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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1107 

To provide for the establishment of a grant program to assist State and 

local governments to install solar energy systems. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2013 

Mr. MCNERNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for the establishment of a grant program to 

assist State and local governments to install solar energy 

systems. 

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 ‘‘Solar Energy Deploy5 ment Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) QUALIFYING SOLAR EQUIPMENT.—The 

9 term ‘‘qualifying solar equipment’’ means property 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1107 IH

1 described in clause (i) or (ii) of section 48(a)(3)(A) 

2 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

3 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

4 the Secretary of Energy. 

5 (3) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.—The 

6 term ‘‘State and local governments’’ includes mu7 nicipalities, counties, transit agencies, school dis8 tricts, water districts, Indian tribes, and territories. 

9 Such term does not include an entity eligible for a 

10 credit allowed under section 48 of the Internal Rev11 enue Code of 1986 with respect to qualifying solar 

12 equipment. 

13 SEC. 3. SOLAR ENERGY GRANT PROGRAM. 

14 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish 

15 a program to award grants, on a competitive basis, to 

16 State and local governments for the design, purchase, and 

17 installation of qualifying solar equipment on rooftops or 

18 parking structures owned by the State or local govern19 ment. 

20 (b) COMPETITIVE CRITERIA.—In determining which 

21 State and local governments to award grants to under this 

22 section, the Secretary shall consider— 

23 (1) the speed with which solar energy systems 

24 can be deployed; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1107 IH

1 (2) the total amount of solar energy to be de2 ployed; 

3 (3) the financial need of the State or local gov4 ernment; 

5 (4) the use of best practices to ensure max6 imum efficiency of deployed systems; 

7 (5) the use of materials and components that 

8 are manufactured in the United States; and 

9 (6) other criteria the Secretary considers rel10 evant. 

11 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

12 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Sec13 retary for carrying out this Act $150,000,000 for each of 

14 the fiscal years 2014 through 2018. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Curtis Lee SHEPPARD, Jr., Petitioner v. TEXAS

Curtis Lee Sheppard, Jr., Petitioner v. Texas

No. 19-5664

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
J

- S06001

- 15

NON

- PRE CE DENTIAL DECISION

– SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOSEPH L. MILLER

Appellant No. 3014 EDA 2012

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 21, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of P hiladelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0501021

- 2004

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZA RUS, J., and FITZGERALD, J. *

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2015

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the trial court’s statement of

reasons did not sup port its decision to revoke Appellant’s probation in light

of the record. Instantly, the trial court emphasized that it revoked

Appellant’s probation for his failure to save money for a required polygraph

test. See Trial Ct. Op., 7/17/13, at 2 n.1. 1 How ever, the record established

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Appellant also admitted to being in the p resence of minor children while staying at his mother’s home. However, the trial court did not revoke Appellant’s probation for that reason. See Trial Ct. Op. at 2 n.1. Moreover, the Probation Department did not seek revocation of Appellant’s probation after that incident, but rather afforded him “roughly five months,” from February 2012 to June 2012, to save money for a polygraph test, which he

failed to do. See N.T., 7/20/12, at 6. The trial court also observedJ

- S06001

- 15

- 2

-

that Appellant lived at his mother’s home, his annual income was $205 per

month, and the required test cost $305. 2 Although the court suggested

Appellant had ample time to save, but refused to do so, I believe Appellant

establ ished a prima facie case of indigence that should have been addressed

before the trial court revoked his probation based on a willful failure to save

or pay for a required test. See generally Commonwealth v. Eggers , 742

A.2d 174, 176 (Pa. Super. 1999); se e also Miller v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. &

Parole , 784 A.2d 246, 249 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). Therefore, I would remand

this matter for a new revocation hearing.

Appellant also had some nineteen months

— from his 2010 violation of probation to June 2012

— to save for a test.

2 Based on the present record Appellant’s average daily income was $6.74. Although there was some indication that Appellant’s mother planned to assist him financially before her death in May of 2012, neither party developed a record regarding this possible assistance or income, or other financial support Appellant may have had.
Jimmy Lee SHARBUTT, Petitioner v. N. VASQUEZ, Warden

No. 19M72

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
DAVINCI AIRCRAFT, INC., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 19-217

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss.
      1350**





**(SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)**





I,
      Li Chi
      Yuen, Chief Financial Officer of China-Biotics, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report
      on
      Form10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 of the Registrant (the
      "Report"):





(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.





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








/s/
      Li
      Chi Yuen


____________________________


Li
      Chi
      Yuen


Chief
      Financial Officer


November
      13, 2007
# C_2018137EN.01000101.xml

| 19.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8848 — Cathay Capital Private Equity/Equistone Partners Europe/E. Winkemann)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 137/01)

On 6 April 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8848. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8848. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Lena LASHER, Petitioner v. Roger STAVIS, et al.

No. 19-5914

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
SMITH BARNEY ADJUSTABLE RATE GOVERNMENT INCOME FUND 

Supplement dated March 3, 1997
to the Prospectus dated September 30, 1996

The following information supplements, and to the extent inconsistent 
therewith, supersedes, the information in the Prospectus under:  

						

Class Y Shares.         	Effective immediately Class Y Shares are no 
longer available for purchase.

FD 01275         3/97

G:\FUNDS\ARMS\1997\SECDOCS\YSTICKER.DOC
Edward Faye PARKS, Petitioner, v. Bruno STOLC, Warden, et al.

No. 18-9528

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States *320Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Saquawn HARRIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5848

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
Royce C. GOUVEIA, Petitioner, v. Nolan ESPINDA, Director, Hawaii Department of Public Safety, et al.

No. 19-6528

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000873637
<NAME> European Portfolio
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER>003
   <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>              60,118,782
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>             97,980,281
<RECEIVABLES>                       2,973,861
<ASSETS-OTHER>                     12,931,600
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    113,885,742
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                    0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          13,221,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                13,221,036
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                             0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>           56,718,579
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>               1,513,790
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>               1,721,224
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                   0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                      0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>             6,086,897
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                    0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>           37,859,230
<NET-ASSETS>                      100,664,706
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                   1,226,392
<INTEREST-INCOME>                     188,064
<OTHER-INCOME>                              0
<EXPENSES-NET>                      1,961,302
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>              (546,846)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>            6,634,890
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>          12,866,643
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>              18,954,687
<EQUALIZATION>                              0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                   0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>            1,886,216
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                       0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>               658,332
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>           937,017
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                    71,251
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>             19,547,108
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                     0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>           4,139,408
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                     0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                  0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                 906,567
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                     1,961,302
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>               42,686,533
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                  21.830
<PER-SHARE-NII>                        (0.240)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 3.960
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0.000
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               1.130
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0.000
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                    24.420
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                          2.31



</TABLE>
We, the undersigned, hereby severally constitute and appoint Heath
B. McLendon, Christina T. Sydor, Lewis E. Daidone and Michael
Kocur and each of them individually, our true and lawful
attorneys, with full power to them and each of them to sign for
us, and in our hands and in the capacities indicated below, any
and all Registration Statements on behalf of the Smith Barney
Investment Trust including any and all Amendments thereto and to
file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting
unto said attorneys and each of them, acting alone, full authority
and power to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite
or necessary to be done in the premises, as fully to all intents
and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorneys or any of them may lawfully
do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.

	WITNESS our hands on the date set forth below.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, this Power of Attorney has been signed below by the
following persons in the capacities and as of the dates indicated.


Signature:



Title:

Date:
/s/ Heath B. McLendon

Chairman of the
Board

July 12, 2000
Heath B. McLendon

(Chief Executive
Officer)




/s/ Lewis E. Daidone

Senior Vice
President and

July 12, 2000
Lewis E. Daidone

Treasurer (Chief
Financial




and Accounting
Officer)





Signature:



Title:

Date:
/s/ Herbert Barg

Trustee

July 12, 2000
Herbert Barg






/s/ Alfred J.
Bianchetti

Trustee

July 12, 2000
Alfred J. Bianchetti






/s/ Martin Brody

Trustee

July 12, 2000
Martin Brody






/s/ Dwight B. Crane

Trustee

July 12, 2000
Dwight B. Crane






/s/ Burt N. Dorsett

Trustee

July 12, 2000
Burt N. Dorsett






/s/ Elliot S. Jaffe

Trustee

July 12, 2000
Elliot S. Jaffe






/s/ Stephen E.
Kaufman

Trustee

July 12, 2000
Stephen E. Kaufman






/s/ Joseph J. McCann

Trustee

July 12, 2000
Joseph J. McCann






/s/ Cornelius C.
Rose, Jr.

Trustee

July 12, 2000
Cornelius C. Rose,
Jr.
Rodney BANKS, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 19-7474.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Rita GUERRERO, Individually and as the Special Administrator of the Estate of Celso N. Guerrero, Petitioner, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY.

No. 19-625

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.
Antonio TILLMON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9461

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 07, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Section 1350 Certification





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atomic Paintball, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Don Mark Dominey, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial and accounting officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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 conditions and results of operations of the Company.Dated: May 12, 2011

/s/Don Mark Dominey

Don Mark Dominey, Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer, principal financial and accounting officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Official Journal C 323/12 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 323 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6112 September 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 323

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6112 September 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | |
| 2018/C 323/01 | Note to readers | 1 |

Contents

page

2018/C 323/01

Note to readers

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2018/C 323/02 | Annual accounts of the European Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017 | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Auditors

2018/C 323/02

Annual accounts of the European Court of Auditors for the financial year 2017

2

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Phillip JONES, Petitioner v. OHIO.

No. 19-6061

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Summit County denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CertificatePursuant to Rule 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I, Diana S. Ferguson,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report of Merisant Company (“the registrant”);

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material 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 financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

# (a)                                  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

# (b)                                 Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

# (c)                                  Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

# 5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

# (a)                                  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

# (b)                                 Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: November 13,2007
|   |   | /s/ Diana S. Ferguson          |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   | Name: Diana S. Ferguson        |
|   |   | Title: Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2174

In re: KEVIN A. BAKER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:06-cr-00219-REP-1)

Submitted: January 4, 2022 Decided: January 10, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin A. Baker, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2174 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/10/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin A. Baker petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has 

unduly delayed acting on his motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First 

Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. He seeks an order from this court 

directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the 

district court has granted Baker’s motion. Accordingly, because the district court has 

recently decided Baker’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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. 

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2174 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/10/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Independent Auditors' Consent

                             

To the Shareholders and Directors of the
Smith Barney Municipals Fund, Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated February 2,
1996 incorporated herein by reference and to the
references to our Firm under the headings "Financial
Highlights" in the Prospectus.
                                        KPMG Peat
Marwick LLP
New York, New York
March 21, 1996