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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5405 

To provide for a visitor center for visitors to Yosemite National Park, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2010 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for a visitor center for visitors to Yosemite 

National Park, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK VISITORS CENTER. 

4 (a) ACQUISITION OF LANDS AND INTERESTS IN

5 LANDS.—The Secretary of the Interior may acquire not 

6 more than 18 acres of lands and interests in lands, from 

7 willing sellers only, outside the boundaries of Yosemite 

8 National Park near the junction of highways CA–49 and 

9 CA–140 in the community of Mariposa, California, to proVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:38 May 27, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5405.IH H5405

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5405 IH

1 vide a site or sites for visitor services and administrative 

2 purposes. 

3 (b) PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS FOR VISITOR SERV4 ICES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may use Fed6 eral and other available funds for the design, con7 struction, management, and maintenance of perma8 nent improvements to provide visitor services and 

9 administrative facilities on lands and interests in 

10 lands acquired under subsection (a). 

11 (2) PLANNING.—When planning permanent im12 provements under paragraph (1), the Secretary 

13 may— 

14 (A) partner with Mariposa County on land 

15 use planning related to the lands and interests 

16 in lands acquired under subsection (a); and 

17 (B) consider the feasibility of allowing the 

18 State of California to locate the California 

19 State Mining and Mineral Museum on the lands 

20 and interests in lands acquired under sub21 section (a). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

February 6, 2009 

p0203 

Order 

 

February 6, 2009 

137652 & (53) 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137652 

 COA: 275215 

Washtenaw CC: 05-001189-FH 

DAVID KIRCHER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the August 14, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals 

is considered. The Clerk of the Court is directed to place this case on the April 2009 

session calendar for argument on whether to grant the application or take other 

peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties shall submit supplemental briefs 

within 28 days of the date of this order addressing whether the plain language of MCL 

324.3115(4) requires a determinate sentence of five years for posing a substantial 

endangerment to the public health, safety, or welfare, or whether the inclusion of that 

statute in MCL 777.13c, listing those felonies to which the guidelines for minimum 

sentences apply, requires the imposition of an indeterminate sentence. The parties should 

not submit mere restatements of their application papers. 

 The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense 

Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae, to be filed no later than 

March 25, 2009. Other persons or groups interested in determination of the issue 

presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae, to 

be filed no later than March 25, 2009.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000359

25-SEP-2018

11:05 AM
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 
  





 
 SEE REVERSE FOR IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER INFORMATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS
OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS ORDINARY SHARES CUSIP SPECIMEN FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF ORDINARY SHARES, $0.0001 VALUE PER SHARE, OF Gogoro Inc. transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by attorney upon surrender of this
certificate duly endorsed or assigned. This Certificate and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the Cayman Islands and to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Corporation, as now or as hereafter amended. This
Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 












 



 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were
written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM -as tenants in common TEN ENT -as tenants by the entireties IT TEN -as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common TTEE -trustee under Agreement dated
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- Custodian (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act _ (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY
OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE. Shares of the ordinary shares represented by this certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney, to
transfer the said share on the books of the within-named corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. DATED NOTICE:The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate in every
particular without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. SIGNATURE GUARANTEED:
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 10, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 10, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0521. DEADRAL CATERRO v. LANECIA ATKINS.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

18CV1712
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

COATESVILLE VA MEDICAL CENTER,

Coatesville, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0065

Issued: November 21, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On October 17, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from an April 11, 2022 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0065.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the April 11, 2022 decision was October 8, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until October 17, 2022, more than 180 days after the

April 11, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0065 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained his failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0065, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0065 is dismissed.

Issued: November 21, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0659

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL PAINTER,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Leslie Halligan , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 21 2024

02/21/2024
Case Number: DA 22-0659
#### EARLY R. WILSON, Administrator of the Estate of BUDDY ROSS WILSON, Deceased, v. LAWRENCE LAWSON.

(Filed 13 April, 1966.)

Appeal by defendant from *Walker, S.J.,*October 4, 1965 Civil Session, PERSON Superior Court. ¿

This civil action was instituted by Early R. Wilson, Administrator of Buddy Ross Wilson, to recover damages for his intestate’s wrongful death, allegedly caused by the actionable negligence of the defendant, Lawrence Lawson.

The pleadings and the plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that on the night of August 22, 1964, at about 11:50, plaintiff’s intestate was driving his 1954 Ford south on Highway 501 near Roxboro, slowed down, gave a left turn signal preparatory to entering Highway No. 1205. In making the turn, his Ford was demolished by a 1953 Buick, owned and being driven south by the defendant who attempted to pass on intestate’s left as he was in the act of crossing to enter 1205. Intestate was killed instantly.

The highway patrolman who investigated the accident, testified. “To the north of the intersection ... is a yellow line which indicates a ‘no passing zone.’ ” The defendant crossed this line. The defendant’s Buick left 202 feet of skid marks. A passenger in the Ford said the left turn signal light was blinking at the time the deceased attempted to make the left turn. The impact occurred as the intestate was in the act of completing his entry into the side road.

The defendant, by answer, denied negligence, pleaded the contributory negligence of the plaintiff’s intestate in that he turned left without any sign of such intent. However, the defendant did not offer evidence. The jury answered issues, finding the defendant was guilty of actionable negligence, that the intestate was not guilty of contributory negligence, and fixed the award of damages at $10,000.00. From judgment in accordance with the verdict, the defendant appealed.

*Haywood, Denny & Miller by George W. Miller, Jr., James H. Johnson, III, Donald J. Dorey for plaintiff appellee.*

*Charles B. Wood for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The pleadings raise issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages. The evidence was sufficient to support the issues of defendant’s negligence and the damages to the intestate’s estate. The evidence does not show contributory negli*104gence as a matter of law. The burden of such a showing was on the defendant, which he did not attempt to carry by introducing evidence.

No error.

Moore, J., not sitting.
No. 76-5058.

#### Shadd *v.*United States et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 12.2

INTERSTATE POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
  AND PREFERRED DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS

|                                                    | Three Months          |      
|--------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | -----
|                                                    | Ended March 31,       |      
|                                                    |                       |      
|                                                    | 2007                  | 2006 
|                                                    |                       |      
|                                                    | (dollars in millions)
|EARNINGS:                                           |                       |      
|Net income                                          | $26.8                 | $37.0
|Income taxes                                        | 15.3                  | 9.9  
|                                                    |                       |      
|Income before income taxes                          | 42.1                  | 46.9 
|                                                   
|Fixed charges as defined                            | 16.7                  | 18.0 
|                                                   
|                                                    |                       |      
|Total earnings as defined                           | $58.8                 | $64.9
|                                                    |                       |      
|FIXED CHARGES:                                     
|Interest expense                                    | $16.3                 | $17.5
|Estimated interest component of rent expense        | 0.4                   | 0.5  
|                                                    |                       |      
|Total fixed charges as defined                      | $16.7                 | $18.0
|                                                    |                       |      
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                  | 3.52                  | 3.61 
|                                                    |                       |      
|Preferred dividend requirements (pre-tax basis) (a) | $6.1                  | $4.9 
|                                                    |                       |      
|Fixed charges and preferred dividend requirements   | $22.8                 | $22.9
|                                                    |                       |      
|Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and    
|Preferred Dividend Requirements                     | 2.58                  | 2.83 
|                                                    |                       |      

(a) Preferred dividend requirements (pre-tax basis) are computed by dividing the preferred dividend requirements by one
hundred percent minus the respective year-to-date effective income tax rate.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

Officer’s Certification Pursuant to 

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

(18 U.S.C 1350) 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation, (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), the undersigned, Wm. Stacy Locke, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge: 

(1)    The Report is in full compliance with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: February 25, 2009
Exhibit 32

# 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 Furniture Brands International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W. G. Holliman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| |
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000009725-SEP-201209:39 AM
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40904 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DYLLER IVAN LEMUS

- VASQUEZ, also known as Wilmer Gomez

- Alfaro , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:13

- CR

- 1630

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dyller Ivan Lemus

Vasquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lemus

- Vasquez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 1 6 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40904 Document: 00513080844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015No. 14

- 40904

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. A ccordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-40904 Document: 00513080844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 February 1, 2019

Order 

Clerk

February 1, 2019

153696(77)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 153696

v COA: 325449

Gratiot CC: 14-007061-FH

DAVID ALLEN SNYDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the American Civil Liberties Union of 

Michigan for ten minutes of oral argument that is separate from the time allotted to the 

parties is GRANTED.
# C_2007027EN.01001701.xml

| 7.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4426 — Sabic/Huntsman Petrochemicals UK)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 27/02)

On 20 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32006M4426. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4426. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000053500
<NAME> JETRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                             417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,103
<ALLOWANCES>                                        87
<INVENTORY>                                      7,196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,598
<PP&E>                                           3,903
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,526
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,141
<BONDS>                                          3,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           367
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,611
<SALES>                                         18,085
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,085
<CGS>                                           14,081
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    943
<INCOME-TAX>                                        46
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                897
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       897
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LAN TU TRINH,

Petitioner

v.

KATHLEEN TRINH & LT

INTERNATIONAL BEAUTY SCHOOL INC.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 585 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of June, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal,

Petition for Leave to File Response, and Petition for Leave to Amended Petition for

Allowance of Appeal are DENIED

.