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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 88 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

design, planning, and construction of permanent facilities for the GREAT 

project to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired waters in the area of 

Oxnard, California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mrs. CAPPS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and 

construction of permanent facilities for the GREAT 

project to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired waters in 

the area of Oxnard, California. 

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 ‘‘City of Oxnard Water 

5 Recycling and Desalination Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 88 IH

1 SEC. 2. OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, WATER RECLAMATION, 

2 REUSE, AND TREATMENT PROJECT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

4 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (title XVI of Public 

5 Law 102–575; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by add6 ing at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. ll. OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, WATER RECLAMATION, 

8 REUSE, AND TREATMENT PROJECT. 

9 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera10 tion with the City of Oxnard, California, may participate 

11 in the design, planning, and construction of Phase I per12 manent facilities for the GREAT project to reclaim, reuse, 

13 and treat impaired water in the area of Oxnard, Cali14 fornia. 

15 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs 

16 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

17 25 percent of the total cost. 

18 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

19 funds for the following: 

20 ‘‘(1) The operations and maintenance of the 

21 project described in subsection (a). 

22 ‘‘(2) The construction, operations, and mainte23 nance of the visitor’s center related to the project 

24 described in subsection (a). 

25 ‘‘(d) SUNSET OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the 

26 Secretary to carry out any provisions of this section shall 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 88 IH

1 terminate 10 years after the date of the enactment of this 

2 section.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

4 in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

5 Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after the 

6 last item the following: 

‘‘Sec. ll. Oxnard, California, water reclamation, reuse, and treatment 

project.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MELISSA LUSBY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-388 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed June 20, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Highlands County; Peter F. Estrada, Judge. Melissa Lusby, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
---

Exhibit 32.2

|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 Swav Enterprises Ltd., a Nevada corporation (the Registrant), on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Vanleo Y. W. Fung,
the Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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 Registrant.

| | /s/ Vanleo Y.W. Fung                           
| | -----------------------------------------------
| | Vanleo Y.W. Fung                               
| | Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal     
| | Accounting Officer)                            
| | Date: February 22, 2010                        

---
No. 439.

#### Musser *v.*Sheppard, Comptroller of Public Accounts.

Jurisdictional statement distributed October 24, 1936.

Decided November 9, 1936.

*Mr. Mark McGee*for appellant.

*Mr. Wm. McCraw,*Attorney General of Texas, and *Messrs. William C. Davis*and *Cecil C. Rotsch*for appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

The motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a final judgment. *Reddall*v. *Bryan,*24 How. 420; *Verden*v. *Coleman,*18 How. 86; *Twin City Power Co.*v. *Savannah River Electric Co.,*284 U. S. 574; *Gant*v. *Oklahoma City,*284 U. S. 594.
# C_2018182EN.01000701.xml

| 28.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v ET

(Case C-97/18)

(2018/C 182/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, sitting in Leeuwarden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Applicant:

Defendant: ET

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 12(1) of Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that, when a confiscation order transferred by an issuing State is executed in the Netherlands, a term of imprisonment pending payment as referred to in Article 577c of the Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure may be applied, having regard to, inter alia, the decision of the Hoge Raad of 20 December 2011 (2) to the effect that a term of imprisonment pending payment must be deemed to be a penalty within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the ECHR? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 12(1) of Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that, when a confiscation order transferred by an issuing State is executed in the Netherlands, a term of imprisonment pending payment as referred to in Article 577c of the Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure may be applied, having regard to, inter alia, the decision of the Hoge Raad of 20 December 2011 (2) to the effect that a term of imprisonment pending payment must be deemed to be a penalty within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the ECHR?

1

2

| 2. | Does it make any difference to the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment whether the law of the issuing State also makes provision for the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it make any difference to the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment whether the law of the issuing State also makes provision for the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders (OJ 2006 L 328, p. 59).

1

(2)  NL:HR:2011:BP9449.

2

---
# FCM Data May 2013

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF May 31,&KFF0000 &K0000002013FROM REPORTS FILED BY July 1,&KFF0000 &K0000002013	&P of &N
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

AF 11-0244

IN RE THE RULES FOR ADMISSION

TO THE BAR OF MONTANA

FILED

DEC 1 7 2015

Eci.smith

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF MONTANA

ORDER

By Order entered June 24, 2015, this Court directed the State Bar of Montana,

working in conjunction with the Commission on Character and Fitness and the Board of Bar

Examiners, to implement new rules or propose amendments to existing rules to accommodate

the Court's approval of admission to the Montana Bar on motion. On November 12, 2015,

the three entities submitted a joint packet of proposed amendments to the Rules for

Admission to the Bar of Montana, Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Character and

Fitness, and Board of Bar Examiners' Rules. The Court reviewed the proposals and

discussed them at a public meeting held December 15, 2015, at which time additional

amendments were approved.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the proposed rule changes as approved by the

Court are ADOPTED. The Rules for Admission to the Bar of Montana, Rules of Procedure

of the Commission on Character and Fitness, and Bard of Bar Examiners' Rules are

amended to read as shown in the attachment to this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the process approved by this Court in December

2014 for allowing voluntary reporting of pro bono activities by applicants for the Montana

Bar Examination also shall extend to applicants for admission by transfer of UBE score and

to applicants for admission by motion.

December 17 2015

Case Number: AF 11-0244
A copy of this Order and the attached rules shall be posted on the Court's website. In

addition, the Clerk of this Court is directed to provide copies of the same to the Executive

Director of the State Bar of Montana with the request that the Order and attachment be

posted on the State Bar's website and notice published in the next issue of the Montana

Lawyer magazine; to the Chair of the Commission on Character and Fitness; to the Chair of

the Board of Bar Examiners; and to the Dean of the Alexander Blewett III School of Law at

the University of Montana.

Dated this 1/day of December, 2015.

Chief Justice

2
#### In the Matter of Carl A. Gutzmer, Appellant, v Myriam L. Santini, Respondent.

[874 NYS2d 922] —

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered February 1, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order denied the motion of petitioner to vacate an order dismissing two of his petitions and seeking recusal.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order denying his motion seeking to vacate a prior order dismissing two of his petitions and seeking recusal. We affirm. Family Court properly denied that part of the motion to vacate the prior order because that order was entered upon stipulation of the parties, and the record belies the contention of the father that he did not understand the consequences of his agreement to withdraw his petitions *(see generally Matter of Abeido v Abeido,*54 AD3d 330 [2008], *lv dismissed*11 NY3d 846 [2008]; *Sontag v*Sontag, 114 AD2d 892, 893 [1985], *lv dismissed*66 NY2d 554 [1986]). Contrary to the further contention of the father, the court properly denied that part of his motion seeking recusal. The father failed to allege any basis for mandatory disqualification or recusal *(see*Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.3 [E] [1]), and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to recuse itself *(see Matter of Jason A.C. v Lisa A.C.,*30 AD3d 1110 [2006]; *see also Matter of Steven Glenn R.,*51 AD3d 802 [2008]). Indeed, the record establishes that the court has accommodated the father, particularly in view of the fact that it did not exercise its discretion to direct the father to obtain leave of the court before filing or refiling any more petitions *(see Matter of Simpson v Ptaszynska,*41 AD3d 607 [2007]; *Matter of Pignataro v Davis,*8 AD3d 487, 489 [2004]; *Matter of Shreve v Shreve,*229 AD2d 1005, 1006 [1996]). Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Peradotto and Gorski, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification ofChief Financial Officer**

 

I, Barry C. Kohn, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AftermarketTechnology Corp.;

 

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

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

(a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designated under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  February 18, 2004           |
|-----------------------------------------|
|                                    |
|                                    |
| /s/ Barry C.  Kohn                      |   |
| Barry C.  Kohn, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 29, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF EARNINGS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-02-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                          16,814
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  501,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,573
<INVENTORY>                                    185,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               750,609
<PP&E>                                         335,957
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,067,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          333,704
<BONDS>                                         54,044
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              882
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     670,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,067,283
<SALES>                                      1,977,512
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,977,512
<CGS>                                        1,149,446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,149,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               528,739
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,314
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                301,890
<INCOME-TAX>                                   131,870
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            170,020
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   170,020
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.78
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7061

CHARLES D. IZAC , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. PAUL T. CAMILLETTI , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Elkins

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 2:17

- cv - 00009

- JPB

- MJA )

Submitted : November 19, 2019 Decided: November 22, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Charles D. Izac, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charles D. Izac seeks to app eal the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timel y filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends th e appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The distr ict court’s order was entered on the docket on April 4, 2019 . The notice of appeal was filed on July 18, 2019

. Because Izac failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# FCM Data April 2013

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF April 30,&KFF0000 &K0000002013FROM REPORTS FILED BY June 3,&KFF0000 &K0000002013	&P of &N
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581
Telephone: (202) 418-5000
Facsimile: (202) 418-5521

www.cftc.gov
May 26, 2016
Christian Martin
Chief Executive Officer
TeraExchange, LLC, Tera Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 169

Summit, NJ 07902
Re: Application of TeraExchange, LLC for Registration as a Swap Execution Facility

Dear Mr. Martin:

By submissions dated July 26, 2013 through April 20, 2016, TeraExchange, LLC
(“Tera”) has applied to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”), pursuant
to Section 5h of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7b-3, and Commission Regulation
37.3(b), 17 C.F.R. § 37.3(b), for registration as a swap execution facility (“SEF”),

The Commission has reviewed Tera’s application and has determined to grant Tera
registration as a SEF, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the accompanying Order of
Registration.

Sincerely,

Bekhe |. Debt

Christopher J. |
Secretary of the Commission
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,709
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  318,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (123,097)
<INVENTORY>                                     74,535
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               325,375
<PP&E>                                         776,222
<DEPRECIATION>                               (486,137)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,477,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,463,896
<BONDS>                                      1,179,133
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,684
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,165,058)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,477,970
<SALES>                                      3,651,739
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,651,739
<CGS>                                        2,348,744
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,348,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,658,725
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                80,608
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             212,826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,649,164)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,649,164)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>