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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 369

To urge the Nobel Commission to award the Nobel Prize for Peace to

His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, for his dedication to fostering peace

throughout the world.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 10, 2000

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

to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To urge the Nobel Commission to award the Nobel Prize

for Peace to His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, for his

dedication to fostering peace throughout the world.

Whereas His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, has worked tirelessly and as much as any other world leader to bring

peace to regions of the world which have known strife, intolerance, and violence for far too long;

Whereas His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, knows the persecution of oppression, having studied for the priesthood in

secrecy and having seen those he grew up with killed and

victimized due to the Nazi Occupation, and later witnessing firsthand the communist subjugation of his native Poland;
2

•HCON 369 IH

Whereas His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, since his installment as Cardinal of the Church, has traveled more extensively throughout the world than any predecessor, spreading his message of peace, religious freedom, and human

dignity;

Whereas His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, was instrumental

in the demise of communism in his native Poland, which

in turn fostered the spread of democracy throughout the

world;

Whereas His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, has reached out

in an unprecedented manner to peoples of other beliefs

and religions to establish a dialog which may lead to

greater understanding, healing, and harmony, including

praying for unity among Christian churches, reaching out

towards a reconciliation with the Jewish people, and specifically acknowledging those times the Catholic Church

has failed to act in accordance with its teachings;

Whereas in March of this year, His Holiness, Pope John

Paul II, led a historic pilgrimage to the Middle East, including Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories,

preaching coexistence, peace, tolerance, and goodwill

throughout this historically conflicted territory; and

Whereas His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, has used his position as a world leader to become the foremost voice to

foster ties of brotherhood and for the promotion of peace

and reconciliation in the world today: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress urges the Nobel Commis-
3

•HCON 369 IH

1 sion to award the Nobel Prize for Peace to His Holiness,

2 Pope John Paul II.

Æ
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NeoseTechnologies, Inc. (the “***Company***”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Report***”), I, A. Brian Davis, SeniorVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   /s/ A. Brian Davis                     |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                               |   |   |
| A. Brian Davis                                     |   |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |   |   |
|                                               |   |   |
| Date:   8/7/08                      |   |   |

 

----
No. 52421.

protests 135498-K, etc. (New York).

#### Charles W. Baum Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the Second Division,

June 30, 1948

No. 52424.

protests 488122-G, etc. (Boston).

#### Brown Durrell Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
A89A1603.

#### GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. PATILLO.

(390 SE2d 431)

Decided January 22, 1990.

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, H. Perry Michael, Execu-*

Beasley, Judge.

Georgia Department of Human Resources appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing its appeal for failure to obtain the timely filing of a trial transcript.

“The provision authorizing the trial court to dismiss an appeal [OCGA § 5-6-48 (c)] specifies that two elements must be present: One is that the delay was *unreasonable*and the other is that the unreasonable delay was *inexcusable.*In passing upon these issues, the trial court has discretion; however, it is a legal discretion which is subject to review in the appellate courts.” *Young v. Climatrol &c. Corp.,*237 Ga. 53, 55 (226 SE2d 737) (1976); *Glen Restaurants v. Bldg. 5 Assoc.,*189 Ga. App. 327 (2) (375 SE2d 492) (1988).

Both sides have supplied numerous record and legal citations regarding what facts constitute an unreasonable and inexcusable delay, but the crucial point is that the trial court must make such findings before we may determine whether it abused its discretion. See *Baker v. Southern R. Co.,*192 Ga. App. 444, 445 (385 SE2d 125) (1989); *City of College Park v. Ga. Power Co.,*188 Ga. App. 223, 224 (372 SE2d 493) (1988). The final order merely granted the motion to dismiss, and the court did not orally state any findings at the conclusion of the hearing. The failure to ascertain the reasonableness and excusableness of the delay mandates a reversal of the order and a remand with instruction that findings be made on these issues. *Speir v. Nicholson,*193 Ga. App. 444 (388 SE2d 42) (1989). See *White v. Olderman Realty &c. Co.,*163 Ga. App. 57, 58 (293 SE2d 726) (1982).

*Judgment reversed and case remanded with instruction.*

*Carley, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.*

*280*tive Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie B. Manis, Deputy Attorney General, William C. Joy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William M. Droze, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellant.

*Daniel J. Craig,*for appellee.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Name of Applicant]Docket No. CP  -

PRIOR NOTICE OF ACTIVITY UNDER BLANKET CERTIFICATE

(                     )

Take notice that on [date filed], [Name of Applicant] filed a prior notice request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and [identify applicable regulation in Section 157] of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act, and [applicant’s] blanket certificate issued in Docket No. [enter applicable docket number(s)], for authorization to [describe activity and location].

[Briefly summarize the facts contained in the request in sufficient detail so as to notify the public of its scope and purpose].

[Include the name, address, and telephone number of an authorized contact person].

Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and          pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request.  If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest.  If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.

Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding.  Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate.  Such motions or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.  Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.  On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.  

The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov.  Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.    There is an “eSubscription” link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).  For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free).  For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Comment Date: 5:00 pm Eastern Time on (insert date).

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.
No. 55752.

protests 161600-K and 161601-K (Savannah).

#### John S. James *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the entry papers in each case disclosing that the protests were not filed within 60 days after liquidation in accordance with section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the motion to dismiss was granted.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFTUESDAY MORNING CORPORATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C §1350

I,Kathleen Mason, the Chief Executive Officer of Tuesday Morning Corporation,hereby certify that:

1.             Thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tuesday Morning Corporation for theperiod ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

2.             Theinformation contained in the above-mentioned report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tuesday MorningCorporation.
| Date: May 4, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Kathleen Mason                      |   |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Kathleen Mason  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# L_2021416EN.01000101.xml

| 23.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 416/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 416/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/2035

of 16 November 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Alho da Graciosa’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal’s application to register the name ‘Alho da Graciosa’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal’s application to register the name ‘Alho da Graciosa’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Alho da Graciosa’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Alho da Graciosa’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Alho da Graciosa’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 November 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 311, 3.8.2021, p. 24.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
No. 61671.

#### Auffray & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 293912-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of headboards similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61224, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# Exhibit 23.1  Consent of
Elliott Davis, LLC

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of DirectorsAtlantic
Bancshares, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by
reference into this Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-137630) filed by Atlantic
Bancshares, Inc. in connection with registration of shares of its common stock reserved
for issuance upon exercise of options pursuant to the Atlantic Bancshares, Inc. 2006 Stock
Incentive Plan of our Report dated March 15, 2007, which is included in the Atlantic
Bancshares, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ Elliott Davis, LLC
Columbia, South Carolina March 27, 2007
No. 65321.

#### Pennsylvania Textile Corp. and Air Clearance Ass’n, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 177096-K and 183795-K (New York).

*385Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C.C.P.A. 136, C.A.D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# TOXNET HAS MOVED

### As part of a broader NLM reorganization, most of NLM's toxicology information services have been integrated into other NLM products and services.

## How to access TOXNET information

Last Reviewed: August 9, 2024
No. 62918.

#### Joseph H. Brown & Son *v.*United States,

protests 277864-K, etc. (El Paso).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *J. E. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
United States Steel Corporation

– Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request April 24, 2012
**Item 8** The BART report discusses the technical feasibly of low NO X burners and a variety of selective catal yt ic reduction (SCRs) sy stems. Provide all documentation, including reports and studies, to determine the technical feasibility of low NO x burners an d SCRs at the facility 's indurating furnaces. **Person(s): that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or were consulted in the preparation of the response:**  Chrissy Bartovich, Teresa Simetkosky , Stephani Campbell **Answer:** A file review was conducted to locate reports and studies that were completed in relati on to the U. S. Steel Minntac permit that required NOx reduction techn ology evaluation. The responsive documents found during the file review are provided in the Item 8 s ubfolder
.
No. 52408.

protests 131410-K/1125, etc. (Chicago, etc.).

#### Elgin National Watch Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that th i s

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

March 3, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41606 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BONIFACIO FELIX-SALAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1357-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bonifacio Felix-Salas (Felix) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and 30-month sentence for being found in the United

States following deportation. Felix argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

is unconstitutional because it treats prior felony and aggravated

felony convictions as sentencing factors. Felix’s constitutional

challenge is foreclosed by Alme ndarez-Torres v. United States

,

523 U .S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Felix contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incor rectly decided and that a majority of2

the Supreme Court w ould overrule A lmendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey
, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains

binding. S ee United States v. Garza-Lopez
, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied

, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Felix properly

concedes that his argumen t is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.

Felix also contends that the district court erred in

sentencing him pur suant to the mandatory guidelines regime held

unconstitutional in United States v. Booker

, 543 U.S. 220, 125

S. Ct. 738, 764-65 (2005). The sentencing transcript is devoid of

evidence that the district court would have imposed the same

sentence under an advisory regime, and, therefore, the Government

has not borne its burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt

that the district court’s error was harmless. S ee United States v.

Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 2005).

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
No. 61173.

protests 279712-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### Kolstrand Manufacturing Co. and Robert E. Landweer & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon fishing lines the same in all material respects as those the subject of *J. M. P. R. Trading Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(43 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 600), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

August 19, 1954

No. 58331.

protest 224254-K (New York).

#### International Food Trading Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Johnson, Judge:

In this case, plaintiff claims an allowance in duty by reason of a shortage of 9 eases of tomato paste out of a shipment of 100 cases.

According to the collector’s letter of transmittal, duty was assessed for the reason that the affidavit of short shipment required by customs regulations was not filed within the prescribed time. In the case of *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.,*34 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 112, C. A. D. 351. it was held that the issue in shortage cases is not whether there was a compliance with customs regulations, but whether there was, in fact, a nonimportation, and that evidence may be introduced before the Customs Court to establish that such shortage existed at the time of unlading.

It appears from the official papers that the entire shipment herein was entered for warehouse and that 91 cases were refused entry by the Federal Security Agency and were exported. At the trial, there was received in evidence the inspector’s report on the back of the warehouse permit, which states that nine cases manifested were not found.

Carmelo Oliveri, president of the plaintiff corporation, testified that the invoice showed 100 cases and that 91 cases were condemned and sent back. He did not see nor receive the nine cases which the inspector reported manifested, not found, nor did anyone receive them on his behalf.

*343In view of tbe evidence that the entire shipment was entered for warehouse, that 91 cases were condemned and exported, and that the plaintiff never received the 9 cases reported not found by the inspector, we are of opinion that the said cases were not, in fact, imported.

Judgment will therefore be rendered in favor of plaintiff, directing the collector to reliquidate the entry, making refund of the duty assessed upon the said nine cases.
A89A2285, A89A2286.

#### FLAGG v. REMCO ENTERPRISES, INC. (two cases).

(390 SE2d 895)

Decided February 12, 1990.

Christine Flagg, *pro se.*

*Sarah E. Stevenson,*for appellee.

Cooper, Judge.

Following the trial court’s grant of two writs of possession of several electronic appliances to appellee, appellant filed separate appeals from each order.

We find that these appeals are controlled by our decision in *Smalls v. Harrison,*150 Ga. App. 473 (258 SE2d 227) (1979), and must be dismissed. “ ‘Issuance of a writ of possession does not affect the merits of the case but only the right to possession pending a final decision on the merits. [Cit.]’” *Cavender v. First Nat. Bank of Brunswick,*173 Ga. App. 660 (327 SE2d 789) (1985). Inasmuch as appellant has not obtained a certificate of immediate review, these appeals are premature. *Foskey v. Bank of Alapaha,*147 Ga. App. 541 (249 SE2d 346) (1978). However, after a trial on the merits, a direct appeal is possible from the entry of the judgment. See *Cavender v. First Nat. Bank of Brunswick,*supra.

*Appeals dismissed.*

*Deen, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.*
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                  PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Chris E. Perkins, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Per-Se Technologies, Inc., Inc. (the "Company") in compliance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, hereby certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission: (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in
such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                     By: /s/ CHRIS E. PERKINS
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Chris E. Perkins
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        Date: May 9, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Per-Se Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Per-Se
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.