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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 90 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 90

Commending students who participated in the United States Senate Youth 
                     Program between 1962 and 2007.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2007

Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. 
 Cochran) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Commending students who participated in the United States Senate Youth 
                     Program between 1962 and 2007.

Whereas the students who have participated in the United States Senate Youth 
        Program (referred to in this preamble as the ``Senate Youth Program'') 
        over the past 45 years were chosen for their exceptional merit and 
        interest in the political process;
Whereas the students demonstrated outstanding leadership abilities and a strong 
        commitment to community service and have ranked academically in the top 
        1 percent of their States;
Whereas the Senate Youth Program alumni have continued to achieve unparalleled 
        educational and professional success and have demonstrated a strong 
        commitment to public service on the local, State, national, and global 
        levels;
Whereas the Senate Youth Program alumni have demonstrated excellent qualities of 
        citizenship and have contributed to the Nation's constitutional 
        democracy, both professionally and in volunteer capacities, and have 
        made an indelible impression on their communities;
Whereas each State department of education has selected outstanding participants 
        for the Senate Youth Program;
Whereas the Department of Defense, Department of State, and other Federal 
        departments, as well as Congress, have offered support and provided top 
        level speakers who have inspired and educated the students in the Senate 
        Youth Program; and
Whereas the directors of the William Randolph Hearst Foundation have continually 
        made the Senate Youth Program available for outstanding young students 
        and exposed them to the varied aspects of public service: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate congratulates, honors, and pays tribute 
to the more than 4,500 exemplary students who have been selected, on 
their merit, to participate in the United States Senate Youth Program 
between 1962 and 2007.
                                 <all>
```
exh10-40.htm


 










EXHIBIT 10.40




OEM and Distribution Agreement







Party A: Zhucheng Ziyang Ceramics Co., Ltd.


Party B: Laiyang Haina Ceramics Co., Ltd.







WHEREAS, Party B to take its own brand to Party A for the processing collaboration. Both Parties agree to enter the following agreement:








	
1.

	
Party B shall reach the monthly revenue minimum requirement of RMB 1 million (approximately $158,000) or above, if Party B fails to reach this requirement in two consecutive months, the OEM agreement shall be terminated.








	
2.

	
After both parties sign off the agreement, Party A shall prepare enough inventories for Party B.








	
3.

	
Party B shall provide the sample of the packaging box, the information about design and color, as well as shipping arrangements.








	
4.

	
Party B shall pay Party A RMB 0.1 million (approximately $15,800) as the deposit. Party B shall make full payment of the products before delivery, and the storehouse will be cleared at the end of each month.








	
5.

	
Party B shall provide the business registration, trademark registration, organization code, authorization letter and other related business certifications. If Party B is investigated by the related organization due to this issue, Party B shall solely take the full responsibility.








	
6.

	
Both Parties shall go through a consultation if there is any quality issue to the products.








	
7.

	
Once the business between both Parties is terminated, Party A shall refund the deposit to Party B



























Party A: Zhucheng Ziyang Ceramics Co. Ltd.


Signed by: /s/ Sun, Haiming







Party B: Laiyang Haina Ceramics Co., Ltd.


Signed by: /s/ Liu, Xiaobi

















Date: 04/01/2012
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.104 Safety Zone: Vessel Launches, Bath Iron Works, Kennebec River, Bath, Maine. ( a ) *Location.* The following is a safety zone: all waters of the Kennebec River within a 150-yard radius of the Bath Iron Works dry dock while it is being moved to and from its moored position at the Bath Iron Works Facility in Bath, Maine to a deployed position in the Kennebec River, and while launching or recovering vessels.
( b ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine.
( 2 ) All vessel operators shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated on-scene U. S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant and petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, state and federal law enforcement vessels.
( c ) *Notifications.* The Captain of the Port will notify the maritime community of periods during which this safety zone will be in effect by providing advance notice via Marine Safety Information Radio Broadcasts.
[CGD01-01-155, 67 FR 49582, July 31, 2002]
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60798 Summary Calendar

**David Enriquez**

**- Acuapa,** 

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,**

Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 006 035

Before **Southwick** , **Oldham** , and **Wilson** , Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
David Enriquez

- Acuapa , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Enriquez

- Acuapa argues that the BIA failed to address his

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 6, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60798 Document: 00516269062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2022No. 20

- 60798

2 argument regarding whether the best interests of the child must be the primary factor considered in determining whether a petitioner has demonstrated an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a minor relative. Specifically, he claims that pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the best interests of the child must be considered in determining whether a petitioner is entitled to cancellation of removal and that his position is supported by language in two Su preme Court cases.
Despite Enriquez

- Acuapa’s assertion to the contrary, the BIA considered and rejected his arguments in finding that unratified treaties and customary international law cannot create remedies beyond those provided by C ongress and that it l acked jurisdiction to the extent that he argued that the Convention on the Rights of the Child affected the validity of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Moreover, the Convention on the Rights of the Child has not been ratified by the United States and therefore does not create a binding obligation. See Martinez

- Lopez v. Gonzales , 454 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2006). Finally, because Enriquez

- Acuapa does not challenge the determination that he failed to demonstrate an undue hardship to his qualifying relat ives, he has abandoned any challenge to that determination. See Chambers v. Mukasey , 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Enriquez

Acuapa does not show that the evidence compels a contrary result. See Guerrero Trejo v. Garland , 3 F.4th 760, 744 (5th Cir. 2021).
The petition for review is **DENIED**

. Case: 20-60798 Document: 00516269062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2022
-cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
-cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
-cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
-cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
-cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
-cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
-cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
-cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
-cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
cr-06236-WPD Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2000 Pa
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.1412 Security Zone; escorted U.S. Navy submarines in Sector Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone. ( a ) *Location.* The following area is a security zone: all waters, from the surface to the ocean floor, within 1,000 yards of any U.S. Navy submarine that is ( 1 ) Operating in the Sector Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone, as defined in 33 CFR 3.70-10, and that
( 2 ) Is being escorted by the U.S. Coast Guard.
( b ) *Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 165, Subpart D, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zone created by paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander. The Coast Guard patrol commander may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or other means reasonably available. 33 CFR part 165.30 and 165.33 contain additional provisions applicable to the security zone created in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Effective period.* This rule is effective from 6:00 a.m. on June 12, 2010 Hawaiian Standard Time (HST).
( d ) *Notification.* The Coast Guard security escort will attempt, when necessary and practicable, to notify any persons or vessels inside or in the vicinity of the security one created in paragraph (a) of this section of the zone's existence via VHF Channel 16 or other means reasonably available.
( e ) *Penalties.* Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 46 U.S.C. 70036 and 46 U.S.C. 70052.
[USCG-2010-0409, 75 FR 33704, June 15, 2010, as amended by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019]
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-1226

___________________________

Hollis J. Larson

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

The Minnesota Department of Human Services; The Minnesota Sex Offender

Program; Bryce Bogenholm; Jesse D. Berglund; Benjamin Ranallo; Jeffrey

Boucher; Jason Syrett; Nathan John Madsen; Benjamin Alan Zuk; Becky Benson;

Jensina Rosen; Kyle Randa; Scott Giannini; Bryan Carman; Anthony Herring;

Cathy Canilla; Joseph Marczak; Carlton County; The City of Moose Lake

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: June 23, 2021

Filed: June 28, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Hollis Larson appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action. Following a careful review of the issues Larson raises on appeal, we

conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. See Plymouth Cty.

v. Merscorp, Inc., 774 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

David T. Schultz, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
EXHIBIT 10.62

                              SMA & VCSY AMENDMENTS
                              ---------------------

This memorandum of agreement,  dated,  January 15, 2002, shall confirm and amend
the  following  terms with  respect to Vertical  Computer  Systems  ("VCSY") and
Strategic Media Alliance ("SMA") in connection with the consulting agreement for
SMA  services  and their  joint  interests  in the  WorldBridge  Webcasting  LLC
("WorldBridge"):

1.  VCSY's  interest  in  WorldBridge  shall be  eliminated  and VCSY's  capital
contribution  of $150,000  shall be  credited  to its  account  with SMA in that
amount,  subject to a deduction of $60,000 for sums  currently  due to SMA under
the  consulting  agreement.  VCSY  shall  have no  further  payment  or  capital
contribution obligations of any kind with regard to WorldBridge.

2. Pursuant to the consulting  agreement between VCSY and SMA, SMA will continue
to provide  first  class  services  to VCSY for the months of  February  through
December  of 2002 for the  $90,000 on account  with SMA which  shall be deducted
from VCSY's account on a pro-rata  basis.  In addition to the services set forth
in  paragraph 2 of the  consulting  agreement  between  VCSY and SMA,  SMA shall
prepare press releases when requested by VCSY. SMA shall use its best efforts to
introduce  VCSY to SMA's  clients.  SMA shall  provide all  services in a timely
manner.  SMA shall continue to be reimbursed for any out-of pocket expenses that
have prior  approval  in writing by VCSY.  In lieu of the  options  set forth in
Paragraph 6 (B) SMA shall be entitled to receive warrants, beginning in February
2002, equal to $5000 per month based upon the following calculation- the closing
price of the  previous  average  five days of VCSY's per share price  before the
first trading day of the month plus $0.01 divided into $5000, giving the amounts
of warrants at a strike  price of the previous  average five day closing  price.
Except as  specifically  set forth  herein,  VCSY  shall  have no other  payment
obligations to SMA.

The parties hereby accept the terms set forth herein on the date first set forth
above.

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


"VCSY"


-------------------------------
Richard Wade, President
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc.



"SMA"


-------------------------------
Chuck Ashman, President
Strategic Media Alliance, Inc.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANDEEP SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74979

Agency No. A073-416-909

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Mandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,

FILED

JUN 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74979

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny the petition for

review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen

because it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s December 3, 2004, order

dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen

generally must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order), and Singh

failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897-

98. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
### The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 96-3191

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Rory Allen Gregory, also known * Western District of Arkansas. as Roy Allen, also known as Roy * Gregory, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 3, 1997 Filed: January 10, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Rory A llen Gregory pleaded guilty to attempting to manufactur e methcathi none, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Th e district court sentenced him to 155 months' imprisonment. Gregor y 1 appeals, and we affirm. Gregory c hallenges the district court’s drug-quantity findings. We conclude, however, that the district court did n ot clearly err in adopting the presentence report's conservative approximations of the amount of drug s Gregory could have produced from the precursor chemicals found at hi s clande stine drug laboratory. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1,

### -2-

comment. (n.12) (1995) (where there is no drug seizure, court shal l approximate quantity of controlled substance; court may consider, amon g other things, size or capability of any laboratory involved); United State s v. Scott , 91 F.3d 1058, 1062 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review) . Gregory’s argument th at such an approximation is proper only when all the nec essary precursor chemicals are present is without merit. See Unite d States v. Beshore , 961 F.2d 1380, 1383-84 (8th Cir.) (even in absence of neces sary precursor chemical, district court could properly approximat e amount of controlled substance that could have been produced), cert . denied , 5 06 U.S. 884 (1992); United States v. Havens , 910 F.2d 703, 70 5 (10th Cir. 1990) (quantity of drugs should equal amount of drugs producibl e if chemicals possessed by defendant were combined with proportionat e amounts of missing ingredients), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 1030 (1991). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
      and
      (b) of


Section
      1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of China Marine Food Group Limited, a Nevada corporation
      (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
      that:




The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the
      "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
      in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      China Marine Food Group Limited and will be retained by China Marine Food Group
      Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.




Date:
                March 28, 2008
            
            /s/
                Marco Hon Wai KuMarco
                Hon Wai Ku, Chief Financial Officer
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

         In  connection  with the Annual Report of  FinancialContent,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Controller of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Wing Yu                                 /s/ Dave Neville
----------------------------                 -------------------------------
    Wing Yu                                     Dave Neville
    Chief Executive Officer                     Chief Financial Officer
    March 23, 2006                              March 23, 2006

This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
###### Editorial Note on Part 159

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 159.311 Safety exception.

The regulations in this subpart shall not apply to discharges made for the purpose of securing the safety of the cruise vessel or saving life at sea, provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken for the purpose of preventing or minimizing the discharge.