alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. Con. Res. 99 Agreed to May 22, 1998

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That, for the purpose of section 1082(b)(1)(B) of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, the display of

the POW/MIA flag at the Capitol shall begin at 6:30 p.m. on

Sunday, May 24, 1998. As used in this section, the term ‘‘POW/

MIA flag’’ has the same meaning as in section 1082 of such Act.

SEC. 2. The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe regulations

with respect to the first section of this resolution.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
No. 63376.

protest 58/18510(A) (New York).

#### William Adams, Inc. *v.*United States,

*347Opinion by

Olives, O. J.

In accordance w.ith stipulation of counsel that the merchandise described on the invoice with entry B.15971 as “large sweet dish” is a kitchen or table utensil, plated with silver, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said merchandise. As to all other merchandise covered by the entries herein, the protest was dismissed.
EX-10.11(b)



 Exhibit 10.11(b) 

June 1, 2017 
 The Cambridge Strategy (Asset Mgt.) Ltd.
Berger House 
 36-38 Berkeley Square, 7th Floor 
 Mayfair,
London W1J5AE UK 
 Attention: Mr. Greg Brown 
  

	 	Re:	 Management Agreement Renewal 



Dear Mr. Brown: 
 We are writing with
respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2018 and all other provisions of
the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 
  

	 	•	 	 Cambridge Master Fund L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Ceres Tactical Currency L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Institutional Futures Fund Portfolio L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Managed Futures Custom Solutions Fund LP 



	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 



Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of
Mr. Patrick T. Egan at 522 Fifth Avenue – 7th Floor, New York, NY 10036. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 212-296-6808. 

 

			
	 Very truly yours,

	 CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC

		
	 By:            
	 	 /s/ Patrick T. Egan

Patrick T. Egan
 President and
Director


  

			
	 THE CAMBRIDGE STRATEGY (ASSET MGT.) LTD.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Edward D. Baker

		
	 Print Name:
	 	 Edward D. Baker

		
	 PE/tr
Case 3:06-cv-05091-RBL-JKA Document 17 Filed 08/24/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05091-RBL-JKA Document 17 Filed 08/24/06 Page 2 of 2
| **Exhibit 32.1** |
|------------------|

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

| In connection with the Annual Report of Oakridge International    Corporation a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year    ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date    hereof (the "Report"), Xiong Xu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,    certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted    pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
    (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
    (2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the    financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to    Oakridge International Corporation, and will be retained by Oakridge International    Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon    request.
    /s/ Xiong Xu
--------------------------
Xiong Xu
    Chief Executive Officer
October 14, 2011 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Before the First Division,

May 29, 1967

No. P67/173.

#### Airgo International Corp., a/c Pioneer Trading Co. *v.*United States,

protest 65/2580 (Los Angeles).

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of human serum similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Air Express International*Agency, *Inc., a/c Hyland Laboratories*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 254, Abstract 68288), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 51019 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Shelly Ann Smith,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:20

- CR

- 2349

Before **Barksdale, Elrod,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

**. Per**  **Curiam :**  * Shelly Ann Smith pleaded guilty , pursuant to a plea agreement, to importation of 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a)

. She was sentenced in 2021 to, inter alia , a below

- Sentencing Guidelines term

* 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 October 28, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-51019 Document: 00516526192 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2022No. 21

- 51019

2 of 60

- month s’ imprisonment. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Smith waived , inter alia , her right to appeal or to collaterally challenge her sentence , with exceptions not applicable to this appeal

. N otwithsta nding this waiver, Smith asserts the district court did not reasonably consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors

. T h is appeal is barred , as the Government contends, by the waiver

- of

appeal provision in Smith ’s plea agreement, which was knowing, voluntary, and enforceable. E.g. , United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292

– 93 (5th Cir. 1994) ( “[W]hen the record

. . . clearly indicates that a defendant has read and understands his plea agreement, and that he raised no question regarding a waiver

- of

- appeal provision, the defendant will be held to the bargain to which he agreed

. ”); **Fed. R. Crim. P.** 11(b)(1)(N). ( In her response to the Government’s motion to dismiss based on the appeal waiver, Smith contends the Government waived enforcement of the waiver by failing to invoke it when s he filed h er notice of appeal . This contention, which borders on being frivolous , is totally without merit

. E.g. , United States v. Acquaye , 452 F.3d 380, 38 1

– 8 2 (5th Cir. 2006) (“Ordinarily the government urges waiver of appeal after the defendant has filed either a merits brief or an Anders brief.” (citation omitted)). )
**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-51019 Document: 00516526192 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2022
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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CALVIN ROUSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5183RJB

ORDER REGARDING COUNSEL

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before the court plaintiff’s motion asking to “set aside the proceeding .” (Dkt. #

20). Plaintiff is not asking to dismiss this action.

Review of the motion reveals plaintiff is asking for permission to have the legal clinic from a

Spokane area Law School, “University Legal Assistance” represent him. (Dkt. # 20). Plaintiff states he

contacted University Legal Assistance and was told they would represent him if he asked permission of the

court. 

Neither the plaintiff nor University Legal Assistance needs the court’s permission. If University

Legal Assistance wishes to undertake representation of this plaintiff they need only enter a notice of

appearance. To the extent University Legal Assistance may be asking for permission to have law students

participate in this case, the court refers the plaintiff and University Legal Assistance to Local Rule General

Rule 2 (i) Admission to Limited Practice.

Case 3:06-cv-05183-RJB Document 22 Filed 10/02/06 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

ORDER

Page - 2

Any person who has completed the admissions application and been admitted by the court may

participate in an action without further leave of court, unless the court specifically removes them as

allowed for in. Local Rule General Rule 2 (i) (3) (A). The court advises plaintiff that oral argument has

not been set on any motion and permission for oral argument is rarely granted. 

The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order.

DATED this 29th, day of September, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05183-RJB Document 22 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 10 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 10

  To consent to certain amendments enacted by the Legislature of the 
      State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 1997

 Mr. Akaka (for himself and Mr. Inouye) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  To consent to certain amendments enacted by the Legislature of the 
      State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
That, as required by section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union'', approved 
March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4), the United States consents to the 
following amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, 
adopted by the State of Hawaii in the manner required for State 
legislation:
            (1) Act 339 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1993.
            (2) Act 37 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1994.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Robert P. McGreevy, Appellant-Respondent, v Leslie N. Simon et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Carolee Sunderland et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 177]

—In a proceeding to invalidate certificates nominating Leslie N. Simon as a candidate of the Republican Party and the Home Town Party for the public office of Supervisor of the Town of Lewisboro, the petitioner appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered October 13,1995, as dismissed the proceeding, and Leslie N. Simon, Eugene F. Conroy, Nancy Melagrano, John F. Bronzo, and Mary T. Trott cross-appeal from so much of the judgment as found that the proceeding was timely.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the cross appellants are not aggrieved by the portion of the judgment cross-appealed from *(see,*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The order to show cause which brought on this proceeding directed "personal service” of a copy of the order to show cause and supporting papers. The Supreme Court Justice who signed the order to show cause crossed out the provision which would have permitted service by mail. The petitioner claimed that Leslie N. Simon was served by affixing the papers to the door of his residence and mailing the papers to his home and business addresses pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). The method of service provided for in the order to show cause is jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly complied with *(see, Matter of O’Daniel v Hayduk,*59 AD2d 706, 707, *affd*42 NY2d 1062; *Matter of Bruno v Ackerson,*39 NY2d 718, *affg*51 AD2d 1051; *Matter of Raphael v Montgomery County Bd. of Elections,*175 AD2d 965; *Matter of Sahler v Callahan,*92 AD2d 976, 977).

The affidavit of the petitioner’s process server was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish that she exercised due diligence in attempting service by personal delivery of the order to show cause to Simon pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) or by *714delivery and mail pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). The two attempts at such service were insufficient to warrant resort to affix and mail service under CPLR 308 (4) *(see, Barnes v City of New York,*70 AD2d 580, *affd*51 NY2d 906; *Pizzolo v Monaco,*186 AD2d 727; *Moss v Corwin,*154 AD2d 443). Because the petitioner failed to properly serve Simon, a "necessary party” *(Matter of Sahler v Callahan, supra,*at 977), pursuant to the order to show cause, the Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding. Accordingly, the proceeding was properly dismissed. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
BULLETIN 1005 PLATE 1

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

‘Topography by Elliot Gillerman

TRUE NORTH

Contour interval 50 feet
Datum is approximate sea level

Geology by W. R. Thurston, 1945

and D. M. Henderson, 1945

GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE COUGAR SPAR-BLUE, BELL AREA, BEAVER COUNTY, UTAH

EXPLANATION

. fiz
33
a
a
=
A
z
Ex
fs
&
3
43
“x t>
Quartz diorite
Purple latite
F
z
g
reaiane | 3
4
7] |e
Pa
oreen ate
niyate J
8
8
ae
Quartzite z

Contact, dashed where
‘approximately located

——
Fault, dotted where
‘concealed

a
Mine shaft

~
Adit

286657 O ~ 54 In Pocket No, 1

TERTIARY
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyof the pegmatites and associated rocks of Maine : including feldspar, quartz,mica and gem deposits**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:445
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000959403
 
August 6, 2018
**Media General, Inc., 333 E. Franklin St. Richmo nd, VA 23219 (804) 887-5000 www.mediageneral.co**  **m Phone (804) 887-5049**  **hgola@mediageneral.com**

**September 28, 2015**

BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

**U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE**  **Washington, DC 20590**

Re: Petition for Amendment to Exemption No. 12748, Media General Inc. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-2531

**Dear Sir or Madam:**

**On September 3, 2015, the FAA issued Exemption No. 12748 to Media General, Inc. (“MEG” ), allowing**  **commercial operations of the DJI Inspire I aircraft under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and**  **Reform Act of 2012. MEG hereby seeks to amend the Exemption to allow it to operate a dditional UAS**  **models -- the (1) DJI Phantom 3, (2) DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, and (3) 3D Robotics Solo (toget her, the**  **“Amendment Aircraft”) – under the same conditions as approved in Exemption No. 12748.**

**Addition of the Amendment Aircraft does not affect the basis upon which the FAA gra nted its approval in**  **Exemption No. 12748 and supports the request for amended exemption. These aircraft a re comparable in**  **type, size, weight, speed and operating capabilities to those of the DJI Inspire 1 currently authorized by**  **Exemption No. 12748. To the extent necessary, MEG refers the FAA to its origina l exemption request**  **submitted in Docket FAA-2015-2531 for a listing of regulations (as amended by E xemption 12748) for**  **which a waiver is being sought; a demonstration of the public interest; and a showing of an equivalent**  **level of safety.**

**The Amendment Aircraft would be operated in compliance with the existing requirements of Exemption**  **No. 12748, the Blanket FAA COA issued July 2015, the Media General, Inc. Flight Operat ions Manual**  **and the Media General, Inc. motion picture and television operations manual (MPTO M). Because the**  **requested amendment would not set any precedent or otherwise raise any new i ssues, we request the FAA**  **to issue a summary grant based on preceding exemptions.**

**Thank you for your attention to this petition. If there are any questions con cerning this matter, please do** 

**not hesitate to contact me.**

**Sincerely,**

**/s/**

**Henry Gola**

**Associate General Counsel Media General, Inc.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from the financial statement as of September 30,
1996 of TCSI Corporation and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>     0000875315
<NAME>    TCSI Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                 Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                            27,240
<SECURITIES>                      16,886
<RECEIVABLES>                     19,215
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  63,122
<PP&E>                             7,473
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    80,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             10,595
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                           2,115
<OTHER-SE>                        68,157
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      80,867
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  50,154
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     53,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (1,687)
<INCOME-TAX>                        (540)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (1,147)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,147)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.06)
        


</TABLE>
No. 55683.

protests 161583-K and 161637-K (Los Angeles).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MANUEL CARRASCO-FLORES AKA

NELSON FLORES-CARRASCO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00231-CR

Appeal from

362nd District Court

of Denton County, Texas

(TC # F-2012-2660-D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 9

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require

two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr.

CRAIG, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HELMS, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr.

SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire,

and Mr. THOMPSON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing

taxes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

SJ 9 IS

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase

5 the rate or base of any tax may pass only by a two-thirds

6 majority of the whole number of each House of Congress.

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress may waive section 1 when

8 a declaration of war is in effect. The Congress may also

9 waive section 1 when the United States is engaged in mili10 tary conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat

11 to national security and is so declared by a joint resolu12 tion, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each

13 House, which becomes law. Any provision of law which

14 would, standing alone, be subject to section 1 but for this

15 section and which becomes law pursuant to such a waiver

16 shall be effective for not longer than 2 years.

17 ‘‘SECTION 3. All votes taken by the House of Rep18 resentatives or the Senate under this article shall be deter19 mined by yeas and nays and the names of persons voting

20 for and against shall be entered on the Journal of each

21 House respectively.’’.

Æ
No. 62302.

#### H. Bates Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 16646-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, C. D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.