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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2997 

To suspend temporarily the duty on on Decanedioic acid, bis(2,2,6,6- 

tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl) ester. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2006 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on on Decanedioic acid, 

bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl) ester. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DECANEDIOIC ACID, BIS(2,2,6,6-TETRAMETHYL4 4-PIPERIDINYL) ESTER. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.29.11 Decanedioic acid, bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl4-piperidinyl) ester (CAS No. 52829–07– 

9) (provided for in subheading 

2933.39.91) ............................................. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2997 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3060 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Pyromellitic Dianhydride. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. DEWINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Pyromellitic 

Dianhydride. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PYROMELLITIC DIANHYDRIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.14 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Pyromellitic Dianhydride) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 3060 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
U.S. Department of Justice

United States Marshals Service

PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN 5 V

See instructions for "Service of Process by the U. S. Marshal

on the reverse of this form

PLAINTIFF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

COURT CASE NUMBER

2:O6crl 69-WKW

I acknowledge receipt for the total

number of process indicated.

(Sign only first USM 285 if more than

one USM 285 is submitted)

Total Process I District of Origin

No.______ No.

District to Serve

No.

Signature of Authorized USMS Deputy or C1:erk Date

Name and title of individual served (If no shown above).

LAutit4 PA/ (CTco

Address (complete only if different than shown above)

Service Fee Total Mileage Charges Forwarding Fee

(thcl ing endeavors)

SERVE

1

AT

TYPE OF PROCESS

PRELIMINARY ORDER OF

nuia .tii - i i—' ta- u

FORFEITURE

NAME OF INDIViDUAL. COMPANY. CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN

TITLEMAX OF ALABAI

,j A

ADDRESS (Street or RFD, Apartme j4e-Sp, a4ZIsaq

do The Corporation Company - 2000 Interstate Park Drive, Suite 204, Montgomery, Alabama 36109

DEFENDANT

DEMETRIA MILLS

SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE TO REQUESTER AT NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: I Number of process to be served 1 jwiththisForm285

John T. Harmon I Number of parties to be served

United States Attorney s Office in is case

Assistant United States Attorney

Post Office Box 197 I Check for service on U.S.A.

- Montgomery,Alabama36101-0197_________ _____

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE (Include Business and AlternLite Address, All

Telephone Numbers, and Estimated Times Available For Service)

Asset Identification No. 06-DEA-458904

service on behalf of: I TELEPHONE NUMBER I DATE

___ PLAINTIFF I

I

________________ 0 DEFENDANT I (334) 223-7280 1/4/08

SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF U.S. MARSHAL ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW TIllS LINE

or

I hereby certify and return that I .have personally served, have legal evidence of service, 0 have executed as shown in" Remarks", the process described on

the mdjvidual, company, corporation, etc. at the address shown above or on the individual, company, corporation, etc., shown at the address inserted below.

0 i hereby certify and and return that I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc., named above (See remarks below).

A person of suitable age and discretion then

0 residing in the defendant's usual place of abode.

Date of Time am

(I, 2:ol c

of U.S. P4arshidor

Total Charges Advance Deposits Amouni Owed to US Marshal or Amo.ni or Refund

fq,gH

REMARKS: :

RETURNEDAND FILED

JAN142008 H

PRIOR EDITIONS MAY CLERK FORM USM 285 (Rev. 12/15/80) BE USED U. S. DISTRICT COURT

iflODLE DIST. OF ALA.

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 501 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### Gloria Barad, as Administratrix of the Estate of Frances V. Rothenberg, Deceased, Appellant, v. Bank of Commerce, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 14, 1966, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs, on the ground that the complaint failed to allege facts from which damages can properly be inferred *(Watts*v. *Bank of Manhattan Co.,*83 N. Y. S. 2d 57, affd. 274 App. Div. 884; cf. *Daukas*v. *Shearson, Hammill & Co.,*26 A D 2d 526). The time to serve an amended complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. Appeal from order of said court dated January 14, 1966 dismissed, without costs. Said order was superseded by the order dated March 14, 1966 and made on reargument. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [See 48 Misc 2d 839.]
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 4 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 4 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 4 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 4 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 4 of 4
Subpart 5611.2 - USING AND MAINTAINING REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENTS     **Parent topic:** Part 5611 - DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS5611.274 Item identification and valuation.     5611.274-90 Item Unique Item Identification (IUID)/Unique Item Identifier (UII) and Military Equipment Evaluation (MEV).    *(Revised December 2015)*       It is USSOCOM policy that IUIDs or DOD recognized UID equivalents, shall be incorporated in solicitations and contracts in accordance with DFARS 211.274. DFARS clause 252.211-7003 shall be incorporated into any solicitation and contract for procurement of tangible assets as directed by the Program Manager in the procurement request package.       In accordance with DFARS 211.274-3, contractors shall be required to identify the Government’s unit acquisition cost for all items delivered, even if none of the criteria for placing a unique item identification mark applies. DFARS 252.211-7003(a) defines unit acquisition cost.       Follow procedures found in the DCG for IUID/UII and MEV.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2800 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2006 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 

Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ERNEST CHILDERS DEPARTMENT OF VET4 ERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Veterans Af6 fairs Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shall be 

7 known and designated as the ‘‘Ernest Childers Depart8 ment of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 2800 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, regula2 tion, map, document, record, or other paper of the United 

3 States to the outpatient clinic referred to in subsection 

4 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Ernest 

5 Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clin6 ic. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
#### Janie Miles, Appellant, v. R & M Appliance Sales, Inc., Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. Rondel Television Service Company, Third-Party Defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 12, 1965, reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, when the evidence adduced by plaintiff is considered in the aspect most favorable to her and she is given the benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn from that evidence *(Andersen*v. *Bee Line,*1 N Y *8582d 169, 172), a prima facie ease of negligence was established. Ughetta, Rabin and' Benjamin, JJ., concur. Beldock, P. J., and Munder, J., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment, with the following memorandum: Entirely apart from the question of plaintiff’s credibility, there was no proof in this ease that either the defendant or the third-party defendant was in any way negligent. If reversal is based on the theory that the presence of the air conditioner in the yard warrants the inference that defendant or its agent must have redelivered it, it must be further assumed that when it was redelivered it was so placed by defendant as to create a trap. This is basing inference on inference. Plaintiff might have established a prima facie case by means of a deposition of defendant or its agent before trial, but she did not do so. In our opinion, plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of negligence on the part of defendant.
Motion Denied; Abatement Order filed July 12, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00304

- CR

____________ MICHAEL BELLE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 405th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15CR0003



### ABATEMENT ORDER
Appellant filed a pro se motion to extend time to file his brief in which he states he has not received a copy of the court reporter’s record. Appellant is not represented by counsel and t his court is unaware whether appellant is entitled to appointment of an attorney

. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion and enter the following order. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c).We ORDER the judge of the 405th Distric t Court to immediately conduct a

hearing at which appellant, appellant ’ s counsel, if any, and counsel for the State shall participate, either in person or by video teleconference, to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to appointed counsel on appeal. The judge may appoint appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The judge shall see that a record of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of la w, and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing the findings and conclusions. The transcribed record of the hearing, the court ’ s findings and conclusions, and a videotape or compact disc, i f any, containing a recording of the video teleconference shall be filed with the clerk of this court within thirty days of the date of this order.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court ’ s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court ’ s active docket when the
trial court ’ s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appea l on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with this court ’ s order. If the parties do not request a hearing,
the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties
of such date.

PER CURIAM
252.237-7011 Preparation History.

As prescribed in 237.7003 (a) and (a)(8), use the following clause:

PREPARATION HISTORY (DEC 1991)

For each body prepared, or for each casket handled in a group interment, the Contractor shall state

briefly the results of the embalming process on a certificate furnished by the Contracting Officer.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 252.237 RESERVED
#### Oscar C. Lerwick, Jr., Appellant, v Ralph E. Kelsey, Respondent.

[813 NYS2d 921]

Peters, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Dowd, J.), entered September 20, 2005 in Chenango County, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

This action is one of three actions pending before this Court *(Lerwick v Krna,*29 AD3d 1206 [2006] [decided herewith]; *Lerwick v Smith,*29 AD3d 1209 [2006] [decided herewith]), and this is the second time that plaintiff has sought our review on issues arising from the same set of facts concerning defendant, Steven Krna and Ruth Smith *(Lerwick v Kelsey,*24 AD3d 918 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 710 [2006]; *Lerwick v Kelsey,*24 AD3d 920 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 711 [2006]; *Lerwick v Kelsey,*24 AD3d 931 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 711 [2006]).

As we have fully set forth all of the relevant facts pertaining to this proceeding in *Lerwick v Krna (supra),*and having determined therein that Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs complaint on the basis that, among other things, defendant, as well as Krna and Smith, as board members, were entitled to claim qualified privilege for the statements they made to other board members and employees, we affirm the order entered here for all of the reasons stated therein.

Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.
Part 5612 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL

ITEMS

Subpart 5612.1 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS GENERAL

5612.101 Policy.

5612.102 Applicability.

Subpart 5612.2 - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

5612.202 Market Research and Description of Agency Need.

5612.207-90 Contract Type.

Subpart 5612.3 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES FOR THE ACQUISITION

OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

5612.302 Tailoring of Provisions and Clauses for Acquisition of Commercial Items. (Removed June

2021)

Subpart 5612.1 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

GENERAL

5612.101 Policy.

If during the acquisition process new evidence or additional requirements indicate the item no

longer falls into the category of a commercial item, the solicitation shall be cancelled and reissued.

5612.102 Applicability.

(Revised June 2018)

(a)(1) When using FAR Part 12 procedures for acquisitions exceeding $1 million in value, the RAO,

APM, or PM is responsible for completing the commerciality determination memorandum template).

(f)(1) The Director of Procurement, USSOCOM, as the head of agency, delegates the authority to

determine applicability of FAR 12.102(f) to USSOCOM headquarters contracting divisions and field

contracting office chiefs. Determinations are to be in writing and included in each file.
Subpart 5612.2 - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(Added July 2008)

5612.202 Market Research and Description of Agency Need.

(a) For acquisitions in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, the market research report

template should be completed.

5612.207-90 Contract Type.

The determination to use a firm-fixed-price with economic price adjustment (FFP/EPA) shall be

documented. See FAR 16.203-3 for the required contents of the determination.

Subpart 5612.3 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND

CONTRACT CLAUSES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF

COMMERCIAL ITEMS

5612.302 Tailoring of Provisions and Clauses for Acquisition of Commercial

Items. (Removed June 2021)

HQ, United States Special Operations Command

Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L-K)

SOFARS 5612

February 2007
§ 66.3 Disclosure requirement and applicability. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) A label for a bioengineered food must bear a disclosure indicating that the food is a bioengineered food or contains a bioengineered food ingredient consistent with this part.
( 2 ) Except as provided in § 66.116 for voluntary disclosure, a label shall not bear a disclosure that a food is a bioengineered food or contains a bioengineered food ingredient if the records maintained in accordance with § 66.302 demonstrate that the food is not a bioengineered food or does not contain a bioengineered food ingredient.
( b ) *Application to food.* This part applies only to a food subject to: ( 1 ) The labeling requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”); or
( 2 ) The labeling requirements under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the Egg Products Inspection Act only if: ( i ) The most predominant ingredient of the food would independently be subject to the labeling requirements under the FDCA; or
( ii ) The most predominant ingredient of the food is broth, stock, water, or a similar solution and the second-most predominant ingredient of the food would independently be subject to the labeling requirements under the FDCA.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,077,172
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,995,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                 9,867,164
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,205,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               10
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,205,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,205,857
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               150,235
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                98,595
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               912,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (860,360)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (860,360)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (860,360)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Photogen Technologies, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Taffy J. Williams, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company

 

 
| /s/ Taffy J. Williams    |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Taffy J. Williams, Ph.D. |
| Chief Executive Officer  |
| October 20, 2003    |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Donna Adams, Petitioner, v Philip Toia, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We find substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s finding after a fair hearing that: "The record establishes that appellant received $411.59 in overpayments of assistance to which she was not entitled due to her willful failure to report the receipt of income tax refunds in that amount.” (see *300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc, v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176; *Matter of Vickers v Lavine,*56 AD2d 731). The proof was uncontradicted that before she received the refund checks, appellant received, signed and returned to the department two form letters pertaining to the subject of her income tax refunds both of which contained unambiguous and categorical directions that she should not cash or spend the refund checks. Appellant concedes that she cashed the checks and spent the money to repay loans and for personal purposes. The commissioner chose to discredit her testimony that she had been advised by her eligibility worker that she could spend the refund checks provided that she kept the receipts for her expenditures. There is no reference to such conversation in the case file which was properly received in evidence (see *Vickers v Lavine, supra,*p 732). The receipts which she produced did not corroborate her testimony. On this record, we cannot say that the commissioner’s determination was not supported by such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact. Appellant’s reliance on *Matter of Van Wagner*v *Van Lare*(57 AD2d 719) is misplaced. There, the recipient requested an adjournment for the purpose of calling as a witness the State employee who had signed a statement appearing in the file, and to obtain the testimony of his social services supervisor. The request was denied. Here, there was no request for an adjournment or for the production of any witness or item of evidence (CPLR art 78 proceeding transferred by order of Monroe Supreme Court.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.