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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8601 

To assess the State by State impact of Federal taxation and spending. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 16, 2020 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself, Mr. TAYLOR, Mrs. BUSTOS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. 

ZELDIN, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, and Mr. ALLRED) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To assess the State by State impact of Federal taxation 

and spending. 

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 ‘‘Payer State Trans5 parency Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CALCULATION OF FEDERAL TAX BURDENS AND 

7 OUTLAYS. 

8 (a) STATE BY STATE CALCULATION OF FEDERAL

9 TAX BURDENS.— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8601 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Commerce, 

2 acting through the Director of the Bureau of Eco3 nomic Analysis, shall calculate the Federal tax bur4 den of each State for each calendar year. 

5 (2) CALCULATION OF FEDERAL TAX BUR6 DEN.—For purposes of calculating the Federal tax 

7 burden of each State under paragraph (1), the Sec8 retary shall— 

9 (A) treat Federal taxes paid by an indi10 vidual as a burden on the State in which such 

11 individual resides; and 

12 (B) treat Federal taxes paid by a legal 

13 business entity as a burden on each State in 

14 which economic activity of such entity is per15 formed in the same proportion that the eco16 nomic activity of such entity in such State 

17 bears to the economic activity of such entity in 

18 all the States. 

19 (b) STATE BY STATE CALCULATION OF FEDERAL

20 OUTLAYS.— 

21 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of 

22 Management and Budget, in coordination with the 

23 Council of Economic Advisers and the Secretary of 

24 the Treasury, shall calculate the total amount of 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8601 IH

1 Federal outlays received by each State in each fiscal 

2 year. 

3 (2) TREATMENT OF CONTRACT AWARDS.—For 

4 purposes of calculating the amount of Federal out5 lays received by a State under paragraph (1), a Fed6 eral contract award shall be treated as a Federal 

7 outlay received by each State in which performance 

8 under the award takes place in the same proportion 

9 that such performance in such State bears to such 

10 performance in all the States. 

11 (c) STATE DEFINED.—In this section the term 

12 ‘‘State’’ means each of the several States. 

13 SEC. 3. JOINT REPORT. 

14 Not later than the date that is 180 days after the 

15 beginning of each calendar year, the Secretary of Com16 merce and the Director of the Office of Management and 

17 Budget shall— 

18 (1) jointly submit to Congress a report con19 taining the results of the calculations described in 

20 section 2 with respect to such calendar year; and 

21 (2) publish the report on a publicly accessible 

22 website of the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
No. D-2685.

#### In re Discipline of Conour.

William F. Con-our, of Indianapolis, Ind., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
CERTIFICATION 

        I,John Swendrowski, certify that: 

        1.    Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Northland Cranberries,          Inc.;  

        2.    Basedon my knowledge, this 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 report;  

        3.    Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information          included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial          condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and          for, the periods presented in this report;  

        4.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for          establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in          Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  

        a)    designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure           controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that           materialinformation 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 report is being prepared;  

        b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and           proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness           of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered           by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  

        c)    disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control           overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent          fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an          annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to          materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial          reporting; and  

        5.              Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on          our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the          registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof           directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  

        a)              allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation           ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to          adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand           report financial information; and  

        b)              anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees           whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over          financial reporting.  

Date July 15, 2005
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 32d

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

     I, Robert E. Busch, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Electric and
Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual Report of
Public Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas
Company.


                                     /s/ Robert E. Busch
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Robert E. Busch
                                     Public Service Electric and Gas Company
                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                     February 25, 2004
exhibi1002a.htm











 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


 


 


TO


 


 


MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


WHEREAS, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“CMF”), and AVENTIS ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company (the “Advisor”), have agreed to amend the Management Agreement (the “Management Agreement”), dated as of December 1, 2011, among the Partnership, CMF and the Advisor, to reduce the monthly management fee rate payable to the Advisor.  Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Management Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, all provisions contained in the Management Agreement remain in full force and effect and are modified only to the extent necessary to provide for the amendments set forth below.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Management Agreement as follows:


 


1.           The monthly fee for professional management services rate referred to in clause (a)(ii) of the Section entitled “Compensation” in the Management Agreement is hereby reduced to a monthly management fee rate equal to 1/12 of 1.25% (a 1.25% annual rate).


 


2.           The foregoing amendment shall take effect as of the 1st day of March, 2014.


 


3.           This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute the same agreement.


 


4.           This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.






  





  











  








 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Management Agreement has been executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the 7th day of February, 2014.


 



	
  

	
CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC







 



	
  

	
By:

	
  /s/ Alper Daglioglu________







 



	
  

	
Alper Daglioglu







 



	
  

	
President and Director







 



	
  

	
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.







 



	
  

	
By:  Ceres Managed Futures LLC







 



	
  

	
(General Partner)







 



	
  

	
By:

	
  /s/ Alper Daglioglu________







 



	
  

	
Alper Daglioglu







 



	
  

	
President and Director







 



	
  

	
AVENTIS ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC







 



	
  

	
By:

	
  /s/ Steven Hwang_________







 



	
  

	
Name:  Steven Hwang







 



	
  

	
Title:    Chief Operating Officer
# C_2022424EN.01001501.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/15

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Târgu-Mureș — Romania) — proceedings brought by Delgaz Grid SA

(Case C-95/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Article 82 TFEU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Right of a person to be informed of the charges brought against him or her - Directive 2012/13/EU - Article 6(1) - Scope - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - Challenge to the excessive length of criminal proceedings - National legislation allowing such a challenge to be made only by persons with the status of suspect or accused person - Article 267 TFEU - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Clear lack of jurisdiction)

(2022/C 424/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Târgu-Mureș

Criminal proceedings against

Delgaz Grid SA

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Judecătoria Târgu-Mureș (Court of First Instance, Târgu-Mureș, Romania), by decision of 28 January 2022.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 11.2.2022.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-55502]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1


Income Taxes

CFR Correction

    In title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1 (Secs. 1.641 
to 1.850), revised as of April 1, 1997, on page 357, in Sec. 1.704-2, 
paragraph (m), Example 1, text was inadvertently omitted, the text 
should appear at the top of the first column. The omitted text should 
read:


Sec. 1.704-2  Allocations attributable to nonrecourse liabilities.

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    Example 1. * * * the general partner, form a limited partnership 
to acquire and operate a commercial office building. LP contributes 
$180,000, and GP contributes $20,000. The partnership obtains an 
$800,000 nonrecourse loan and purchases the building (on leased 
land) for $1,000,000. The nonrecourse loan is secured only by the 
building, and no principal payments are due for 5 years. The 
partnership agreement provides that GP will be required to restore 
any * * *.

[FR Doc. 97-55502 Filed 6-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
No. 11-10776.

#### Neng Por Yang *v.*City of Shakopee, Minnesota, et al.

Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of PSCo on Form 10-K for the year 2008, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Form 10-K), each ofthe undersigned officers of the PSCo certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to such officer’s knowledge:

 

1)           The Form 10-Kfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)           The informationcontained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of PSCo as of the dates and forthe periods expressed in the Form 10-K.

 

Date: March 2, 2009

 
|   | /s/ TIM E. TAYLOR                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Tim E. Taylor                                        |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer                |
|   |                                                 |
|   | /s/ BENJAMIN G.S. FOWKE III                          |
|   | Benjamin G.S. Fowke III                              |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

The foregoing certificationis being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to PSCo and will be retained by PSCo andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### IN RE: INGLEWOOD WOMAN’S CLUB, INC., Debtor. Marlene Fearing, Appellant.

No. 17-60053

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*393Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 26, 2017

Marlene Fearing, Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Marlene Fearing appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the Inglewood Woman’s Club, Inc.’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian),*564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly denied Fearing’s motion to compel the bankruptcy court to initiate a criminal investigation because the bankruptcy court lacked the authority to do so. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 157, 1334(b); *Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles*(*In re*Gruntz), 202 F.3d 1074, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that bankruptcy jurisdiction is limited to civil proceedings).

We reject as without merit Fearing’s contentions that the BAP misconstrued the scope of appeal and that the bankruptcy court and BAP violated due process.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *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.
# C_2022284EN.01005501.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/55

---

Action brought on 7 June 2022 — PN v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-336/22)

(2022/C 284/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PN (represented by: D. Giabbani, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | accept the present application as formally correct; |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the present application as formally correct;

| — | find it materially justified and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

find it materially justified and well-founded;

| — | by way of variation, declare that the assessment in the 2019 staff appraisal procedure be maintained, namely B in Ability, C in Efficiency and B in Conduct in the service; |
| --- | --- |

—

by way of variation, declare that the assessment in the 2019 staff appraisal procedure be maintained, namely B in Ability, C in Efficiency and B in Conduct in the service;

| — | or, in the alternative, declare the 2019 appraisal procedure to be void. |
| --- | --- |

—

or, in the alternative, declare the 2019 appraisal procedure to be void.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to give adequate reasons for the assessment of the applicant under each category. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to give adequate reasons for the assessment of the applicant under each category.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the objective and spirit of the text of the General instructions on the preparation of staff reports. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the objective and spirit of the text of the General instructions on the preparation of staff reports.

---
# C_2022326EN.01002301.xml

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/23

---

Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-415/22)

(2022/C 326/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2022 in Case R 1284/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly analysing the likelihood of confusion regarding certification marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly analysing the likelihood of confusion regarding certification marks;

| — | The Board of Appeal further infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when it carried out an erroneous analysis of the similarity of goods versus services in this case; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal further infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when it carried out an erroneous analysis of the similarity of goods versus services in this case;

| — | The Board of Appeal also erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when considering the role of distinctiveness as regards certification marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal also erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when considering the role of distinctiveness as regards certification marks.

---
ALL AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES                   Exhibit 11.1

STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (UNAUDITED)

QUARTERS ENDED MARCH 31                                  2004               2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net Income................................       $    891,000       $     61,000
                                                 ============       ============

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding.......          3,767,059          3,819,763
                                                 ============       ============

Basic Earnings Per Share..................              $ .24              $ .02
                                                        =====              =====

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net Income................................       $    891,000       $     61,000
                                                 ============       ============

Weighted Average and Dilutive Shares:
  Weighted average shares outstanding.....          3,767,059          3,819,763
  Dilutive shares.........................            310,629                 99
                                                 ------------       ------------
                                                    4,077,688          3,819,862
                                                 ============       ============

Diluted Earnings Per Share................              $ .22              $ .02
                                                        =====              =====