alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 52132.

protests 10195-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Chong Kee Jan & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited, the protests were sustained as follows: (1) Kumquats similar' in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342) were held dutiable at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 as oranges; (2) lotus nuts the same as those involved in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) were held free of duty under paragraph 1669 as crude drugs; (3) fish in lard with beans similar to the merchandise passed upon in Abstract 42516 was held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 as nonenumerated manufactured articles; and (4) articles in part of bamboo the same as those the subject of Abstract 50981 were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 409.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 112 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 112

  Memorializing fallen firefighters by lowering the American flag to 
   half-staff in honor of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial 
                    Service in Emittsburg, Maryland.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 11, 2000

  Mr. Castle (for himself, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Wise) 
 introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Memorializing fallen firefighters by lowering the American flag to 
   half-staff in honor of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial 
                    Service in Emittsburg, Maryland.

Whereas 1,200,000 men and women comprise the American fire and emergency 
        services;
Whereas the fire and emergency services is considered one of the most dangerous 
        jobs in the United States;
Whereas fire and emergency services personnel respond to over 16 million 
        emergency calls annually, without reservation and with little regard for 
        their personal safety;
Whereas fire and emergency services personnel are the first to respond to an 
        emergency, whether it involves a fire, medical emergency, spill of 
        hazardous materials, natural disaster, act of terrorism, or 
        transportation accident;
Whereas approximately one-third of all active fire and emergency personnel 
        suffer debilitating injuries annually; and
Whereas approximately 100 fire and emergency services personnel die annually in 
        the line of duty: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That each year, the American 
flags on all Federal office buildings will be lowered to half-staff in 
honor of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in 
Emittsburg, Maryland.
                                 <all>
```
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 6 , 202 3
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 2 2
- 00 413
- C R NO. 14

- 22
- 00 414
- C R NO. 14

- 22
- 00 415
- C R

_ ___________ JACOB DAVIDSON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from t he 337 th District Court

Harris Count y , Texas Trial C ourt Ca u se No s . 1731987, 1731986, & 1731988

M EMORANDUM O PINIO N Appellant Jac ob Davi dson appeals three judgment s of convictio n, ea ch on a charge of burglary of a habitation

. Appellant’s appointed coun se l filed a brief in which s he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and de monstrating why there are no2

arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and fil e a pro se response. See S ta fford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and witho ut merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an An ders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 8 24 , 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM

P anel c onsists of Justic es Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 CertificationI, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered bythis annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2005-69;1. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;2. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports;3. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and4. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.Date: March 24, 2006     By: /s/ Ellen Z. Lamale  Name: Ellen Z. Lamale  Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 37 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 37

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Concerning anti-Semitic statements made by members of the Duma of the 
                          Russian Federation.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 37

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the world has seen in the 20th century the disastrous results of ethnic, 
        religious, and racial intolerance;
Whereas the Government of the Russian Federation is on record, through 
        obligations freely accepted as a participating state of the Organization 
        on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as pledging to ``clearly 
        and equivocally condemn totalitarianism, racial and ethnic hatred, anti-
        Semitism, xenophobia and discrimination against anyone * * *'';
Whereas at two public rallies in October 1998, Communist Party member of the 
        Duma, Albert Makashov, blamed ``the Yids'' for Russia's current 
        problems;
Whereas in November 1998, attempts by members of the Russian Duma to formally 
        censure Albert Makashov were blocked by members of the Communist Party;
Whereas in December 1998, the chairman of the Duma Security Committee and 
        Communist Party member, Viktor Ilyukhin, blamed President Yeltsin's 
        ``Jewish entourage'' for alleged ``genocide against the Russian 
        people'';
Whereas in response to the public outcry over the above-noted anti-Semitic 
        statements, Communist Party chairman Gennadi Zyuganov claimed in 
        December 1998 that such statements were a result of ``confusion'' 
        between Zionism and ``the Jewish question''; and
Whereas during the Soviet era, the Communist Party leadership regularly used 
        ``anti-Zionist campaigns'' as an excuse to persecute and discriminate 
        against Jews in the Soviet Union: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) condemns anti-Semitic statements made by members of the 
        Russian Duma;
            (2) commends actions taken by members of the Russian Duma 
        to condemn anti-Semitic statements made by Duma members;
            (3) commends President Yeltsin and other members of the 
        Russian Government for condemning anti-Semitic statements made 
        by Duma members; and
            (4) reiterates its firm belief that peace and justice 
        cannot be achieved as long as governments and legislatures 
        promote policies based upon anti-Semitism, racism, and 
        xenophobia.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 23, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20748

Summary Calendar

TIM DAWSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

VERSUS

CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, HOUSTON FIRE DEPARTMENT; SAMUEL RUFFINO,

Individually, and In His Official Capacity as Captai n of the

Houston Fire D epartment; A B WHITEHORN, Individually, and In His

Official Capacity as Deputy Chief of the Houston Fire Department;

DANIEL D SHARP, Individually, and In His Official Capacity as Fire

Figh ter of the Houston Fire Department; STAN P NADOLSKI,

Individually, and In His Official Capacity as Investigator of the

Internal Affairs Division of the Houston Fire Department; CITY OF

HOUSTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-99-589)

DECEMBER 22, 1999

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Timothy Dawson filed suit in the Southern District

of Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged procedural and

substantive due process violations and for state tort law claims of

intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.2

Dawson’s injuries allegedly arose out of a four day suspension

without pay from th e Houston Fire Department due to

insubordination. Dawson received notice of the suspension on June

22, 1996, and on July 8, 1996, he req uested review by an

independe nt hearing examiner. On June 27, 1997, the independent

hearing examiner reduced the suspension to three days. Dawson

filed suit on February 25, 1999. The district court granted

summary judgment for the Appellees finding 1) the claims barred by

the applicable two-year statute of limitations; 2) a lack of

subject matter jurisdiction by operation of the Texas Local

Government Code; and 3) that the Appellees are but one entity and

are thus incapable of conspiring against Dawson. The district

court also denied Dawson’s motion for a new trial. Dawson

appealed.

Having carefully reviewed the record and fully considered the

arguments of the parties, we conclude that the district court

correctly determined that the suit was barred by the statute of

limitations both because the per iod commenced upon Dawson’s

notification of the suspension on June 22, 1996, See Freeze v.

Griffith

, 849 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988), and because the

limitations period was not tolled during the pendency of the review

by the independent hearing examiner. S ee Holmes v. Texas A & M

University

, 145 F.3d 681, 684-85 (5th Cir. 1998). We also

conclude, therefore, that the district court properly denied

Dawson’s motion for a new trial.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM without reaching the district court’s3

alternative bases for the summary judgment.
Before the Second Division,

January 8, 1948

No. 52103.

protests 602361-G, etc. (New York).

#### Davis Grossman Glove Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, 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 at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
Ms. Jerry Rodgers,Skyjock,9791 mesa springs way unit 85 San Diego, California 92126, 
petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption part 21 subpart H,
91.7(a) 91.121 91.151(a) 91.405(a) 91.407(a)(1) 91.409(a)(1) and (2) 91.417(a) and (b) 
subpart E of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow 
me to operate the DJI Inspire 1 unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct 
aerial photography for real estate, surveying, marine photo and video, agriculture, models 
and special events. 



Manned helicopters conducting aerial photography and filming can weigh thousands of
pounds or more and are operated by an onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard
crew members, as necessary. My unmanned aircraft will weigh less than 6 lbs. 
with no onboard pilot or crew. The pilot and crew will be remotely located from the
aircraft. The limited weight significantly reduces the potential for harm to participating and
non participating individuals or property in the event of an incident or accident. The risk to an
onboard pilot and crew during an incident or accident is eliminated with the use of a UA for
the aerial filming operation.
Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or accident.
My aircaft carries no feul, Safty features are programed into the software that restricts altatude to 400 ft.

My aircraft has the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight
contingencies or failures and uses an auto-pilot system to maintain aircraft stability and control.
The aircraft is also able to respond to a loss of global positioning system (GPS) or a lost-link
event with a pre-coordinated, predictable, automated flight maneuver. These safety features
provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned aircraft performing a similar
operation and mitigate the risk of command and control link failures. I only fly with craft in my line of sight and never close to crowds.     
I will attach a pdf.file contianing user manuel and specs of my Inspire 1 aircraft. I tried to attach the user manuel but the file size was too big to send thru your website, you can view it online here (http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/download)
I believe the safe operating practices of any aircraft manned or unmanned benefits the public.

Thank you for considering my request.
# L_2023142DE.01004801.xml

| 1.6.2023 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 142/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2023

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 142/48

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2022/203 der Kommission vom 14. Februar 2022 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 748/2012 hinsichtlich der Einrichtung von Systemen für das Sicherheitsmanagement und die Meldung von Ereignissen durch die zuständigen Behörden sowie zur Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 748/2012 hinsichtlich der Ausstellung von Bescheinigungen über die Prüfung der Lufttüchtigkeit

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 33 vom 15. Februar 2022
  )

Seite 53, Anhang I Nummer 13 zur Anfügung von Punkt 21.B.65 in Anhang I Teil 21 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 748/2012, Überschrift des angefügten Punktes:

anstatt:

| „21.B.55 | Aussetzung, Einschränkung und Widerruf“ |
| --- | --- |

„21.B.55

muss es heißen:

| „21.B.65 | Aussetzung, Einschränkung und Widerruf“ |
| --- | --- |

„21.B.65

Seite 53, Anhang I Nummer 13 zur Anfügung von Punkt 21.B.65 in Anhang I Teil 21 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 748/2012, Buchstabe b:

anstatt:

| „b) | ein Zertifikat, eine Genehmigung, eine Fluggenehmigung, eine Autorisierung oder eine Einzelzulassung aussetzen, wenn eine solche Maßnahme nach den Punkten 21.B.125, 21.B.225 oder 21.B.433 erforderlich ist;“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

ein Zertifikat, eine Genehmigung, eine Fluggenehmigung, eine Autorisierung oder eine Einzelzulassung aussetzen, wenn eine solche Maßnahme nach den Punkten 21.B.125, 21.B.225 oder 21.B.433 erforderlich ist;“

muss es heißen:

| „b) | ein Zertifikat, eine Genehmigung, eine Fluggenehmigung, eine Autorisierung oder eine Einzelzulassung aussetzen, widerrufen oder einschränken, wenn eine solche Maßnahme nach den Punkten 21.B.125, 21.B.225 oder 21.B.433 erforderlich ist;“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

ein Zertifikat, eine Genehmigung, eine Fluggenehmigung, eine Autorisierung oder eine Einzelzulassung aussetzen, widerrufen oder einschränken, wenn eine solche Maßnahme nach den Punkten 21.B.125, 21.B.225 oder 21.B.433 erforderlich ist;“

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
                THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
                FROM THE MARCH 31, 2000 QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS
                QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY
                REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1,000

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                       17,391
<SECURITIES>                                                658,190
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 9,699
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  0
<PP&E>                                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              685,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       484,414
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                  30,100
<COMMON>                                                    303,562
<OTHER-SE>                                                (132,819)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                685,279
<SALES>                                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             16,970
<CGS>                                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              2,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            8,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               6,460
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           6,460
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  6,460
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0.29


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
**Certifications Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Kenneth C. Budde, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  [Intentionally omitted.]  c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and
 b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 9, 2005
/s/KENNETH C. BUDDE