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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4404 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4404

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 840 Front Street in Casselton, North Dakota, as the ``Commander 
                  Delbert Austin Olson Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2024

Mr. Cramer (for himself and Mr. Hoeven) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 840 Front Street in Casselton, North Dakota, as the ``Commander 
                  Delbert Austin Olson Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. COMMANDER DELBERT AUSTIN OLSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 840 Front Street in Casselton, North Dakota, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Commander Delbert Austin Olson Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Commander 
Delbert Austin Olson Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 25 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CARLTON KEITH JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-6342

(D.C. No. CR-98-192-T)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , Chief Judge, BALDOCK , Circuit Judge, and BRORBY Senior

Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. 
-2-

Defendant Carlton Keith Jackson appeals from the district court’s

imposition of sentence following his guilty plea to one count of distribution of

cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.

Defendant was sentenced to 226 months in prison, reflecting nine months’

credit for time served on a concurrent sentence for a prior drug offense. 

Defendant argues on appeal that the district court erred in (1) failing to require

the government to move for downward departure based on substantial assistance,

in accordance with his interpretation of the plea agreement, and (2) making

sentencing calculations based on duplicate and unreliable estimates of drug

quantity. Because defendant made no objections in the district court, “this court

reviews only for plain error. Plain error occurs when there is (1) error, (2) that is

plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v.

Price , No. 99-7078, 2001 WL 1040776, at *9 (10th Cir. Sept. 11, 2001) (citing

Jones v. United States , 527 U.S. 373, 389 (1999)). 

Defendant has not shown that the imposition of his sentence constituted

plain error. The claimed expectation of a government motion for downward

departure is not grounded in either the terms of the plea agreement or the extent

of his cooperation with authorities. Moreover, under the appropriate sentencing
-3-

guidelines, the district court made no miscalculations that affected the length of

defendant’s sentence. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby 

Senior Circuit Judge
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors


Kansas City Life Insurance Company:







We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 033-89984, No. 333-52290, No. 333-98805, and No. 333-165116) on Form N-4 of Kansas City Life Insurance Company and subsidiaries (the Company) of our report dated February 27, 2015, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2014, and all related financial statement schedules, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, which report appears in the December 31, 2014 annual report on Form 10-K of Kansas City Life Insurance Company and subsidiaries.
 
 As discussed in note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, effective December 31, 2014, the Company changed its method of accounting for certain investments in qualified affordable housing projects by electing to use the proportional amortization method for such investments due to the retrospective adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-01, Accounting for Investments in Qualified Affordable Housing Projects.





/s/ KPMG LLP





Kansas City, Missouri


February 27, 2015
No. 55256.

#### L. Bamberger & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 164182-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 64148.

protest 59/13896 (New York).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles 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 four cases, 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 is not assessable upon the four cases of merchandise, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of ChiefExecutive OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

I,Michael J. Koss, Chief Executive Officer of Koss Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(i)   theAnnual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year endedJune 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: October 12, 2010            |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   |
| /s/ Michael J. Koss                    |   |
|                                   |   |
| Michael J. Koss                        |   |
| Chief Executive Officer, President and |   |
| Chief Operating Officer                |   |

 

----
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4054 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 163 DB 2020 (No. 97 RST 2020)

:

PHILLIP CHARLES BLACKMAN : Attorney Registration No. 307527

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

 FROM INACTIVE STATUS : (Out of State)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 2020, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated December 3, 2020, is approved and it is ORDERED 

that Phillip Charles Blackman, who has been on Inactive Status, has demonstrated that 

he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to 

practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a 

member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the 

investigation and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Katy Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, C.
Michael Jacobi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ C. Michael Jacobi
---------------------
C. Michael Jacobi
Chief Executive Officer
May 5, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Katy Industries, Inc. and will be
retained by Katy Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       93
#### Garry Eugene Williams, *Appellant,*v. State of Kansas, *Appellee.*

No. 48,325

Opinion filed January 22, 1977.

*John J. Immel,*of Petefish, Curran and Immel, of Lawrence, was on the brief for the appellant.

*Curt T. Schneider,*attorney general, *Michael J. Malone,*assistant county attorney, and *Rose M. Stewart,*legal intern, were on the brief for the appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER TURNER,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00256

- CR

Appeal from

27th District Court

of Bell County, Texas

(TC # 69922 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Christopher Turner attempts to appeal from a judgment adjudicating him guilty of

attempted theft

. Finding that Appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal, we dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State
,

918 S .W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). In a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal is

due within thirty days after the sentence is imposed in open court or the trial court enters an

appealable order. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.2(a)(1). The deadline is ext ended to ninety days after the

date the sentence is imposed in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial.

See T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.2(a)(2). A court of appeals may extend the time to file the notice of appeal

if, within 15 days after the d eadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party files in the trial court

the notice of appeal, and files in the appellate court a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b).- 2

-

T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.3. When a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen

- day period
, bu t no timely

motion for extension of time is filed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction. Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at

522.

The judgment of conviction reflects that sentence was imposed in open court on July 25
,

2016 . Appellant did not file a motion for new tri al. Therefore, his notice of appeal was due to

be filed no later than August 24, 2016
, thirty days after the date sentence was imposed in open

court. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant file d his notice of appeal on September 2
, 2016,

but he did not file a motion for extension of time as permitted by Rule 26.3. Because Appellant

did not timely file his notice of appeal, we are required to dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.

October 2 7 , 2016 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
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 Strategy International Insurance Group,
        Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2005 as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        “Report”), each of the undersigned of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
        U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge:
 
 1.
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and
 
 2.
              The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the
                  Company.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written certification has been provided to the Company and
        will
        be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 /s/
                  Stephen Stonhill
                Name:Stephen
                  Stonhill
                Title:Chief
                  Executive Officer
                September
                  23, 2005
                
                
                /s/
                  Louis Lettieri
                Name:Louis
                  Lettieri
                Title:Chief
                  Financial Officer
                September
                  23, 2005
 
 This
        Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This exhibit is not “filed” for purposes of Section
        18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided
        by applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
From: Sam Portanova/R5/USEPA/US

To: Pamela Blakley/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Beth Valenziano/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/02/2010 12:03 PM

Subject: Phone Conversation Record (Dec 2 call with IDEM on T5 GHG issues)

As a follow up to our 11/30/10 conversation with IDEM (see summary below), Region 5 participated in a 

more detailed conference call with IDEM on 12/2/10. Participating from Region 5 were Sam Portanova 

and Beth Valenziano from ARD and Jane Woolums from ORC. 

Participating from IDEM were Ann Long (Office of Legal Counsel); Susan Bem (staff), Chris Pedersen 

(section chief), and Scott Deloney (branch chief) from IDEM's rule developing branch; Matt Stuckey

(branch chief, air permitting branch); and Keith Baugus (assistant commissioner for air).

On this call, IDEM agreed that their existing Title V regulations do not provide authority to permit GHGs at 

any level. Regarding the rule revisions that are currently in the process of adoption, IDEM believes the 

rules can be interpreted to allow for GHG permitting. Region 5 believes the new rule language is 

ambiguous, but agrees that IDEM can supplement these rules with an Attorney General opinion letter 

stating the intention of the rule to allow for GHG permitting under Title V. 

Regarding the timing of a Title V program update submittal to incorporate these rules, IDEM says they 

plan to hold off on a Title V submittal until they receive more guidance from EPA on what needs to be 

included in that submittal. Region 5 agrees with this approach.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the First Division,

December 11, 1958

No. 62569.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 324023-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of aplanatic magnifiers, valued under $25 each, and are properly classified as microscopes, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 11.1
 
 Year Ended December 31,
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006Basic earnings per share calculation:Average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    29,343
    
    
    
    29,337
    
    
    
    29,501Net (loss) income from continuing operations
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ($14,387
    )
    
    $
    37,401Payment of preferred dividends
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (1,335
    )Net loss from continuing operations, adjusted
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ($15,722
    )Basic earnings per share from continuing operations
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ($0.54
    )
    
    $
    1.27Net (loss) income from all operations
    
    
    ($340,480
    )
    
    
    ($44,930
    )
    
    $
    1,727Payment of preferred dividends
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (1,335
    )Net loss from all operations, adjusted
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ($46,265
    )Basic earnings per share from all operations
    
    
    ($11.60
    )
    
    
    ($1.58
    )
    
    $
    0.06Diluted earnings per share calculation:Diluted shares outstandingAverage number of shares outstanding
    
    
    29,343
    
    
    
    29,337
    
    
    
    29,501Assumed exercise of stock options(1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    7
    
    
    
    189Total shares
    
    
    29,343
    
    
    
    29,344
    
    
    
    29,690Net (loss) income from continuing operations, adjusted
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ($15,722
    )
    
    $
    37,401Effect of stock options
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (1,019
    )
    
    
    (303
    )Net (loss) income from continuing operations
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ($16,741
    )
    
    $
    37,098Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ($0.57
    )
    
    $
    1.25Net (loss) income from all operations, adjusted
    
    
    ($340,480
    )
    
    
    ($46,265
    )
    
    $
    1,727Effect of stock options
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (1,019
    )
    
    
    (303
    )Net (loss) income from all operations
    
    
    ($340,480
    )
    
    
    ($47,284
    )
    
    $
    1,424Diluted earnings per share from all operations
    
    
    ($11.60
    )
    
    
    ($1.61
    )
    
    $
    0.05
 
 (1)
    
    The dilutive effect of stock options is based on the Treasury Stock method.
# C_2006316EN.01002001.xml

| 22.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 316/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316/20

---

Communication from the Commission to sugar beet and sugar producers

(2006/C 316/08)

Sugar undertakings are reminded that the deadline for participating in the restructuring scheme for the 2007/08 marketing year is 31 January 2007.

At the Council meeting of 20 November 2006 the Commission drew attention to the very serious situation that may arise for the sugar market.

At this stage it appears that there might be an insufficient take-up of the restructuring scheme in this second year of the restructuring period. As a consequence sugar production in the 2007/08 marketing year may significantly exceed the outlets. The result risks being a serious imbalance on the market and a high level of stocks, which might exceed normal stocks by 4 million or more, on 30 September 2008.

Sugar undertakings are therefore encouraged to carefully analyse their competitive position in the medium and long term and the advantage of participating in the restructuring scheme under the conditions valid for the 2007/08 marketing year, bearing in mind that the deadline for applications is 31 January 2007.

The Commission recalls the need to ensure balance on the sugar market in light of our international commitments.

The Restructuring Fund is the instrument which should ensure the necessary restructuring of the industry.

If the restructuring process is unsuccessful, this will automatically have an effect on the decision on possible quota reduction which the Commission will have to take by February 2010 under Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.

---
No. 48507.

#### Protests 831937-G, etc., of D. Kelman, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the cheese in question is similar to that involved in *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706, and Abstract 42146). As to this merchandise the collector was directed to reliquidate, allowing 2)4 percent in the weight thereof. Protests sustained to-this extent.
Order entered September 11, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00578-CR

MONIQUE DANAE MCCLINTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR11-1799

ORDER

On September 4, 2013, Official Court Reporter Deborah K. Hamon filed a request for an 

extension until September 6, 2013 to file the reporter’s record. On September 9, 2013, Hamon 

filed a letter representing the reporter’s record would be filed on that date. The reporter’s record 

has not been filed.

We GRANT the request for an extension. We ORDER Deborah K. Hamon to file the 

reporter’s record within TEN days of the date of this order. The Court will not grant any further 

extensions.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
No. 55945.

protests 160190-K, etc. (New York).

#### Accurate Millinery Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 49663.

#### Protests 937485-G, etc., of John J. Brunner Agency, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of portions of cheese packed in boxes and that of such portions, except one portion which is Tilsit, are similar in all material respects to the cheese the subject of *Gruyere Cheese Corp.*v. *United States*(7 Cust. Ct. 171, C. D. 562) and *Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 767). In accordance therewith, the merchandise in question was held dutiable, as claimed, at 5 cents per pound, but ¡not less than 20 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 710 as modified.