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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4657 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent the selling of telephone 

customer proprietary network information. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2006 

Mr. LIPINSKI (for himself and Mr. CASE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent the selling 

of telephone customer proprietary network information. 

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 ‘‘Secure Telephone Op5 erations Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SALE OF TELEPHONE CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY 

7 NETWORK INFORMATION. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—Chapter 88 of title 18, United 

9 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 
2 

•HR 4657 IH 

1 ‘‘§ 1802. Sale of telephone customer proprietary net2 work information 

3 ‘‘(a) Whoever knowingly sells telephone customer pro4 prietary network information shall be fined under this title 

5 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. 

6 ‘‘(b) In this section, the term ‘telephone customer 

7 proprietary network information’ means customer propri8 etary network information as that term is defined in sec9 tion 222 of the Communications Act of 1934.’’. 

10 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SEC11 TIONS.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 

12 88 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 

13 at the end the following new item: 

‘‘1802. Sale of telephone customer proprietary network information’’. 

Æ
<Page>


                                                                      Exhibit 12


                                    AMERICAN STANDARD COMPANIES INC.
                         COMPUTATION OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                                         (Dollars in Millions)

<Table>
<Caption>


                                                      FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                               ----------------------------------------------
                                                1998      1999      2000      2001      2002
                                               ------    ------    ------    ------    ------
<S>                                            <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Income from continuing
 operations before taxes ...............       $189.8    $451.5    $509.4    $476.4    $556.2

Equity in net (income) loss of
 associated companies net of dividends
 received ..............................         (3.6)     (5.1)     (8.7)     (2.8)    (13.5)

Amortization of capitalized interest ...          1.6       1.8       1.9       2.3       2.3

Interest expense .......................        188.4     187.8     198.7     168.7     129.0

Rental expense factor ..................         26.5      33.9      49.4      53.2      58.6
                                               ------    ------    ------    ------    ------

Earnings available for fixed charges ...       $402.7    $669.9    $750.7    $697.8    $732.6
                                               ======    ======    ======    ======    ======

Interest expense .......................       $188.4    $187.8    $198.7    $168.7    $129.0

Capitalized interest ...................          4.5       3.3       2.0       4.8       2.6

Rental expense factor ..................         26.5      33.9      49.4      53.2      58.6
                                               ------    ------    ------    ------    ------

Fixed charges ..........................       $219.4    $225.0    $250.1    $226.7     $190.2
                                               ======    ======    ======    ======     ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (a) .          1.8       3.0       3.0       3.1        3.9
</Table>

a)   For the purpose of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, fixed
     charges consist of interest on debt (including capitalized interest),
     amortization of debt discount and expense, and a portion of rentals
     determined to be representative of interest. Earnings consist of
     consolidated net income before income taxes, plus fixed charges other than
     capitalized interest but including the amortization thereof, adjusted by
     the excess or deficiency of dividends over income of entities accounted for
     by the equity method.
No. 09-8590.

#### Page Penk, Petitioner v. Edward Nichols, President, Colorado Historical Society.

559 U.S. 1000, 130 S. Ct. 1894,

176 L. Ed. 2d 356,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2514.

March 22, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has *357repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305, and cases cited therein.
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4811 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 3, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 215 West Industrial Park Road in Harrison, 

Arkansas, as the ‘‘John Paul Hammerschmidt Post Office Building’’. 

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


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
2 

HR 4811 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 215 West Industrial Park Road in Harrison, Ar4 kansas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John Paul 

5 Hammerschmidt Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘John Paul Hammerschmidt Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 2, 2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
No. 11-7165.

#### Earnest Cassell Woods, Petitioner v. John Marshall, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 1125, 132 S. Ct. 1031,

181 L. Ed. 2d 759,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 162.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# AGENDA

Government

- to

- Government Consultations

July 18, 2014

9:00 am

– 3 :30 pm (Mountain Time Zone )

Meeting Location: EPA Region 8 Office

– RA Conference Room

1595 Wynkoop Street

, Denver, Colorado 80202

- 1129



### Attendees : EPA R8 Tribes , EPA Region 8 Staff, EPA Headquarters Staff

9:00 am

– 10:30 am  Introductions

 Overview of A dvanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (A NPR ) & Open Discussion

of Issues

Topic: ANPR

– Managing Emissions: Oil & Natural Gas Production in Indian

Country

10:30 am

– 10:45 am Break *

10:45 am

– 12:00 pm  Continuation of Discussion

Topic: ANPR

– Managing Emissions: Oil & Natural Gas Production in Indian

Country

12:00 pm

– 1:00 pm Lunch Break *

1:00 pm

– 2:00 pm  Introductions

 Overview of Proposed Rule & Open Discussion of Issues

Topic: Proposed Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New

Source Performance Standards

2:00 pm

– 2:30 pm Break *

2:30 pm

– 3:30 pm  Introductions

 Overview of Proposed Rule & Open Discussion of Issues

Topic: Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources:

Electric Generating Units (EGUs)

3:30 pm Meeting Adjourn ed



### * I mportant Information

If you need to exit the building during breaks, you will be required to pass through security screening upon

return each time. If you are leaving for the day, please remember to sign out and turn in your temporary visitor

badge to the reception desk in th e main lobby. This process allows us to maintain accountability of all personnel inside

the Regional Headquarters facility in the event of an emergency situation or evacuation.
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-40990 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOHNATHAN CHANG-AZKARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:11-CR-394-1
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### The Federal Public Defender ap p o i n t ed to represent Johnathan ChangAzkarraga has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Chang-Azkarraga has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D April 17 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40990 Document: 00511824181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2012

### No. 11-40990

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H 

### C I R


### . R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-40990 Document: 00511824181 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2012
No. 09-8693.

#### Jose Hernandez, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 984, 130 S. Ct. 1717,

176 L. Ed. 2d 200,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1912.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

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 the Quarterly Report of IPC Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Timothy Whelan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.    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.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | By: /s/ Timothy Whelan
Timothy Whelan
| | Chief Financial Officer              
| | May 15, 2003                         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to IPC Acquisition Corp. and will be retained by IPC Acquisition
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 09-8465.

#### William King, Petitioner v. California.

559 U.S. 1010, 130 S. Ct. 1886,

176 L. Ed. 2d 371,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2730.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
No. 11-7571.

#### John Tyler McKinney, Sr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1135, 132 S. Ct. 1061,

181 L. Ed. 2d 778,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 49.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 427 Fed. Appx. 517.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

CHARLES HERMAN

, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

)

v. )

)

BRP, INC., BRP US, INC., TELEFLEX ) C.A. No.: N13C

- 11

- 105 CLS

CANADA L IMITED PARTNERSHIP, )

TELEFLEX CANADA, INC., )

KONGSBERG, INC. (F/K/A TELEFLEX )

MEGATECH, INC.), and )

KONGSBERG AUTOMOTIVE )

HOLDING ASA, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Kevin J. Connors, Esquire, 1007 North Orange Street, Suite 600, Wilmington,

Delaware, 19899. Attorney for Defendants Kongsberg , Inc

.

Timothy E. Lengkeek, Esquire, 1000 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware,

19801. Attorney for Plaintiff.

Scott, J.2 On this 24 th day of March an d upon Defendant Kongsb erg, Inc.’s Motion to

Dismiss, the Court finds:

Plaintiff Charles Herman (“Plaintiff ”) filed a Complaint against six separate

defendants alleging causes of action based upon products liability and negligence,

and a claim for punitive damages based upon an allegation of gross negligence.

Defendant Kongsberg, Inc. (“Kongsberg ”) has move d to dismiss Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R.

12(b)(2) and based on Delaware’s long

- arm statute, 10 Del. C

. § 3104.

O n October 13, 2014 , the Court sent a letter notifying Plaintiff’s counsel that

the Court was in receipt of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint to Plaintiff’s counsel, and set the deadline for filing

Plaintiff’s re sponse by November 14, 2014. The letter also stated, “[f]ailure to file

a response by this date will be deemed a lack of opposition to the motion.” To this

date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant Kongsberg’s motion.

Therefore, the Court tr eats Defendant Kongsberg’s motion as unopposed by

Plaintiff and the Court will not address the merits of the motion . Accordingly,

Defendant Kongsberg’s Motion to Dismiss is summarily GRANTED

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.



## /s/Calvin L. Scott

Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
ANTONIO MARQUEZ AGUILAR , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 21

- 0290 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2001

- 003099 The Honorable Jennifer C. Ryan

- Touhill , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Robert E. Prather Counsel for Respondent
Castillo Law, PLLC , Phoenix By Cindy Castillo C ounsel for Petitioner FILED 1-13-2022STATE v. AGUILAR Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams, Judge David B. Gass , and Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court

.

PER CURIUM : ¶1 Petitioner Antonio Marquez Aguilar seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief

. This is petitioner’s latest successive petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, t he state’s response, the reply to response, and the petition for review. The petitioner has failed to show an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, this court grants review but denies relief.
No. 09-8953.

#### Oscar Alberto Parada, Petitioner v. California.

559 U.S. 1052, 130 S. Ct. 2348,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2991.

176 L. Ed. 2d 567,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1538

_____________________________

ROBERT BOYD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

J. Scott Duncan, Judge.

August 16, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Michael Ufferman of the Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4059

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CRAIG LAMONT MYERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR03-484-PJM)

Submitted: October 21, 2005 Decided: November 14, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Finci, HOULON, BERMAN, BERGMAN, FINCI & LEVENSTEIN,

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United

States Attorney, Mythili Raman, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Craig Lamont Myers pled guilty to conspiracy to

distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000),

and the district court sentenced him to 210 months’ imprisonment.

Myers appeals, contending that his sentence, which was imposed

under the then-mandatory federal sentencing guidelines, violates

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The Government

asserts that Myers validly waived the right to appeal his sentence

in the plea agreement. We agree with the Government and dismiss

the appeal.

A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver

is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399,

402-03 (4th Cir. 2000). To determine whether a waiver is knowing

and intelligent, we examine “the totality of the circumstances,

including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the

accused’s educational background and familiarity with the terms of

the plea agreement.” United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400

(4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We review de novo the question of whether a defendant validly

waived his right to appeal. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162,

168 (4th Cir. 2005).

Our review of the plea agreement and the hearing

conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 leads us to conclude that

Myers knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal.
- 3 -

See General, 278 F.3d at 400-01; see also Blick, 408 F.3d at 169-73

(holding that a plea agreement containing a waiver of the right to

appeal, which was accepted by district court prior to the Supreme

Court’s decision in Booker, was not invalidated by change in law

effected by that decision). Moreover, Myers’ claim under Booker

falls within the scope of the waiver. See Blick, 408 F.3d at 170

(holding Booker claim is covered by appellate waiver).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CURRENCY> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,853
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,317
<PP&E>                                          12,841
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,388
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,080
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,799
<SALES>                                        160,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160,778
<CGS>                                          115,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  153,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,054
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,744
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,310
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,310
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $1.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.25


</TABLE>