alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. 1285 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To allow the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, 

the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Warm 

Springs, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, the Klamath Tribes, 

and the Burns Paiute Tribes to lease or transfer certain lands. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Oregon Tribal Economic Development Act’’. 

SEC. 2. APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED TO VALIDATE LAND TRANSACTIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

without further approval, ratification, or authorization by the 

United States, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 

Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 

of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Cow 

Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, the Klamath Tribes, 

and the Burns Paiute Tribes may lease, sell, convey, warrant, 

or otherwise transfer all or any part of its interests in any real 

property that is not held in trust by the United States for the 

benefit of such tribe. 

(b) TRUST LAND NOT AFFECTED.—Nothing in this section shall— 

(1) authorize the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower 

Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the 

Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes 

of Siletz Indians of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Warm 

Springs, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, 

the Klamath Tribes, and the Burns Paiute Tribes to lease, 

sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all or any part 

of an interest in any real property that is held in trust by 

the United States for the benefit of such tribe; or 
S. 1285—2 

(2) affect the operation of any law governing leasing, 

selling, conveying, warranting, or otherwise transferring any 

interest in such trust land. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc.  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  regarding Annual Report on Form 10-KSB  for the year ended June 30, 2015**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title  18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Nevada Classic  Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), doeshereby certify that, based upon his knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended    June 30, 2015 (the "Form 10-KSB") fully complies with the    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  the Company.

> 
 

| Dated: October 12, 2015 | By: /s/ Brad Brimhall   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|                    |                         |
|                    | Brad Brimhall           |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer |

>
EX-10.3








    Exhibit 10.3



 




    June 26,
    2008
    



 



    Mr. Jesús Reyes Heroles González Garza




    Director General




    Petróleos Mexicanos




    Avenida Marina Nacional No. 329




    Colonia Huasteca




    Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 41




    México, D.F. 11311




    México



 



    Dear Mr. Reyes Heroles:



 



    We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton
    as set forth under the heading “Exploration and Production
    (Reserves),” in the Annual Report on
    Form 20-F
    of Petróleos Mexicanos for the year ended December 31,
    2007. We reviewed the estimates of proved oil, condensate,
    natural gas, and oil equivalent reserves owned by the United
    Mexican States (“Mexico”) as of January 1, 2007,
    and January 1, 2008, for 60 and 62 fields, respectively.
    These estimates were prepared in accordance with the reserves
    definitions of
    Rules 4-10(a)
    (1)-(13) of
    Regulation S-X
    of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The
    fields are located offshore of Mexico in the Southwest Marine
    Region and are those referenced in our certificate letters dated
    August 16, 2007, and February 15, 2008.



 



    Very truly yours,



 


			
	 	     
	
    /s/  DeGolyer
    and MacNaughton









    DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

D.E. BOSWELL : CIVIL ACTION

 :

 : 

v. :

 :

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al. : NO. 05-1653 

MEMORANDUM

Fullam, Sr. J. January 18, 2011

In this FELA case, the plaintiff alleges that he

developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome while working for

Conrail and CSX. The defendant has moved for summary judgment,

arguing that the plaintiff filed suit too late.

There is no dispute that the complaint was filed on

April 8, 2005, and that the statute of limitations is three

years, 45 U.S.C. § 56; thus, the cause of action cannot have

accrued before April 8, 2002. It is also undisputed that the

plaintiff was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in 2002

(although he did not have surgery until 2007); the defendants

argue that before his diagnosis the plaintiff was experiencing

weakness in his hands that he knew or should have known was

caused by the tools he used at work. 

For injuries that occur over time, such as the

plaintiff’s, the specific date of injury is difficult to

determine. The Supreme Court has held that "when the specific

date of injury cannot be determined because an injury results
from continual exposure to a harmful condition over a period of

time, a plaintiff's cause of action accrues when the injury

manifests itself." Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 170 (1949). 

The plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, but to prevail

on the motion for summary judgment the defendants must show the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the

plaintiff knew or should have known of the existence and cause of

the injury before April 8, 2002. McCain v. CSX Transp., Inc.,

708 F. Supp. 2d 344, 347-48 (E.D. Pa. 2010). 

The plaintiff testified in his deposition that he

underwent testing after a union meeting "somewhere in the time

period" of March of 2002 and received a report diagnosing carpal

tunnel syndrome dated April 12, 2002. Dep. at 16. At the time

of the testing the weakness in his hands did not bother the

plaintiff, and he did not know if it was arthritis. Dep. at

16-17. Many of the questions posed in the deposition asked what

the plaintiff knew in 2002; but because the critical date for the

statute of limitations is April 8, 2002, these questions are not

specific enough to help determine whether the action was timely.

The defendants also point to a 2007 medical report in

which the doctor wrote that the plaintiff "had similar problems

seven years ago and was diagnosed with mild carpal tunnel

syndrome." Ex. D (report of Dr. Hornback). This notation does

not establish as a matter of law that the plaintiff knew of his

2
injury in 2000 (seven years before the doctor’s visit),

especially when the record is clear that the diagnosis was made

in 2002, not 2000. The plaintiff will have to prove at trial

that he did not file this case too late, but the evidence

produced with the motion for summary judgment does not establish

as a matter of law that he cannot do so. 

An order will be entered. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John P. Fullam 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

3
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

                            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 Industries International,
Incorporated. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), we, Dr. Kit Tsui, Chief Executive Officer and Guoqiong Yu, 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 3(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities and 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.


                                             /s/  Dr. Kit Tsui
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Dr. Kit Tsui
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            April 14, 2003


                                             /s/   Guoqiong Yu
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Guoqiong Yu
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            April 14, 2003



<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2004 (the “Report”), theundersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.                             /s/ Brad A. Luecke   Name:  Brad A. Luecke   Title:  President andChief Executive Officer  Date: August 9, 2004                             /s/ Daniel R. Kadolph   Name:  Daniel R. Kadolph   Title:  Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer  Date: August 9, 2004
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 6, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 21 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cr-8 3- GAP-DAB-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RICHARD A. MURDOCH, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S tate s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 6 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s PER CURI AM: H. Ky le Fle tc he r, ap po in te d c ou ns el forRic ha rdMu rd oc h i n thi s d ire ct cri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti onof t he ap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o And er s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct .13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s

th atco un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andMu rd oc h’s co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces are AFFIRMED .

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIKE and ANNE SIMINUK, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4251

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04251-PBT Document 7 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

MS. 

disturbed by 

THE 

MS. 

in the media. 

THE 

MS. 

TROIANI: 

this. 

COURT: 

TROIANI: 

COURT: 

TROIANI: 

Yes, I am, your Honor, I'm extremely 

Okay. 

Mr. Cosby chose to defame our client 

Right. 

I mean, you've read that part of the 

8 deposition and although we didn't get many answers, but he 

9 went to the National Enquirer. He deliberately defamed her 

10 in the National Enquirer. He killed the stories that would 

11 show that our client was telling the truth. 

12 

13 

THE COURT: Mm-hmm. 

MS. TROIANI: I'm very concerned about this 

14 procedure. This is totally different than any other case 

15 that is handled. Our courts are not secret. Our courts are 

16 open to the public and they're open to the public for a 

17 reason. And that is to preserve the integrity of this 

8 

18 process. And Mr. Cosby should not be granted star status in 

19 the system. And I am extremely concerned about that. We, as 

20 lawyers, must come to court knowing that no matter who our 

21 client is, they're going to be treated like any other client. 

22 And your Honor and I'm certainly saying this with all due 

23 respect to the Court, there is absolutely no reason when a 

24 man chooses to go public and put his defense in the 

25 newspaper, why when we have decimated that defense and he has 

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 55 Filed 12/02/05 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 

.------.. 

admitted under oath, that he deliberately killed the story 

that was going to show that he was not being truthful. Why 

now we have to conduct this litigation under seal. 

I am also concerned that Associated Press came to 

you, tried to join in the motion for confidentiality and now 

they have no way of knowing what's going on here. They have 

no way of now presenting their case. You already ruled that 

this is not confidential. Frankly, your Honor, our client 

has three ways of vindicating herself. Settlement, trial or 

by having the public be made aware through these motions, 

what is going on in this court system. 

THE COURT: Okay, well, then you'll make your 

argument. I mean, that's the essence of the argument. 

Nobody -- I'm not ruling on that argument. If that's the 

argument that wins the day, that's what's going to happen. 

MR. O'CONNOR: I think Ms. Troiani has revealed her 

true intentions in trying this case, seeking justice three 

ways. Through settlement, through a trial and then through 

the newspapers. And I find that to be an outrageous 

statement. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

9 

MR. O'CONNOR: Your Honor has ruled that she will 

have an opportunity to attempt to unseal discovery. But I've 

been practicing law for a long time and I've never had 

discovery in any case that I've been involved with, bandied 

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 55 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 2
% Predict blood CPY and urine TCPY levels

% Drinking water concentrations from Orestimba Creek Site 3 120 days.xlsx % Infants % Cecilia Tan % Jan 21, 2016

% Setting model parameters use human_parameters_MRP use preg_female_parameters BWSW=1; % Set BW to a fixed value BWST=4.8; % Set BW to 4.8 kg PREG=0; % Not pregnant DT(1) = 0.0; TSTOP=2880; % Exposure duration in hrs

%TO READ IN DOSES FROM AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET. must be saved as .xls VOLUME=0.68557 % Water consumption volume in L/DAY EVENTS=6 % Drinking frequency per day DT = xlsRead("Drinkingwater.xls", "Creek", "D2:D722") ; % Dosing Times AMTCDOSE=xlsRead("Drinkingwater.xls", "Creek", "E2:E722")*VOLUME/EVENTS; % Dose in ug/l prepare time rbcce cv urinetcpy cvo start@nocallback

%Output RBC AChE, Urine TCPy, venous blood conc of CPF, venous blood conc of oxon mytable = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6 _cvo*334.5]; % Output unit ug/L for concentrations save mytable @file='orestimba_infant_01222016.txt' @format=ascii
2021_Shelby_HPMSVehTypeVMT

HPMSVTypeIDyearID HPMSBaseYearVMT bseYearOffNetVMT

10 2021 30597047 0

20 2021 7.31E+ 09 0

30 2021 2.22E+ 09 0

40 2021 39679667 0

50 2021 3.5E+ 08 0

60 2021 5.39E+ 08 0

Page 1
Order filed January 27, 2015. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00769-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF DANIEL BANDA AND LINA 

MARIA MARTINEZ

On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-68191

ORDER

On November 13, 2014, this court referred this case to mediation. On January 13, 

2015, the parties notified this court that the case had settled in mediation on January 12, 

2015. To date, we have not received the parties’ motion to dismiss the appeal, or other 

dispositive motion. The parties also have not requested an extension of time to file a 

dispositive motion.

This court’s mediation order states, in pertinent part: “If mediation fully resolves 

the issues in the case, the court ORDERS the parties to file a motion to dismiss the 

appeal, other dispositive motion, or a motion for additional time to file the dispositive 
motion, within 10 days of the conclusion of the mediation.” The parties have not 

complied with this court’s order. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the parties to file a motion to dismiss, other dispositive 

motion, or a motion for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion on or before 

February 13, 2015. 

PER CURIAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ANTHONY T. ALSTON

CRIMINAL ACTION

 No. 04-515

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2010, for the reasons stated in the

accompanying opinion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

(1) Defendant’s letter request to waive the payment of interest and change his

restitution repayment schedule (contained in Docket No. 97) is GRANTED IN PART

and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the request is granted to the extent that defendant

seeks a determination that interest payments on his fine be waived – and waiver is so

ORDERED – and the request is denied without prejudice to the extent that defendant

seeks to change his schedule of restitution payments; 

(2) The government shall, no later than August 10, 2010, file a further response

to defendant’s motion for the return of property (Docket No. 94) setting out evidence to

show that, under the standards enunciated by governing case law, (a) Alston is not

entitled to the return of the specified property, and/or (b) the government does not

possess, directly or constructively, the property; and
(3) Defendant shall file a reply brief in support of his motion no later than

August 25, 2010.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Louis H. Pollak

Pollak, J.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1389 

To allow the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to provide greater 

protection to servicemembers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 21, 2017 

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Mr. TESTER, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. 

KAINE, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Ms. WARREN, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. FRANKEN, 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. HIRONO, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To allow the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to 

provide greater protection to servicemembers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Consumer En5 forcement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION. 

7 Section 1002(12) of the Consumer Financial Protec8 tion Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481(12)) is amended— 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1389 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (Q), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

2 and inserting a semicolon; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (R), by striking the period 

4 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(S) sections 101, 106, 107 (except with 

7 respect to bailments), 108 (except with respect 

8 to insurance), 201 (except with respect to child 

9 custody proceedings), 207, 301, 302, 303, 305, 

10 and 305A of the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

11 Act (50 U.S.C. 3911, 3917, 3918, 3919, 3931, 

12 3937, 3951, 3952, 3953, 3955, and 3956).’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
Before the Third Division,

March 19, 1947

No. 51624.

#### Protest 776063-G of Wah Chang Trading Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of kumquats similar in all materiál respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342). In accordance therewith the claim at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 was sustained.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 17, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00507-CV

JOAN HUDSON, INDIVIDUALLY, A/N/F OF CORNENIUS HAWKINS, 

Appellant

V.

ORION REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-29465

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 20, 2013. The notice of 

appeal was filed June 5, 2013. To date, our records show that appellant has not 

paid the $175.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of 

fees in civil cases unless indigent); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for 

establishing indigence); see also; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. ' 51.207. 
2

On August 8, 2013, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing 

fee on or before August 23, 2013, or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has 

not paid the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant 

has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action 

within specified time). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Boyce, and Jamison.