alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 182 (Thursday, September 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20583]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Minority Health and 
Health Disparities Special Emphasis Panel; Impact of Structural 
Racism and Discrimination on Minority Health and Health Disparities.
    Date: November 15-17, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Gateway Plaza, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Karen Nieves-Lugo, M.P.H., Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Office of Extramural Research Activities, National 
Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National 
Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 480-4727, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7ccc6d5c2c989c9cec2d1c2d4cbd2c0c8e7c9cecf89c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="03686271666d2d6d6a667566706f76646c436d6a6b2d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 17, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-20583 Filed 9-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5839 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5839

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the types of 
energy conservation subsidies provided by public utilities eligible for 
                           income exclusion.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2010

 Mr. Heinrich (for himself, Mr. Lujan, and Mr. Teague) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the types of 
energy conservation subsidies provided by public utilities eligible for 
                           income exclusion.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TYPES OF ENERGY CONSERVATION SUBSIDIES 
              PROVIDED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR INCOME 
              EXCLUSION.

    (a) In General.--Section 136 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and by 
inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Net Metering or Net Billing Programs; Renewable Energy 
Credits.--
            ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
        `subsidy' includes amounts received by a customer from a public 
        utility--
                    ``(A) to pay for electricity generated from an 
                energy conservation measure under a net metering or net 
                billing program, or
                    ``(B) to pay for renewable energy credits 
                attributable to an energy conservation measure.
            ``(2) Limitation.--The amount treated as a subsidy for any 
        taxable year by reason of paragraph (1)(B) shall not exceed an 
        amount equal to--
                    ``(A) $2,000, multiplied by
                    ``(B) the whole number of years worth of renewable 
                energy credits that are sold by the customer.
            ``(3) No basis reduction.--Subsection (b) shall not apply 
        with respect to property any portion of the basis of which is 
        attributable to an amount described in paragraph (1).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts received after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5873 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 

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 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, 

Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office’’. 

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


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5873 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CAPTAIN RHETT W. SCHILLER POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in 

4 Waterford, Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Captain Rhett W. 

10 Schiller Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I,Forrest Jordan, Chief Financial Officer of IWT Tesoro Corporation, certifythat:

 

1.                    I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-KSB of IWT Tesoro Corporation for year ended December 31, 2003;

 

2.                    Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                    Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;

 

4.                    The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisannual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c) presented inthis annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date

 

5.                    The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a)all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controlswhich could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’sauditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.                    I have indicated in this annual reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in otherfactors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to thedate of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions withregard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| Date: March 30, 2004 | By:                     | /s/ Forrest Jordan |   |
|----------------------|-------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|                 | Forrest Jordan,         |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN MORENO RUIZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JUAN N. SILVA MEZA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 17492

D.C. No. 2:20

- cv

- 02008

- DWL

ESW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 21 , 2021 * *

Before: SILVERMAN

, WATFORD , and BENNETT , Circuit Judges.

Martin Moreno Ruiz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team

Equip., Inc. , 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 30 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 17492

The district court properly dismissed Ruiz’s action because Ruiz failed to

satisfy his burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Ashoff v. City of

Ukiah , 130 F.3d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1997) (the plaintiff has the burden of

establishing subject matter jurisdiction); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ( “ If the

court determines at any time that it lacks subject

- matter jurisdiction, the court must

dismiss the action. ” ); Valdez v. A llstate Ins. Co. , 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir.

2004) ( the court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter

jurisdiction).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FLEMINGTON PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION OCTOBER 31, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
IS QUANTIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001043873
<NAME> FLEMINGTON PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY>  U.S.DOLLARS
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             128
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      135
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (40)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   230
<PP&E>                                              84
<DEPRECIATION>                                      72
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              319
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (230)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       389
<SALES>                                            404
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   407
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00

</TABLE>
#### E. R. Walker v. Barry G. Anderson.

The act of 14th February, 1860, “ to prevent judgments from becoming dormant, and to create and preserve judgment liens,” was repealed by the act of the 19th November, 1866. (Paschal’s Dig., 2d ed., Arts. 3962, 3965; 20 Sess. Acts, 118.)

Since the repeal of the act authorizing land to be sold under junior judgments, so as to destroy the lien of senior judgments, leaving the plaintiff in execution to contest for the money, the junior judgment is entitled to the proceeds of the sale; but the lien of the first judgment remains unaffected by the sale. (Paschal’s Dig., 2d ed., Art. 3964.)

Appeal from Gonzales. The case was tried before Hon. Wesley Ogden, one of the'district judges.

The judgment in favor of Mitchell v. Bass was rendered 25th October, 1866; *alias*execution issued 21st of May, 1868; the original execution had been levied upon eleven hundred and seven acres of land 5th March, 1868; land sold for $51. The judgments of Jones were obtained 13th April, 1866; but they were levied upon other lands, and not upon the eleven hundred and seven acres. The motion against the sheriff raised the question, whether the senior judgment, which had not been levied, or the junior execution, on which the money was made, was entitled to the money.

The court decided in favor of the senior judgment: the judgments, of Jones had the older record, as required by the act of 14th February, 1860. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3962.)

*Finlay Stewart,*for appellants.

—I. The act of 14th *647February, 1860, (Paschal’s Digest, p. 671,) authorizes such a motion; and under that act the proceeds of the sale made under an execution on a junior judgment could have been ordered to be paid over to the senior judgment creditor.

But that act is not in force, and was not in force at the date of the issuance of the executions, having been repealed by the act of 19th November, 1866. (Acts last Sess. Leg., p. 118.)

No brief for the appellee has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

Caldwell, J.

—Appellee filed a motion in the district court to compel the sheriff, who is the appellant in this court, to pay over on a senior judgment the money collected by virtue of an execution issued on a junior judgment.

The act of the 14th February, 1860, which authorized this motion, was repealed by an act approved 9th November, 1866. It follows that the first execution coming to the hand of the sheriff shall be levied, and the money arising upon a sale under said levy shall go to the discharge of such execution. This is the rightful reward of diligence. A prior judgment creditor could still subject the land to the satisfaction of his judgment if the lien had not been lost. Judgment reversed, and

Motion dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14
              UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
                 (SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, DONALD B. COHEN , certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of The Quantum Group,
Inc. for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2005;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

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

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

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

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

         c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial 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 controls over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

         a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls over financial reporting.

Date:   August 15, 2005

/S/ DONALD B. COHEN
-------------------
DONALD B. COHEN
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2637 

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the regulation of emissions of 

carbon dioxide from new or existing power plants under certain circumstances. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2015 

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. LATTA, and Mr. GUTHRIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the regulation of 

emissions of carbon dioxide from new or existing power 

plants under certain circumstances. 

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 ‘‘Coal Country Protec5 tion Act’’ or the ‘‘Protecting Jobs, Families, and the 

6 Economy From EPA Overreach Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2637 IH

1 SEC. 2. REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE 

2 FROM NEW OR EXISTING POWER PLANTS. 

3 (a) LIMITATION ON REGULATION.—The Clean Air 

4 Act is amended by inserting after section 312 (42 U.S.C. 

5 7612) the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 313. LIMITATION ON REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF 

7 CARBON DIOXIDE FROM NEW OR EXISTING 

8 POWER PLANTS. 

9 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF NEW OR EXISTING POWER

10 PLANT.—In this section, the term ‘new or existing power 

11 plant’ means a fossil fuel-fired power plant that com12 mences operation at any time. 

13 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—Notwithstanding any other provi14 sion of law (including regulations), the Administrator may 

15 not promulgate any regulation or guidance that limits or 

16 prohibits any new carbon dioxide emissions from a new 

17 or existing power plant, and no such regulation or guid18 ance shall have any force or effect, until the date on 

19 which— 

20 ‘‘(1) the Secretary of Labor certifies to the Ad21 ministrator that the regulation or guidance will not 

22 generate any loss of employment; 

23 ‘‘(2) the Director of the Congressional Budget 

24 Office certifies to the Administrator that the regula25 tion or guidance will not result in any loss in the 

26 gross domestic product of the United States; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2637 IH

1 ‘‘(3) the Administrator of the Energy Informa2 tion Administration certifies to the Administrator 

3 that the regulation or guidance will not generate any 

4 increase in electricity rates in the United States; and 

5 ‘‘(4) the Chairperson of the Federal Energy 

6 Regulatory Commission and the President of the 

7 North American Electric Reliability Corporation cer8 tify to the Administrator the reliability of electricity 

9 delivery under the regulation or guidance.’’. 

10 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—The Clean Air Act is 

11 amended by redesignating the second section 317 (42 

12 U.S.C. 7617) (relating to economic impact assessment) as 

13 section 318. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 8

- BG

- 5 72

IN RE JOSEPH R. LAUMANN

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals DDN: 160

- 18

Bar Reg istration No. 47195 2

BEFORE: Glickman

, Thompson, and Beckwith

, Associate Judge s

.

O R D E R

(FILED

– August 2 , 2018)

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland

indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction by

consent ; this court’s June 4

, 201 8 , order directing respondent to show cause why

the functionally

- equivalent discipline of a n indefinite suspension with a fitness

requirement, with the right to file for reinstatement after five years or after

reinstatement by the state of Maryland, which ever occurs first, should not be

imposed ; and t he statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal

discipline ; and it appearing that respondent failed to file a response to the court’s

show cause order but filed his D. C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g) affidavit on June 29, 2018

, it is

ORDERED that Joseph R. Laumann is hereby indefinitely suspended with a

fitness requirement nunc pro tunc to June 29, 2018 . He may file for reinstatement

after five years or after reinstatement by the state of Maryland, which ever occurs

first. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010) ; In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198

(D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all

cases in which the respondent does not partici pate ).

PER CURIAM