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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4623 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4623

 To clarify rules regarding the display of the United States flag for 
 patriotic and military observances for purposes of promoting military 
                              recruitment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 20, 2024

   Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify rules regarding the display of the United States flag for 
 patriotic and military observances for purposes of promoting military 
                              recruitment.

    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 ``Updating National Flag Use to 
Reaffirm Liberty Act of 2024'' or the ``UNFURL Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. DISPLAY OF UNITED STATES FLAG FOR PATRIOTIC AND MILITARY 
              OBSERVANCES.

    (a) Amendment to Flag Code.--Section 8(c) of title 4, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting ``, except as may be necessary in limited 
circumstances and done in a respectful manner as part of a military or 
patriotic observance involving members of the Armed Forces'' after 
``aloft and free''.
    (b) Modification of Department of Defense Policy.--The Secretary of 
Defense shall--
            (1) rescind the February 10, 2023, Department of Defense 
        memorandum entitled, ``Clarification of Department of Defense 
        Community Engagement Policy on Showing Proper Respect to the 
        United States Flag''; and
            (2) support military recruitment through public outreach 
        events during patriotic and military observances, including the 
        display of the United States flag regardless of size and 
        position, including horizontally, provided that, in accordance 
        with section 8(b) of title 4, United States Code, the flag 
        never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, 
        water, or merchandise.
                                 <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 8511)

#### Latex and Rubber, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5406.

(Decided January 12, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the involved steel drums containing liquid latex at which such or similar drums were freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal market thereof, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other *499costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was Straits $4.50 per drum (exchange $0.3285).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher export value for such or similar drums at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER AGREED that this case may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved steel drums containing liquid latex, and that such value was Straits $4.50 per drum (exchange $0.3285).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-80,412-01 AND WR-80,412-02

EX P ARTE CESAR GAR ZA , Appli cant ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. 1996CR5971W-W1 AND 1996C R5972W-W1 IN THE 290T H DISTRICT COURT FROM BEXAR C OUNTY Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of th e T ex as Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for wri t s o f h ab ea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offe nses of ag gravated assault and possession of a controlled substance and was sentenc ed to imprisonment. This Court has rec eived the trial court’s finding s addre ssing the merits of Applicant’s claims. The trial court indicates in the finding s that an evidentiar y hearing was held in which testimony was g iven. The habea s rec ord does not contain a copy of the transcription of the testimony

. The trial court shall order the Be x ar County District Clerk to supplement the habea s rec ord to this Court with a copy of the transcription, which shall be forwa rded to this Court within 30 days of the date of this order

. Any extensions of ti me shall be obtaine d from this Court. Filed: Jul y

23, 2014 Do not publish
No. 50472.

#### Protests 54340-K, etc., of George Ross Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of co msel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation *(the “free” rate of*exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
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 General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
      "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
      to
      the best of his knowledge:





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





ii.
      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 has been provided to the Company and will
      be
      retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
      request.








Date:
                August 14, 2008
            /s/
                Zuo Sheng YuZuosheng
                YuChief
                Executive Officer and Chairman
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50045 Summary Calendar
SAHRA GRUBE, Petitioner-Appellee,

v. MARKUS GRUBE, Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CV-814
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A German court’s divorce decree awarded primary custody of Petitioner Sahra Grube’s and Respondent Markus Grube’s daughter to Petitioner. After the child did not return toGermany following a scheduled visitwith Respondent in San Antonio, Petitioner filed a petition in the district court seeking return of the child under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Ac t, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1 1 601

–11611

. The court granted the petition and ordered Respondent to United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D July 17, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-50045

2 return the child to Germany. The court also granted Petitioner’s unopposed motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs totaling $28,162.70. Despite failing to object to Petitioner’s motion in the district court, Respondent appeals the order granting the motion, arguing that: (1) the district court lacked subject matterjurisdiction over the petition; (2) Petitioner failed to follow the district court’s local rules in filing the motion; and (3) the attorney’s fees and costs awarded were “clearly excessive.” The first argument is patently frivolous. As the district court noted in its October 30, 2007 order, 42 U.S.C. § 11603(a) grants “[t]he courts ofthe States and the United States district courts

. . . concurrent original jurisdiction ofactions arising under the Convention [on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction].” Respondent’s failure to object to Petitioner’s motion in the district court precludes our consideration of the second and third arguments. See, e.g., LeMaire v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Ci r. 2007) (“[A]rguments not raised before the district court arewaived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal

.”). T he district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
Before the Second Division,

June 13, 1957

No. 60859.

#### Lucas Electrical Services, Inc., and Frank J. Eberle Co. *v.*United States,

protests 203278-K, etc. (New York).

*539Opinion by

La whence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of ammeters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lucas Electrical Services, Inc.,*and *Frank J. Eberle Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 1776), the claim at 12)4 percent under the provision in paragraph 369 (c), as modified, *supra,*for parts of automobiles was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of ammeters the same as those involved in C. D. 1776, except that the ammeters in the cited case were parts of automobiles whereas those in question are parts of motorcycles, were held dutiable at 15 percent under the provision in paragraph 369 (c), as modified, *supra,*for parts of motorcycles, as claimed.
<TABLE>
                                                                                Exhibit 12
KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<CAPTION>

                                   1995        1994        1993        1992        1991
                                                       (Thousands)
<S>                            <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Net income                        $122,586    $104,775    $105,772     $86,334    $103,893

Add:
Taxes on income                     66,803      66,377      67,953      52,196      60,278
Kansas City earnings tax               958         524         495         382         242

 Total taxes on income              67,761      66,901      68,448      52,578      60,520

Interest on value of
 leased property                     8,269       6,732       7,273       6,366       5,075
Interest on long-term debt          52,184      43,962      50,118      54,266      63,057
Interest on short-term debt          1,189       1,170         750       2,749       3,299
Other interest expense
 and amortization                    3,112       4,128       4,113       2,173       2,665

 Total fixed charges                64,754      55,992      62,254      65,554      74,096

Earnings before taxes
 on income and fixed
 charges                          $255,101    $227,668    $236,474    $204,466    $238,509
Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges                        3.94        4.07        3.80        3.12        3.22



</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

November 16, 1960

No. 64880.

#### Allied Display Materials, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/3995 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


November 3, 2016


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 279


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on November 2, 2016, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms
and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-213460) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                      
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
No. 50988.

#### Protests 71893-K, etc., of Thorens, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 10415)

#### Western Dairy Products, Inc. v. United States

Entry No. 63230.

(Decided January 8, 1963)

*Glad & Tuttle (Edward N. Glad*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Gmlfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Morris Braverman,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

When this appeal for reappraisement was called for trial, it was submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Me. Glad : If it please the Court, I offer to stipulate that the merchandise involved herein consists of Colby cheese exported from Australia on or about May 16, 1961.

> I further offer to stipulate that at or around the time of exportation there was no foreign value or export value, as defined by the statute, for such or similar merchandise, and that the freely offered United States value at that time was 25.2 cents per pound, net packed.

> Mb. Bkaverman : From information obtained from Examiner Ringell, at the Port of Los Angeles, the Government so stipulates.

On the agreed facts, I find that United States value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that such value is 25.2 cents per pound, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

April 25, 1960

No. 64115.

protests 278296-K, etc. (New York).

#### D. H. Grant & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *D. H. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 PrimeEnergy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles E. Drimal Jr., Chief Executive Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, 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 result of operations of the
Company.



|                         
|-------------------------
|                         
|                         
|/s/ Charles E. Drimal Jr.
|Chief Executive Officer  

March 27, 2008
July 1, 2015

Mr. Robert Hixon Western Data Systems Inc. (CNI)

2161 West Anderson Lane Austin, TX 78757

Dear Mr. Hixon:

This letter is to inform you that we are unabl e to process your request for an exemption of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 22, 2015, exemption reques t on behalf of Western Data Systems Inc. (CNI) into the public docket (No. FAA

− 2015

− 1210), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any fu rther, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR fr om which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adve rsely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equa l to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or ar guments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any fu rther, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requi res you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days , we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additiona l time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
The Supreme Court of Texas

Post Office Box 12248

Austin, Texas 78711

Telephone: (512) 463-1312

FACSIMILE

**TO:OF:FAX NO.:PHONE NO.:**

Mr. R. Matthew MolashHughes & Luce, L.L.P.214-939-6100214-939-5500

Mr. Terry D. MorganTerry Morgan & Associates, P.C.214-969-5902214-969-5454

Honorable Vicki B. IsaacksJudge, 393rd Judicial District Court940-349-2361940-349-2360

Ms. Stephanie LavakeClerk, Second Court of Appeals817-884-1932817-884-1900

**FROM:**Clerk’s Office

**DATE:**April 6, 2006

**PAGES:**(3), including cover page

**RE:**Case Number: 06-0266; *JNC Partners Denton, LLC  v. City of Denton, Texas*

**COMMENTS:**The attached order was issued this date.

If you have any questions, please call.  Thank you.

*IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE THE CLERK’S OFFICE IMMEDIATELY.
Exhibit 32.1

                    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 Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacqueline Winwood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
16th day of March, 2009.


/s/ Jacqueline Winwood
--------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
No. 62584.

#### Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc. v. United States,

protest 221110-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, the case was submitted upon the official papers and the collector’s report. An examination thereof showing that there was a shortage on delivery of 77.5 gallons at the port of destination, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon said merchandise. *446*United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and Abstract 61245 followed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4198 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4198

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure direct access for 
        families to national cemeteries, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2024

 Mr. Sullivan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure direct access for 
        families to national cemeteries, 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 ``Veterans Cemetery Access Act''.

SEC. 2. FAMILY ACCESS TO NATIONAL CEMETERIES.

    Section 2404 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(j)(1) The Secretary shall ensure that the family of a person 
buried in a national cemetery has direct access to that cemetery.
    ``(2) In this subsection, the term `direct access' means access 
that--
            ``(A) is provided to the family on the same day the access 
        is requested by the family; and
            ``(B) does not require the family to travel through an area 
        under the control of the Department of Defense.''.

SEC. 3. PRIORITIZATION OF GRANTS FOR STATES WITHOUT VETERANS' 
              CEMETERIES.

    Section 2408(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(3) In making grants under this section, the Secretary shall 
prioritize grants for establishing veterans' cemeteries in States that 
do not have such a cemetery.''.
                                 <all>
```