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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 784

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize 

appropriations for sewer overflow control grants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. 

QUINN, Mr. EHLERS, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. 

ENGLISH, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

GOODLATTE, and Mr. MCHUGH) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 

authorize appropriations for sewer overflow control grants.

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 ‘‘Water Quality Invest5 ment Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS. 

7 Section 221 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

8 Act (33 U.S.C. 1301) is amended—
2

•HR 784 IH 

1 (1) in subsection (f) by striking ‘‘2002 and 

2 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2004 and 2005’’; 

3 (2) in subsection (g)(1)—

4 (A) in the heading by striking ‘‘2002’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘2004’’; and 

6 (B) by striking ‘‘2002’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘2004’’; 

8 (3) in subsection (g)(2)—

9 (A) in the heading by striking ‘‘2003’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘2005’’; and 

11 (B) by striking ‘‘2003’’ and inserting 

12 ‘‘2005’’; and 

13 (4) in subsection (i) by striking ‘‘2003’’ and in14 serting ‘‘2005’’.

Æ
# laucnty02

&8Page &P of &N
| ·   | Servicing      criterion 1122(d)(1)(iii) is applicable only with respect to the Company’s      continuing obligation to act as, or locate a, successor servicer under the      circumstances referred to in certain transaction agreements. It is      management’s interpretation that the Company has no other active back-up      servicing responsibilities in regards to 1122(d)(1)(iii) as of and for the      year ended December 31, 2009. Furthermore, Management’s Assertion of      Compliance indicates that there were no activities performed related to      this criterion during the year ended December 31, 2009 with respect      to the Platform, because there were no occurrences of events that would      require the Company to perform suchactivities. |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Servicing      criterion 1122(d)(4)(iii) is applicable to the activities the Company      performs with respect to the Platform only as it relates to the Company’s      obligation to report additions, removals or substitutions on reports to      investors in accordance with the transactions  agreements. |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----
#### Abdul Wakil AMIRI, Appellant v. GELMAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 12-7120.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 15, 2013.

Abdul Wakil Amiri, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge; HENDERSON and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the *4brief and appendix filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(3). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed July 31, 2012, and October 17, 2012, be affirmed. On de novo review, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. *See EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch.,*117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C.Cir.1997). Appellant’s complaint did not allege sufficient facts to support an inference that he was a victim of discrimination. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); *Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). In light of the dismissal of appellant’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his defamation claim. *See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,*484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988). Finally, appellant has not shown that the district court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2520

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Herman Lee Ronnfeldt

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

Submitted: February 10, 2022

Filed: February 15, 2022 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Herman Ronnfeldt appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled

guilty to a drug offense. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

1The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s decision

to depart upward based on Ronnfeldt’s criminal history and arguing the sentence is

substantively unreasonable.

After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse

its discretion in departing upward. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1) (“If reliable

information indicates that the defendant’s criminal history category substantially

under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood

that the defendant will commit other crimes, an upward departure may be

warranted.”); United States v. King, 627 F.3d 321, 323 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of

review). We also conclude the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United

States v. Brown, 992 F.3d 665, 673 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review); United

States v. Jones, 639 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir. 2011) (noting a sentence within the

advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual range, even one following a

§ 4A1.3 upward departure, enjoys presumption of reasonableness).

Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel leave to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

**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 Annual Report of PetroChina Company Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the periodending December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yu Yibo, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: April 29, 2015
#### NEW COLUMBUS WATCH CO. et al. v. NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 6, 1903.)

No. 1,191.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.

Edward Rector, for appellee.

Dismissed.
|   | (i)    | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|   | (ii)   | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.                                 |

| Dated: November 4, 2010 |                                   |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                         | /s/ Ross A. Goolsby                    |
|                         | Ross A. GoolsbyChief Financial Officer |
**Exhibit 21**Subsidiaries of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2006:   Subsidiary Name State of IncorporationKentucky Criterion Coal Company DelawarePine Branch Mining Inc. DelawareWEI – Ft. Lupton, Inc. DelawareWEI — Rensselaer, Inc. DelawareWEI — Roanoke Valley, Inc. DelawareWestmoreland Coal Sales Inc. DelawareWestmoreland Energy LLC DelawareWestmoreland Resources, Inc. DelawareWestmoreland Terminal Company DelawareWestmoreland — Altavista, Inc. DelawareWestmoreland – Ft. Drum, Inc. DelawareWestmoreland — Franklin, Inc. DelawareWestmoreland — Hopewell, Inc. DelawareWestmoreland Technical Services, Inc. DelawareCleancoal Terminal Co. DelawareCriterion Coal Co. DelawareDeane Processing Co. DelawareEastern Coal and Coke Co. PennsylvaniaWestmoreland Savage Corp. DelawareWestmoreland Mining LLC DelawareDakota Westmoreland Corporation DelawareWestern Energy Company MontanaTexas Westmoreland Coal Co. MontanaWestmoreland Risk Management, Ltd. BermudaBasin Resources, Inc. ColoradoNorth Central Energy Company ColoradoNew Horizon Coal Company, Inc. ColoradoWestmoreland Power, Inc. DelawareWestmoreland — Roanoke Valley, L.P. DelawareWestmoreland — North Carolina Power, L.L.C. VirginiaWestmoreland Utility Operations, LLC VirginiaWestmoreland Power Operations, LLC Virginia
EXHIBIT 10.4 - Schedule of Named Executive Officers Compensation


 


On December 21, 2012, the Compensation Committee of First Financial
Corporation (the “Corporation”) set the 2012 annual base salaries of the named executive officers. These amounts are
set forth in the table below.


 


	Name
    and Principal Position	 	2013
    Base Salary	 
	Donald
    E. Smith 
President
    and Chairman of the Corporation; Chairman of First Financial Bank, NA	 	$	200,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Norman L. Lowery
    
Vice Chairman, CEO and Vice President of the Corporation;
    President and CEO of First Financial Bank, NA	 	$	620,296	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Thomas S. Clary
    
Senior Vice President and CCO of First Financial Bank,
    NA	 	$	187,490	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Norman D. Lowery
    
Vice President and COO of First Financial Bank, NA	 	$	191,014	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Rodger A. McHargue
    
CFO of the Corporation; Vice President and CFO of
    First Financial Bank, NA	 	$	190,391
Exhibit 32

                Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The  undersigned,  who are the chief  executive  officer and the chief financial
officer of Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., each hereby certifies that, to the best
of his knowledge,  the accompanying  Form 10-Q of the issuer fully complies with
the  requirements  of Section  13(a)or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of
1934,  and that  information  contained in the report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
issuer.

May 11, 2009

                                             s/R. Riggie Ridgeway
                                             -----------------------------------
                                               R. Riggie Ridgeway
                                               Chief Executive Officer


                                             s/Robert E. Dye, Jr.
                                             -----------------------------------
                                               Robert E. Dye, Jr.
                                               Chief Financial Officer
[No. 32124-6-II.

Division Two.

November 8, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Rebecca Marie Bishop, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 04-1-00835-6, Gary Tabor, J., entered August 4, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Van Deren, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
#### In the Matter of Italo Dixon, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 519]

Present-Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Smith, Centra and Pine, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000

<CASH>                                         435,867
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15,335,924
<ALLOWANCES>                                   863,609
<INVENTORY>                                    17,373,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               34,211,493
<PP&E>                                         7,867,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,607,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 57,869,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          25,186,080
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       49,564
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,145,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   57,869,028
<SALES>                                        15,743,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,743,723
<CGS>                                          11,006,533
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,006,533
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,907,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             704,202
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (874,981)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (367,493)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (170,779)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (553,941)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.11)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 281 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 18, 2003.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax 
permanent. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto 
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on 
the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by 
Representative Pomeroy of North Dakota or his designee, which shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and 
shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 205 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 205

 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2003

            Mr. Kingston submitted the following resolution

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

    Resolved, That the following Member be and is hereby elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Resources: Mr. Putnam.
                                 <all>
```
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation for Services



 EXHIBIT 10.4 
 Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation 
 For Service on the Board of Directors of Esterline
Technologies Corporation 
  

				
	 Compensation Paid to Non-Employee Directors
	  		
		
	 Annual retainer
	  	$	        30,000
	 Attendance (in person) at Board meeting (per meeting fee)
	  	$	1,500
	 Attendance (by phone) at Board meeting (per meeting fee)
	  	$	750
	 Annual issuance of fully-paid Common Stock
	  	$	60,000
		
	 Compensation for Attendance at Committee Meetings (in person or by telephone)
	  		
		
	 Attendance (in person) at Committee meeting (per meeting fee)
	  	$	1,500
	 Attendance (by phone) at Committee meeting (per meeting fee)
	  	$	750
		
	 Additional Compensation for Committee Chairpersons
	  		
		
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	12,500
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	7,500
	 All Other Committees
	  	$	5,000
		
	 Additional Compensation for the Lead Independent Director
	  	$	25,000
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 856

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to revise a repayment contract 

with the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District 

No. 1, San Angelo project, Texas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

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

Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to revise a repayment contract with the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, San Angelo project, 

Texas, 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. TOM GREEN COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IM4 PROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1; REPAYMENT 

5 PERIOD EXTENDED. 

6 The Secretary of the Interior may revise the repay7 ment contract with the Tom Green County Water Control 

8 and Improvement District No. 1 numbered 14–06–500–
2

•HR 856 IH 

1 369, by extending the period authorized for repayment of 

2 reimbursable constructions costs of the San Angelo project 

3 from 40 years to 50 years.

Æ
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

|  | (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of StatSure Diagnostic Systems, Inc.                for the                quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange                Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements                of                Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange                Act of                1934; and |
|--|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | the                information contained in the such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of                StatSure Diagnostic Systems, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31,                2008                fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition                and                results of operations of StatSure Diagnostic Systems,                Inc. |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3668

___________

David Andy Bridwell, *

*

Petitioner - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 11, 1999

Filed: May 18, 1999

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BEAM and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Andy Bridwell pled guilty to the use of firearms during and in relation to

a drug offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c) and to conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Bridwell later

petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to have his 924(c) conviction vacated and set aside

based on Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995). The district court denied relief

because of the current circuit law. See Bousley v. Brooks, 97 F.3d 284 (8th Cir.

1996). Bridwell appealed, and the Supreme Court subsequently reversed Bousley.

See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 118 S. Ct. 1604 (1998). Bridwell’s case

subsequently returned to the district court which vacated Bridwell’s firearm conviction
-2-

sua sponte. The government moved for reconsideration, and the district court denied

it without a hearing.

Under Bousley the government was entitled to have the opportunity to present

further evidence. See 118 S. Ct. at 1612 (“on remand, the Government should be

permitted to present any admissible evidence of petitioner's guilt even if that evidence

was not presented during petitioner's plea colloquy and would not normally have been

offered before our decision in Bailey”). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this

opinion.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.