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

Calendar No. 502 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4761 

[Report No. 116–244] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 10, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JULY 29, 2020 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To ensure U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, 

agents, and other personnel have adequate synthetic 

opioid detection equipment, that the Department of 

Homeland Security has a process to update synthetic 

opioid detection capability, 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, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4761 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DHS Opioid Detection 

3 Resilience Act of 2019’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STRATEGY TO ENSURE DETECTION OF ALL OPIOID 

5 PURITY LEVELS AT PORTS OF ENTRY. 

6 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact7 ment of this section, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs 

8 and Border Protection (CBP) shall— 

9 (1) implement a strategy to ensure deployed 

10 chemical screening devices are able to identify in an 

11 operational environment narcotics at purity levels 

12 less than or equal to 10 percent, or provide ports of 

13 entry with an alternate method for identifying nar14 cotics at lower purity levels; and 

15 (2) require testing of any new chemical screen16 ing devices to understand the abilities and limita17 tions of such devices relating to identifying narcotics 

18 at various purity levels before CBP commits to the 

19 acquisition of such devices. 

20 SEC. 3. PLAN TO ENSURE OPIOID DETECTION EQUIPMENT 

21 RESILIENCY. 

22 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact23 ment of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security 

24 shall implement a plan for the long-term development of 

25 a centralized spectral database for chemical screening de26 vices. Such plan shall address the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4761 RS

1 (1) How newly identified spectra will be col2 lected, stored, and distributed to such devices in 

3 their operational environment, including at ports of 

4 entry. 

5 (2) Identification of parties responsible for up6 dates and maintenance of such database. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 502 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4761 

[Report No. 116–244] 

AN ACT 

To ensure U.S. Customs and Border Protection ofand for other purposes. to update synthetic opioid detection capability, Department of Homeland Security has a process synthetic opioid detection equipment, that the ficers, agents, and other personnel have adequate 

JULY 29, 2020 

Reported without amendment 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW L. MACKEY,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden,

 Respondent-Appellee.

14-17260

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01245-TLNCKD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Eastern California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 6, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: SILVERMAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and GARBIS, Senior

District Judge.

*** 

FILED

JUL 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CL

U.S. COURT OF APPEA

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, Senior United States District Judge

for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
Andrew Mackey appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a

writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we

affirm. 

Mackey, who suffers from severe mental impairments, filed the instant

habeas petition challenging his conviction of child molestation related offenses

after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d). Conspicuously missing from the record is any testimony from Mackey to

the effect that he wanted to file a federal habeas petition but did not have the ability

to do so himself and did not know how to get help. 

The district court dismissed the petition as untimely and declined to apply

equitable tolling to extend the limitations period. Reviewing the dismissal of

Mackey’s petition de novo, United States v. Avery, 719 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir.

2013), we agree with the district court that equitable tolling is inappropriate

because the record does not reflect any diligence on Mackey’s part in attempting to

file his federal habeas petition within the limitations period. See Holland v.

Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (noting a petitioner is eligible for equitable

tolling only if he pursued rights diligently and would have timely filed but for

some extraordinary circumstance); see also Yow Ming Yeh v. Martel, 751 F.3d

2
1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[E]ven in cases of debilitating impairment the

petitioner must still demonstrate diligence.”). Therefore, the petition was untimely

and was properly dismissed.1 

AFFIRMED.

1

 Because Mackey’s petition was not timely filed, the question of whether Mackey

exhausted his state remedies is moot.

3
# Official Journal C 50/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 50 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5812 February 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 50

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5812 February 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2015/C 050/01 | Position (EU) No 2/2015 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sourcesAdopted by the Council on 9 December 2014 (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2015/C 050/02 | Statement of the Council’s reason: Position (EU) No 2/2015 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources | 26 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

COUNCIL

2015/C 050/01

Position (EU) No 2/2015 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sourcesAdopted by the Council on 9 December 2014 (
  1
  )

1

1

2015/C 050/02

Statement of the Council’s reason: Position (EU) No 2/2015 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources

26

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 13
Case 17-14246-BFK Doc 39 Filed 07/17/18 Entered 07/17/18 14:44:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 13
#### § 630.707 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Peter G. Secore, Petitioner, v David Unger, as Superintendent of Orleans Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 751]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Orleans County [James E Punch, A.J.], entered May 24, 2006) to review a determination of respondents. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Martoche and Green, JJ.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

_______________________ Division

In re

Case No.

Debtor(s) Chapter 13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE LISTS, SCHEDULES AND STATEMENTS

AND FOR FAILURE TO FILE AND DISTRIBUTE CHAPTER 13 PLAN

The above debtor(s) having failed to timely file required lists, schedules and statements

within the time period as set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-1 and having failed to timely file a

Chapter 13 plan in the form approved by the Court for use in the Eastern District of Virginia, which

includes the debtor's proof of service evidencing distribution of the plan, within the time periods as

set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-2; it is, therefore

ORDERED, pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rules 1007-1 and 3015-2, that the above case be

dismissed; and it is further

[If appropriate] ORDERED that the debtor(s) pay the balance of the filing fee in the

amount of $ _____________________ to the Clerk of Court within 14 days of the date of this

order; and it is further

ORDERED that dismissal of this case revests the property of the estate in the entity in which

such property was vested immediately before the commencement of the case. The trustee need not

file a final report in this case unless property or money was administered.

WILLIAM C. REDDEN

Clerk of Court

Date: __________________________ By ______________________________________

Deputy Clerk

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

ENTERED ON DOCKET:

________________________________

[odis13sp ver. 12/09]

Alexandria

Thomas Marshall Eubanks

18-11246-KHK

0.00

Apr 27, 2018 /s/ Anthony L. Shepherd

Apr 27, 2018

Case 18-11246-KHK Doc 16 Filed 04/27/18 Entered 04/27/18 16:55:00 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00567-CR

The State of Texas

v.

Joshua Cacias

On Appeal from the

28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12-CR-2807-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 14, 2014
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Each of the undersigned officers of
American Realty Investors, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company) hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:



| | (i) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, fairly presents in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, at and for the periods indicated.
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                                                                   
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 13, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel J. Moos                                                                
|                         |  |  |  | Daniel J. Moos President and Chief Operating Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



|                         |  |  |  |                                                                      
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 13, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Gene S. Bertcher                                                 
|                         |  |  |  | Gene S. Bertcher Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 12 THE HERTZ CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS
TO FIXED CHARGES (UNAUDITED)
(In Thousands of Dollars Except Ratios)
 Years Ended December 31,2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2000Income before income taxes and minority
interest
    
    $
    502,552
    
    
    $
    237,492
    
    
    $
    216,394
    
    
    $
    2,723
    
    
    $
    580,864Interest expense
    
    
    408,171
    
    
    
    372,924
    
    
    
    376,710
    
    
    
    413,711
    
    
    
    428,387Portion of rent estimated to represent the
interest factor
    
    
    119,918
    
    
    
    118,813
    
    
    
    115,879
    
    
    
    116,393
    
    
    
    104,886Earnings before income taxes, minority
interest and fixed charges
    
    $
    1,030,641
    
    
    $
    729,229
    
    
    $
    708,983
    
    
    $
    532,827
    
    
    $
    1,114,137Interest expense (including capitalized
interest)
    
    $
    409,046
    
    
    $
    373,522
    
    
    $
    377,852
    
    
    $
    415,198
    
    
    $
    431,308Portion of rent estimated to represent the
interest factor
    
    
    119,918
    
    
    
    118,813
    
    
    
    115,879
    
    
    
    116,393
    
    
    
    104,886Fixed charges
    
    $
    528,964
    
    
    $
    492,335
    
    
    $
    493,731
    
    
    $
    531,591
    
    
    $
    536,194Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.9
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.0
    
    
    
    2.1
**Exhibit 10.16**

 

[HENRY COMPANY(R) LOGO]

 
|   | December 9, 2002 |
|--------|------------------|

 

Jeffrey A. Wahba

Chief Financial Officer

Henry Company

2911 Slauson Avenue

Huntington Park, California 90255

 

Re:       RevisedIncentive Compensation 

 

Dear Jeff:

 

This letter is to set forth certain agreements relating to theIncentive Compensation Agreement (the “Incentive Agreement”) dated as ofDecember 22, 1988 and amended and restated as of August 1,1994, between theHenry Company (“Company”) and you. In consideration of the foregoing, the Companyand you hereby agree as follows:

 

1.             The DeferredBenefit Amount set forth in the Incentive Agreement is hereby fixed at $288,350and is fully vested. The Company agrees to pay this amount in full to youwithin 60 days of the date of this Agreement. Upon payment of the DeferredBenefit Amount, the Incentive Agreement will terminate automatically, withoutany further action on your or our part, and thereafter shall have no force andeffect.

 

2.             The Company willpay you minimum annual cumulative bonus payments of $50,000 for the yearsending December 31, 2002 through December 31, 2008 (seven years’ cumulativeminimum total of $350,000). All bonuses received for 2002 through 2008 will becounted against the minimums and applied first against the 2002 minimum, then2003, and so forth.

 

If you leave the Company’s employment before December 31, 2008, theamount of minimum cumulative bonus due you will be $50,000 times the number offull years employed after December 31, 2001, plus $4,166 times the number offull months in a partial year employed after December 31, 2001, less allbonuses (including minimum bonuses) previously paid related to periods afterDecember 31, 2001.

 

3.             The Company hasindicated its intent relating to a long-term incentive compensation arrangement,a copy of which is attached hereto. Event of sale payments pursuant to such arrangement or otherwise willnot be considered bonuses that would be applied against the minimum bonus setforth above.

 

4.             Upon payment of theexisting Deferred Benefit Amount of $288,350 the guarantee by Mr. Warner Henrypursuant to the agreement dated August 9, 2001, 2001 will be extinguished andwill have no force and effect.

 

 

Upon your signature set forth below, this letter will be a bindingagreement between us.

 
|   | Henry Company |
|--------|---------------|
|   |          |
|   | By:           | /s/ Warner W. Henry |   |
|   |          | Warner W. Henry |
|   |          | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |          |
|   |          |
|   | By:           | /s/ William H. Baribault |   |
|   |          | William H. Baribault |
|   |          | Chief Operating Officer |

 

 

Accepted and Agreed this 9thday of December, 2002:

 
| /s/ Jeffrey A. Wahba |   |
|----------------------|--------|
| Jeffrey A. Wahba     |   |

 

 

----
# **Hercules Incorporated**

# **Exhibit 31.2**

## ****

## **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

## **RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)**

I, Allen A. Spizzo, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this annual report for the period ended December 31, 2003 on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 3,  of Hercules Incorporated;

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 ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.         The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

(b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

4.         The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditorsand the audit committee of registrant's board of directors:

(a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; 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 over financial reporting.
| Date:  January 7, 2005                |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                            |
|                                            |
|                                            |
| /s/ Allen A. Spizzo                        |
|                                            |
| Allen A. Spizzo                            |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
#### F. A. Bingham, Plaintiff in Error, v. Joshua L. Jones, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 15,237.

*Verdicts—when not disturbed as against the evidence.*A verdict' will not be set aside as against the evidence unless clearly and manifestly so.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frederick L. Fake, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1909.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 2, 1910.

F. A. Bingham, plaintiff in error, *pro se.*

Michael Feinberg, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Mack

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff claims to have loaned money to the defendant and to have performed legal services for him. His testimony is in part supported by that of his stenographer. It is directly contradicted by defendant who claims that all the money was advanced in part payment for certain shares of a corporation of which plaintiff was a director, and defendant the principal share holder and that the legal services, too, were for the corporation.

*98The surrounding circumstances support defendant. A jury believed him; the trial judge concurred, and we cannot find that the preponderance of the evidence is against their conclusion.

If we had considered only the abstract in this case we might have reached a contrary conclusion. The record however gives a different impression from that conveyed by the totally inadequate abstract. .

*Affirmed.*