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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4012 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or 

reproducible. 

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


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4012 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Secret Science Reform 

3 Act of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DATA TRANSPARENCY. 

5 Section 6(b) of the Environmental Research, Devel6 opment, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 

7 (42 U.S.C. 4363 note) is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, 

9 or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and 

10 technical information relied on to support such covered ac11 tion is— 

12 ‘‘(A) specifically identified; and 

13 ‘‘(B) publicly available online in a manner that 

14 is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial 

15 reproduction of research results. 

16 ‘‘(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as 

17 requiring the public dissemination of information the dis18 closure of which is prohibited by law. 

19 ‘‘(3) In this subsection— 

20 ‘‘(A) the term ‘covered action’ means a risk, ex21 posure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, 

22 standard, limitation, regulation, regulatory impact 

23 analysis, or guidance; and 

24 ‘‘(B) the term ‘scientific and technical informa25 tion’ includes— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4012 RFS

1 ‘‘(i) materials, data, and associated proto2 cols necessary to understand, assess, and ex3 tend conclusions; 

4 ‘‘(ii) computer codes and models involved 

5 in the creation and analysis of such informa6 tion; 

7 ‘‘(iii) recorded factual materials; and 

8 ‘‘(iv) detailed descriptions of how to access 

9 and use such information.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 19, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
State of North Carolina v. Michael Ray Trull

No. 618P02-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

*334Mr. Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Attorney at Law, Southern Pines, For Trull, Michael Ray

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Ervin, J.

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th of August 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Cabarrus County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. JAMES EARL HINNANT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00185-D) Submitted: June 30, 2008 Decided: July 10, 2008 Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Mark Brannon, HAIRSTON, LANE, BRANNON, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George Edward Bell Holding, United States Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Earl Hinnant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum for an armed career criminal--180 months. On appeal, his attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and the failure of the district court to impose a variance sentence. Although informed of his right to do so, Hinnant has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Our review of the record shows that Hinnant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and taken in compliance with Rule 11. Regarding his sentence, Hinnant was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum. Absent an appropriate motion by the Government which was not made in this case, the district court lacked the authority to sentence Hinnant below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. SeeUnited States v. Allen , 450 F.3d 565, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2006). Thus, it was not within the district court’s discretion to impose a variance sentence. In accordance with Anders , we have independently reviewed the record in the case and found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for- 3 - further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately present ed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
     I, Robert W. Zoller, Jr., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;
 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and
 (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        August 12, 2004 By:  /s/ ROBERT W. ZOLLER, JR.    Robert W. Zoller, Jr.    Chief Executive Officer and President
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 Develocap, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nguyen Van Thong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company,  Date: September 14, 2009/s/ Nguyen Van ThongNguyen Van Thong
Chief Financial Officer
# CE2004078EN.01050702.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/507 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/507

---

(2004/C 78 E/0528)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3284/03

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Overbooking on Air France's flights

Subject:

Does the Commission consider it unfair and/or unethical commercial practice for airlines to deny access to passengers who have bought a valid ticket, and will it formally enquire into Air France's regular and consistent policy of overbooking on some of its flights from Newcastle?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

(16 December 2003)

The Commission is aware of the general frequency of the practice of denied boarding (about one out of one thousand passengers are affected) although it does not possess information on specific flights, such as those of Air France from Newcastle.

The Commission accepts that denial of boarding should be tolerated only with compensation and assistance for passengers prevented from flying. In 1991 the Community adopted Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1), which obliges air carriers denying boarding at airports in Member States to give passengers financial compensation, the choice between a refund and an alternative flight and meals and hotel accommodation, as appropriate. This was the Community's first step in the protection of passengers.

1

Ten years later, the Commission reviewed the situation and concluded that the frequency of denied boarding remained too high — around 250 000 passengers where affected each year — and should be reduced. It, therefore, proposed in 2001 a new Regulation (2) designed to cut the frequency of denied boarding. This would oblige air carriers, when expecting to deny boarding, to seek volunteers to give up their reservations in exchange for benefits. Only if too few volunteers came forward, would airlines be allowed to deny passengers boarding against their will. If they did so, they would have to compensate them at an increased rate and assist them as under the present Regulation. This should lead to a considerable fall in the number of passengers denied boarding.

2

The new regulation would also create rights for passengers whose flights are cancelled or subject to long delays and would cover non-scheduled (charter) flights as well as scheduled flights.

The Commission strongly hopes that the Parliament will vote for the compromise of the Conciliation Committee on this proposal.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport, OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.

1

(2)  OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

2

---
**Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 April 2008 – Club Náutico de Gran Canaria v Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias**

**(Case C‐186/07)**

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Services connected with the practice of sport or physical education – Application to the Canary Islands – Purely internal situation – Referral – Manifest inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Sixth Directive – Territorial scope (Council Directive 77/388) (see para. 18)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias – Interpretation of the judgment of the Court in Case C‐124/96 which found that national legislation placing restrictions on exemption from VAT of certain services closely connected with the practice of sport or physical education is incompatible with Article 13A(1)(m) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Application to the Canary Islands. |

**Operative part:**

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias by decision of 26 November 2006
is inadmissible.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEETS AND RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             287
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     22,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,427
<PP&E>                                          24,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,902
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,002
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,914
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,557
<SALES>                                         50,087
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,087
<CGS>                                           43,490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 273
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,984
<INCOME-TAX>                                       794
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,190
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
1

... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CI-07624, styled In re Z.G.J., J.E.J., and J.S.J., pending in

the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Martha Tanner presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00499-CV

IN RE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES

and Commissioner Carey D. Cockrell

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 24, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and Commissioner Carey

Cockrell have filed a motion to dismiss their petition for writ of mandamus. We grant the motion

and dismiss the petition.

Karen Angelini, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,022
<SECURITIES>                                     7,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                       595
<INVENTORY>                                     10,635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,315
<PP&E>                                          25,758
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,214
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,448
<SALES>                                         56,317
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,317
<CGS>                                           36,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,173
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   595
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  59
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,413
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,422
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,991
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,991
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.56<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.54
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008107EN.01002502.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Suez v OHIM

(Case T-128/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Delivering the essentials of life - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 107/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Suez (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Combeau and D. Régnier, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2007 (Case R 811/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the mark Delivering the essentials of life as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Suez to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Suez to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4006 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4006

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require households that 
     receive supplemental nutrition assistance benefits to present 
   photographic verification at the time food is purchased with such 
                               benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2014

  Mr. Salmon (for himself, Mr. Posey, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Kingston, Mr. 
 Cramer, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Gosar, Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. 
 Smith of Missouri, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, and Mr. Franks of Arizona) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                              Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require households that 
     receive supplemental nutrition assistance benefits to present 
   photographic verification at the time food is purchased with such 
                               benefits.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``SNAP Verify Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PHOTOGRAPHIC VERIFICATION FOR SNAP TRANSACTIONS.

    Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(v) Photographic Verification for SNAP Transactions.--Not later 
than 3 years after the effective date of this subsection, the State 
agency shall require any member of a household, or any representative 
of the household, authorized to use an electronic benefit card to 
present photographic identification at the time such member or such 
representative presents the electronic benefit card to perform a 
transaction.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.

    (a) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendment made by this Act 
shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st month that begins not less 
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by this Act shall 
not apply with respect to certification periods that begin before the 
effective date of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
In the Matter of: K.B. and L.R.

No. COA16-155

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

VACATED AND REMANDED.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Alphonson Damon Malone v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00054

- CR

Trial court case number: 1899612

Trial court: Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 8 of Harris County



### The reporter’s record in this case was due February 4, 2014

. See T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P.

35.1. On February 26, 2014 , this court granted Sondra Humphrey, the court reporter, an

extension of time for filing the record to April 4, 2014, with no further extensions . The

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed

timely, we issue the following order.

We ORDER Sondra Humphrey, the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file

the record in this appeal, if any, within 20 day s of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 13, 2014