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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1576 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1576

 To provide that the owner of a water right may use the water for the 
 cultivation of industrial hemp, if otherwise authorized by State law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 18, 2017

   Mr. Bennet (for himself, Mr. Daines, Mr. Tester, Mr. Gardner, Mr. 
 Wyden, and Mr. Merkley) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that the owner of a water right may use the water for the 
 cultivation of industrial hemp, if otherwise authorized by State law.

    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 ``Industrial Hemp Water Rights Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF WATER FOR INDUSTRIAL HEMP CULTIVATION.

    (a) Definition of Industrial Hemp.--In this section, the term 
``industrial hemp'' has the meaning given the term in section 7606(b) 
of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 5940(b)).
    (b) Use for Industrial Hemp Cultivation.--Notwithstanding the 
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), chapter 81 of title 
41, United States Code, or any other Federal law, an owner of an 
absolute or conditional water right, or an entity that receives or 
distributes water contracted from the Federal Government, may use or 
sell for use by another person the water subject to the water right or 
the contract, as applicable, for the cultivation of industrial hemp, 
regardless of whether the water has passed through a Federal water 
project, if the growth or cultivation of industrial hemp is otherwise 
authorized under the laws of the State in which such use occurs.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jerry Robert JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6089.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

Jerry Robert Jones, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Robert Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s *123opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Jones v. Virginia Dep’t of Corr.,*No. CA-00-889-7 (W.D.Va. Nov. 15, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL WINDER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1944 DFL KJM P

vs.

R.W. SANDHAM, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On January 19, 2006, defendants filed a request for an order relieving them of the

requirement to file a pretrial statement, in light of the pending motion for summary judgment.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the remaining dates set in

the scheduling order filed April 13, 2005 are hereby vacated, to be reset if necessary following

resolution of the motion for summary judgment. 

DATED: January 27, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

wind1944.vs

Case 2:04-cv-01944-DFL -KJM Document 24 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 1
[No. 11869.

Department One.

July 27, 1914.]

#### J. F. Campion *et al., Respondents,*v. W. H. Kehoe *et al., Appellants.**1*

Appeal—Preservation of Grounds—Exceptions to Findings. In the absence of exceptions to the findings, the evidence cannot be reviewed, and the judgment must he affirmed if the findings support the judgment.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Webster, J., entered June 10, 1913, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, in .an action for equitable relief, tried to the court.

Affirmed.

*Voorhees*& *Canfield,*for appellants.

*Carl W. Swanson,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 141 Pac. 1138.

Per Curiam.

The respondents have interposed a motion to strike the statement of facts and the abstract of record, upon the ground that no exceptions were taken or reserved by the appellants to the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial court, and a further motion that the judgment be affirmed upon the ground that the findings of fact and conclusions of law support the judgment.

An examination of the record discloses the fact that the grounds of both motions ¡are well taken. So far as the record shows, no exceptions whatever were taken to the court’s findings of fact. An examination of the findings convinces us that they amply support the judgment. In fact, no contention to the contrary has been advanced. In such cases, we have uniformly held that we cannot review the evidence. See *Washington Trust Co. v. Local*& *Long Distance Tel. Co.,*73 Wash. 627, 132 Pac. 398, where some of the cases so holding are collected.

The motions are granted. The judgment is affirmed.
No. 63096.

#### China Dry Goods Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 321510-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of iron pictures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Marshall Field & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 72, C.A.D. 676), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: Certain items at 22% percent under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51S02), for articles or wares in chief value of base metal, not specially provided for; others at 21 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108) ; and others at 20 percent under said paragraph, as modified by T.D. 54108.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADELINE S. GREENWELL,

NO. 2:04-cv-2205-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

RONALD STREMEL GREENWELL, an

individual, RANDEE J. BRADY,

an individual; CARLA ROBBINS

LEWIS, an individual,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On March 14, 2006, counsel for Plaintiff Adeline S.

Greenwell, who is deceased, filed a Notice of Settlement

indicating that the instant case had been settled. Thereafter,

on March 16, 2006, this Court issued an Order requiring that

dispositional documents be submitted not later than April 7,

2006.

Counsel for all parties have now filed a Stipulated Motion

for Conditional Dismissal. 

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 73 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

The parties points out that given Plaintiff Adeline Greenwell’s

death, and the fact that no successor Plaintiff has been

substituted, filing any dismissal on Plaintiff’s behalf is

procedurally problematic. Moreover, given the complex settlement

agreement reached between the parties following mediation, the

parties request that this Court retain jurisdiction over this

matter until the terms of that settlement have been fully

satisfied. While they request that a conditional dismissal be

made, they have provided no such dismissal to the Court for

consideration.

Although the parties have asked that their Motion for

Conditional Dismissal be heard on May 1, 2006, that Motion is

continued to June 5, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in order to afford more

time for the parties to resolve the terms of their settlement

beforehand. Not less than two weeks prior to June 5, 2006, the

parties shall submit a Joint Status Report addressing the

following issues: 1) the terms of any proposed conditional

dismissal, including the amount of time proposed for the Court to

retain jurisdiction, along with a draft order memorializing same;

2) the parties’ current position on appointment of a successor

plaintiff for purposes of executing a dismissal of this matter;

and 3) a statement summarizing the extent to which the terms of

settlement have been satisfied, and what issues remain

outstanding.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 73 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In the meantime, the Court’s Order of March 16, 2006 is vacated

to the extent it requires submission of dispositional documents

by April 7, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 27, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 73 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 3
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY DOW, 2:04-cv-1667-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

W. HUTTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On November 4, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

Case 2:04-cv-01667-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 01/26/06 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

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 4, 2005, are adopted

in full;

2. This action is dismissed; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

Dated: January 26, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01667-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 2
32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V,
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 result of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Kimberly A.
      Springsteen-AbbottKimberly
      A. Springsteen-AbbottChief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      14, 2008
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0012 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0012

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the position of the Community in relation to the draft Regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the forward field of vision of the motor vehicle driver (11522/2006 - C6-0347/2006 - 2006/0041(AVC)) **

*
Official Journal 250 E , 25/10/2007 P. 0075 - 0076 *

P6_TA(2007)0012

Approval of motor vehicles with regard to the forward field of vision of the driver ***

European Parliament legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the position of the Community in relation to the draft Regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the forward field of vision of the motor vehicle driver (11522/2006 — C6-0347/2006 — 2006/0041(AVC))

(Assent procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the draft Council decision (11522/2006) [1],

- having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 4(2), second indent, of Council Decision 97/836/EC [2] (C6-0347/2006),

- having regard to Rules 75(1) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A6-0472/2006),

1. Gives its assent to the draft Council decision;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

[2] Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the European Community to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions ("Revised 1958 Agreement") (OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 78).

--------------------------------------------------
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4656 

To amend title 5, United States Code, concerning restrictions on the participation of certain Federal employees in partisan political activity, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 10, 2024 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. PETERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, concerning restrictions 

on the participation of certain Federal employees in partisan political activity, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTIONS ON PARTISAN POLITICAL AC4 TIVITY. 

5 Section 7323(b)(2)(B)(i) of title 5, United States 

6 Code, is amended— 

7 (1) in subclause (XIII), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

8 end; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4656 IS

1 (2) in subclause (XIV), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

2 end; and 

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

4 ‘‘(XV) any Office of Inspector General es5 tablished under chapter 4; or 

6 ‘‘(XVI) any Office of Special Inspector 

7 General; or’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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 of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liu Bo, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





A signed
original of this 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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.




Dated:
      March 30, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/ Liu
      BoLiu
      BoChief
      Executive Officer
                      (principal
      executive officer)
<PAGE>67
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23






                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration 
statements of Kollmorgen Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-21379, 
333-21409, 333-41585 and 333-64733), and on Form S-3 (No. 333-34707) of our 
report, dated January 22, 1999 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of Kollmorgen Corporation, as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for 
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998, which report is 
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                           PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

                                           /s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 1999
No. 52619.

protest 957582-G/11412 (New Orleans).

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bonbon dishes the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Butler Bros.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 444, C. D. 512) and *United States*v. *Butler Bros.*(33 C. C. P. A. 22, C. A. D. 310). The claim at 70 percent under paragraph 212 was therefore sustained.
No. 59570.

protests 182009-K, etc. (New York),

#### Holland Colombo Trading Society, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of coconut shell charcoal the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Holland Colombo Trading Society, Inc.*v. *United Stales*(34 Cust. Ct. 90, C. D. 1684), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1802 was sustained.
**Exhibit      32.1**

| 1.  | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period                ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15                U.S.C.                78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| DATE:  | August                9, 2006 |   | BY:    | /S/                Scott V. Fainor                              |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                          |   |   | Scott                V. Fainor                                  |
|   |                          |   |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer            |
|   |                          |   |   |                                                            |
|   |                          |   |   |                                                            |
|   |                          |   |   |                                                            |
| DATE:  | August                9, 2006 |   | BY:    | /S/                Eugene T. Sobol                              |
|   |                          |   |   | Eugene                T. Sobol                                  |
|   |                          |   |   | Senior                Executive Vice President, Chief Financial |
|   |                          |   |   | Officer                and Treasurer                            |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to KNBT Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained      by KNBT Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission      or      its staff upon request.*

----
No. 64125.

protest 59/18009 (Los Angeles).

#### Williams, Clarke Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Honorable E. P. Jennings 

County Auditor 

Hardin County 

Kountze, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

opinion Ho. o-1217 

Re) Taxation of rainerals.sevsrddbpy 

reservation. 

We are in receipt of your letter of August 1, 1939, in which you request 

the opinion of this department upon the following question: 

"In the cese of where one party sells and conveys a tract of land, 

and the grantor reserves the minerals or a part of the mineral, 

shell the grantor be assessed for taxes the whole or pert of such 

mineral rights reserved?” 

III I.exer vs, Gerner (sup. Ct.,1932) 30 S. W. (Q.) 769, it was stated: 

?ha authoritative decisions of this State esteblimh the following 

elementary rules, to-wit: 

"2 . That a sexerance of minerals may be made by an exception or 

reservation in the deed conveying the land." 

It Is stated in Humble Oil& Refining Co. vs. State (T. C. $. 1928, writ 

refused) 3 S. W. (2d) 559, that: 

"F;t is now a well recognized principle of law that, after the mineral 

estate has been severedby the owner from the land, sama is subject 

to taxes, and the owner of the mineral estate is liable forKtaxes t& 

the same extent that property owners are liable for any other tax." 

The Texss Supreme Court speaking througb Justice Greenwood in Hoger vs. 

Stokes, (1927) 294 S. W. 835, stated: 

"Real estate is ordinarily taxed as a unit: yet, where there have 

been severances by conveyance; exception, or res~ervation, so that one 

portion of realty belongs to one person and other portions to others, 

each owner should pay taxes under proper assessment against him of the 

portion! owned by him. The fact that a portion may consist of minerals, 

or of a fractional interest therein makes no difference, l . ." 
Hcm.B. P. Jennings, Page 2 O-1217 

Articles 7151 et seq. R. C. S. 1525, clearly contemplates that real 

estate shall ba assessed for taxes against the owner aa of January I.& 

in %ha year for which the property is required tobe rendered or assessed. 

It is OW! opinion that when a grantor eells and qanveya a tract cdf land 

reeerving the minerab or a fractional part of the minerals, therein, such 

grantor ah0Kl.d be aseesaed for taxsa on tha mineral interest owned or 

reserved by him. 

Very truly yours 

ATWRIWGSWWRALOFTEXAS 

e/Cecil C. Canmmok 

Bs 

Cecil C. CsJmpaok 

Amlhant