alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 99

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That, for the purpose of section

3 1082(b)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act

4 for Fiscal Year 1998, the display of the POW/MIA flag

5 at the Capitol shall begin at 6:30 p.m. on Sunday, May

6 24, 1998. As used in this section, the term ‘‘POW/MIA

7 flag’’ has the same meaning as in section 1082 of such

8 Act.

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

10 regulations with respect to the first section of this resolu11 tion.

Passed the Senate May 22, 1998.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 99

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the flying of the POW/MIA flag.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00434-CV

In re H.L. “Larry” Gardner, Jr.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

On July 15, 2015, relator H.L. “Larry” Gardner, Jr. filed his petition for writ of

mandamus and motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8, 52.10. The real parties in

interest, Tracen Gardner, Sasa Watt, and Anne Clare, filed a response to the motion for temporary

relief on the same day. Having reviewed the petition and the record and the motion for temporary

relief and the response, we deny the motion and the petition for writ of mandamus.

__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Filed: July 15, 2015
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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ANDREW M. FLORES,

 Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN MARTINEZ, et al,

Respondents.

Case No. C06-5114RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Petitioner’s [2nd] Notice of Appeal

and Motion for a Certificate of Appealability [Dkt. #31].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

Petitioner has filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court’s Order adopting the report and recommendation

denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. #28]. He has also filed a Letter seeking to supplement

the record [Dkt. #34]. The Court will consider the letter as a Motion for Reconsideration and because the

Letter/Motion fails to show “manifest error” in the Court’s prior ruling or provide “new facts or legal

authority,” CR 7(h)(1), Local Rules W.D. Wash, the Letter/Motion [Dkt. #34] will be DENIED.

Petitioner has filed a Motion to Supplement the Record [Dkt. #35]. This motion, unlike the letter

referenced above, does not seek reconsideration; rather, petitioner asks for more time to reply to any response

by the respondent to his Motion for a Certificate of Appealability. Because respondent has not filed a 

Case 3:06-cv-05114-RBL Document 36 Filed 03/19/07 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

response to petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability, petitioner’s Motion to Supplement the

Record [Dkt. #35] is DENIED as MOOT.

Furthermore, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. #24], this Court declines

to issue a Certificate of Appealability because the petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 19th day of March, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05114-RBL Document 36 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10551)

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 17937.

(Decided June 27,1963)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have sub*314mitted this appeal for reappraisement for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AIND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeal to reappraisement herein, consists of tires, tubes and rimibapes exported from Holland.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for .shipment to the United States were the invoiced unit prices as entered.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal to reap-praisement herein may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the invoiced unit prices, as entered.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

December 23, 1952

No. 57001.

petition 6857-R (New York).

#### J. D. Smith Inter-Ocean, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The vice president of the petitioner testified that he made entry of the merchandise at the value suggested by the appraiser. Subsequently, the appraiser advised that the entered value should be increased, and the petitioner filed an amended entry setting forth the suggested higher value. Through oversight, however, petitioner failed to deposit the estimated duties based on the amended entered value. When the inadvertence was discovered, petitioner attempted to pay the required amount of duty, but it was too late as the merchandise had been appraised. On the record presented the court was satisfied that the relief sought should be allowed. The petition was therefore granted.
Case 2:06-cr-00073 Document 29 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00073 Document 29 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00073 Document 29 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00073 Document 29 Filed 10/24/06 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00073 Document 29 Filed 10/24/06 Page 5 of 5
No. 68185.

#### Palley Supply Co. *v.*United States,

protest 63/1094 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hunting knives with handles of wood, more than 4 inches in length, exclusive of handle, specially designed for other than household, kitchen, or butchers’ use, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: Anna Schnetzler

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:47:09 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Anna Schnetzler
Thayer, Illinois
Message Information Date 07/18/2011 02:22 PM From Weetal@aol.com To ray.lahood©dot.gov ; LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA cc chris.httIetonohiolibertycouncil.org Subject Fuel economy regulations

Please find attached a letter from myself as well as members of the Union County 912 Board of Directors concerning our thoughts on the future fuel economy regulations. Please consider our input when making these important decisions. Thank you.

4ca Union County 912 740-666-0957
614-562-6003 (cell) UnionCountyLetter.doc

OEX Processing Information Processed Date: Processed By P0 Office Category:JUly 18, 2011

The I lonorabte Ra y I al lood Secretar y of the Department o [transportation 1200 New Jerse yAvenue, SF Washington, 1). C 20590 ftc I lonorable I isa Jackson Administrator ol the Fnvironmental Protection Agency 1 200 Penns y lvania A venue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
I )car Secretary I al loud and Administrator Jackson, the Union Count 9/I 2 Group comprises like-minded individuals who are concerned about the direction our nation is taking. We are writing to you toda y on their behalf to express concern ahout the luel economy standards your agencies are considering for 201 7 to 2025. Of particular concern is the president's stated goal of 47 mpg to 62 mpg in that time period. .Jnion Count y is in central Ohio, near Columbus, The county is fortunate to have a strong a g ricultural presence as well as industrial presence. (I londa has a huge presence in Union Count y ). Although agriculture and industry have diverse needs, one thing they have in common is the need for a choice of aliordable vehicles to get their work done. Auto makers are currentl y working on ensuring the vehicles in their fleets comply with the 35.5 mpg standard set for 2016. That's an increase from today's 29,2 mpg standard. It is unreasonable to think that one year after de 'eloping the technology for 35.5 mpg, auto makers will be able to attain even the low end of the president's goal. 47 mpg. That kind of stretch objective is immoderate and unnecessar y . We agree that our nation needs improved fuel economy to both help our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. A timely and gradual adjustnient to fuel economy standards, rather than a forklift increase, Will better serve our nations citizens, businesses and economy.
We ask that y our agencies reconsider your current plans fur aggressive fuel economy regulations for 201 7 to 2025 and. instead, plan for the next logical step in America's efforts to achieve greater fuel econom for its cars and trucks. With regards, I isa Cooper. President & Members of the l3oarcl of I )irectors 1/ nion ('ount y 9/12 Ci roup
Case No. 9,561.

#### MILLER v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.

[3 Cin. Law Bul. 151.]

Circuit Court, N. D. Ohio.

1878.

Railroad Companies — Injury to Employe — Pel-low Servant.

At law.

Homer Goodwin,, for plaintiff.

E. J. Estep and Judge Dickey, for defendant.

Before BAXTER, Circuit Judge, and WELKER, District Judge.

BAXTER, Circuit Judge.

We have had this case under consideration, and have addressed our inquiries mainly to the principal point in the case. The plaintiff sets forth that he was an employs on the road of the defendant, serving under and subject to the orders of the engineer, and through the negligence of the engineer he was injured. Upon this question it is supposed that there is a difference in the law as administered by this court and the courts of this state; and it is argued that the federal courts, upon this question, are not bound by the adjudications of the supreme court of Ohio. We have not considered that question, nor have we reached any conclusion with reference to the order being suddenly made, an order directing the performance of a hazardous duty; nor have we considered the question attempted to be made as to the imperfect or defective machinery. We think the opinion in the case of Cleveland, C. & C. R. Co. v. Keary, 3 Ohio St. 201, is the ablest, clearest, and most -satisfactory discussion of this principle that is to be found in the books anywhere; and we have determined to adopt and adhere to the principles announced in that opinion, as the rule which will govern this court in all future cases involving similar questions. With the principles announced in that case counsel are supposed to be familiar, and it is not necessary to repeat them here. It is sufficient to say that this court, in the administration of the law upon questions of this kind, will stand squarely upon the principles announced by Judge Ranney in that case. The demurrer will, therefore, be overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO CUH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          29,515                  22,308
<SECURITIES>                                    12,220                  19,371
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,949                  11,970
<ALLOWANCES>                                       400                     400
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,740                  57,756
<PP&E>                                          10,061                  10,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,944                  18,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,975                  80,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,077                   9,685
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,259                   2,245
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,639                  68,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,975                  80,829
<SALES>                                         10,069                  11,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,069                  11,005
<CGS>                                            4,932                   4,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,563                  10,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (682)                   (766)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,812)                    860
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                     344
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,812)                    516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.08)                   0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.08)                   0.02
        

</TABLE>
SI0-100 3 I 1-00 5 

### KANSA S MANHAIIA N fiEGIONAI. Aim'Oft I March 1,201 0 Th e Honorabl e RaymondH . l.alloo d Secretar y U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Docke t DOT-OST-2010-003 4 Dea r Mr . Secretary : I {in i writin g to expres s m

y suppor t fo r th e applicatio n for

antitrus t immunit y and propose djoin t

busines s agreement

filed b y America

n Airline s (AA ) and Japa

n Airline s (JAL) . lii e propose dallianc e betwee n thes e tw o airline s i s vital for th e oncworl d allianc e to compete effectively wit h th e Sta r and SkyTca

malliances . Thi s increase d allianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e bcncllt s o f

th e Department' s Ope n Skie s polic y - first

b y solidifyin g U.S . - Japa

n Open Skies , the n b

y servin g a s afoundatio n fo r furthe r opennes s acros s Asia . I .strongl y encourag e th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n t

o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t woul denabl e thes e oneworl dallianc e airline s to wor k closel y togethe r

t o delive r highly competitiv e ai r

transportatio n services . Approva l o f th e AA/JA L allianc e wil l hav e a positiv e impac t

o n ai r trave l b y offerin g customer s mor e service , schedulin g and pricin g option s andwill hel p to ensur e tha t customer s continu e to benefi t fi-omth e competitio n afforde db y thre e competitiv e ai r

alliances . I urg e yo u to quickl y approv e thi s application . Sincerely , Peter C . Va n Kure n Airpor t Directo r



### FL Y 

### .CO M Manhatta n Regiona l Airpor t
Before the First Division,

December 18, 1951

No. 56173.

protests 173991-K, etc. (New York).

#### L. Bamberger & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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 QE Brushes, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”),
I, Gregory Ruff, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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;
and





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





Dated
this 12th day
of April, 2010.








GREGORY
      RUFFGregory
      RuffChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE

U.S. v. Escobar, et al., CR05-5766RBL - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 700

TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402-4305

(253) 428-3800

Judge Ronald B. Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO. CR05-5766RBL

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER 

) GRANTING STIPULATED

v. ) MOTION TO CONTINUE

) TRIAL DATE

JUAN CARLOS ESCOBAR, )

TOMAS RAMIREZ-LARA, )

a/k/a Jose Luis Cerda Rios, and )

JOSE ALFREDO GALLARDO GONZALEZ, )

)

Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________)

Upon the stipulation and motion of the parties to continue the trial and pretrial

motions due date in the above-captioned case, and based upon the stipulated and agreed

facts set forth in the parties’ motion, which are hereby adopted as findings of the Court

and incorporated by reference, the Court finds that such a continuance would serve the

ends of justice and outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendants in a

speedy trial; therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be continued to March 20, 2006. 

The period of delay resulting from this continuance from January 3, 2006 to the new trial

date of March 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B) for the purpose of computing the time limitations

imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161-3174.

Case 3:05-cr-05766-RBL Document 27 Filed 12/15/05 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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE

U.S. v. Escobar, et al., CR05-5766RBL - 2

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 700

TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402-4305

(253) 428-3800

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Pretrial Conference date be extended to

March 8, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. and Pretrial Motions due date be extended to 

January 24, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of December, 2005. ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Judith Mandel 

JUDITH MANDEL

Attorney for Defendant

Juan Carlos Escobar

s/ Linda Sullivan 

LINDA SULLIVAN

Attorney for Defendant

Tomas Ramirez-Lara

s/ Paula Olson 

PAULA OLSON

Attorney for Defendant

Jose Alfredo Gallardo Gonzalez

s/ Michael Dion 

MICHAEL DION

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05766-RBL Document 27 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Startech Environmental Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Peter J. Scanlon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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; 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/ Peter J. Scanlon
--------------------
Peter J. Scanlon
Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2004