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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8835 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8835

   To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exempt widows and 
        widowers of veterans from the government pension offset.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2024

 Mr. Van Drew introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exempt widows and 
        widowers of veterans from the government pension offset.

    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 ``Families of Armed Forces Increased 
Relief Pensions Act'' or the ``FAIR Pensions Act''.

SEC. 2. GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET EXEMPTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 202(k)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 402(k)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a monthly 
                insurance benefit of an individual under subsection 
                (e), (f), or (g) if the individual is entitled to such 
                benefit on the basis of the wages and self-employment 
                income of a member of a uniformed service (as defined 
                in section 210(m)), including such a member who died 
                while a member of a uniformed service or who was 
                discharged or released therefrom under conditions other 
                than dishonorable.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this Act shall apply to 
a monthly insurance benefit of an individual for any month beginning on 
or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case: 2:10-cv-01078-EAS-MRA Doc #: 87 Filed: 04/12/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T18:18:53-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 49284.

#### Protests 535684-G, etc., of M. S. Levy & Sons, Inc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items in question consist of hats similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as to this item.
#### Ladd *v.*R. S. Noonan, Inc., Appellant.

Argued May 27, 1969.

Before Bell, O. J., Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*F. Joseph Larkin,*with him *Arthur Markowitz,*and *Markowitz, Kagen*<£- *Griffith,*for appellant.

*Joseph Weiner,*with him *Wilfred B. Lorry,*and *Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry,*for appellee.

*William W. Safer,*for appellee.

June 27, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Order affirmed.

Mr. Justice Jones took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Before the Second Division,

July 31, 1941

No. 46230.

#### Protests 799743-G, etc., of Hahn Dept. Stores Purch. Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5302]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Establishment.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 606(b) of the International Forestry 
Cooperation Act of 1990, as amended, the following lands in the State 
of Hawaii are designated as units of the Hawaii Experimental Tropical 
Forest:
    1. Laup[amacr]hoehoe Experimental Forest Unit comprising 
approximately 12,343 acres on the Island of Hawaii, and
    2. Pu'u Wa'awa'a Experimental Forest Unit comprising approximately 
38,885 acres on the Island of Hawaii.
    Research on these experimental forest units shall be administered 
in accordance with applicable laws and the Cooperative Agreement 
between the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 
and the State of Hawaii, Board of Land and Natural Resources, entered 
into on December 12, 2006.

DATES: This establishment is effective on the date of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Boone Kauffman, Director, Institute 
of Pacific Islands Forestry, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA 
Forest Service, 60 Nowelo Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. Phone: (808) 933-
8121. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#21434e4e4f444a405447474c404f6147520f4744450f5452"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0d2dfdfded5dbd1c5d6d6ddd1def0d6c39ed6d5d49ec5c3">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through 
Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1992, Congress enacted the Hawaii 
Tropical Forest Recovery Act (Pub. L. 102-574). That enactment added 
section 606(b) to the International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990 
providing that, at the request of the Governor of Hawaii, the Secretary 
of Agriculture shall establish and administer in the State of Hawaii a 
Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest to be managed for the purposes 
outlined in the Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act. The Governor of 
Hawaii has requested the establishment of two units of an experimental 
tropical forest on State managed lands on the island of Hawaii. The 
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the State of Hawaii, 
Board of Land and Natural Resources, have agreed on the conduct of 
cooperative research activities on the two units.

    Dated: February 15, 2007.
Mike Johanns,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5302 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P.,

Respondent

v.

JONATHAN VALENTIN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2 EM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of March , 2020, the “Request for Leave to Fle a Nunc

Pro Tunc Petition for Allowance of Appeal” is DISMISSED. Petitioner previously sought

and was denied nunc pro tunc relief. See MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Valentin , 41 EM 2019

(order dated Aug. 1, 2019)
#### Jay-Willfred Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6651.

Entry No. 722161, etc.

Invoices dated Burslem, England, December 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 1, 1943, etc.

(Decided December 19, 1946)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, 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:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 8493)

#### Intermaritime Fwdg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 700498.

(Decided November 18, 1955)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of an importation of ceramic transfers, printed on duplex paper. The invoice lists 5,012 sheets of design No. 430 H and 5,038 sheets of design No. 430 J. This merchandise was entered at. 3 Holland florins per sheet, plus 8 per centum, and was appraised at 3 Holland florins per sheet, plus 8 per centum, plus a charge of *£*1,200 for certain extra lithographic costs for the total number of sheets imported, packed.

It appears from the record that the original invoice tended to confuse the examiner, in that it showed the home market value in both florins and sterling, and did not clearly indicate that the item listed as “extra lithographic costs” was included in the unit value. After a *429satisfactory explanation of these matters was made to the appraiser, it was agreed between the parties that the foreign value of the involved merchandise is 1.61 Holland florins per sheet for both items 430 H and 430 J, plus 8 per centum, plus a total of 12,675.06 Holland florins for lithography costs, packed, and that there is no export value, as the ultimate consignee is the exclusive importer of this merchandise.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise at bar, and that such value is 1.61 Holland florins per sheet for both items 430 H and 430 J, plus 8 per centum, plus a total charge of 12,675.06 Holland florins for lithography costs, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 16779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6324]



[[Page 16779]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 11437-016]


Hydro Matrix Limited Partnership; Notice of Availability of 
Environment Assessment

March 30, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the Hydro Matrix Limited Partnership's 
(licensee) application requesting the Commission's authorization to 
amend its license for the Jordan Dam Hydroelectric Project. The 
licensee proposes to install two generating units rated at 2200 kW, 
rather than the authorized eighty 100 kW units. This would reduce the 
generating capacity of the project from 8.0 MW to 4.4 MW, and reduce 
the hydraulic capacity of the project form 2320 cubic feet per second 
(cfs) to 1200 cfs. The unconstructed project is located at the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) B. Everett Jordan Dam on the Haw River, 
in Chatham County, North Carolina. An environmental assessment (EA) has 
been prepared.
    In the EA, the Commission's staff concludes that approval of the 
licensee's application would not constitute a major federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. No ground 
disturbing activities are involved with the licensee's proposal.
    A copy of the EA is attached to a Commission order titled ``Order 
Amending License and Revising Annual Charges,'' issued March 30, 2007, 
and is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room. A copy of 
the EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``elibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (P-
11437) in the docket field to access the document. For assistance, call 
(202) 502-8222 or (202) 502-8659 (for TTY).

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6324 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
I)ISMISS; Opinion issued October 4,2012

In The

tiitrt uf ApicaIs

fifth )itrirt uf iJixu tt Jatku

No. 05-12-01 146-CV

MELISSA MYLES, Appellant

V.

BARBARA A. FELDER, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-10-00385-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Morris, Francis, and Murphy

The Court has before it appellant’s motion to dismiss appeal. In the motion, which is

unopposed. appellant states that the parties have reached a settlement agreement and asks that the

appeal be dismissed. We GRANT the motion and DISMISS the appeal. See TEx. R. App. P.

42.1(a).

PER CURIAM

121 146F.P05
(Cuairt uf Appra1!

Fift1i Jitrirtf Lcxa at Jallzti

JUDGMENT

MELILSSA MYLES, Appellant

No. 05-12-01 146-CV V.

BARBARA A. FELDER, ppelIee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Dallas County. Texas, (Tr.Ct.No. CC-b

00385-C).

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices

Morris. Franc is. and Murphy.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. The parties are

ORDERED to bear their own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered October 4, 2012.

-

JQPH .MORRIS

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-24

Ismael Martinez-Carrion 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 20) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: March 18, 2011 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00024-JLG Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual
Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 5, 2010 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the
formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2010-2 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial
Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS Sensub Corp. in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Accounting Corporate Controller of the Servicer. I further certify as
follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2011 through
December 31, 2011, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my
knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |                                 |  |  |  |                      
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |  |                                 |  | 
|                                     |  |                                 | 
|By:                                  |  | /s/ James Fehleison             |  |  |  | Dated: March 29, 2012
|                                     |  | James Fehleison                 |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Executive Vice President,       |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Accounting Corporate Controller |  |  |  |
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
        Inconnection with the quarterly report of BioVeris Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel J. Wohlstadter,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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/Samuel J. WohlstadterSamuelJ. Wohlstadter 
Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer 

Date: November 15, 2004 

A signed copy of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
EXHIBIT 32





FULUCAI PRODUCTIONS LTD.





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 Fulucai Productions Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gordon Rix as Principal Accounting  Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: June 6, 2011
By:
Gordon RixName:
Gordon RixTitle:
Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code 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 as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
**Exhibit 12.2**

**Certification by the Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, PaulChow, Chief Financial Officer of Ambow Education Holding Ltd. (the "Company") certify that: 

1.        I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of the Company; 

2.        Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.        The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

(a)        Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared 

(b)        Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)        Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.        The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a)        All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b)        Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 14, 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT J. TIMNEY AND PATRICIA A.
TIMNEY,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 375 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of January, 2022

, the Petition for Leave to File a Response

Nunc Pro Tunc and the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel are GRANTED

. T he Petition for

Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.

Justice Brobson did not participate in the disposition or consideration of this matter.
Before the Third Division,

October 24, 1950

No. 54770.

#### Maxwell Meyers, Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6770-R (Laredo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial Maxwell Meyers testified that he had been importing these musical instruments for about 4)4 years and knew the prices at which they were being offered, said prices being uniform except in the fluctuation of Italian currency; that the entered value was advanced on the basis of a shipment of a sample to St. Louis Music Supply; that the price charged that firm was the price of a sample, whereas the petitioner herein was buying in very large quantities; that he inquired generally in the trade to find out whether the entered price was correct; that he found $35 was the price which other Jobbers paid within 4 or 5 months; that the price was advanced 3 or 4 weeks later and was thereafter reduced; and that he gave all the information he had to the appraiser. On the record presented it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.