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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2603 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2603

       To reduce temporarily the duty on Cypermethrin Technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To reduce temporarily the duty on Cypermethrin Technical.

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

SECTION 1. CYPERMETHRIN TECHNICAL.

    (a) Calendar Year 2006.--
            (1) 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:

``      9902.90.15       A-cyano-(3-        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         phenoxyphenyl)met                                                  31/2006
                         hyl-cis, trans-3-
                         (2,2-
                         dichloroethenyl)-
                         2,2-
                         dimethylcycloprop
                         anecarboxylate
                         (Cypermethrin
                         Technical) (CAS
                         No. 52315-07-8)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2926.90.30)......

            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
        consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of 
        enactment of this Act.
    (b) Calendar Year 2007.--
            (1) In general.--Heading 9902.90.15 of the Harmonized 
        Tariff Schedule of the United States, as added by subsection 
        (a), is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``Free'' and inserting ``0.14%''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``On or before 12/31/2006'' and 
                inserting ``On or before 12/31/2007''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
        shall take effect on January 1, 2007.
    (c) Calendar Year 2008.--
            (1) In general.--Heading 9902.90.15 of the Harmonized 
        Tariff Schedule of the United States, as added by subsection 
        (a) and amended by this section, is further amended--
                    (A) by striking ``0.14%'' and inserting ``0.38%''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``On or before 12/31/2007'' and 
                inserting ``On or before 12/31/2008''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
        shall take effect on January 1, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT


TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









May 17, 2010








/s/Richard R. Royall


Richard R. Royall


Chief Financial Officer
§ 712.400 Penalties. ( a ) Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited herein shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such expenditure.
( b ) Any person who fails to file or amend the disclosure form (see appendix B) to be filed or amended if required herein, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
( c ) A filing or amended filing on or after the date on which an administrative action for the imposition of a civil penalty is commenced does not prevent the imposition of such civil penalty for a failure occurring before that date. An administrative action is commenced with respect to a failure when an investigating official determines in writing to commence an investigation of an allegation of such failure.
( d ) In determining whether to impose a civil penalty, and the amount of any such penalty, by reason of a violation by any person, the agency shall consider the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, the effect on the ability of such person to continue in business, any prior violations by such person, the degree of culpability of such person, the ability of the person to pay the penalty, and such other matters as may be appropriate.
( e ) First offenders under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000, absent aggravating circumstances. Second and subsequent offenses by persons shall be subject to an appropriate civil penalty between $10,000 and $100,000, as determined by the agency head or his or her designee.
( f ) An imposition of a civil penalty under this section does not prevent the United States from seeking any other remedy that may apply to the same conduct that is the basis for the imposition of such civil penalty.
Opinion filed March 5 , 201 5



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

___ _ _______



### No. 11

- 1 5

- 00 0 12

- C R

____ _ ______



### MICHAEL ROBERT GAVURNIK

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

Ta ylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 25262A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Michael Robert Gavurnik , Appellant, filed a pro se notice of appeal in this

case. Appellant has now filed a pro se motion to dismiss the appeal . In the

motion, Appellant states , “ [I] do not wish to ap peal my case or sentence[

. ] Please

let me get on to TDCJ.” Appellant requests that his appeal be withdrawn. T he

motion is signed by Appellant

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 2.2

.

The motion is granted

, and the appeal is dismissed.

March 5 , 2015 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J., and Bailey, J.
* 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. 98-41009 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LUIS OLALDE-SERNA,
Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-162-1

- - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Olalde-Serna (“Olalde”) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Olalde has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
#### CLARK, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 10, 1905.)

Action by Frank O. Clark against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. A. S. Bacon, for appellant. C. F. Brown, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on the opinion in Clark v. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co., 68 App. Div. 49, 74 N. Y. Supp. 267.

O’BRIEN and HATCH, JJ„ dissent.
#### § 38.710 Disciplinary sanctions.

All disciplinary sanctions imposed by a designated contract market or its disciplinary panels must be commensurate with the violations committed and must be clearly sufficient to deter recidivism or similar violations by other market participants. All disciplinary sanctions, including sanctions imposed pursuant to an accepted settlement offer, must take into account the respondent's disciplinary history. In the event of demonstrated customer harm, any disciplinary sanction must also include full customer restitution, except where the amount of restitution, or to whom it should be provided, cannot be reasonably determined.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-14-0478 SAT Date: 4/18/2014 Print Date: 5/6/2014

Related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 1 1 PMN 3 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Hyd Pdt negl - slow Keywords : Keywords: IRR- E; L; MM. UNCERT RES, DERM SENSIT Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-14-0478 FATE: MW = 1367 with 7.3% < 500 and 19.8% < 1000 Solid S = Reacts Hydrolysis half-life = hr-da VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = PMN 90-99 via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Hyd Pdt > moSorption to soils/sediments = Hyd Pdt v.strong PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P3B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = Hyd Pdt negl - slow

Health : Health Summary: N eat: N il absorption all routes ( p che m ); Solution: Low molecular weight (7.3 %< 500, 19.8% < 1000) p oor all routes ( p che m ). Expect reaction with membranes, especially in lung. There is concern for lung effect and irritation to mucous membranes and uncertain concern for respiratory and dermal sensitization based on the

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value *
algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR chemical class = p olyme r -nonionic ; MW 1367 with 19.8% <1000 and 7.3% < 500; liquid ; S = reacts with water at 20 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; DW hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *

SARs N onionic Polymers SAR Class N onionic Polymers Ecotox Category N onionic Polymers
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: Viktor Morozov
Case 3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document 64 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 3
5

5

/s/ Kenneth Frucht /s/ Tricia Hynes

Case 3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document 64 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

04/06/10

Case 3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document 64 Filed 04/06/10 Page 3 of 3
#### De Reimer Auto Laundry, Inc., Appellant, v. Thomas J. Filomio et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and MeNally, JJ.
§ 229.535 Effect of state or local law or other requirements. ( a ) *Prohibitory requirements.* The obligation to comply with §§ 229.500 through 229.550 is not obviated or alleviated by the existence of any State or local law or other requirement that imposes prohibitions or limits upon employment of members of one sex that are not imposed upon members of the other sex.
( b ) *Benefits.* A recipient that provides any compensation, service, or benefit to members of one sex pursuant to a State or local law or other requirement shall provide the same compensation, service, or benefit to members of the other sex.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defs’ Request for Modification of Order of

Service/Case Management Order; Declaration

of David M. Rollo -1- C08-05639 CRB (TEH)

M IG U EL M Á R Q U E Z

 A cting County Counsel

County of Santa Clara

S an Jose, California

MIGUEL MÁRQUEZ, Acting County Counsel (S.B. #184621)

DAVID M. ROLLO, Deputy County Counsel (S.B. #111998)

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL

70 West Hedding, East Wing, 9 Floor th

San Jose, California 95110-1770

Telephone: (408) 299-5900

Facsimile: (408) 292-7240

Attorneys for Defendants

OFFICER HERBIE DE LA CRUZ

(erroneously sued herein as Ofc. Herbe

Del Cruz), OFFICER JAMES

KIRKLAND, SERGEANT PATRICK

CORSO #2348 (erroneously sued herein as

Sgt. Coros 2348), LIEUTENANT

MITCHELL RYAN CONNER #209, and

CHIEF EDWARD C. FLORES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(SAN FRANCISCO)

RODOLFO R. MIRAMONTES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

OFC. HERBE DEL CRUZ, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

No. C08-05639 CRB (TEH)

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR

MODIFICATION OF

ORDER OF SERVICE/CASE

MANAGEMENT ORDER; DECLARATION

OF DAVID M. ROLLO

COME NOW, Defendants, who request a modification of the Order of Service dated

October 30, 2009 as follows:

ORDER OF SERVICE PROPOSED NEW DATE/ORDER

Date by which Defendants were to file April 16, 2010

dispositive motion (per Order of Service ¶ C.2.a.

... January 28, 2010)

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 3:08-cv-05639-CRB Document 37 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defs’ Request for Modification of Order of

Service/Case Management Order; Declaration

of David M. Rollo -2- C08-05639 CRB (TEH)

M IG U EL M Á R Q U E Z

 A cting County Counsel

County of Santa Clara

S an Jose, California

All other dates and times set forth in the Order of Service remain unchanged.

Dated: January 25, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

MIGUEL MÁRQUEZ

Acting County Counsel 

By: /S/ 

DAVID M. ROLLO

Deputy County Counsel

Attorneys for Defendants

OFFICER HERBIE DE LA CRUZ (erroneously

sued herein as Ofc. Herbe Del Cruz), OFFICER

JAMES KIRKLAND, SERGEANT PATRICK

CORSO #2348 (erroneously sued herein as Sgt.

Coros 2348), LIEUTENANT MITCHELL

RYAN CONNER #209, and CHIEF EDWARD

C. FLORES

ORDER

The Court has considered the request to modify the Order of Service and the Case

Management Order that makes the following modification: Defendants shall have until April

16, 2010 to file a Motion for Summary Judgment or other dispositive motion. All other dates

and conditions as set forth in the Order of Service dated October 30, 2009 remain in effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________, 2010 ___________________________________

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

January 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:08-cv-05639-CRB Document 37 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Robert Stokes, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, dated November 19, 1976, granting defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, is unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and the motion to suppress is denied. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed. A police officer saw glassine envelopes fall from the vicinity of defendant’s hand to the ground close to defendant’s feet at a time when the nearest other person was five feet away from the defendant. The glassine envelopes were a "telltale sign of heroin.” *(People v Corrado,*22 NY2d 308, 313; see, also, *People v Alexander,*37 NY2d 202.) We find that the officer had probable cause to arrest for the commission of the crime of possession of narcotics. As incident to that arrest, the police officer had the right to frisk and search the defendant. Such frisk and search disclosed on the defendant’s person the weapon which is one of the objects sought to be suppressed. Concur — Birns, J. P., Silverman, Evans and Capozzoli, JJ.
1845
- 0039

– Affected Public

– Public Institutions 3 / 17 /201 5

Institutions are required to report student Pell Grant pay ment information to ED electronicall y. Electronic reporting is conducted through the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system. The COD s ys tem is used by institutions to request, report, and reconcile grant funds received from the Pell Grant program. ED uses the information collected in the COD s ys tem to aid in ensuring compliance with fiscal and administrative requirements under the HEA for the Pell Grant program and under 34 CFR 690 for the Pell Grant program regulations. The minimum reporting requirement is one record for origination and disbursement data per student, per grant award, per award ye ar. Institutions may correct an accepted COD record as many times as they

wish, but are n ot required to submit changes unless the student’s award amount changes from the accepted origination amount originall y established in COD. For the 2014
- 2015 award year, the projected number of FAFSA completers is expected to be reduced b y 2.86%. Based o n the 8,738,722 unduplicated student recipients for the Federal Pell Grant program for 2013
- 2014, the number of unduplicated Federal Pell Grant recipients for 2014
- 2015 is estimated to be 8,488,843 multiplied by .07 hours per recipient for all institution s to enter data in the COD system for a total of 594,219 burden hours. 1 , 879 Public institutions 5 ,6 8 7, 525 responses X .07 hours = 398 , 127 burden hours
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

Summary of Stock Options Granted to Executive Officers of Allin Corporation on July 7, 2005 

 

On July 7, 2005, the Board of Directors of Allin Corporation (the“Company”) approved the grant of options to each of Richard W. Talarico, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors, and Dean C. Praskach, the Company’s Chief FinancialOfficer, Secretary, Treasurer, and Vice President-Finance, to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock,. The Company’s Board of Directors granted such options in recognition of the expiration of certain other options held by each ofMessrs. Talarico and Praskach. The exercise price of each option was equal to $0.25 per share, the closing price of the common stock as reported by the OTC Bulletin Board on July 7, 2005, the date of grant. Each option will vest ratably at 20% peryear on the anniversary of issuance, subject to immediate vesting upon a change of control of the Company as specified in Messrs. Talarico’s and Praskach’s respective employment agreements, as amended. 

 

Richard W. Talarico, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President – Options topurchase 100,000 shares Dean C. Praskach, Chief Financial Officer – Options to purchase 25,000 shares
#### In the Matter of Elizabeth A. Goonan, Respondent, v John S. Goonan, Appellant.

— In a proceeding to determine custody of the parties’ minor children, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, entered August 3, 1976, which, after a hearing, *inter alia,*awarded custody to the respondent mother. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, upon the opinion of Judge Murphy of the Family Court. Latham, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
#### Marilyn Lieberman, Respondent-Appellant, v Fred Lieberman, Appellant-Respondent.

In a matrimonial action, (1) the parties cross-appeal from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered August 3, 1976, except as to the divorce and custody provisions contained therein, and (2) the defendant appeals from an order of the same court, dated October 22, 1976, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff’s motion to punish him for contempt for failure to pay arrearages and fined him the amount of $18,030. Judgment modified, on the law and in the interest of justice, by (1) deleting from the fourth decretal paragraph thereof the words "permanent alimony, child support and” and (2) deleting the fifth, sixth and ninth through fifteenth decretal paragraphs thereof. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and action remitted to Special Term for a hearing on the issue whether the defendant’s poor health prevents him from increasing his earnings and for the entry of an amended judgment upon the making of such determination. Pending the completion of the hearing and the entry of an amended judgment, defendant is directed to pay $50 per week per child, a total of $100 per week, as child support. Order reversed, on the law and in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, and motion to punish for contempt denied, with leave to renew after the determination to be made at the hearing on the issue as to defendant’s health. Although the defendant may not, by his conduct, deliberately diminish his resources in order to avoid payment of his financial obligations (see *Hickland v Hickland,*39 NY2d 1, 6), his poor health, if established, is a factor to be considered in determining his obligation to support and maintain his wife and children. The direction for the payment of all of the children’s medical and dental expenses was improper because it exposes the defendant to unlimited liability (see *Manacher v Manacher,*35 AD2d 705). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 4 0 9 1 4 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. C A R L O S M A N U E L M A N Z A N A R E S , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 5 : 0 9

- C R

- 1 0 0 3

- 1

B e f o r e D A V I S , S M I T H , a n d W I E N E R , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t C a r l o s M a n u e l M a n z a n a r e s h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e

w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. M a n z a n a r e s h a s n o t f i l e d a

r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o

n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o

w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n ,
a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 17, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-40914 Document: 00511205535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2010