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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2753 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require certain consumer reporting agencies to include a credit score when providing consumers with 

a free annual consumer report. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2019 

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

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require certain 

consumer reporting agencies to include a credit score 

when providing consumers with a free annual consumer 

report. 

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 ‘‘Free Credit Score Act 

5 of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2753 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF CREDIT SCORE WITH FREE ANNUAL 

2 REPORT. 

3 The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et 

4 seq.) is amended— 

5 (1) in section 609(a)(1)(B), by inserting before 

6 the period the following: ‘‘, except as required under 

7 section 612(a)(1)(D)’’; and 

8 (2) in section 612(a)(1), by adding at the end 

9 the following: 

10 ‘‘(D) INCLUSION OF CREDIT SCORE.— 

11 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—A consumer re12 porting agency that provides a consumer 

13 report to a consumer pursuant to subpara14 graph (A) shall also provide such consumer 

15 with— 

16 ‘‘(I) an explanation of how credit 

17 scores are calculated, including factors 

18 considered in credit scoring calcula19 tions; and 

20 ‘‘(II) a credit score (as defined 

21 under section 609(f)). 

22 ‘‘(ii) RULEMAKING.—The Bureau 

23 shall issue rules— 

24 ‘‘(I) to provide minimum criteria 

25 for explanations described under 

26 clause (i)(I); and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2753 IH

1 ‘‘(II) to require a credit score 

2 provided by a consumer reporting 

3 agency pursuant to clause (i) to be 

4 similar to the types of credit scores 

5 most commonly used by creditors.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Air Transport Joe White August 12, 2013 Concur. 

Association (AT A) 

Other/ Additional Information:
No. 10-7474.

#### Lucio Contreras-Vieras, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1117, 131 S. Ct. 842,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9660.

178 L. Ed. 2d 572,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 831.
TKP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0403

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM HOMER MCCLELLAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including May 3, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 29 2024

03/29/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0403
**EXHIBIT 10.5**

Non-Competition and Confidentiality Agreementswhich were substantially identical to that filed as Exhibit 10.14 were entered into among Duquesne Light Company and each of the following parties, materially differing as set forth below:

 

| **Party and Date Executed******  |  **** | **Material Differences******                                                                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |       |                                                                                                                                                                      |
| Stevan R. Schott, August 9, 1999 |       | Consideration includes severance of one week per each year of service, minimum of 6 months and maximum of 12 months.                                                      |
|                             |       |                                                                                                                                                                      |
|                             |       | Restriction on competition covers the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey and Virginia.                                           |
|                             |       |                                                                                                                                                                      |
|                             |       | Restriction on competition covers gas in addition to electricity.                                                                                                         |
|                             |       |                                                                                                                                                                      |
| James E. Wilson, August 17, 2000 |       | Consideration includes severance of 52 weeks of base salary and health and welfare benefits. Pension benefits are to accrue during severanceperiod (as permitted by law). |
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17886]



[[Page 36677]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-632-000]


Williams Gas Pipeline Central, Inc.; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

June 30, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 23, 1998, Williams Gas Pipeline Central, 
Inc. (Williams), Post Office Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed in 
Docket No. CP98-632-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205 and 157.212) for authorization to install and operate a 
tap, measuring, regulating and appurtenant facilities, in Woodward 
County, Oklahoma, for the delivery of transportation gas to Arkla, a 
NorAm Energy Company (Arkla). Williams makes such request under its 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000 pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Williams is requesting authorization to install a tap on its 
Canadian-Blackwell 26-inch pipeline, in Woodward County, to deliver 
transportation gas to Arkla for use in a hog farm. Specifically, it is 
estimated that approximately 8,562 dekatherms (Dt) will be delivered 
the first year, increasing to approximately 105,282 Dt within five 
years. Williams further estimates the peak day volumes to be 159 Dt the 
first year, increasing to approximately 1,056 Dt within five years. 
Williams indicates that it does not anticipate such deliveries will 
have any effect on existing customers, because the estimated delivery 
volumes will not exceed previously authorized volumes.
    Williams estimates the cost to construct these facilities to be 
$42,488.00, stating Arkla has reimbursed Williams for the facilities. 
Accordingly, Arkla will own and Williams will operate and maintain the 
facilities.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17886 Filed 7-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
SCWC-30677
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

MANUEL D. SOUND and THOMPSON PHILLIP, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.
STATE OF HAWAI # I, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; PATRICIA McMANAMAN in her capacity as Director 1 of the State of Hawai # i, Department of Human Services; STATE OF HAWAI # I, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, MED-QUEST DIVISION; DR. KENNETH FINK, in his capacity as State of Hawai # i, Department of Human Services,

Med-Quest Division Administrator, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(SCWC-30677; CIV. NO. 09-1-2022)
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed on November 8, 2013, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 12, 2013. Paul Alston, J. Blaine Rogers, and Maile Osika for petitioners Heidi M. Rian, John F. Molay and Lee-Ann N.M. Brewer for respondents /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

Durin g thepend ency of th is ac tion, Pat McMan aman succe eded 1 Lilli an B. Koll er. Thus, purs uant to Ha wai # i Rul es ofAppe llateProc edure Rule 43(c) (1), Patri cia M cManaman h as be en su bstit uted automatica lly f or Lilli an B. Koll er. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30677 12-DEC-2013 02:46 PM
No. 10-7538.

#### James Everett Flood, III, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1118, 131 S. Ct. 846,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9698.

178 L. Ed. 2d 575,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 616 F.3d 321.
# C_2016007EN.01002201.xml

| 11.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Dyson v Commission

(Case T-544/13) (1)

1

((Directive 2010/30/EU - Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 - Competence of the Commission - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 007/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, E. Batchelor and M. Healy, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dyson Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dyson Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---
No. 10-7214.

#### Robin Ann Bunch, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1076, 131 S. Ct. 678,

178 L. Ed. 2d 504,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9216.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 395 Fed. Appx. 996.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37065-37066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17856]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98-AWP-2]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Porterville, CA; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.


[[Page 37066]]


ACTION: Final Rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the geographic coordinates of 
a Final Rule that was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 
1998 (63 FR 19393), Airspace Docket No. 98-AWP-2. The final rule 
modified the Class E Airspace area at Porterville, CA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC August 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry Tonish, Airspace Specialist, Airspace Branch, AWP-520, Air 
Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261, 
telephone (310) 725-6539.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    Federal Register Document 98-10303, Airspace Docket No. 98-AWP-2, 
published on April 20, 1998 (63 FR 19393), revised the geographic 
coordinates of the Class E airspace area at Porterville, CA. A 
typographical error was discovered in the geographic coordinates for 
the Porterville, CA, Class E airspace area. This action corrects that 
error.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the 
geographic coordinates for the Class E airspace area at Porterville, 
CA, as published in the Federal Register on April 20, 1998 (63 FR 
19393), Federal Register Document 98-10303) are corrected as follows:


Sec. 7.1.  [Corrected]

AWP CA E5 Porterville, CA [Corrected]

    On page 19394, in column 2, for Porterville Municipal Airport, 
CA, beginning in line 7, correct long. 118 deg. 47'20'' W'' to read 
long. 118 deg. 57'20'' W''.

    Issued in Los Angeles, California, on June 23, 1998.
John G. Clancy,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 98-17856 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
AAM-11-241-E 

April 8, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10236 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0287 

Mr. Eric Chase 

President 

Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. 

159 Catamount Drive 

Milton, VT 05468 

Dear Mr. Chase: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated March 16, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. (Mansfield Heliflight), for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow 

Mansfield Heliflight, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Mansfield Heliflight. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Mansfield Heliflight Inc., an exemption from part 120 to 

the extent necessary to allow Mansfield Heliflight, which is operating under separate parts of 

the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to 

the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Mansfield Heliflight are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations 

at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Mansfield Heliflight part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. 

Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
No. 10-8013.

#### Sammy Ray Collins, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1193, 131 S. Ct. 1033,

178 L. Ed. 2d 853,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 684.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 395 Fed. Appx. 117.
EXHIBIT 23

       Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


          We have issued our report dated June 9, 1997,
accompanying the consolidated financial statements incorporated
by reference or included in the Annual Report of Environmental
Tectonics Corporation and Subsidiary on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended February 28, 1997.  We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of
Environmental Tectonics Corporation and Subsidiary on Form S-8
(File No. 2-92407, effective August 14, 1984) and on Form S-3
(File No. 33-42219, effective September 4, 1991).

GRANT THORNTON LLP

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
June 12, 1997
***Exhibit      32.2***
** **

**Section 1350      Certification, **

**As      Adopted Pursuant To **

**Section 906      of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 **

|   |                                                                                                                                        |                                                                                |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | ** **                                                                                                                                  |
|   |                                                                                                                                        | /S/                     PETER                    S.                    TESHIMA |
|   | **Peter                    S. Teshima****Corporate Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer** |
|   |                                                                                                                                        |
|   |                                                                                                                                        |
|   |  February 14, 2008                                                                                                                     |

----
#### *Bank of N.Y., Respondent, v. Townley et al., Petitioners,*

No. 91625-0.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 69194-5-1, March 2, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 1008. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
No. 10-6396.

#### Talakkottur R. David, Petitioner v. Fidelity Investments, et al.

562 U.S. 1208, 131 S. Ct. 1065,

178 L. Ed. 2d 879,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 918.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1054, 131 S. Ct. 603, 178 L. Ed. 2d 453, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8916.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134738 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134738 

 COA: 260633 

Berrien CC: 03-406886-FC 

STEVEN DALE PENDERGRASS, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 3, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1119 

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. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
No. 10-5977.

#### George I. Stapley, Petitioner v. The Mississippi Bar, et al.

562 U.S. 1173, 131 S. Ct. 987,

178 L. Ed. 2d 815,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 99.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

*816Former decision, 562 U.S. 985, 131 S. Ct. 421, 178 L. Ed. 2d 328, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8317.
Exhibit 32.2
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
  (1)
    
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2010, as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
  
 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.