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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2497 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to recognize Indian tribal 

governments for purposes of determining under the adoption credit 

whether a child has special needs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2019 

Mr. KILMER (for himself, Mr. YOUNG, and Mr. KIND) 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 recognize 

Indian tribal governments for purposes of determining 

under the adoption credit whether a child has special 

needs. 

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 ‘‘Tribal Adoption Parity 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2497 IH

1 SEC. 2. RECOGNIZING INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS FOR 

2 PURPOSES OF DETERMINING UNDER THE 

3 ADOPTION CREDIT WHETHER CHILD HAS 

4 SPECIAL NEEDS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 23(d)(3) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 (defining child with special needs) 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘or In9 dian tribal government’’ after ‘‘a State’’; and 

10 (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘or In11 dian tribal government’’ after ‘‘such State’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

The following are wholly owned subsidiaries of Scient, Inc., unless otherwise
noted:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         COMPANY                                               JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
         -------                                               -----------------------------
<S>                                                            <C>
iXL Enterprises, Inc.                                          Delaware
Scient Enterprises, Inc.                                       Delaware
Scient UK Limited(1)                                           United Kingdom
Scient International Pte LTD(2)                                United Kingdom
</TABLE>

(1)      Scient UK Limited is wholly owned by iXL Enterprises, Inc.
(2)      Scient International Pte LTD is wholly owned by Scient Enterprises,
         Inc.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 52 
          - [MO 0129-1129; FRL-6989-6] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        On April 6, 2001 (66 FR 18198), EPA published a direct final approval of a revision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) which pertained to the Missouri construction permitting rule. The direct final action was published without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse comment. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received adverse comment by May 7, 2001, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the                         **Federal Register**                        . EPA subsequently received adverse comments on the direct final rule. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the direct final approval. EPA will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the parallel proposal also published on April 6, 2001 (66 FR 18223). As stated in the parallel proposal, EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.                     

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

The direct final rule published on April 6, 2001, is withdrawn as of June 1, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603. 

# List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

        - Environmental protection
        - Air pollution control
        - Intergovernmental relations
        - Ozone
        - Particulate matter
        - Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Dated: May 23, 2001. 

Nat Scurry,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

                            Accordingly, the revision to 40 CFR 52. 1320, published in the                             **Federal Register**                             April 6, 2001 (66 FR 18198), which was to become effective June 5, 2001, is withdrawn.                         

[FR Doc. 01-13775 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EXHIBIT 10.7 TO SOY ENERGY, LLC FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JULY 31, 2010



Exhibit 10.7


AMENDMENT TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT


          THIS
AMENDMENT TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of August
13, 2010, by and between OSM—REO FF, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
(“Seller”), and Soy Energy, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company (“Buyer”). 


Recitals


          WHEREAS,
Buyer and Seller are parties to that certain Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as
of April 2, 2010 (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which,
inter cilia, Buyer has agreed to acquire and assume from Seller certain
Acquired Assets and certain Assumed Liabilities, as set forth in said Asset
Purchase Agreement; and 


          WHEREAS,
Buyer and Seller desire to amend the Asset Purchase Agreement in certain
respects, as set forth in this Amendment; 


          NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as
follows: 


AMENDMENT


          Amendment
of Section 1.1. The definition of “Closing Deadline” set forth in Section
1.1 of the Asset Purchase Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety as follows: 


                    “‘Closing
Deadline” means September 27, 2010.” 


MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS


          No Other
Modification of Asset Purchase Agreement. Except as modified hereby, the
Asset Purchase Agreement shall not be modified and shall remain in full force
and effect, and the terms thereof are hereby ratified and confirmed.
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Asset Purchase Agreement. 


          Other
Provisions. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed to be an original of this Amendment and all of
which, when taken together, shall be deemed to constitute one and the same
instrument. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, delivery of an
executed counterpart of a signature page to this Amendment by telecopier,
facsimile or email attachment shall be effective as delivery of a manually
executed counterpart of this Amendment. 


 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank;
signature page attached.]


1





          IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed
and delivered by their duly authorized representatives, as of the date first
written above. 


	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 OSM-REO
 FF, LLC

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 By:

 	
 /s/ Stephanie Lunde



 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 Name:

 	
 Stephanie Lunde

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 Its:

 	
 Vice President



 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 SOY
 ENERGY, LLC

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 By:

 	
 /s/ Ronald Wetherell



 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 Name:

 	
 Ronald Wetherell



 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 Its:

 	
 Vice Chairman



 	
  

 


2
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,  INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3
(Nos. 333-149772, 333-158080 and 333-162275) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-139810, 333-149773 and
333-158070) of Affymax, Inc. of our report dated March 12, 2008 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
San Jose, California
March 3, 2010


---



QuickLinks
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1401

Diesel Swap - Gulf Coast ULSD - PLATTS

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the settlement price published by Platts for the 

location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the Platts U.S. 

Gulf Coast ULSD (pipeline) mean for each business day that it is determined during the contract 

month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be in gallons. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity in 

gallons multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per gallon. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.0001 per gallon. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04956-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/03/2008 Page 20 of 20
TERRANCE TYRONE MASON , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3485

_____________________________/ Opinion filed July 11, 2017. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Thomas V. Dannheisser , Judge

. Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Thomas H. Duffy and Daniel R. Krumbholz, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appellant, Terrance Tyrone Mason, challenges the trial court’s denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error,2 wherein he sought credit for time served. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.
The trial court denied Appellant’s motion upon concluding that claims regarding jail credit must be raised in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801, and even if they could be raised in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, t hey were insufficiently pled. The State properly concedes that the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motion on the ground that claims regarding credit for time served must be raised in a rule 3.801 motion and cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. See In re Amendments to Fla. R. of Crim. P. , 204 So. 3d 944, 944

- 45 (Fla. 2016) (explaining that the 2016 amendments to rules 3.800 and 3.801 “make clear that jail credit matters can be litigated in either a motion filed under rule 3.800(b) while a defendant’s direct appeal is pending, or in a motion filed under rule 3.801 after a defendant’s sentence has become final”); see also Cousnard v. State , 188 So. 3d 936, 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing the trial court’s denial of a rule 3.800(b)(2) mot ion to correct sentencing error that sought an additional award of jail credit); Lowe v. State , 152 So. 3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quashing the trial court’s orders on the appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail credit, which it ha d treated as a rule 3.801 motion, without prejudice to the appellant filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion or a rule 3.801 motion after the direct appeal concluded). Additionally, t he trial court erroneously concluded that Appellant’s3 claims were insufficientl y pled given that he identified the alleged errors with specificity and set forth the amounts of credit he claims he is entitled to receive. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b) (“The motion must identify the error with specificity and provide a proposed correction.”). Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED

. LEWIS , ROBERTS, and BILBREY , J J

. , CONCUR.
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 17, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40151 Conference Calendar

HARRY LEE RIDDICK, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus RICHARD D. MILES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CV-295

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Harry Lee Riddick, federal prisoner # 48116-060, appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Riddick challenges his conviction of operating a continuing criminal enterprise, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine in or near a school, and distribution of cocaine. Riddick seeks relief pursuant to United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005); Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004); and Richardson v. United States , 526 U.S. 813 (1999). Riddick’sNo. 06-40151 -2- Booker and Blakely claims do not fall under the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255; he thus may not pursue relief under § 2241. See Padilla v. United States , 416 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 2005). Riddick’s appellate brief indicates that he knew about Richardson before he filed his § 2255 motion in 2001; he therefore could have raised his Richardson issues in that motion and may not pursue them in a § 2241 petition. See Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
#### Scott M. Pankoff, Appellant, v Lisa B. Pankoff, Respondent.

Submitted December 12, 2011;

decided February 16, 2012

Reported below, 84 AD3d 690.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of
China Agro Sciences Corp. (the “Company”) on Third Amended Form 10-K/A for the
year ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhengquan Wang, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  April
      1, 2008
            /s/
      Zhengquan WangBy:  Zhengquan
      WangIts:  Chief
      Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Agro Sciences Corp. and will be retained by China Agro Sciences Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
V 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2395 

To authorize the President to award the Purple Heart to Louis Boria, 

Jr., for injuries incurred during World War II and the Korean War 

while a member of the Marine Corps. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2019 

Mr. SOTO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the President to award the Purple Heart to 

Louis Boria, Jr., for injuries incurred during World War 

II and the Korean War while a member of the Marine 

Corps. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2395 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD THE PURPLE 

2 HEART TO LOUIS BORIA, JR., FOR INJURIES 

3 INCURRED DURING WORLD WAR II AND THE 

4 KOREAN WAR WHILE A MEMBER OF THE MA5 RINE CORPS. 

6 Notwithstanding the criteria in section 1 of Executive 

7 Order 11016, the President is authorized to award the 

8 Purple Heart to Louis Boria, Jr., for injuries incurred 

9 during World War II and the Korean War while a member 

10 of the Marine Corps. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### Coy PHELPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-17277.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 5, 2006.*

Filed June 9, 2006.

Coy Phelps, Ayer, MA, pro se.

David M. Goldstein, Esq., Heller Ehrman, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, appellees’ motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit99.6**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of EnCana Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for theyear ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William A. Stevenson, ExecutiveVice-President & Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.            The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

2.            The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:                            | /s/  William A. Stevenson                                |   |   |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                           | William  A. Stevenson                                    |   |
|                           | Executive  Vice-President & Chief Accounting Officer |   |
|                           |                                                     |   |
| Dated:  February 18, 2010 |                                                     |

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135864 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135864 

 COA: 273554 
 Wayne CC: 05-002344

MICHAEL PODLASZUK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2007 

order 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. 

d0616 

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. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk