence, the code official may not have the needed information to validate compliance or even the relevant basis in the code to request this information. Existing buildings thus are more likely to be repaired, altered, added to, or have a change in occupancy that does not meet the applicable provisions of the energy code, leading to a lost opportunity to save energy, reduce operating costs, and improve the environmental footprint of the building. Forty percent of U.S. energy and seventy percent of U.S. electricity are consumed in existing buildings. This is clearly an opportunity to help reduce that by simply ensuring that the energy code is addressed in existing buildings when applicable and ensurin g that code officials have the information necessary to validate compliance.Cost Impact: There is no cost impact because the provisions of the International Code Council codes related to energy are already required to be met as outlined in the IEBC.
#### Glenn David O’NEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; Smith, Deputy, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55809

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 5, 2018 *

Filed March 7, 2018

Glenn David O’Neal, Pro Se

Laura L. Crane, Esquire, San Bernardi-no County Counsel, San Bernardino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, 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 Glenn David O’Neal appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal order and summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and access-to-courts claims arising from his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab.,*726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment); *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on O’Neal’s excessive force claim against defendant Smith because O’Neal failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Smith’s actions were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. *See Kingsley v. Hendrickson,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) (setting forth standard for an excessive force claim under the Fourteenth Amendment).

The district court properly dismissed O’Neal’s access-to-courts claim against defendant San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department because O’Neal failed to allege facts sufficient to show actual injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim. *See Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 349-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, *755135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (setting forth elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement); *Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court,*318 F.3d 1156, 1160 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing standard for restrictions placed on pretrial detainees).

We do not consider 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.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63**

**of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code**

 

I, William M. Lasky, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Accuride Corporation, certify that to my knowledge, (i) theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained inthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for said period fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofAccuride Corporation.

 
| /s/ WILLIAM M. LASKY                  | Dated: | November 9, 2010 |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------|
| William M. Lasky                      |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

 

I, James H. Woodward, Jr., Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of Accuride Corporation, certify that tomy knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) theinformation contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for said periodfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Accuride Corporation.

 
| /s/ JAMES H. WOODWARD, Jr.                   | Dated: | November 9, 2010 |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------|
| James H. Woodward, Jr.                       |   |                  |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |                  |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7053

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DAVID CORNELIUS VAUSE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-00-760, CA-01-4266-4-22)

Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Cornelius Vause, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham,

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Cornelius Vause seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Vause has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

See United States v. Vause, Nos. CR-00-760; CA-01-4266-4-22 (D.S.C.

June 4, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          17
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  106  
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6
<INVENTORY>                                     13
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161
<PP&E>                                         446
<DEPRECIATION>                                 234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          180
<BONDS>                                        457
<COMMON>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                      29
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   776
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,267
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8
<DISCONTINUED>                                (29)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.88)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2022207EN.01005401.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/54

---

Action brought on 4 April 2022 — FA World Entertainment v EUIPO (FUCKING AWESOME)

(Case T-178/22)

(2022/C 207/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FA World Entertainment Inc. (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: M. Breuer, I. Dimitrov and C. Tenbrock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark FUCKING AWESOME — Application for registration No 1 564 573

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2022 in Case R 1131/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the action before the Board of Appeal, i.e. insofar as the Board of Appeal assumed a violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the action before the Board of Appeal, i.e. insofar as the Board of Appeal assumed a violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the general principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the general principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8927 

To permit a State to impose a sales tax on qualifying purchases at any 

gift shop on Federal property, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2020 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit a State to impose a sales tax on qualifying purchases at any gift shop on Federal property, 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 ‘‘Federal Gift Shop Tax 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SALES TAX IN GIFT SHOPS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A State may levy a sales tax on 

8 qualifying purchases made from any gift shop located on 

9 Federal property. 

10 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8927 IH

1 (1) FEDERAL PROPERTY.—The term ‘‘Federal 

2 property’’ means any building, land, or other real 

3 property owned, leased, or occupied by a depart4 ment, agency, or instrumentality of the United 

5 States, or any other instrumentality wholly owned by 

6 the United States, including any facility or property 

7 of the Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery 

8 of Art, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Per9 forming Arts, and the United States Holocaust Me10 morial Museum. 

11 (2) QUALIFYING PURCHASE.—The term ‘‘quali12 fying purchase’’ means any purchase made in the 

13 gift shop or made online through the gift shop. 

14 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each 

15 State of the United States, the District of Columbia, 

16 American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 

17 Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of 

18 Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, any 

19 other territory or possession of the United States, 

20 and any political subdivision of the foregoing. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### LEAK, D. v. Laterese COWELL, et al.

794 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/29/2017

4319, March Term, 2014

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8896 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8896

   To repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (commonly 
referred to as the Communications Decency Act) to stop censorship, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2020

 Mr. Gohmert (for himself, Mr. Biggs, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. 
Gooden, Mr. King of Iowa, and Mr. Kelly of Mississippi) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (commonly 
referred to as the Communications Decency Act) to stop censorship, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Abandoning Online Censorship Act'' 
or the ``AOC Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 
              (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT).

    (a) Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.--Effective as of 
enactment of this language, section 230 of the Communications Act of 
1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 900 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 900

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve the way 
beneficiaries are assigned under the Medicare shared savings program by 
also basing such assignment on primary care services furnished by nurse 
  practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2019

 Mr. Kilmer (for himself, Ms. Norton, Mr. King of New York, Ms. Meng, 
 and Mr. Tipton) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
 the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve the way 
beneficiaries are assigned under the Medicare shared savings program by 
also basing such assignment on primary care services furnished by nurse 
  practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists.

    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 ``ACO Assignment Improvement Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE 
              MEDICARE SHARED SAVINGS PROGRAM.

    Section 1899(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395jjj(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) in the case of performance years beginning on 
                or after January 1, 2020, primary care services 
                provided under this title by an ACO professional 
                described in subsection (h)(1)(B).''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8742 

To extend the availability of amounts under the Coronavirus Relief Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2020 

Mr. KEATING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To extend the availability of amounts under the Coronavirus 

Relief Fund. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION. 

4 Section 601(d)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 801(d)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘December 30, 

6 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘December 30, 2021’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE REPORT
ON FORM 10-Q OF BAYOU INTERNATIONAL, LTD FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  .6622
<CASH>                                               9
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      153
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   162
<PP&E>                                             386
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (209)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1140
<BONDS>                                           3753
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          9388
<OTHER-SE>                                     (13942)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       339
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    48
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1043
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (121)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (121)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
# •



# ~=m~,~~x:~~'~'~!~"m' SECRETARY February 18, 2015


### Mr. Shawn Garvin Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street (Mail Code: 3RAOO) Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Dear 

### Mr. Garvin:

· This letter concerns the early certification of2014 particulate matter (PM2

### .s) ambient air data.

As required under 40 CFR58.15, I hereby certify that, to the best ofmy knowledge, the 2014 PM2.5 ambient concentration data and the quality assurance data collected and analyzed by the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP) are completely submitted to the Air Quality System (AQS) database and the ambient data are accurate taking into consideration the quality assurance findings. I further certify that the data collectionprocedures conform to the applicable quality assurance, air monitoring methodology, probe siting criteria and reporting requirements in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendices A, C, and E. Enclosed are two copies ofthe AMP 450, AMP 450NC and AMP 600 reports to identify the data that are being certified. The early certification ofthe 2014 PM2

### .s dataprior to February 27, 2015, is necessary to support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's reconsideration ofcertain nonattainment boundaries for the 2012 annual PM2.5 National Ambient air Quality Standard (12.0 micrograms per cubic meter). Based onthe complete, quality assured, certified 2014 ambient air PM 2

### .s data, the monitor in Freemansburg inthe Allentown, PA, nonattainment area and the monitor in the Johnstown, PA, nonattainment area are below the PM2

### .s standard for 2012-2014. To this end, we are requesting thatthe designations for these nonattainment areas be changed to attainment. In accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, the "annual certification letter" for other criteria and non-criteria pollutants will be submitted to the EPA by May 1, 2015. Should you have any questions orneed additional information, please contact Joyce E. Epps, Director, Bureau of

### Air Quality, by e-mail atjeepps@pa.gov or by telephone at 717.787.9702. Sincerely, •

ohn Quigley Acting Secretary Enclosures
Rachel Carson State Office Building I P.O. Box 2063 I Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 717.787.2814 

### w Printed on Recycled PaperZ::SC? www.depweb.state.pa.us