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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1235 

To amend the Federal Power Act to permit States to exempt projects from 

certain Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considerations in issuing 

licenses for such projects. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2013 

Mrs. HARTZLER (for herself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. 

GRAVES of Missouri, and Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Power Act to permit States to exempt 

projects from certain Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considerations in issuing licenses for such 

projects. 

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 ‘‘Leave our Lakes Alone 

5 Act’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1235 IH

1 SEC. 2. STATE DETERMINATION TO EXEMPT PROJECTS 

2 FROM CERTAIN FERC CONSIDERATIONS IN 

3 LICENSING. 

4 Section 4 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797) 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(h)(1) For the purposes of this subsection— 

8 ‘‘(A) the term ‘exempt State’ means a 

9 State for which a State law is in effect that ex10 pressly authorizes paragraph (2) to apply to 

11 projects within the State; and 

12 ‘‘(B) the term ‘public use and environ13 mental purposes’ means the purposes of energy 

14 conservation, the protection, mitigation of dam15 age to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife 

16 (including related spawning grounds and habi17 tat), the protection of recreational opportuni18 ties, the preservation of other aspects of envi19 ronmental quality, and other beneficial public 

20 uses, including irrigation, flood control, water 

21 supply, and other purposes, as required under 

22 subsection (e) and section 10(a), as such pur23 poses apply to land within the project boundary 

24 that is above the highest target elevation for 

25 normal operations of the project. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1235 IH

1 ‘‘(2) Notwithstanding subsection (e) and sections 

2 10(a) and 28, the Commission may not consider public 

3 use and environmental purposes in issuing a license for 

4 a project in an exempt State. 

5 ‘‘(3) If a State law described in paragraph (1)(A) is 

6 no longer in effect, paragraph (2) shall continue to apply 

7 to any project in the State for which a license was issued 

8 while such law was in effect. 

9 ‘‘(4) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to any project or 

10 portion of a project on Federal land.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
31.2





CERTIFICATIONS





I,
Robert A. Hildebrand, certify that:





1.   I
have reviewed the report being filed on Form 10-QSB/A amendment number 1 by
Green Energy Holding Corp.





2.   Based
on my knowledge, the 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 the report;





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





4.   I
and the other certifying officer are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in
Regulation 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for Green Energy
Holding Corp.and have:


i.   Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that  material
information relating to Green Energy Holding Corp. including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within  those entities,
particularly during the  period in which the periodic reports are
being prepared;
 
 ii.  Evaluated
the effectiveness of Green Energy Holding Corp.'s disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the
report ("Evaluation Date"); and
 
 iii.
Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;
 
 5.   I
and the other certifying officer have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the Green Energy Holding Corp. auditors and the audit committee
of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
function):
 
 i.   All
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect Green Energy Holding Corp.'s  ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified Green
Energy Holding Corp.'s auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and
 
 ii.  Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the issuer's internal controls; and
 
 6.   I
and the other certifying officer have indicated in the report whether or not
there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: May
13, 2008


/s/ Robert A.
Hildebrand


Robert A. Hildebrand,


Chief Financial Officer
Amendment to Agreement between the Company and Robert S. Evans



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT (the
“Amendment”) is made as of this 27th day of
February, 2012, by and between Crane Co., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Robert S. Evans (“Mr. Evans”). 
 WHEREAS, Mr. Evans currently serves as non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, and in such capacity receives compensation in accordance with an Agreement with the Company
dated January 24, 2011 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, under the Agreement, Mr. Evans does not currently
participate in the Company’s 2009 Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, in lieu
of certain cash compensation otherwise contemplated by the Agreement, the Plan has been amended to provide for an annual retainer for the Chairman of the Board, in the form of cash and “Deferred Stock Units” under the Plan, in an amount
established by the Board from time (initially set at $225,000), all effective as of the 2012 annual meeting of stockholders of the Company; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein to coordinate with the amendment to the Plan described above; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree
that the Agreement is amended effective as of the date of the 2012 annual meeting of stockholders of the Company as follows: 

1. Section 3(a) of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: 

“(a) Fees. For his service as Chairman, Mr. Evans shall receive an annual retainer in the amount and
form as provided by Section 11 of the Company’s 2009 Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan, as in effect from time to time. Such annual retainer shall be reviewed annually by the Management Organization and Compensation Committee.”

 2. Except as expressly or by necessary implication amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by authority of its Board of Directors, and
Mr. Evans has hereunto set his hand, on the day and year first above written. 
  

							
		 		 	CRANE CO.
		 		 		 	
	 /s/ Robert S. Evans
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Augustus I. duPont

	Robert S. Evans	 		 		 	
		 		 	Title:	 	 Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
Teresa Ann WATERS, Petitioner, v. Ken PAXTON, Attorney General of Texas, et al.

No. 19-1036.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
James M. FERGUSON, Petitioner v. Pelicia E. HALL, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 18-9093

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
CONSENT TO CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT ARRANGEMENTS

Dear Massoud:

         This letter agreement is made as of the 15th day of July, 2003, with
Massoud Sedigh ("Employee").

         Reference is made to your offer letter of April 30, 2003. This letter
confirms that you will be granted options for a total of 102,500 shares of
common stock of Pinnacle Holdings, Inc., parent of Pinnacle Towers, Inc., or .5%
of the outstanding common shares of Pinnacle Holdings, Inc. on April 30, 2003.
Half of these will be $10 Shares and half will be $20 Shares, as described in
your offer letter.

         This letter also contains your agreement that the vesting schedule set
forth in your option agreement will provide that your options vest 30% on
December 31, 2003, 30% on December 31, 2004 and 40% on December 31, 2005.

         You acknowledge that you have not entered into any separate agreement
with any Pinnacle entity which provides for a different number of options or for
vesting terms in respect of your options, whether conditioned upon the
occurrence of any event relating to the Company or the Employee or otherwise.

                                                  Sincerely


                                                  /s/ David Grain
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  David Grain
                                                  President
                                                  Pinnacle Holdings, Inc.


                                                  ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:


                                                  /s/ Massoud Sedigh
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Massoud Sedigh
IN RE Charles Russell RHINES, Petitioner.

No. 19-6479 (19A484)

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

*489Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Gorsuch and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000873637
<NAME> Pacific Portfolio
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER>004
   <NAME>Smith Barney World Funds, Inc.

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Oct-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                      Oct-31-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>               6,103,413
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>              6,202,575
<RECEIVABLES>                         373,401
<ASSETS-OTHER>                        581,017
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      7,156,993
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                    0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>             871,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                   871,656
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                             0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>            8,849,158
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                 308,082
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                 388,293
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                   0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                      0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>            (2,657,616)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                    0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>               93,795
<NET-ASSETS>                        6,285,337
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                      36,133
<INTEREST-INCOME>                      35,628
<OTHER-INCOME>                              0
<EXPENSES-NET>                        230,127
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>              (158,366)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>              884,677
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>          (4,452,061)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>              (3,725,750)
<EQUALIZATION>                              0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>              20,478
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                    0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                       0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>               722,885
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>           804,676
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     1,580
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>             (6,628,414)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>              (134,587)
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>          (3,404,226)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                     0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                  0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                  99,188
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                       321,196
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                3,444,786
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                  11.270
<PER-SHARE-NII>                        (0.180)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                (3.940)
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0.060
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0.000
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0.000
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                     7.440
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                          2.25



</TABLE>
Steven A. ADAMS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6748

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Leslie E. THOMAS, Petitioner v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNION COUNTY

No. 18-9203

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00298-CV

NO. 02-17-00300-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M., 

A CHILD

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

FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NOS. 323-103401-16, 323-105593-17

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellants’ “Verified Joint Motion to Set Aside Trial 

Court’s Judgment[s] and Remand Based on Settlement Agreement.” It is the 

court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, in accordance with 

rule 42.1(a)(2)(B), we set aside the trial court’s August 22, 2017 orders without 

regard to the merits and remand these cases to the trial court to render 

judgments in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.

2

 See Tex. R. 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2Based on our disposition of the parties’ joint motion, the Department of 

Family and Protective Services’s request to stay its briefing deadline is denied as 

moot.
2

App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B); Innovative Office Sys., Inc. v. Johnson, 911 S.W.2d 387, 

388 (Tex. 1995).

Costs of these appeals shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for 

which let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. 

DELIVERED: December 7, 2017
Timothy Alan MARR, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 19M86

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
James D. TENCH, Petitioner v. OHIO.

No. 18-9579

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY GLENN HESTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

GB CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Limited 

Liability Corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-55125 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00912-WQHAGS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jeffrey Glenn Heston appeals pro se from the district court’s January 5, 2018 

post-judgment order denying relief from its order granting defendant’s motion to 

compel arbitration and dismissing Heston’s action. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 

 

* 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

AUG 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-55125 

Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We 

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Heston’s motion 

for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because 

Heston failed to set forth any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds 

for relief under Rule 60(b)).

We do not consider the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to 

compel arbitration and dismissing the action, or the December 15, 2016 order

denying Heston’s motion for relief, because the notice of appeal is untimely as to 

those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (a motion under Rule 60(b) extends 

the time to file an appeal if the motion is filed no later than 28 days after judgment 

is entered); Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 138 S. Ct. 13, 17-18 (2017) (a 

time limit not prescribed by Congress is a mandatory claim-processing rule and if 

properly invoked, mandatory claim-processing rules must be enforced); Demaree 

v. Pederson, 887 F.3d 870, 876 (9th Cir. 2018) (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) is a 

mandatory claim-processing rule under Hamer).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 24, 2011 

p0516 

Order 

 

May 24, 2011 

142678 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142678 

 COA: 301373 

Berrien CC: 2010-015004-FH 

PAUL WAYNE LESNIAK, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2011 

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.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6662** 

RONALD G. WHITESIDE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. SCOTLAND COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Wallace W. Dixon , Magistrate Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00386

- WWD

- WWD )

Submitted : August 15, 2011 Decided: September 20, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ronald G. Whiteside, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronald G. Whiteside s eeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition , finding it was untimely, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (2006), and denying a post

- judgment motion seeking to “address the limit
. ” *

* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). The order is not appealable u nless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When relief is denied on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the magistrate judge’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When relief is denied on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the deni al of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Whiteside has not made the requisite showing.3 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper is, deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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.
DIS MISSED
# C_2018103EN.01000501.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/5

---

Special Report No 10/2018

‘Basic Payment Scheme for farmers — operationally on track, but limited impact on simplification, targeting and the convergence of aid levels’

(2018/C 103/06)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 10/2018 ‘Basic Payment Scheme for farmers — operationally on track, but limited impact on simplification, targeting and the convergence of aid levels’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

---