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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 142

To express the sense of the Senate regarding the treatment of any future

unified budget surpluses.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 3, 1997

Mr. MOYNIHAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Finance

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate regarding the treatment

of any future unified budget surpluses.

Whereas the current economic expansion is now in its seventh

year and shows no signs of ending;

Whereas the unemployment rate is below 5 percent for the

first time in 24 years;

Whereas the current official inflation rate, which may be

overstated, is about 2 percent;

Whereas the deficit has been reduced from $290,000,000,000

in fiscal year 1992 to $23,000,000,000 in fiscal year

1997, or just three-tenths of 1 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP);
2

•SRES 142 IS

Whereas the Congressional Budget Office projects that,

under present law, the unified budget will have a surplus

of $86,000,000,000 in 2007;

Whereas the Congressional Budget Office also projects that,

under present law, the debt held by the public will fall

from about 50 percent of GDP this year to about 30 percent by 2007;

Whereas this extraordinary combination of good budget and

economic news is largely the result of budget policies included in the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of

1993;

Whereas the budget is not yet in surplus;

Whereas the Congressional Budget Office also projects that

the deficit is likely to reappear after 2007, and that the

debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP is also

likely to increase as the baby boom generation begins to

retire;

Whereas, without the on-budget surpluses of the social security trust funds, the Congressional Budget Office still

projects annual deficits of about $100,000,000,000 even

after the budget is ‘‘balanced’’ in 2002; and

Whereas projected unified budget surpluses in the short-run

would rapidly disappear if the current expansion ends,

and the economy would enter a recession: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) any unified budget surpluses that might

3 arise in the current expansion should be used to re4 duce the Federal debt held by the public; and
3

•SRES 142 IS

1 (2) to achieve this goal during this economic ex2 pansion that there be no net tax cut or new spend3 ing that is not offset by reductions in spending on

4 other programs or tax increases.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of
PeopleSoft, Inc. (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on
his knowledge:

     -    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
          June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     -    the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.

Dated: August 13, 2003

/s/ CRAIG A. CONWAY
-----------------------------
Craig A. Conway
President and Chief Executive Officer
PeopleSoft, Inc.

/s/ KEVIN T. PARKER
---------------------------
Kevin T. Parker
Executive Vice President,
Finance and Administration,
Chief Financial Officer
PeopleSoft, Inc.

                                       47
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6228

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD TIRRELL TERRY, a/k/a Perrie Thedan, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-97- 63-L, CA-98-2903-L) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Tirrell Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Joyce Kallam McDonald, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on January 28, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on January 29, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Richard Tirrell Terry appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999) and denying his motions for transcripts, discovery, continuance, and return of seized property. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Terry, Nos. CR-97-63-L; CA-98-2903-L (D. Md. Jan. 29, * May 19, & Jun. 2, 1999). Terry’s motion for a transcript at government expense is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.47
                                    AMENDMENT

                                     TO THE

                           EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN
                                 OF AMETEK, INC.

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 5

         WHEREAS, there was adopted and made effective as of December 29, 1942,
the Employees' Retirement Plan of AMETEK, Inc. (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated in its entirety, effective
January 1, 1998; and

         WHEREAS, Section 9.2 of the Plan provides that AMETEK, Inc. ("AMETEK")
may amend the Plan at any time or from time to time; and

         WHEREAS, AMETEK now desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         FIRST: A new Appendix XXXII is hereby added to the Plan, to read in its
entirety as follows:

                                 APPENDIX XXXII
                     SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN
                 EMPLOYEES TRANSFERRING TO THE NATIONAL CONTROLS
                      CORPORATION DIVISION OF AMETEK, INC.

         1. The provisions of this Appendix XXXII shall apply only to the
following employees of the National Controls Corporation Division of AMETEK,
Inc. ("NCC"), Shawn Cabin, Arlin Demerer, William Gladfelter, Richard Grudzien,
Dorothy Jones, Frank Kay, Insoon Kim, Stephan Kunca, Charles Laufer, Thomas
Ryan, Charles Sheridan, John Thacker and Ervin Whitfield (the "Covered
Employees"), who directly transferred their employment from the Panalarm
Division of AMETEK, Inc. ("Panalarm") to NCC upon the dissolution of Panalarm by
the Company.

         2. Each of the Covered Employees shall remain eligible to participate
in the Plan upon his transfer to NCC.

         3. Except to the extent set forth above, defined terms used in this
Appendix XXXII shall have the same meaning as used in the Plan.
<PAGE>   2
         SECOND: The provisions of this Amendment No. 5 shall be effective as of
August 13, 1999.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AMETEK has caused these presents to be executed in
its corporate name, by its duly authorized officer on this 7th day of September,
1999.

                                  AMETEK, Inc.

                                  By:  /s/ Donna F. Winquist
                                  ----------------------------------------------

Attest:

/s/ Kathryn E. Londra
-----------------------------
No. 67186.

protests 315193-K, etc. (New York).

#### United Narrow Fabrics et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon pile ribbon similar in use to silk pile ribbon and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMOTREX
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 3,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                         212,918
<SECURITIES>                                    19,142
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,066
<INVENTORY>                                     49,584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               370,452
<PP&E>                                          68,233
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 552,041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,373
<BONDS>                                        239,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           193
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,679
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   552,041
<SALES>                                         85,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,555
<CGS>                                           51,865
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   134
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,310
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,357
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,357
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 10810)

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. H-907.

*394(Decided August 25, 1964)

*Sharretts, Paley £ Garter*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain wire strand, imported from Japan, forms the subject of the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement.

Said appeal has been submitted for decision upon a written stipulation of fact agreed to by the parties, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeal to reappraisement referred to above consists of wire strand exported from Japan on or about December 4, 1958; that wire strand is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; that on or immediately preceding the date of exportation of the shipment of wire strand covered by this appeal to reappraisement, the prices at which wire strand such as or similar to the wire strand described on the invoice covered by the instant appeal to reappraisement were freely sold, or in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal market of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $268, per metric ton for wire strand of % inch diameter and $268. per metric ton for wire strand of %6 inch diameter (United States funds).

Upon the agreed facts of record, the court finds and holds that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the wire strand in issue and that said value is $268 per metric ton for wire strand of %-inch diameter and $268 per metric ton for wire strand of %6-inch diameter (United States funds).

Judgment will issue accordingly.
December 22, 1965

No. 69715.

Appeal 5173.

#### John G. Stephenson, III *v.*United States.

C.D. 2425 affirmed December 10, 1964. C.A.D. 850.
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

RUDOLPH PERRY,

Petitioner,

v.

PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5301RJB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Karen L.

Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any,

and the remaining record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The issues raised are

unexhausted as petitioner is currently in the state court of appeals with a personal

restraint petition. 

(3) The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, counsel for

respondent, and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 25th day of July, 2005.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05301-RJB Document 11 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 1
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

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE _______________________________________)

JOSEPH KRANKOTA, )

) No. C06-0334RSL

Petitioner, ) 

v. )

) ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

DOUG WADDINGTON, ) OF APPEALABILITY

)

Respondent. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s “Motion for Certificate of

Appealability” (Dkt. #19). Under the amended version of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner may

not appeal the denial of a habeas corpus petition unless the district court or the Ninth Circuit

issues a certificate of appealability identifying the particular issues that may be pursued on

appeal. United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 1997). To obtain a certificate of

appealability, the petitioner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right, meaning that the petitioner must show that the resolution of the habeas petition is

debatable among reasonable jurists or that the issues presented were “adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (citing

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). 

The Court’s finding regarding the untimeliness of petitioner’s challenge is not debatable

among reasonable jurists. See Dkt. #15 (Report & Recommendation); Dkt. #17 (Order

Dismissing § 2254 Petition). Petitioner has, therefore, failed to make a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right and is not entitled to a certificate of appealability under 28

Case 2:06-cv-00334-RSL Document 22 Filed 10/13/06 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

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY -2-

U.S.C. § 2253. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s “Motion for Certificate of Appealability”

(Dkt. #19) is DENIED.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00334-RSL Document 22 Filed 10/13/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 39 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 39

 To provide for the convening of the second session of the One Hundred 
                             Fifth Congress

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 13, 1997

  Mr. Lott introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
           twice, considered, read the third time and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 To provide for the convening of the second session of the One Hundred 
                             Fifth Congress

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the second regular 
session of the One Hundred Fifth Congress shall begin at noon on 
Tuesday, January 27, 1998.
    Sec. 2. Prior to the convening of the second regular session of the 
One Hundred Fifth Congress on January 27, 1998, as provided in the 
first section of this joint resolution, Congress shall reassemble at 
noon on the second day after its Members are notified in accordance 
with section 3 of this joint resolution.
    Sec. 3. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to assemble whenever, in 
their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 6, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.208 Open Market Paper** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Before the First Division,

March 18, 1959

No. 62852.

#### M. Adler’s Son, Inc., and Daniel F. Young, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/4060 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  8.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 9.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
Name:
    
    /s/ Daniel Mingdong Wu

Daniel Mingdong WuTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00151-CV

__________________

IN RE JAMES RUBIO

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-04-04400-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, James Rubio complained that the trial 

court failed to rule on an application for a writ of habeas corpus that Rubio filed as 

a challenge to a 2011 civil commitment order. We requested a response from the 

State of Texas. In its response, the State provided a copy of the trial court’s June 27, 

2022 order denying Rubio’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.1 Thus, Rubio’s 

1 The order denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus neither states

that the writ had issued nor that the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the 

application. See Ex parte Miller, No. 09-08-00194-CV, 2008 WL 5780816 at *1 

(Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 2, 2009, no pet.) (dismissing appeal challenging the 

trial court’s denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus).
2

complaint that the trial court failed to rule on his application for a writ of habeas 

corpus is moot. 

After considering the petition and the record, we conclude the relator has not 

shown that he is presently entitled to mandamus relief because he has already 

received all the relief that he requested in his petition to this Court. Accordingly, we 

deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 27, 2022

Opinion Delivered July 28, 2022

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Before the Second Division,

December 3, 1964

No. 68914.

#### Schick X-Ray Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/6501, 64/6650, and 64/5690 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of injectors and parts, in chief value of metal, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Schick X-Ray Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 38, C.D. 2358), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.