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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 505 

Recognizing the innumerable contributions of the recreational boating community and the boating industry to the continuing prosperity and affluence 

of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2007 

Mr. KLEIN of Florida (for himself, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. TANNER, 

Mr. COBLE, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. TAYLOR, and Mrs. 

MILLER of Michigan) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the innumerable contributions of the recreational 

boating community and the boating industry to the continuing prosperity and affluence of the United States. 

Whereas the boating community in the United States includes over 73,000,000 individuals, generates more than 

$39,000,000,000 annually in the United States economy, 

and provides jobs for 380,000 citizens of the United 

States; 

Whereas boaters often serve as stewards of the marine environment of the United States, educating future generations of the value of these resources, and preserving such 

resources for such generations’ enjoyment; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 505 IH 

Whereas there are approximately 1,400 active boat builders 

in the United States, using materials and services contributed from all 50 States; 

Whereas boating, as an activity, provides opportunities for 

families to be together, appeals to all age groups, and has 

a beneficial effect on the physical fitness and scholastic 

performance of those who participate; and 

Whereas, July 1, 2007, would be an appropriate day to establish as National Boating Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the recreational boating community and the 

4 boating industry of the United States should be 

5 commended for their innumerable contributions to 

6 the economy of the United States, the well-being of 

7 United States citizens, and responsible environ8 mental stewardship of the marine resources of the 

9 United States; and 

10 (2) the President should issue a proclamation 

11 calling on the people of the United States to observe 

12 National Boating Day with appropriate programs 

13 and activities. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 28, 2015

a1019 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2015

148533

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148533

COA: 318527

Genesee CC: 13

- 032889

- FH

MOHAMMID SAMUEL

- LEE NARD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 26, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Genesee Circuit Court to

determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different s entence under

the sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge , 498 Mich 358 (2015). On

remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If

the trial court determines that it would have imposed the same sent ence absent the

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If,

however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence

absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it sha ll resentence the defendant.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
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. Reyes, et al./CR06-5005FDB - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

601 UNION STREET, SUITE 5100

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3903

(206) 553-7970

Judge Franklin D. Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO. CR06-5005FDB

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER

) GRANTING STIPULATED

v. ) MOTION TO CONTINUE

) TRIAL DATE

TOMAS ZEA REYES, and )

ANTONIA CAZARES, )

)

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 from March 20, 2006 to

June 26, 2006. The period of delay resulting from this continuance from March 20, 2006,

up to and including the new trial date of June 26, 2006, 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 3:06-cr-05005-RBL Document 30 Filed 03/01/06 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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE

U.S v. Reyes, et al./CR06-5005FDB - 2

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

601 UNION STREET, SUITE 5100

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3903

(206) 553-7970

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pretrial motions due date be extended to

April 11, 2006.

DONE this 1st day of March, 2006. 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Ronald Heslop (per telephonic auth.)

RONALD HESLOP

Attorney for Defendant

Tomas Zea Reyes

s/ Matthew Renda (per telephonic auth.)

MATTHEW RENDA

Attorney for Defendant

Antonia Cazares

s/ Michael Dion 

MICHAEL DION

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-05005-RBL Document 30 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 2
List of Documents Submitted from the State of Virginia

 July 23, 2012, Letter from David K. Paylor, Director, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality to Ms. Dana Esher, Director, Air Programs Division, U.S. EPA Region III, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

 Enclosure 1, State of Virginia 110(a)(2) requirements in the state implementation plan for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS.

 Enclosure 2, State of Virginia certification of public participation activities.

 Enclosure 2a, State of Virginia general notices of the proposed state implementation plan.

 Enclosure 3, State of Virginia 110(a)(2) Public Participation Record.
#### Carol Orr, Respondent, v Katherine Miner, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 633]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated June 29, 1994, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff failed to establish that she sustained a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The affirmations of the plaintiff’s physician consisted of "conclusory assertions tailored to meet statutory requirements”, and were thus insufficient to defeat summary judgment *(Lopez v Senatore,*65 NY2d 1017, 1019; *DuMont v Sandhir,*201 AD2d 450). The physician’s affirmations failed to set forth any limitations on the plaintiff nor any objective medical tests to support his findings *(see, Baker v Zelem,*202 AD2d 617). In addition, the mere use of the words "permanent” and "totally disabled” by the plaintiff’s physician were insufficient to defeat summary judgment *(see, Stallone v County of Suffolk,*209 AD2d 403).

*568The plaintiffs continuing subjective complaints of pain, and her self-serving statements that she was unable to work and perform her usual activities set forth in her affidavit were also insufficient to defeat summary judgment *(see, Iglesias v Inland Freightways,*209 AD2d 479; *Beckett v Conte,*176 AD2d 774). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
(Reap. Dec. 11035)

#### Samincorp South American Minerals & Merchandise Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1023214.

*538(Decided June 29, 1965)

*Henry I. Fillman*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> 1. That this stipulation is limited to the items marked “A” and initialed “BS” by Examiner Benjamin Struminski on the invoice covered by the above numbered appeal to reappraisement, and is abandoned as to all other merchandise.

> 2. That the merchandise marked “A” consists of 158 galvanized steel drums which were exported from Japan on April 5,1963.

> 3. That the said galvanized steel drums were entered subsequent to the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 and are not Identified in the final list proclaimed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to said Customs Simplification Act Treasury Decisions 54521.

> 4. That at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing appraisement such or similar merchandise was freely sold or in the absence of sales offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States.

> 5. That the export value as defined in Section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the said Customs Simplification Act of 1956, of the galvanized steel drums involved herein is $4.35 per drum.

> 6. That the above entitled appeal may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and issue described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold 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, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value is $4.35 per drum.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case 2:06-cv-00592-JLR Document 316 Filed 12/02/14 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00592-JLR Document 316 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00592-JLR Document 316 Filed 12/02/14 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00592-JLR Document 316 Filed 12/02/14 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00592-JLR Document 316 Filed 12/02/14 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00592-JLR Document 316 Filed 12/02/14 Page 6 of 6
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22404]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE


Depository Library Council Meeting

AGENCY: Government Publishing Office.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Depository Library Council (DLC) will meet virtually in 
conjunction with the Federal Depository Library Conference from Monday, 
October 16, 2023, through Wednesday, October 18, 2023. The sessions 
will take place from 12 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EDT). The meetings will take 
place online, and anyone can register to attend at https://www.fdlp.gov/2023-fdl-conference. Closed captioning will also be 
provided. The purpose is to discuss matters affecting the Federal 
Depository Library Program. All sessions are open to the public.

DATES:  October 16-18, 2023.

Hugh Nathanial Halpern,
Director, U.S. Government Publishing Office.
[FR Doc. 2023-22404 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1520-01-P
January 25, 1955

No. 58736.

protests 195037-K and 195038-K.

#### Amity Silk Corporation *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
2. Remainder Unchanged. Except as stated above, the terms and conditions of the Agreementare unchanged and remain in full force and effect.3. Miscellaneous.(a) This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with, the laws of theState of Delaware.(b) This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be anoriginal, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.(c) This Amendment, together with the Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between theparties with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof, merging any and all prioragreements.**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment as of the date set forthabove.       **OSTEOTECH, INC.**       By: /s/ Sam Owusu-Akyaw         Name: Sam Owusu-Akyaw    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer       By: /s/ Kenneth P. Fallon III         Kenneth P. Fallon III
 
2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 9, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00565

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.M., a child,

Fr om the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CVW000960

- C3

Honorable Roel Canales, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Roxann G. Soto ’ s notification of late record is GRANTED. The reporter ’ s record is due

on October 23, 2015. No further extension of time will be allowed.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
(Reap. Dec. 11067)

#### Panation Trade Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 70173, etc.

(Decided September 27, 1965)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Judge:

The following appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” heretofore attached and made part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court as follows:

> 1. That the involved merchandise consists of cigarette lighters exported from Japan after the effective date of the Custom Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165) ; that the involved merchandise is not identified on the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant thereto (T.D. 54521) and that ap-praisement was accordingly made under Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the said Customs Simplification Act.

> *6022. That the merchandise, the facts, and the issues herein are the same in all materials respects as those involved in *Panation Trade Co.*v. *United States,*i.R.D. 181, and that the record in the said cited case may be incorporated herein.

> 3. That on or about the date of exportation of the involved merchandise, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets in the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities 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, were the invoice unit ex-factory prices.

> 4. That the appeals enumerated in Schedule “A” annexed may be submitted for decision upon this stipulation and upon the incorporated record, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and hold that such statutory values for the involved merchandise are the invoice unit ex-factory prices.

As to all other merchandise included on the invoices covered by the entries involved herein, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
CONSULTING AGREEMENT

     CONSULTING AGREEMENT dated as of October 20, 1999 between MagicInc.Com.,  a
Delaware  corporation  ("MAGC"),  and Commonwealth  Partners NY, L.L.C.,  with a
principal place of business at 117 E. 57th Street, Suite 44B, New York, New York
10022 ("CPNY").

     WHEREAS:

     (A MAGC has done a private  placement of its Senior  Series A  Subordinated
Convertible Redeemable Debentures to BVH Holdings, L.L.C., HLKT Holdings, L.L.C.
and M & B Trading,  L.L.C.  ("Purchasers")  pursuant to Securities  Subscription
Agreements of even date between MAGC and Purchaser ("Agreement"); and


     (B MAGC wishes to  compensate  CPNY for  rendering  consulting  services in
connection with the Agreement and the private placement of its Debentures.

     NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed.

     1.   Compensation.    MAGC   shall   pay   CPNY   a   consulting   fee   of
$99.000("Fee"),which Fee shall also cover expenses, as follows: $16,500 upon the
execution of the Agreement, $11,000 60 days from the execution of the Agreement,
and 7 payments of $11,000 each made 30 business days thereafter for an aggregate
period of 210 business days (i.e.,  $77,000),  and $5,500 on the 240th  business
day from the date the  agreement  is  executed.  CPNY shall be paid such Fee, in
cash,  by the  Purchasers  who shall deduct the Fee from each of the  Debentures
payments made to MAGC.

     2.  Miscellaneous.  This Agreement (i) shall be governed by the laws of the
State of  Colorado;  (ii) may be  executed in  counterparts  each of which shall
constitute   an  original;   (iii)  shall  be  binding   upon  the   successors,
representatives, agents, officers and directors of the parties; and (iv) may not
be modified or changed except in a writing signed by all parties.

     This  Consulting  Agreement  has been  executed  as of the date first above
written.

                          MAGICINC.COM

                          By:/s/
                             ------------------


                          COMMONWEALTH PARTNERS NY, LLC

                           By:/s/
                           ------------------



                                       99
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Fresenius Kabi
Pharmaceuticals Holding, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard J. Tajak, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 22, 2011 |  |  |  | /S/ RICHARD J. TAJAK   
|                        |  |  |  | Richard J. Tajak       
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 17, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50843

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NELSON AGUSTIN GONZALEZ, 

also known as Luis Roman, also known as El Cubano,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:98-CR-27-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Nelson Agustin Gonzalez, federal prisoner # 03792-131, moves

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and has

filed a brief in support of his appeal. Relying on United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Gonzalez seeks to challenge the

district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to

reduce the sentence he received for engaging in a continuing

criminal enterprise, possession of marijuana with the intent to

distribute, money laundering, and being a felon in possession of
No. 05-50843

-2-

a firearm. The district court also denied Gonzalez’s motion for

leave to proceed IFP and certified that an appeal would not be

taken in good faith. 

Gonzalez’s IFP motion is construed as a challenge to the

district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). He has failed to show that his appeal

involves “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore

not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.

1983) (internal quotation marks omitted); see § 3582; United

States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the

motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the

appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202

& n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Gonzalez is WARNED that the filing or

prosecution of frivolous appeals in the future will subject him

to sanctions.