alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 650 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 18, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 1852) to modernize and update the National 

Housing Act and enable the Federal Housing Administration 

to use risk-based pricing to more effectively reach underserved borrowers, and for other purposes. The first reading 

of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 

consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined 

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Financial Services. After general debate 

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 

recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now 

printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
2 

•HRES 650 EH 

part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the 

House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as 

amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and 

shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. Notwithstanding 

clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill, 

as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B 

of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each further 

amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 

report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 

report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 

time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 

the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 

Whole. All points of order against such further amendments 

are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 

XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have 

been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
3 

•HRES 650 EH 

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1852 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 10.14.1


                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

                       NCR DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM



     AMENDMENT TO THE NCR DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM (the "Program") as
adopted effective January 1, 1997 by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of NCR Corporation (the "Committee").

     WHEREAS, the Committee adopted the Program effective January 1, 1997,
pursuant to its authority under Section 4.2 of the NCR Management Stock Plan to
determine the terms and conditions of grants and awards thereunder to
participants;  and

     WHEREAS, the Committee desires to make certain changes to the Program;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Committee does hereby amend the Program, effective
January 1, 1999, by replacing Section 2.4 Annual Option Grant in its entirety
                                          -------------------
with the following:

     Annual Option Grant.  At each annual shareholders' meeting of the Company,
     -------------------
     each individual then serving as a Director or newly elected as a Director
     shall receive a grant of nonqualified stock options under the Management
     Plan for a number of shares of Common Stock as determined by the Committee
     in its discretion, based on review of competitive data. The exercise price
     for each optioned share will be the Fair Market Value of one share of
     Common Stock on the grant date.  The stock options will be fully vested and
     exercisable at grant, and will have a term of ten years from the date of
     grant.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30301

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEMARCUS JUNE, also known as June Bug, 

also known as Antonio,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-50079-6

--------------------

December 23, 2002

Before DAVIS, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Demarcus June appeals the district court’s judgment that

revoked his supervised release and imposed a 48-month sentence.

June entered a guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to distribute

and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms and more of a

mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine and fifty grams

and more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine

base. 
No. 02-30301

-2-

June contends that the evidence was insufficient to show

that he possessed a firearm, and he argues that the imposition of

the maximum sentence was error. He contends that the district

court did not provide a written statement of the evidence relied

upon and the reasons for the revocation. He asserts that the

district court ignored an admission that would have absolved June

and relied on hearsay evidence admitted over his objection. 

We review a decision to revoke supervised release for an

abuse of discretion. United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219

(5th Cir. 1995). June’s challenge to the revocation is without

merit. The district court was required to revoke June’s supervised

release because he admitted that he tested positively for use of a

controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1); United States v.

Kindred, 918 F.2d 485, 487 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1990). June’s 48-month

sentence was within the proper range. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(1),

3583(b)(1), 3583(e)(3); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

The evidence sufficiently established that June possessed

a firearm, and June’s admission overwhelmingly established that he

violated the conditions of supervised release. United States v.

Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994). The admission of

hearsay was harmless, and the district court’s judgment includes

the implicit finding that the hearsay was reliable. McCormick, 54

F.3d at 220-21 & n.15. The lack of a written statement of the

evidence relied upon is harmless. Id. at 220. The district court

based its decision on a credibility determination to which we
No. 02-30301

-3-

accord deference. Id. at 219. The district court’s decision to

revoke June’s supervised release was not an abuse of discretion.

McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
From: Hcorsentino@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:17:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Guy Corsentino

Denham Springs, LA 70706
Before the Second Division,

May 25, 1965

No. 69319.

#### Saws ‘N’ Tools et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/3096, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bandsaw blades similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 41, C.D. 2386), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”) of China Electronics Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; and





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








Date: April 16, 2012



/s/  Hailong LiuHailong Liu

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
II

Calendar No. 407

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 41

[Report No. 105–210]

Approving the location of a Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial in the Nation’s

Capital.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 23, 1998

Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following joint

resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

JUNE 10, 1998

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

Approving the location of a Martin Luther King, Jr.,

Memorial in the Nation’s Capital.

Whereas section 508 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands

Management Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note; 110

Stat. 4157) authorized the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity

to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District

of Columbia to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.;

Whereas section 6(a) of the Commemorative Works Act (40

U.S.C. 1006(a)) provides that the location of a com-
2

SJ 41 RS

memorative work in the area described as Area I (within

the meaning of the Act) shall be deemed not authorized

unless approved by law not later than 150 days after notification to Congress that the Secretary of the Interior

recommends location of the commemorative work in Area

I; and

Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress

of the recommendation of the Secretary that the memorial be located in Area I: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., MEMORIAL.

4 The location of the commemorative work to honor

5 Martin Luther King, Jr., authorized by the Omnibus

6 Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (40

7 U.S.C. 1003 note; 110 Stat. 4157), within Area I is ap8 proved under section 6(a) of the Commemorative Works

9 Act (40 U.S.C. 1006(a)).

Calendar No. 407

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 41

[Report No. 105–210]

JOINT RESOLUTION

Approving the location of a Martin Luther King,

Jr., Memorial in the Nation’s Capital.

JUNE 10, 1998

Reported without amendment
No. 57489.

#### Henry Clay & Bock & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 142983-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of tobacco stems and other tobacco waste and that the facts and issues relating to the refund of duty on such merchandise are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Henry Clay and Bock & Co., Ltd.*v. *United States*(41 C. C. P. A. 45, C. A. D. 527). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on authority of the decision cited, it was held that refund should be made on the involved merchandise at the rates and in the amounts applicable, as computed by the collector.
#### Clarence E. GRICE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 05-1229.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 1, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

Clarence E. Grice, Appellant pro se. Laura Ridgell-Boltz, Social Security Administration, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Clarence E. Grice appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. *See*42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); *Craig v. Chater,*76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.1996). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Grice v. Barnhart,*No. CA-03-4054-0-25 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2005). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
No. 68172.

#### United China and Glass Co. *v.*United States,

protest 62/19830 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorative after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 5, 2014*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.114 Property-Casualty Insurance Companies** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# Official Journal L 344/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.344.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 344 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5514 December 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.344.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 344

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5514 December 2012

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

1

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ L 201, 27.7.2012) | 3 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ L 201, 27.7.2012)

(OJ L 201, 27.7.2012)

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 4-2 Filed 09/17/08 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

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE LUIS CAMPOS,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5091M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( X ) Allegations that defendant was found in possession of approximately $300,000 in cash as well as a significant amount of

drugs.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 May 22, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-mj-05091-JKA Document 14 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 63385.

protest 284664-K (San Francisco).

#### Curley-Bates Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of tennis-racket frames similar in all material respects to those the .subject of *United States*v. *Curley-Bates Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 14, C.A.D. 688), the claim *of the*plaintiff was sustained.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

DE VONNE C. HOUSTON JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT CASE NUMBER: C06-5283RJB 

 

 

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has

rendered its verdict.

 _X__ Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and

a decision has been rendered.

The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, Dkt #28. This petition is DISMISSED. 

 May 10, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

/s/Dara L. Kaleel 

By Dara L. Kaleel, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05283-RJB Document 30 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Cause No. DA 2 4 - 0 032 ADRIANNE COTTON

Cross - Petitioner/Respondent- Appell an t , vs. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Cross - Petitioner/Respondent- Appell ee . **ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME**  Pursuant to Appell ee ’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File its Response Brief and fo r good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee’s Motion is GRANTED. Appellee’s response brief will be due on or before May 1 0 , 2024 .

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court March 15 2024

03/15/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0032
No. 57476.

#### Eurasia Corporation, formerly Eurasia Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 192467-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

When this case was called for trial, the official papers were admitted in evidence, and it was agreed that the one bale of hats in question was withdrawn from warehouse on March 31, 1949. The collector’s report states that the merchandise would now be properly classified as claimed by the plaintiff. Upon the facts established by the record, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.