alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-1018 September Term, 2023

FERC-ER21-1111-002

FERC-ER21-1111-003

FERC-ER21-1111-005

FERC-ER21-1115-000

FERC-ER21-1115-003

Filed On: September 19, 2023

Advanced Energy United, Inc., et al.,

Petitioners

v.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Respondent

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

Alabama Power Company, et al.,

Intervenors

BEFORE: Wilkins and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Tatel, Senior Circuit Judge

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s unopposed

motion for clarification of the July 14, 2023 opinion in this case, it is

ORDERED that the motion be granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion issued July 14, 2023, be amended as

follows:

(1) Slip. op., Page 22:

Delete: “The plain text of Section 205 gave the Commission 60 days to act after

Intervenors submitted the final SEEM Proposal filing on August 11, 2021. Accordingly,

the final date for FERC to act on the SEEM Proposal was October 10, 2021.”
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-1018 September Term, 2023

Insert in lieu thereof: “Under FERC’s construction of section 205(d), the last day

the Commission could have issued an order on the SEEM Proposal was October 11,

2021, the day before the proposed effective date.”

(2) Slip. op., Page 22:

Delete: “of [the October 10, 2021] order.”

Insert in lieu thereof: “of [the October 11, 2021] order.”

(3) Slip. op., Page 22:

Delete: “Thirty days from October 10, 2021, was Tuesday, November 9, 2021.”

Insert in lieu thereof: “Thirty days from October 11, 2021, was Wednesday,

November 10, 2021.”

(4) Slip op., page 23:

Delete: “October 10, 2021—originally fell on a Sunday, and the following day—”

The Clerk is directed to issue the amended opinion.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-102605) pertaining to securities offeredunder the Employee Stock Option Plan of United Microelectronics Corporation of our report dated June 10, 2005, except for note 33 as to which the date is February 9, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of UnitedMicroelectronics Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F/A) for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ Diwan, Ernst & Young 

 

Diwan, Ernst & Young 

 

Taipei, Taiwan, 

 

Republic of China 

 

February 13, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1617 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1617

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 561 Kingsland Avenue in University City, Missouri, as the ``Harriett 
                    F. Woods Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2007

 Mr. Carnahan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 561 Kingsland Avenue in University City, Missouri, as the ``Harriett 
                    F. Woods Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRIETT F. WOODS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 561 Kingsland Avenue in University City, Missouri, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Harriett F. Woods Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harriett 
F. Woods Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard GREEN.

No. 2011-KK-0534.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Green, Richard; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *111Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 493-807; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0073.

Denied.
#### J. F. Baumbach v. H. J. Cook.

(No. 1555.)

January 26, 1884.

Appeal from Fayette County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 100. *Appeal bond; competency of surety upon.*0. sued J. F. B. and G. B. in justice’s court, and recovered judgment against J. F. B. only — recovering nothing against G. B. J. F. B. appealed to the county court, giving as sureties upon his appeal bond the said G. B. and another person. *Held,*that G. B., being no longer a party to the suit, and no appeal being taken from the judgment in his favor, he was a competent surety upon the appeal bond of J. F. B., and that the county court erred in holding otherwise and dismissing the appeal.

Reversed and remanded.
CERTIFICATIONS

We, Julin Mao, Chief Executive Officer and Dexter Fong, Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Systems Control Technology, Inc., certify that:

1. We have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pacific Systems Control Technology, Inc.;

2. Based on our knowledge, this annual 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 this
annual report;

3. Based on our knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying Officers and we are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have;

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as pf the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and we have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and we have indicated in this
annual 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: April 14, 2003

/s/ Julin Mao
Julin Mao
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Dexter Fong
Dexter Fong
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       DON'T LET REPUBLICANS SLAM THE DOOR SHUT ON STAFFORD LOANS

  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition 
to the Republican budget proposal as it specifically relates to higher 
education. Yesterday, I talked about cuts in our elementary and 
secondary education funds that will hurt our children in public 
schools. Today, I am going to talk about the House proposal that will 
increase college costs for 4.5 million college students by eliminating 
the in-school interest subsidy on Stafford loans. Families who rely on 
Stafford student loans would pay up to $3,000 more for the cost of a 
college education.
  These extra costs could put a college education out of reach for many 
young people in my district. I have a picture here of a young lady, 
Yuroba Harris. Yuroba is an honor student at the University of Houston. 
In order to earn extra money for books and tuition, she works in my 
district office part time, serving the constituents of the 29th 
District in Houston, TX.
  Elimination of the in-school interest subsidy could put college out 
of reach for a lot of young people like Yuroba and other middle-class 
and poor young people all over my district. There is an old proverb: 
Give a person a fish and they will eat today. Teach them to fish and 
they will eat for a lifetime. Let us not cut education. Let us make 
sure they can eat for a lifetime.

                          ____________________
```
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R OB IN KASI PAW LAK,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50466

D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00448-R -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2019 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, FISHER , *** and C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED
AUG 30 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble D. M ic h a e l Fishe r, Unite d Stat e s C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Third C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.R obin Pa wla k a ppe a ls he r se ve nty -two m onth se nte nc e following her guilty ple a s to onec ount of ba

nk robbe ry

and one c ount of c o nspira c y to c om m it ba nk robbe ry . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd we a ffirm
. 1 Although she

re c e ive d a be low guide line s se nte nc e , Pawla k a rgue s tha t the distric t c o urt c om

m itte d re ve rsible proc e d

ura l e rror by

fa iling to c a lc ulate the guide l ine range be fore it im pose d he r se nte nc e . Pawla k did not obje c t at

the tim e of se n te nc ing, so were vie w for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . W ak nine , 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th C ir. 2008). The gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t the distric t c ourt pla inly e rre d in fa iling to
c a lc ulat e the guide l ine s, se e Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba

nc ), but c onte nds tha

t Pa wla k fa ils to e sta

blish a ny pre j udic e re sulting from the distric t c ourt’ s e rror. W e a gre e . It is Pa wla k’ s burde n to “ de m onstra te ‘ a re a s ona ble proba bility tha t [she ] would ha ve re c e i v e d a

diffe re nt se nte nc e ’ if the distric t c ourt ha d not e rre d.” Unite d State s v . Varge m , 747 F.3d 724, 728 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting Unite d State s
v . Tapia , 665 F.3d 1059, 1061 (9th C ir. 2011)). He re , Pawla k doe s not dispute

the
a c c ura c y of the pre -se nte nc e re port’ s guide l ine c a lc ulation, a nd she re c e i ve d a

1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s a

nd re c ord; we re c ite the m only a s ne c e ssa

ry to re solve Pawla

k’ s a ppe a l
. 2se nte nc e tha t wa s twe lve m onths be low the low e n d of tha t ra n ge . On the se fa c ts, Pawla k ha s not e sta

blishe d the re quisitepre

j udic e to m e rit va c at

ur of he r se nte nc e . AFFIRM E D.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-06-1998
<CASH>                                              50
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,383
<ALLOWANCES>                                        92
<INVENTORY>                                     26,710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,162
<PP&E>                                          11,753
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,784
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,533
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,899
<CGS>                                           18,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,239
<INCOME-TAX>                                       486
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                753
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       753
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. S. D. Ritter.

(No. 6705.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

J. W. Terry and Alexander & Clark, counsel for appellant.

Robertson & Coke, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 148. *Railroad companies; hilling stoch; evidence must show injury to have resulted by actual contact with train.*This appeal is from a judgment recovered by appellee against appellant for $500, the value of a horse alleged to have been killed by a train of appellant. We think the evidence does not warrant the judgment. To authorize a recovery it devolved upon appellee to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the injury to the horse resulted from an actual contact with him of the appellant’s train. If the horse'ran'upon the bridge and fell off it, and thus received the injuries which resulted in his death, appellee is not entitled to recover. A preponderance of the evidence, in our opinion, makes it probable that it was in such way that the horse was in*213jured. It certainly was not satisfactorily proved that the horse was struck by appellant’s train, but, on the contrary, the engineers of all the- trains that passed over the road at the place where the horse was injured, on the day of the injury, testified positively that their trains did not strike him. [3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 224.] We do not think any .error was committed in the admission of the testimony objected to, nor in awarding interest on the amount of damage.s. Because the verdict and judgment are not supported by the evidence the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

June 25, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
Sixth Amendment to Amended and Restated PCS Services Agreement


 Exhibit 10.1 
 Sixth Amendment to Amended and Restated PCS Services Agreement 
 Between Sprint Spectrum L.P. and
Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. 
 This Sixth Amendment (“Sixth Amendment”) is made to that certain Amended and Restated PCS Services Agreement between
Sprint Spectrum L.P. (“Sprint PCS”) and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (formerly Virgin Mobile USA, LLC) (“VMU”) dated October 16, 2007, as amended, (the “PCS Services Agreement”). Capitalized terms not
defined in this Sixth Amendment are defined in the PCS Services Agreement. 
  

	1.	Schedule 1.0 of the PCS Services Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Schedule 1.0 attached to this Sixth Amendment. 

  

	2.	Except as specifically provided above, the PCS Services Agreement remains in effect in accordance with its terms. 

 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have executed this Sixth Amendment as of the dates indicated below. 
  

									
	SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.	  		  	 VIRGIN MOBILE USA, L.P. (formerly Virgin
 Mobile USA, LLC)

					
	By:	  	/James D. Patterson/	  		  	By:	  	/Daniel H. Schulman/
					
	Name:	  	James D. Patterson	  		  	Name:	  	Daniel H. Schulman
					
	Title:	  	President Wholesale	  		  	Title:	  	Chief Executive Officer
					
	Date:	  	12/22/2008	  		  	Date:	  	12/22/2008

 Sprint PCS / Virgin Mobile USA Confidential Information 
  

 1 







 Schedule 1.0 
 PCS Service Pricing 
 ***
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                             AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO
                                ROCK-TENN COMPANY
                        1993 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
               (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1998)

         Pursuant to the power reserved in Section 17 of the Rock-Tenn Company
1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (as amended and restated effective January 1,
1998), Rock-Tenn Company hereby amends Section 5 of the Plan to read as follows:

                  "Stock Available for Options.

                  One million shares of Stock shall (subject to shareholder
                  approval) be added effective November 1, 2000 to the number of
                  shares of Stock then available under this Plan. All such
                  shares of Stock shall be available for purchase from Rock-Tenn
                  upon the exercise of options granted under Section 9 of this
                  Plan, and any shares of Stock which are subject to options
                  granted as of the first day of a Purchase Period but which are
                  not purchased on the related Exercise Date shall again become
                  available for purchase under this Plan."

         This Amendment Number One shall be effective November 1, 2000, but no
shares covered by this Amendment Number One shall be issued absent the approval
of this Amendment Number One by Rock-Tenn Company's shareholders at the 2001
Annual Meeting of such shareholders.

                                                      ROCK-TENN COMPANY

                                                  By: /s/ ROBERT B. MCINTOSH
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                      Robert B. McIntosh
                                                    Date: October 27, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1466 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1466

  To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to permit qualifying 
States to use a portion of their allotments under the State children's 
   health insurance program for any fiscal year for certain Medicaid 
                             expenditures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2007

  Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to permit qualifying 
States to use a portion of their allotments under the State children's 
   health insurance program for any fiscal year for certain Medicaid 
                             expenditures.

    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 ``Children's Health Equity Technical 
Amendments Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO USE PORTION OF SCHIP 
              ALLOTMENT FOR ANY FISCAL YEAR FOR CERTAIN MEDICAID 
              EXPENDITURES.

    (a) In General.--Section 2105(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(A)), as amended by section 201(b) of the 
National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-482) 
is amended by striking ``fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 
2005, 2006, or 2007'' and inserting ``a fiscal year''.
    (b) Modification of Allowable Expenditures.--Section 
2105(g)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(B)(ii)) is 
amended by striking ``150'' and inserting ``125''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on October 1, 2007, and shall apply to expenditures made on or 
after that date.
                                 <all>
```