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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4133 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4133

  To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require secret ballot 
                   elections, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 16, 2024

     Mrs. Blackburn (for herself, Mr. Tuberville, and Mr. Hagerty) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require secret ballot 
                   elections, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Protecting Workers from Coercion 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.

    Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``designated or selected 
        for the purposes of collective bargaining'' and inserting ``for 
        the purposes of collective bargaining selected by secret ballot 
        in an election conducted by the Board,''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), in the flush matter following 
                subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, not later than 1 
                month after such petition was filed,'' after ``it 
                shall''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) An election may not take place after the filing of 
        any petition until the Board conducts a hearing, and makes a 
        ruling, on--
                    ``(A) any issues regarding unit inclusion or 
                exclusion or eligibility of an individual; and
                    ``(B) any other legal dispute concerning the 
                election alleged by the employer or a labor 
                organization seeking recognition as the collective 
                bargaining representative of employees of the 
                employer.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Cite as In re R.N.W., 2024-Ohio-1009.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LAKE COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF:

R.N.W.

CASE NO. 2023-L-115

Civil Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas, 

Juvenile Division

Trial Court No. 2018 CV 01104

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

Decided: March 18, 2024

Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Marrio Woods, pro se, 8210 Macedonia Commons Boulevard, Suite 3B, Macedonia, OH 

44056 (Appellant).

Michelle Colegrove, pro se, 2208 Buena Vista Drive, Wickliffe, OH 44092 (Appellee).

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.

{¶1} On December 6, 2023, appellant, Marrio Woods, filed a pro se appeal from 

a September 12, 2019 judgment entry. 

{¶2} App.R. 3(A) expressly states that the only jurisdictional requirement for filing 

a valid appeal is to file it within the time allowed by App.R. 4. The Supreme Court has 

held that the failure to comply with the time requirements of App.R. 4(A) is a jurisdictional 

defect, which is fatal to an appeal. In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499, 2008-Ohio-6810, ¶ 17, 

citing State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections, 40 Ohio St.3d 58, 60 (1988).
2

Case No. 2023-L-115

{¶3} “Subject to the provisions of App.R. 4(A)(3), a party who wishes to appeal 

from an order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 

3 within 30 days of that entry.” See App.R. 4(A)(1). Civ.R. 58(B) directs the clerk of 

courts to serve the parties with notice of the entry within three days of entering the 

judgment upon the journal. If Civ.R. 58(B) service does not occur within three days, the 

time to appeal does not begin to run until service is made and noted in the appearance 

docket. Coles v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 163 Ohio App.3d 659, 664, 2005-Ohio-5360.

{¶4} Here, the trial court issued its entry on September 12, 2019. The clerk of 

courts noted on the appearance docket that notice of the entry under Civ.R. 58(B) was 

issued to the parties on that same date. Therefore, pursuant Civ.R. 58(B), the time to 

appeal began to run from September 12, 2019. The deadline for appellant to file his 

notice of appeal was October 15, 2019, which was not a holiday or a weekend. Thus, 

appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed by over 4 years.

{¶5} This court is not empowered to extend the time deadline in civil cases. 

Pendell, supra at 60; see also App.R. 14(B). 

{¶6} Based upon the foregoing, this appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely 

pursuant to App.R. 4(A)(1).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.
No. 49624.

#### Protests 928690-G, etc., of R. Gliksman et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keeps, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of *United States*v. *Hearty*(31 C. C. P. A. 106, C. A. D. 257). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable on the weight of the poultry alone, as claimed.
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
that: (1) The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the period ended September 30, 2003, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: December 10, 2003
  
  /s/ William P. MurnanePresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: December 10, 2003
  
  /s/ Thomas PaulsonChief Financial Officer


---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Said motion was noticed for hearing on this court’s regular law and motion calendar on 1

July 14, 2005. Carolyn Wiggin, Assistant Federal Defender, appeared as counsel for petitioner. 

Lisa A. Tillman, Deputy Attorney General, appeared as counsel for respondent. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES H. CARR,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0584 MCE JFM P

vs.

TOM CAREY, Warden, ORDER

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By this action, petitioner challenges a 2002

decision of a panel of the California Board of Prison Terms to deny him parole. On June 13,

2005, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a second amended petition, for stay and abeyance

pending exhaustion of state remedies as to additional claims, and for subsequent amendment

after exhaustion. Respondent opposes said motion. On June 30, 2005, respondent filed a 1

request for leave to file a supplemental answer together with a proposed supplemental answer

raising the question of subject matter jurisdiction.

Case 2:04-cv-00584-MCE -JFM Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 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

26

2

This court finds that the question of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over

this action should be resolved before the other matters at bar. Accordingly, good cause

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of this order, respondent shall file a motion to

dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. Said motion shall be noticed for hearing on this

court’s regular law and motion calendar and briefed in accordance with the provisions of Local

Rule 78-230.

2. Respondent’s June 30, 2005 request for leave to file a supplemental answer is

denied without prejudice.

3. Petitioner’s June 13, 2005 motion to file a second amended petition, for stay

pending exhaustion, and for subsequent amendment is denied without prejudice.

DATED: July 14, 2005.

12

carr0584.oah

Case 2:04-cv-00584-MCE -JFM Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tongli Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Mingli Yao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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) 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.





Date: August 22, 2010
By:
/s/ Mingli YaoName: Mingli YaoTitle: Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
No. 54591.

#### F. E. Macartney *v.*United States,

petition 6738-R (Duluth).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The record disclosed that three importations of plywood were entered at certain unit prices, less 2 percent cash discount, less 5 percent commission. The merchandise was appraised at the entered unit prices^ less 2 percent cash discount, but the commission of 5 percent was disallowed. At the hearing the petitioner testified that he did not believe the 5 percent commission was dutiable because it was a buying commission and that he honestly felt that said commission was deductible. Upon the record presented, the court was satisfied that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2024 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2024-01	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VSR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 11/29/23
Order entered April 20 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 15 - 00169 - CV TOM BENSON, D/B/A LO W PRICE BAIL BONDS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 1 D allas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MC - 14 - R0012 - D 

### O RDER B e fore the Court is appellant’s April 14, 2015 motion to extend time to file brief and order the Dallas County Clerk to show cause why the supplemental clerk’s record, ordered to be filed no l ater than March 30, 2015, has not been filed
. We GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER Dallas County Clerk John F. Warren to file, no later than April 2 4 , 2015, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the record from the Richardson municipal court in c ause number MC

- 14

- R0012

- D and all other pleadings originally filed in County Court at Law No. 1 in cause number CC

- 13

- 04944

- A. A s the appellate record is not complete, appellant’s brief is not yet due. It sh all be filed within thirty days of the filing o f the supplemental clerk’s record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6(a)
.We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to all parties and to Mr. Warren.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
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 IEH Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending March 29, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, being, Michael Offerman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer), and Robert Knoth, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer), of the Company, respectfully
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of the Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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





Dated: December 3, 2013





|/s/ Michael Offerman                  | /s/ Robert Knoth              
|------------------------------------- | ------------------------------
|Michael Offerman                      | Robert Knoth                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer | Chief Financial Officer       
|(Principal Executive Officer)         | (Principal Accounting Officer)











This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not
be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing. A signed original of the 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.



58
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Quadir A. HAKEEM, Appellant.

No. 00-2165WA.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 19, 2001.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After a jury found Quadir A. Hakeem guilty of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) & (d) and 2, the District Court1 sentenced him to fourteen years and two months (170 months) in prison. Hakeem appeals, arguing that the Court erred in assigning criminal-history points to each of two prior Arkansas convictions for which he received concurrent sentences; he argues that the two were consolidated for sentencing and thus should have been treated as one sentence. *426Hakeem also has moved pro se to supplement his brief, arguing that the District Court erred in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(5) (2-level increase in bank-robbery offense level if robbery involved carjacking), as the indictment did not charge him with carjacking. We grant Hakeem’s motion, but because he presented neither of these arguments below, we review only for plain error. See *United States v. Montanye,*996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir.1993) (en banc).

The Sentencing Guidelines provide that prior sentences imposed in unrelated cases are to be counted separately, while those imposed in related cases are to be treated as one sentence for purposes of calculating the defendant’s criminal-history score; “related” cases include those that were consolidated for trial or sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) *&*comment. (n.3). Cases are not considered consolidated if they proceeded to sentencing under separate docket numbers with no consolidation order. See *United States v. McComber,*996 F.2d 946, 947 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam). Hakeem has not asserted that his Arkansas cases were formally consolidated, and the presentence report reflects that they had separate docket numbers. See *United States v. Klein,*13 F.3d 1182, 1185 (8th Cir.) (prior concurrent sentences were not related when cases had separate docket numbers, underlying offenses occurred on different dates, and there was no formal order of consolidation), *cert. denied,*512 U.S. 1226, 114 S.Ct. 2722, 129 L.Ed.2d 846 (1994). Therefore, the District Court did not plainly err in treating these cases as unrelated.

We likewise find no plain error in the enhancement’s application, as it did not result in a sentence exceeding the 25-year maximum prison term authorized for the crime for which Hakeem was indicted. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d); *United States v. Aguayo-Delgado,*220 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir.) (judge-found fact permissibly may alter defendant’s sentence within statutory range for offense simpliciter), *cert. denied,*531 U.S. 1026, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,

 Petitioner,

v.

M. YARBOROUGH, et al.,

Respondents.

CIV S-04-0021 FCD DAD P

 ORDER

Respondents have requested a thirty-day enlargement of time to file a response to the

second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to this Court’s order of March 22, 2005.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ request for an enlargement of time is granted;

2. Respondents are granted thirty days from the service of this order in which to file a

response to petitioner’s second amended petition.

DATED: April 27, 2005.

DAD:4

burg0021.111

Case 2:04-cv-00021-FCD-DAD Document 34 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5                                      
<CIK>                            0001052635                             
<NAME>                           MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    OTHER                                  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                           DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                             SEP-25-1998
<CASH>                                                             0
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   0
<PP&E>                                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              0
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                       85
<COMMON>                                                          15
<OTHER-SE>                                                      (100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       0
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   0
<CGS>                                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32.1





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 Vitasti, Inc.  (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tammy-Lynn McNabb,
      Chief Executive Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Date: August
      18, 2006


By: /s/
      TAMMY-LYNN MCNABB





Name:
       Tammy-Lynn McNabb


Title:
         Chief Executive Officer
No. 57254.

protest 192167-K (New York).

#### W. A. Taylor *& Co. v.*United States,

*419Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, issues, and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested not found were not in fact received by the importer. ■ In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
# Jfmutl)**Court of** **Sntonio, August** **26. 2014** **No. 04-14-00076-CR** **The State** **of Texas.** **Appellant v.** **Ernesto lihazar** **Vela.**

### Appellee**Trial Court** **Case No.** **CR12 1162** 

### i)**i; The** **Court has** **reviewed the** **record and** **briefs in** **this appeal** **and has** **determined that** **oral argument** **will not** **significantly aid** **it in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See TEX.** **R. APP.** **P. 39.8.** **Therefore, all** **requests for** **oral argument** **are denied,** **and the** **cause is** **advanced for** **ON BRIEFS** **submission on** **October 7,** **2014, to** **the following** **panel: Chief** **Justice Stone.** **Justice Angelini,** **and Justice** **Martinez. All** **parties will** **be notified** **of the** **Court's decision** **in this** **appeal in** **accordance with** **Tex. R.** **APP. P.** **4X. Either party** **may file** **motion requesting** **the Court** **to reconsider** **its determination** **that oral** **argument will** **not significantly** **aid the** **Court in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See Tex.** **R. APP.** **P. 39.8.** **Such motion** **should be filed** **within ten** **(10) days** **from the** **date of** **this order.** **It is** **so ORDERED** **on August** **26. 2014.** 

## 2L**Cameripe Stone.** **Chief Justice** 

# IN**WITNESS WHEREOF,** **have hereunto** **set my** **hand and** **a/lixed the** **seal o/thc** **said court** **on this** **Aueust 26.** **2014. e,** **Clerk'**