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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5073 

To limit the use of funds for entities that care for unaccompanied alien 

children and have been identified as engaging in misconduct toward children. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 

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

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To limit the use of funds for entities that care for unaccompanied alien children and have been identified as engaging in misconduct toward children. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR ENTITIES 

4 CARING FOR UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHIL5 DREN. 

6 None of the funds made available by any Act making 

7 appropriations for the Department of Health and Human 

8 Services for fiscal year 2025 shall be obligated or ex9 pended on future contracts, grants, awards, or agreements 

10 with any entity that cares for or provides services, includVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:28 Sep 21, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S5073.IS S5073

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 5073 IS

1 ing housing or transportation, for unaccompanied alien 

2 children and has been identified by the Department of 

3 Justice in accordance with suspension and debarment pro4 cedures as facilitating actions that constitute illegal sexual 

5 abuse and harassment of, or illegal misconduct toward, 

6 children in the care of the entity unless the Attorney Gen7 eral certifies to Congress that the entity has successfully 

8 mitigated the conditions that led the Department of Jus9 tice to identify the entity as engaged in such actions. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 42958.

#### Protest 923013-G/87355 of S. M. & R. Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of clothes brushes the same as those the subject of *United States*v. *Heinrich Herrmann*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30). The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 was therefore sustained.
#### Edith M. Dougherty, Respondent, *v.*John W. Smith, Jr., and Alphonzo Smith, Appellants.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Dyeman, J.
IN THE s.kniiitd

ANTHONY BIRBILIS,

Petitioner,

v. T OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 20-0428

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, THE HONORABLE JESSICA T.FEHR, DISTRICT JUDGE,

Respondent. 

# FILED SEP 1 5 2029

Bowen Greenwood Cferk of Supreme Court 'Stafc4 nf Kfic,nta ORDER

Petitioner Anthony Birbilis seeks a writ of supervisory control directing the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, to reverse its Order denying Birbilis's motion to dismiss in its Cause No. DV 15-0391. In that Order, among other rulings in the matter,the DistrictCourtrejected Birbilis's argumentsthatthe counts against him in the underlying litigation should be dismissed under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) or 12(b)(6). Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a motion to substitute a judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Whether supervisory control is appropriate is a case-by-case decision. Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 2011 MT 182,¶ 5,361 Mont.279,259P.3d 754 (citations omitted). Consistent with Rule 14(3), it is the Court's practice to refrain from exercising supervisory control when the petitioner has an adequate remedy ofappeal.E.g.,Buckles v. Seventh JudicialDist. Court, No. OP 16-0517, 386 Mont. 393, 386 P.3d 545 (table) (Oct. 18, 2016); Lichte v. 09/15/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0428Mont.Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0482, 385 Mont. 540. 382 P.3d 868

(table)(Aug.24,2016). Here,Birbilis asserts that the District Court is operating under an error oflaw and that the issue is purely one oflaw is causing a gross injustice. Birbilis further alleges that the matter presents a constitutional issue because the court's ruling affects his due process rights, and he asserts, without further explanation, that the matter is one of state-wide importance. However,as set forth above,a party must also demonstrate that the normal appeal process is inadequate for this Court to grant a writ. Although Birbilis recites Rule 14(3),he offers no argument as to why the normal appeal process would be inadequate in this case. He has therefore notmetthe criteria forthis Courtto assume supervisory control. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ ofsupervisory control is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County,Cause No.DV 15-0391,and the Honorable Jessica T.Fehr,presiding Judge. DATED this A

l ay ofSeptember,2020.

ChiefJustice

Justices
November 29, 1960

No. 64939.

Suit 5052.

#### United States *v.*Ace Importing Co., Inc.

Abstract 64185. (Appeal dismissed October 10, 1960.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Porter, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1019]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), rendered November 10, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

A defendant has the right to be present at all material stages of the trial, including, *inter alia,*any nonministerial supplemental communications to a jury *(see, People v Bonaparte,*78 NY2d 26; *People v Ciaccio,*47 NY2d 431). A violation of this right goes to the basic organization of the court *(see, People v Ahmed,*66 NY2d 307; *People v Mehmedi,*69 NY2d 759). Thus, a waiver of such right by counsel is ineffective absent the express consent of the defendant, or the defendant’s ratification thereof *(see, People v Carroll,*196 AD2d 546; *see also generally, People v Mehmedi, supra).*We find that under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s right to be present was violated. We therefore reverse the judgment and direct that a new trial be held.

*484In light of this determination we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 134701 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134701 COA: 276526 Wayne CC: 02-013409-01 CALVIN HARPER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 26, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2007

Clerk
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 on Form 10-QSB of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the Company), for the quarter
ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marshall T. Leeds, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge 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/ Marshall T. Leeds                                       
|Marshall T. Leeds                                           
|Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President
|                                                            



Dated: August 15, 2005
(Reap. Dec. 8723)

#### Alltransport, Incorporated *v.*United States

Entry No. 756531, etc.

(Decided January 10, 1957)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of the following perfumeries exported from France:

> Coffrets “Open S.”

> Succes Fou G. M. — 58 Gr.

> Succes Fou P. M. — r28 Gr.

> Succes Fou T. P. M. — 14 Gr.

> Succes Fou Broche

> *564That on or about the dates of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of France either for home consumption or for export to the United States.

> That on or about the dates of exportation such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the United States for domestic consumption.

> That on or about the dates of exportation the invoice prices of the merchandise hereinbefore described are equal to the cost of production for such items as such value is defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

> That the appeals for reappraisement are limited to the items hereinbefore described and are abandoned in all other respects.

> That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule A are submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the following perfumery here involved:

> Coffrets “Open S.”

> Succes Fou G. M.: — 58 Gr.

> Succes Fou P. M. — 28 Gr.

> Succes Fou T. P. M. — 14 Gr.

> Succes Fou Broche *565usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, as follows: In Reappraisement No. 247041-A at invoice unit value plus bale and packing $77.00, and in Reappraisement No. 247042-A at invoice unit value plus bale and packing $37.75.

*564and that such values were the invoice prices.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
M14004 – Chemical 3 

Chemical Structure 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
#### Jules B. Sadock, Appellant, v Lady Ester Lingerie Corporation et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 86]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about May 4, 1994, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action and, upon a search of the record, granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs attempt to invalidate defendant Karen Sadock’s election to the board of directors of Lady Ester Lingerie and her subsequent actions as a director is clearly without merit. Pursuant to the corporation’s shareholders’ agreement, bylaws and certificate of incorporation, Ms. Sadock was legitimately elected as a fourth director by a unanimous vote, including that of plaintiff, although only a plurality was necessary, and subsequently re-elected by a plurality of the shareholders at many annual meetings. The shareholders’ agreement allows as many as seven directors and Business Corporation Law § 614 provides that only a plurality vote is necessary where, as here, the certificate of incorporation does not state otherwise.

It is clear that this meritless lawsuit is brought, as were two preceding suits, in retaliation for defendants’ refusal to accede to plaintiffs’ buy-out demands and any. further frivolous proceeding by plaintiff will result in the imposition of substantial sanctions. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 2015-CE040-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Visual Inspection 5.0 $ 425.00 $0 $ 425.00 95 $40,375.00

Ultrasound 

Inspection 3.0 $ 255.00 $0 $ 255.00 95 $24,225.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $64,600

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Replace LH Oleo 

Strut Attach Fitting 24.0 $2,040.00 $5,220 $7,260.00

Replace RH Oleo 

Strut Attach Fitting 45.0 $3,825.00 $5,220 $9,045.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): Owners may

voluntarily perform ultrasound inspection in lieu of visual inspection.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
SERVED DECEMBER 9, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

, HAMSPORlAliON 

^-OKET OFrRATION^: 

•>i'^i! I'.r ^wi (ILL \2 A iO-- ^5 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CPIOGLOOIO 

(Equal Access to Justice Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2010-0973 

ORDER ON REMAND 

This matter was remanded to the undersigned by FAA Order No. 201 N12, 

November 22, 2011, "to resolve the remaining issues regarding the proper award under 

the EAJA [footnote omitted]." This order sets out a briefing schedule for the parties. 

In the Equal Access to Justice Act proceeding on appeal before the Administrator, 

Applicant Recurrent Training Center, Inc. ("Applicant") had sought leave to file a second 

brief-a brief in addition to its brief appealing the Initial Decision denying its 

Application - in view of tlie statement of Complainant Federal Aviation Administration 

("Complainant") in its Reply Brief, p. 4, that it "now has determined that it was not 

substantially justified in the proceeding [below]." (Applicant's Petition for Leave to File 

an Additional Brief, filed June 8, 2011). Applicant's petition was opposed by 

Complainant. The Administrator refrained from ruling on these pleadings in view of the 

decision to remand. 

Applicant now will get its chance. The parties shall submit briefs as follows: 
1. The Applicant shall address the issues raised by Complainant in 

Complainant's Reply Brief regarding the proper award under the EAJA by 

January 9, 2012; 

2. Complainant shall file a brief in response by January 30, 2012. 

SO ORDERED. 

c 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

^ 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CPIOGLOOIO 

(Equal Access to Justice Act) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1OOO' 

ONE COPY 

Charles R. Barnett, III, Applicant's Counsel 

1664 Moorland Lane 

Crystal Lake, IL 60014-2985 

TEL: 815-356-8647 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Briana Martino, Agency's Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7M 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

DesPiaines,lL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative IMW Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Sen'ice was by U.S. Mail. For ser^'ice in person or by expedited courier use Uie following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration. 600 Independence Avenne. S.W., Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000, 

Washington, DC 20591. Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430.
EXHIBIT 13.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Anthony Clark International Insurance
Brokers Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Primo Podorieszach, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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/ Primo Podorieszach
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Primo Podorieszach
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
                                      November 17, 2004


<PAGE>



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Annual Report of Anthony Clark  International  Insurance
Brokers Ltd.  (the  "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Mahesh Bhatia, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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/ Mahesh Bhatia
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Mahesh Bhatia
                                      Interim Chief Financial Officer
                                      November 17, 2004
No. 58110.

protest 202663-K (Boston).

#### A. W. Hilliard & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision *502in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrecovably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content under T. D. 53159” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 00-303 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Treaty Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BARBADOS 

Signed at Bridgetown February 28, 1996 

 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 BARBADOS 

 Extradition 

Treaty signed at Bridgetown February 28, 1996; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate July 31, 1997 (Treaty Doc. 105-20, 

 105th Congress, 1st Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 October 14, 1998 (Senate Executive Report No. 105-23, 

 105th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 October 21, 1998; 

Ratified by the President January 20, 1999; 

Ratified by Barbados February 17, 2000; 

Exchange of instruments of ratification at Washington 

 March 3, 2000; 

Entered into force March 3, 2000.