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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1664 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1664

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Blue 16.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 1993

  Mr. Tauzin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Blue 16.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT BLUE 16.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.32.11   Pigment Blue 16 (CAS No. 574-                           No change      On or before     
                         93-6) (provided for in                                                 12/31/97      ''
                         subheading 3204.17.10)......  Free                                                    .

    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by this section applies 
        with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
        consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
            (2) Retroactive application to certain entries.--
        Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
        U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon proper request 
        filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th day 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or 
        withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of any goods 
        described in heading 9902.32.11 of the Harmonized Tariff 
        Schedule of the United States (as added by subsection (a)) that 
        was made--
                    (A) after December 31, 1992; and
                    (B) before the 15th day after the date of the 
                enactment of this Act;
        shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
        withdrawal occurred on the 15th day after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
Form 4852 OMB No, 1545-0458

(Revised September 1986) SUBSTITUTE FOR FORM W-2, WAGE AND TAX STATEMENT OR Expires 5—31—87
FORM W-2P, STATEMENT FOR RECIPIENTS OF ANNUITIES,
Dept of the Treasury PENSIONS, RETIRED PAY, OR IRA PAYMENTS
internal Revenue Service
@ Attach to Form 1040, 1040, 1040EZ or 1040
1. NAME (First, midate, last) 2. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

3, ADDRESS (Number, street, city, State, ZIP code)

4, PLEASE FILL IN THE YEAR AT THE END OF THIS STATEMENT:
| have been unable to obtain or have received an incorrect Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form W-2P, Statement for Recipients of Annuities,
Pensions, Retired Pay, or IRA Payments, from my employer or payer named below, and have so notified the Internal Revenue Service. The amounts
shown below are my best estimates of all wages or payments paid to me and the Federal taxes withheld by this employer or payer during 19.

5. EMPLOYER'S OR PAYER’S NAME, ADDRESS, AND ZIP CODE _ 6, EMPLOYER’S OR PAYER’S IDENTIFICA-
TION NUMBER (/f known)

7, ADVANCE EIC 8. FEDERAL INCOME 9. WAGES, TIPS, OTHER 70. SOCIAL. 11, SOCIAL, 12, SOCIAL
{Earned Income Credit) TAX WITHHELD COMPENSATION OR SECURITY TAX SECURITY SECURITY
PAYMENTS RECEIVED PAYMENTS (See Note WITHHELD WAGES TIPS

Below)

NOTE: Include the total of (1) wages paid, (2) noncash payments, (3) tips/reported, and (4) all other compensation before deductions for taxes, insurance, etc.

13. How did you determine the amounts in items 7 through 12 above?

14, Give reason Form W-2, W-2P (or W-2C, Statement of Corrected income and Tax Amounts) was not furnished by employer, or payer, if known, and explain
your efforts to get it,

Paperwork Reduction Notice
We ask for this information to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States, We need it to ensure that taxpayers are complying with these laws and
to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax. You are required to give us this information,

IMPORTANT NOTICE: If your employer has ceased operations or filed for bankruptcy, you may wish to send a copy of this form to the Social Security Adminis-
tration, 13—D—6 Metro West Tower, 301 N. Green Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, Attn: Lewis Oppenheimer, to ensure proper social security credit,

Under penalties of perjury, | declare that | have examined this statement, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete.

15, Your signature 16, Date

‘4 U.S.GPO; 1986-0-181-457/54461 Form 4852 (Rev. 9-86)
No. 99-10698 -1-

* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10698 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTHONY GEORGE ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:92-CR-365-1-D

-------------------- April 13, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Anthony George Allen, federal prisoner #40428-053, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that he was entitled to a reduction in his sentence based upon the retroactive application of Amendment 505 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Amendment 505, which does apply retroactively, amended § 2D1.1 to establish level 38 as the highest category of the drug quantity table. Even if Amendment 505 was retroactively applied to Allen’s case, however, his new offense level would still resultNo. 99-10698 -2- in a term of life imprisonment. Allen’s claim that he was entitled to an additional three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility was explicitly rejected by this court on his direct appeal and, further, there is nothing in the record to support his contention that the Government would have agreed with his request for such a reduction. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Allen’s motion for reduction of
sentence. See United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas , 105 F.3d 981, 984 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Lucille RILES, alias Lucille Berry, alias Ceil, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 12871.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

May 31, 1957.

*721Paul E. Gilday, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

Fred W. Kaess, Donald F. Welday, Jr., James Dillard, Detroit, Mich., for ap-pellee.

Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from judgment of conviction and sentence on both a substantive count and a conspiracy count charging violation of the Harrision Anti-Narcotic Law was heard and considered on the record and on the oral arguments and briefs of the attorneys;

And it appearing that no reversible error inheres in the rulings or charge of the trial judge, or in the procedure followed in the case;

The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Amerco Real Estate Company, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 913 C.D. 2022

:

Center Township Board :

of Supervisors :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, Novem ber 6 , 2023

, having considered A ppell ant ’s application

for reargument, the application is DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1907 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1907

  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to civil 
                               penalties.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 1993

   Mr. Peterson of Florida introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to civil 
                               penalties.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED MAXIMUM AMOUNT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES.

    (a) Class I Civil Penalty.--Section 309(g)(2)(A) of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(2)(A)) is amended by 
striking ``$25,000'' and inserting ``$75,000''.
    (b) Class II Civil Penalty.--Section 309(g)(2)(B) of such Act is 
amended by striking ``$125,000'' and inserting ``$350,000''.

SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS.

    (a) Criminal Penalties.--Section 309(d) of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Any person''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Supplemental environmental projects.--The 
        Administrator may order that a portion of the amount of a 
        penalty to be assessed under this subsection be spent by the 
        violator for carrying out supplemental environmental projects 
        which involve water pollution prevention, water pollution 
        reduction, environmental restoration, environmental auditing, 
        and public awareness.''.
    (b) Administrative Civil Penalties.--Section 309(g) of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
            ``(12) Supplemental environmental projects.--The 
        Administrator may order that a portion of the amount of a 
        penalty to be assessed under this subsection be spent by the 
        violator for carrying out supplemental environmental projects 
        which involve water pollution prevention, water pollution 
        reduction, environmental restoration, environmental auditing, 
        and public awareness.''.

                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto Edgardo TOBAR-BARRAZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50179

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 23, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*897Jack R. Stern, Esq., Law Office of Jack R. Stern, Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roberto Edgardo Tobar-Barraza appeals the 41-month within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Tobar argues that his sentence is unreasonable because his sentence is the result of impermissible double counting, does not reflect that his current illegal reentry conviction is not a crime of violence and posed no danger to others, and does not reflect that he illegally reentered because he wanted to see his U.S. born children. Tobar also argues that this court should not afford his sentence a presumption of reasonableness because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based.

Tobar’s challenge to the presumption of reasonableness is foreclosed. *See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). We have also rejected the argument that using a prior conviction to increase the offense level and in calculating criminal history is impermissible “double counting.” *See United States v. Calbat,*266 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir.2001).

Tobar has not rebutted the presumption that the district court sentenced him to a reasonable, properly calculated within-guidelines sentence. *See United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 328, 172 L.Ed.2d 236 (2008); *United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir.2006). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *898the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**26 KA 08-01801**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
WARREN S. BRASWELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KRISTIN F. SPLAIN, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KELLEY PROVO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.), rendered June 24, 2008. Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: February 10, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-58982) pertaining to the 1992 Option Plan of TENERA, Inc., as
amended, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-77413) pertaining to
the 1993 Outside Director Compensation and Option Plan, Amended and Restated as
of March 1, 1998, of TENERA, Inc., of our report dated February 25, 2003, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of TENERA, Inc.,
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.

                                                       /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
April 14, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the September 30, 1998 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference 
to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                      <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1998           JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998           SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                        229,032               229,032
<SECURITIES>                                  303,601               303,601
<RECEIVABLES>                               7,438,860             7,438,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                7,397,113             7,397,113
<INVENTORY>                                         0                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              574,380               574,380
<PP&E>                                      4,204,014             4,204,014
<DEPRECIATION>                                692,805               692,805
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              4,085,589             4,085,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          69,428                69,428
<BONDS>                                             0                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                     0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                     0
<COMMON>                                            0                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                  4,016,161             4,016,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                4,085,589             4,085,589
<SALES>                                        95,308               304,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              102,593               577,666
<CGS>                                               0                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               81,598               303,541
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                20,995               274,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            20,995               274,125
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                   20,995               274,125
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.22                 15.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.22                 15.87
        

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
2 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2389

___________ United States of America, * * Appeal from the United States Appellee, * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. vs. * * [UNPUBLISHED] Brian J. Tigner, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 11, 2001 Filed: January 16, 2002

___________ Before, McMILLIAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and BATTEY, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Brian J. Tigner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He appeals the extent of the district court’s 23 Tigner initially sought appeal of a two-point enhancement he received under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), but he has withdrawn this issue. -2- downward departure. 3 We affirm. The district court classified Tigner’s initial base offense level at 26. He was given a three-level reduction for his acceptance of responsibility which resulted in an offense level of 23. Counsel for the government and the defense had reached a stipulation as to this offense level. Tigner, however, did object to the district court’s determination of a criminal history category VI. The district court found that the criminal history category VI was applicable, which resulted in a sentence range of 92 to 115 months. The court sentenced Tigner to 115 months, the top of the sentencing range, but then departed downward to 100 months upon the government’s § 5K1.1 motion. Tigner was also credited with 38 months already served on related conduct which resulted in a 62-month sentence remaining to be served. We do not review the extent of a district court’s downward departure regardless of the court’s reasons for not departing further. United States v. McCarthy , 97 F.3d 1562, 1577 (8 thCir. 1996) (citations omitted). It should be noted that Tigner does not allege that the district court refused to depart further for an unconstitutional reason or that the court acted in bad faith. See id. (citing United States v. Alvarez , 51 F.3d 36, 41 (5 thCir. 1995) (holding once the district court has a valid reason for departing, the court may use any factor to determine the extent of the departure; the resulting sentence is unreviewable unless it is in violation of federal constitutional or statutory law). Hence, “[a]ll the statute and the Guidelines require is that the reasons for the departure be stated.” Id. (citations omitted). Although the district court did not provide reasons for the departure which are-3- identical to the factors listed in § 5K1.1, we find that it did appropriately follow the rationale of the section. The district court did state the reason for its departure. Consequently, the extent of the departure is not reviewable. Id. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roberto OLIVER-GUZMAN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-50669.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 5, 2011.

Jaime D. Parks, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, Sara Marie Peloquin, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Roberto Oliver-Guzman appeals from the 65-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Oliver-Guzman contends that the district court procedurally erred when it did not consider his policy arguments against the 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. The record indicates that the district court mistakenly believed that it did not have the authority to reject the 16-level enhancement on policy grounds. *See Spears v. United States,*555 U.S. 261, 129 S.Ct. 840, 843-44, 172 L.Ed.2d 596 (2009) (per curiam); *United States v. Mitchell,*624 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir.2010) (“[District judges are at liberty to reject *any*Guideline on policy grounds....”). We vacate and remand for resentencing. *See Moore v. United States,*555 U.S. 1, 129 S.Ct. 4, 5, 172 L.Ed.2d 1 (2008)(per curiam).

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 31.02

CERTIFICATIONS



I, John F.
ONeill, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Environmental Power Corporation.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: July 18, 2005    
|                       
|/s/ John F. ONeill    
|John F. ONeill        
|Chief Financial Officer