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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8679 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8679

   To include the Czech Republic in the list of foreign states whose 
  nationals are eligible for admission into the United States as E-1 
 nonimmigrants if United States nationals are treated similarly by the 
                   Government of the Czech Republic.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2024

  Mr. Cohen (for himself, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Wilson of South 
 Carolina, Mr. Goldman of New York, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Veasey, Mrs. 
   McClain, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Kildee) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To include the Czech Republic in the list of foreign states whose 
  nationals are eligible for admission into the United States as E-1 
 nonimmigrants if United States nationals are treated similarly by the 
                   Government of the Czech Republic.

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

SECTION 1. NONIMMIGRANT TRADERS.

    For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(E)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(i)), the Czech Republic shall 
be considered to be a foreign state described in such section if the 
Government of the Czech Republic provides similar nonimmigrant status 
to nationals of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.7



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Frontier Diversified
Fund, a Series of Frontier Funds on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



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



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



|/s/ Patrick J. Kane                                                                                                                                   | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Patrick J. Kane                                                                                                                                       | 
|Chairman, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Managing Member of Frontier Fund Management LLC, the Managing Owner of Frontier Funds | 



June 24, 2019
No. 54764.

#### John H. Faunce, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 152171-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 41857.

#### Protests 984316-G, etc., of American Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of 'bridge paperweights. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20) cited.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5769]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2686]


Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Authorization for Continued 
Project Operation

March 23, 2007.
    On July 28, 2000, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, licensee for the West 
Fork Hydroelectric Project, filed an application for a new or 
subsequent license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the 
Commission's regulations thereunder. The West Fork Project is located 
on the Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina.
    The license for Project No. 2686 was issued for a period ending 
January 31, 2006. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), 
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue 
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the 
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is 
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior 
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based 
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), 
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project 
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may 
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license 
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee 
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent 
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to 
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a 
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2686 is issued to 
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., for a period effective February 1, 2006 
through January 31, 2007, or until the issuance of a new license for 
the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. 
If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place 
on or before January 31, 2007, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 
18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is 
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the 
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. is authorized to continue 
operation of the West Fork Project until such time as the Commission 
acts on its application for a subsequent license.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5769 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
*        CathayOnline Technologies (Hong Kong) Ltd, a Hong Kong corporation
*        CathayOnline (BVI) Ltd, a British Virgin Islands corporation
*        Torchmail.com Inc, a Turks & Caicos, BWI corporation
*        Sichuan  CathayOnline  Technologies  Co.  Ltd, a wholly  owned  foreign
         enterprise corporation, PRC
*        CathayOnline, Inc, a Canadian Corporation
*        China Lottery (Hong Kong) Limited, a Hong Kong corporation
*        Beijing  CathayOnline  Technologies  Co.  Ltd, a wholly  owned  foreign
         enterprise, PRC
No. 53645.

protest 139975-K (Tampa).

#### Weigert-Dagen Shoe Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise, consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### ALFRED HARRIS, Respondent, v. D. D. BROWN, Appellant.

Appeal— *the right to, is waived by procuring leave to renew the motion which resulted in the order from which the appeal is taken.*

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order of arrest.

Tlie appellant moved in the first instance to vacate the order of arrest upon the papers on which the same was granted. That motion having been decided against him he obtained leave of the court to-renew the same upon the original papers and additional affidavits. That motion was also decided adversely to him, and after the latter decision he brought his appeal from the first decision denying his motion founded upon the original affidavits.

The court at General Teim said: “ The act of procuring leave to renew the original motion, and the fact that it was renewed, operated, as we think, to waive all right of appeal from the first decision. The same question was thereby brought before the same court, and the only remedy of the appellant was hy appeal from the second order, which of necessity disposed of the right to have the order vacated upon the original papers.

“ On the second motion the respondent was at liberty to bring in additional affidavits in answer to those presented by the moving party, and to strengthen the facts upon which he obtained the original order. Under such circumstances he must abide the results of the second motion, for two reasonsThe first is, that he has abandoned the first motion by obtaining leave to renew it, and renewing it in fact; and the second is, that he has placed himself in a position where the court cannot on an appeal from the first order dispose of the real merits of the motion, because the second application might have shown a state of facts which rendered the order of arrest a proper one, although there may have been some defects in the original papers.”

Opinion

*Per Ouriam.*

Present- — Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.

Motion granted, without costs.
#### The St. Nicholas Bank, Resp’t, v. Percy R. King, App’lt.

*Edwin B. Smith,*for resp’t; *David H ileox,*for app’lt.

*996Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concur, except Follett, Oh. J., dissenting, and Haight, J , not sitting.

Affirming 10 N. Y. State Rep., 70.
#### Fred Walston v. John Scott, as Sheriff of Bay County, *et al.*

176 So. 270.

Opinion Filed September 30, 1937.

/. *McHenry Jones,*for Appellant;

No appearance for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

The decree herein appealed from is hereby reversed and remanded on the authority of Bechtol v. Lee, *et al.,*this day filed.

*387Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
#### HAROLD DEPUE AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS, v. GEORGE D. SALMON COMPANY, APPELLANTS.

Argued November 22, 1918

Decided March 3, 1919.

The relation of master and servant continues during the carriage of the servant to and from his work, when done by the master or with his consent, where, from the character of the service such transportation is beneficial both to the master and the servant.

*551On appeal from the Essex County Circuit Court.

For the respondents, *Henry P. Bedford.*

For the appellant, *Benjamin M. Weinberg.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

This is an action to recover for injuries to children of tender years who, while walking on the highway, were struck by the defendant company’s automobile. Judgment was entered both against the company and its employe, who was acting as chauffeur. No appeal is taken by the employe. The only question raised is whether the defendant company is legally liable for his act or default. He was at the time on his way home after his day’s work was done. By the arrangement between him and his employer, the defendant company, he was entitled to use the automobile to take him to his home at night and from his home to business in the morning. The object was to enable him to reach his place of employment at an earlier hour than he otherwise could. The manager of the company, George G. Salmon, testified that at the time of year when the accident happened their work was heavy and the employe had to be there earlier than the ordinary business hours.

This case is governed by the rule of *Cicalese*v. *Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.,*75 *N. J. L.*897, 900. We there said: “The relation of master and servant continues during the carriage of the servant to and from his work, when done by the master or with his consent, where from the character of the service such transportation is beneficial both to the master and servant.” That is the present case.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— Kalisch, Black, White, JJ. 3.
#### Clarence P. FORET, Sr., and Earl J. Roussel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Charles Connell WILSON, Sheriff, St. Charles Parish, State of Louisiana, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 83-3237

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 26, 1984.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1984.

Clarence P. Foret, Sr., pro se.

Earl J. Roussel, pro se.

Jack R. Crais, Hahnville, La., for defendant-appellee.

Before GEE, POLITZ, and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Foret, having bid $2.80 in silver dimes on a foreclosed property requiring a minimum bid of $80,000.00 under Louisiana law, complains to us of the refusal of the foreclosing authority to deed the property to him and of the dismissal of his complaint by the district court. His argument, that only gold and silver coin may be constituted legal tender by the United States, is hopeless and frivolous, having been rejected finally by the United States *255Supreme Court one hundred years ago. *Juilliard v. Greenman,*110 U.S. 421, 4 S.Ct. 122, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884).

AFFIRMED.
No. 52376.

protests 82799-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of imitation gut similar in all material respects to that the classification of which was involved in *Bush*v. *United States*(34 C. C. P. A. 17, C. A. D. 338). Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact and following the cited authority, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8719)

#### The Danwill Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 844945; 842928.

(Decided January 4, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

Tliese appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above at the time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption including the costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was as follows:

> Reappraisement 243864 — A

> Entry 844945/53_ 12.15 DM per square meter less 6% of unit price less 10% of unit price plus 10% of unit price less 2% of remainder, packed

> Reappraisement 243865-A Entry 842928/53_ 13.65 DM per square meter less 6% of unit price less 10 % of unit price plus 10% of unit price less 2% of remainder, packed

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

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Re-appraisement enumerated above 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 merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> *56112.15 DM per square meter less 6% of unit price less 10% of unit price plus 10% of unit price less 2% of remainder, packed Reappraisement 243864^A Entry 844945/53_

> 13.65 DM per square meter less 6% of unit price less 10% of unit price plus 10% of unit price less 2% of remainder, packed Reappraisement 243865-A Entry 842928/53_

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
1Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50965

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LAURIE KATHLEEN MCCRAVY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

UDC No. A-96-CA-825-HG

- - - - - - - - - -

July 7, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

A jury convicted federal prisoner Laurie Kathleen McCravy, no.

52717-080, of possession of methamphetamine with intent to

distribute, conspiracy to commit the same, and using and carrying

a firearm during and in relation to a drug offense. McCravy now

appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence. McCravy

contends that the facts of her offense do not support her

conviction for using a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1) in light of the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in

Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), and that the jury

was not instructed properly on the elements necessary to support a

conviction for carrying a firearm.

A review of the record demonstrates that the evidence amply

supports McCravy’s conviction under the “carry” prong of

§ 924(c)(1). McCravy was a passenger of a vehicle carrying

methamphetamine and a .45 caliber pistol. McCravy admitted that

she she owned the car, that she had previously transported the

drugs and the firearm to the location of the car, and that she

placed both the drugs and the gun under the driver’s seat of the

car for the purpose of transporting them. See Bailey, 516 U.S. at

146, 150; see also United States v. Pineda-Ortuno, 952 F.2d 98, 104

(5th Cir. 1992).

The district court in its instructions to the jury explained

that some connection between the drug crime and the carrying of the

gun was required for a conviction and that mere possession was

insufficient to support a § 924(c) conviction. The evidence is

sufficient to support McCravy’s conviction on the “carry” prong of

§ 924(c) and shows a correlation between carrying the firearm and

the drug-trafficking offenses. McCravy cannot demonstrate that she

suffered actual prejudice from the district court’s pre-Bailey

instruction to the jury. See United States v. Logan, 135 F.3d 353,

355-56 (5th Cir. 1998).

McCravy’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument is not
considered on appeal as the district court granted a certificate of

appealability (COA) only on McCravy’s challenges pursuant to 
Bailey to her § 924(c) conviction. See Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d

149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 851 

To direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to report 

on firearms trafficking along the I–95 corridor. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2023 

Mr. TORRES of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives to report on firearms trafficking along the 

I–95 corridor. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Iron Pipeline Review 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND 

7 EXPLOSIVES REPORT ON FIREARMS TRAF8 FICKING ALONG THE I–95 CORRIDOR. 

9 Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

10 of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Director of the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 851 IH

1 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, in 

2 consultation with State and local law enforcement entities, 

3 and other agencies or stakeholders as determined appro4 priate by the Director, shall submit to the Committee on 

5 the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the 

6 Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report on fire7 arms trafficked along Interstate 95 that contains the fol8 lowing: 

9 (1) An analysis of the number of firearms traf10 ficked along Interstate 95, that contains the fol11 lowing: 

12 (A) Firearms listed by the State of origin, 

13 and the make and model of the firearm. 

14 (B) An analysis of the effectiveness of 

15 counter firearm trafficking measures. 

16 (C) An analysis of specific local, State and 

17 Federal laws that affect the number of firearms 

18 trafficked. 

19 (D) A description of any actions directed 

20 as a result of the analysis conducted under this 

21 section. 

22 (2) Recommendations, as appropriate, for Fed23 eral, State and local law enforcement entities to im24 prove firearm trafficking measures referred to in 

25 paragraph (1). 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 851 IH

1 (3) Proposals, as appropriate, for legislative ac2 tions and funding needed to improve measures to 

3 counter firearm trafficking. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 4.3







Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated March 26, 2015, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-201738) of Smart Trust, Tax
Free Income Trust, Series 19.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


March 26, 2015