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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 26 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 26

  To express the sense of the Congress that any Executive order that 
  infringes on the powers and duties of the Congress under article I, 
section 8 of the Constitution, or that would require the expenditure of 
  Federal funds not specifically appropriated for the purpose of the 
  Executive order, is advisory only and has no force or effect unless 
                            enacted as law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 1999

 Mr. Metcalf submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  To express the sense of the Congress that any Executive order that 
  infringes on the powers and duties of the Congress under article I, 
section 8 of the Constitution, or that would require the expenditure of 
  Federal funds not specifically appropriated for the purpose of the 
  Executive order, is advisory only and has no force or effect unless 
                            enacted as law.

Whereas some Executive orders have infringed on the prerogatives of the Congress 
        and resulted in the expenditure of Federal funds not appropriated for 
        the specific purposes of those Executive orders: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that any Executive order issued by 
the President before, on, or after the date of the approval of this 
resolution that infringes on the powers and duties of the Congress 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, or that would require 
the expenditure of Federal funds not specifically appropriated for the 
purpose of the Executive order, is advisory only and has no force or 
effect unless enacted as law.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-715

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JOSHUA RODNEY MEECH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 2, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s Opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 25 2024

01/25/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0715
(Reap. Dec. 10856)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 862904.

(Decided November 17, 1964)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

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

Rao, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 T.D. 197, T.D. 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19U.S.C. 160, etseq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> *4823. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign maricet value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**and**


**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 Annual Report of NanoDynamics Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Rector, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





/s/ David
                RectorName:
            David
                RectorTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
            September
                24, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40193

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HEON JONG YOO, also known as Hank Yoo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:18-CR-16-1

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Heon Jong “Hank” Yoo appeals the district court’s denial of his motion 

for release on bail pending his sentencing for making false statements to 

federal firearms dealers and being a prohibited person in possession of several 

firearms. The district court deemed Yoo a flight risk and a potential danger to 

others. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that Yoo presents no risk 

of danger or flight, presentence detention is mandated. See 18 U.S.C. 

 

* 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 25, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40193 Document: 00514931062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2019
No. 19-40193

2

§ 3143(a). We review the district court’s ruling for abuse of discretion. See 

United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Yoo fails to show by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight 

risk. Moreover, the evidence strongly supports the finding that he presents a 

risk of danger. Trial evidence established that Yoo was twice involuntarily 

committed to mental hospitals because he presented a risk of danger to others. 

In addition, the presentence report noted that Yoo was involuntarily admitted 

to a mental institution after a Texas Ranger expressed concerns that Yoo 

intended to act violently. Further, Yoo was arrested, though not prosecuted, 

after police responded to reports of an aggravated assault and found that Yoo 

and three others men had “traveled to a residence while ‘armed to the teeth’ 

seeking a confrontation” with someone who had allegedly assaulted two of the 

other men. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying release on bail

pending sentencing. That ruling is AFFIRMED. To the extent Yoo moves this 

court to grant bail under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 9(b), the motion 

is DENIED.

 Case: 19-40193 Document: 00514931062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2019
# Official Journal C 37A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.037.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 37A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5510 February 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.037.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 37A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5510 February 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 037A/01 | Vacancy for Executive Director (Grade AD 14) of the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen — COM/2012/10325 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2012/C 037A/01

Vacancy for Executive Director (Grade AD 14) of the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen — COM/2012/10325

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 8 | (DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | |
| 17 | (LT) |
| 20 | (EN) |
| 22 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (FR) |
| 31 | (ES) |
| 37 | |

8

(DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL)

10

17

(LT)

20

(EN)

22

(DE/EN/FR)

27

30

(FR)

31

(ES)

37

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
DIVISION OF CONSUMER AND

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

CA 16-6

September 29, 2016

TO THE OFFICERS AND MANAGERS IN CHARGE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS 

SECTIONS:

Applicability to Community Banking Organizations: This guidance applies to all institutions 

supervised by the Federal Reserve, including those with total consolidated assets of $10 billion 

or less.

SUBJECT: Revised Interagency Military Lending Act Examination Procedures

The Task Force on Consumer Compliance of the Federal Financial Institutions 

Examination Council recently developed the attached interagency Military Lending Act (MLA)

examination procedures. The MLA and its implementing regulation contain limitations on and 

requirements for certain types of consumer credit extended to active duty service members and 

their spouses, children, and other dependents. These revised examination procedures supersede 

the interagency MLA examination procedures transmitted with CA 08-4. 

The revised examination procedures reflect amendments to the MLA implementing 

regulation made by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in a final rule issued in July 2015.1 

The DOD amended the regulation to extend the protections of the MLA to a wider range of 

closed-end and open-end credit products, including credit cards. Consequently, the amended 

MLA regulation generally applies to all consumer credit other than home-secured credit and 

loans to finance the purchase of motor vehicles and other consumer goods that are secured by the 

purchased item. For extensions of credit covered by the rule, the Military Annual Percentage 

Rate (MAPR) applicable to the loan may not exceed 36 percent.

Among a range of other amendments, DOD’s final rule modifies: the fees that must be 

included when calculating the MAPR; the optional safe harbor provisions for creditors to 

determine whether consumers are entitled to MLA protections; and MLA disclosure 

requirements.

The compliance date for the final rule is October 3, 2016, but for credit card accounts the 

compliance date is October 3, 2017 (which may, at DOD’s option, be extended by one year).

 1 See 80 FR 43560 (July 22, 2015). Additional background information regarding compliance with the amended 

regulation is available in an Interpretive Rule issued by DOD, 81 FR 58840 (August 26, 2016).
2

If you have any questions, please contact Amal Patel, Senior Supervisory Consumer 

Financial Services Analyst, at (202) 912-7879, or Tim Robertson, Manager, at (202) 452-2565.

In addition, questions may be sent via the Board’s public website.2

 

Sincerely, 

Carol A. Evans

Associate Director

Attachment:

• Revised Interagency Military Lending Act Examination Procedures

Supersedes:

• CA 08-4 “Interagency Examination Procedures for the Department of Defense’s Final 

Rule on Limitations on Consumer Credit Extended to Service Members and Dependents 

(‘Talent Amendment’)” (July 31, 2008)

 2 See http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/contactus/feedback.aspx.
BefoRe Judge Donlon,

September 29, 1966

No. R66/56.

#### Red Line Commercial Co., Inc. *v.*United States, reappraisement R61/3825 (Boston).

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved respectively in *International*Packers, *Limited*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 472, Reap. Dec. 10696), as to merchandise appraised on the basis of United States value; *International*Packers, *Limited*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 518, Reap. Dec. 10724), as to merchandise appraised on the basis of constructed value; and *International*Packers, *Limited*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 636, Reap. Dec. 11147), as to merchandise appraised on the basis of export value, the court found and held those respective values, as defined in section 402, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, proper bases for determining value of the entered canned meat products listed on schedule “B” under the headings “Export Value,” “United States Value,” and “Constructed Value,” packed in the container sizes identified on such schedule, and exported from Argentina during the period January 1, 1959, through December 31, 1959, described on the invoices of the entry in this appeal for reap-praisement, and that such values per dozen tins, net packed, are the respective values shown as plaintiff’s claimed values on schedule “B,” for the respective products and sizes of container described on the invoices and stated in the entry and recited in schedule “B” under the headings “Export Value,” “United States Value,” and “Constructed Value,” during those periods which correspond to the times of exportation of the schedule “B” canned meats described under the headings “Export Value,” “United States Value,” and “Constructed Value” and covered by this appeal for reappraisement, schedule “B” being attached to and made a part of the decision.
|   | (a)    | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                                              |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                     |   |
|   | (b)    | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of LandAmerica      Financial Group, Inc. |   |

| By:    | /s/      G. William Evans                                 |   |   | Date:  | July      29, 2008 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------|
|   | G.      William Evans                                     |   |   |   |               |
|   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
# L_2023056EN.01003001.xml

| 23.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 56/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 56/30

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2022/2571 of 24 November 2022 on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, within the EEA Joint Committee concerning the amendment to Annex XI (Electronic communication, audiovisual services and information society) and Protocol 37 (containing the list provided for in Article 101) to the EEA Agreement (Audiovisual Media Services Directive)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 331 of 27 December 2022
  )

| 1. | The title on the contents page and the title on page 1: |
| --- | --- |

1.

The title on the contents page and the title on page 1:

for:

‘... of 24 November 2022 ...’,

read:

‘... of 24 October 2022 ...’.

| 2. | On page 2, where the place and date of adoption are cited: |
| --- | --- |

2.

On page 2, where the place and date of adoption are cited:

for:

‘Done at Luxembourg, 24 November 2022.’,

read:

‘Done at Luxembourg, 24 October 2022.’.

---
A89A2093.

#### JACKSON v. UNITED STATES SHOE CORPORATION et al.

(389 SE2d 544)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff Jackson appeals from the dismissal of her tort action against defendant The United States Shoe Corporation d/b/a Casual Corner and it’s employee defendant Hart. The superior court’s order states: “The within and foregoing case having been called for trial and *135the Plaintiff’s attorney having notified the Court during the Voir Dire Examination of the jury that she was withdrawing from representation of the Plaintiff without the permission of the Court and Plaintiff’s attorney having notified the Court that she was leaving the Courtroom without the permission of the Court and would not participate further in the trial of this action; It is hereby ordered and decreed that the Plaintiff’s case is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.” *Held:*

Decided December 1, 1989

Rehearing denied December 20, 1989.

*W. Roy Hays III,*for appellant.

*Lewis & Taylor, John M. Taylor,*for appellees.

“It is clear that a dismissal for failure to prosecute is discretionary and is subject to appellate review only for abuse of that discretion. *Spyropoulos v. John Linard Estate,*243 Ga. 518, 519 (255 SE2d 40).” *Roberts v. Rountree,*180 Ga. App. 302, 303 (348 SE2d 765b “ ‘The burden of showing harmful error is on the appellant, and this he must do by the record; it may not be done by assertions appearing only in his brief or in his enumerations of error. (Cits.)’ *Bhatia v. West Cash &c., Inc.,*157 Ga. App. 145, 146 (276 SE2d 656) (1981).” *Lankford v. Karkotsky,*171 Ga. App. 283 (319 SE2d 117). In the case sub judice, the superior court’s order, dismissing plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute, provides the only information as to the circumstances upon which that order is predicated. The information contained in the order is not sufficient to show an abuse of the superior court’s discretion, and therefore, we must affirm.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carley, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Neose Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, C. Boyd Clarke, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|                                                                                                        |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ C. BOYD CLARKE                                                                                     |   |   |        |
| **C. Boyd Clarke****President and Chief Executive Officer**   
November 13, 2002
  |
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 396

Celebrating the birth of James Madison and his contributions to the Nation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 12, 2000

Mr. BLILEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Celebrating the birth of James Madison and his contributions

to the Nation.

Whereas March 16, 2001, is the 250th anniversary of the

birth of James Madison, Father of the United States

Constitution and fourth President of the United States;

Whereas the ideals of James Madison, as expressed in the

Constitution he conceived for the American Nation and

in the principles of freedom he established in the Bill of

Rights, are the foundations of American Government and

life;

Whereas James Madison’s lifetime of public service, as a

member of the Virginia House of Delegates, as a delegate

to the Continental Congress during the American Revolution, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in

1787, as a leader in the House of Representatives, as
2

•HCON 396 IH

Secretary of State, and as the Nation’s fourth President,

are an inspiration to all men, women, and children in the

conduct of their personal and private lives; and

Whereas the ideals and inspiring example of James Madison

are of utmost importance to the future of the American

Nation as it enters a new millennium: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) recognizes the historical significance of

4 James Madison’s birth, as well as his contributions

5 to the Nation during his lifetime;

6 (2) urges all American patriotic and civil asso7 ciations, labor organizations, schools, universities,

8 historical societies, and communities of learning and

9 worship, together with citizens throughout the

10 United States, to develop appropriate programs and

11 educational activities to recognize and celebrate the

12 life and achievements of James Madison; and

13 (3) requests that the President issue a procla14 mation recognizing the 250th anniversary of the

15 birth of James Madison and calling upon the people

16 of the United States to observe the life and legacy

17 of James Madison with appropriate ceremonies and

18 activities.

Æ