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

Calendar No. 94 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1326 

To implement the President’s request to increase the statutory limit on 

the public debt. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 5, 2011 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

JULY 6, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To implement the President’s request to increase the 

statutory limit on the public debt. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDING. 

4 The Congress finds that the President’s budget pro5 posal, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal 

6 Year 2012, necessitates an increase in the statutory debt 

7 limit of $2,406,000,000,000. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1326 PCS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC 

2 DEBT. 

3 Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United 

4 States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limita5 tion contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu 

6 thereof ‘‘$16,700,000,000,000’’. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 94 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1326 

A BILL 

To implement the President’s request to increase 

the statutory limit on the public debt. 

JULY 6, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v FRANCIS J. NEWMAN, Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 493, 24 CMR 303

No. 10,368

Decided December 13, 1957

*Major Frank C. Stetson*and *First Lieutenant Neil Flanagin*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*and *First Lieutenant Jay D. Fischer*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Homer Ferguson, Judge:

The accused was convicted of desertion by a general court-martial, in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 885. Since the findings of guilt returned by the members of the court were based upon instructions held to be erroneous by this Court in United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287, and United States v Cothern, 8 USCMA 158, 23 CMR 382, the conviction must be set aside. Accordingly, the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for reference to a board of review. The board may, in its discretion, order a rehearing on the desertion charge or approve the lesser offense of absence without leave and reassess the sentence on the basis of the remaining approved finding of guilt.

*494Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Latimer, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons expressed in United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287 (concurring opinion).
#### Philip Gerald BIQUET, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-40480.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 12, 2005.

*610Philip Gerald Biquet, Pampa, TX, pro se.

Elizabeth A. Goettert, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Philip Gerald Biquet, Texas prisoner # 1120742, seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state-court jury-trial conviction for felony driving while intoxicated. Biquet was granted a certificate of appealability (COA) by the district court on the issues whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain medical records demonstrating that Biquet (1) suffered from asthma, thereby justifying his refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test and (2) had previously suffered two broken ankles, thereby explaining Biquet’s failure to satisfactorily perform those roadside sobriety tests requiring balance.

Biquet fails to meet the standard for obtaining habeas relief on his certified claims of ineffective assistance. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2); *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); *Dowthitt v. Johnson,*230 F.3d 733, 741 (5th Cir.2000). The introduction at trial of Biquet’s medical records would have potentially had only a limited impact on the state’s case. The record reveals other evidence of guilt presented at Biquet’s trial that supports his conviction, including the arresting officers’ observations of intoxication, Biquet’s admission that he consumed alcoholic beverages prior to his arrest, and Biquet’s inability to perform sobriety tests, including sobriety tests that did not require balance. Under these circumstances, Biquet fails to demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsel’s alleged errors. *See Strickland,*466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

In a reply brief, Biquet asks this court to broaden the scope of the COA “to include all issues presented that effected petitioners right to have received a fair trial.” We reject this request as untimely. *See United States v. Williamson,*183 F.3d 458, 464 n. 11 (5th Cir.1999); *United States v. Kimler,*150 F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir.1998); *United States v. Prince,*868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant 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.
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 8057.

Entered at Baltimore, Md.

Entry No. 1173.

(Decided October 5, 1951)

*Sharretts, Hillis*& *Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edel'stein,*Assistant *Attorney*General, for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United-States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the Appeals to reappraisement enumerated on schedule *“A”*hereto attached and made part hereof, at which 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 quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other *costs,*charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was the entered value and that there is no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that these appeals to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

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 earthenware articles here involved, and' that such value was the entered value.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                            <C>               <C>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS             9-MOS              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1998      DEC-31-1998        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                 SEP-30-1998      SEP-30-1998        DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                0           16,256             11,750
<SECURITIES>                          0                0                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                         0                0                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                          0                0                  0
<INVENTORY>                           0                0                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0        4,465,887          4,624,029
<PP&E>                                0                0                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                        0                0                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        0        4,465,887          4,624,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 0        1,836,090          1,801,090
<BONDS>                               0                0                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0                0                  0
<PREFERRED>                           0                0                  0
<COMMON>                              0                0                  0
<OTHER-SE>                            0        2,629,797          2,822,939
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          0        4,465,887          4,624,020
<SALES>                               0                0                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    418              729                  0
<CGS>                                 0                0                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0                0                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 25,366           75,978                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0                0                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0                0                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (74,948)        (193,142)                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                    (74,948)        (193,142)                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   0                0                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                        0                0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0                0                  0
<CHANGES>                             0                0                  0
<NET-INCOME>                    (74,948)        (193,142)                 0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0                0                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0                0                  0
        

</TABLE>
No. 54311.

#### Spatola Wines, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 136044-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that duties and internal revenue taxes were assessed upon a quantity of 14,066.21 gallons of port wine but that only 13,567 gallons were found to be present by the United States weigher while the wine was in bonded warehouse prior to release, as shown by the United States weigher’s return with the entry papers. It was further stipulated that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155). Following the decision cited the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry and refund all duties taken upon quantities in excess of the quantities upon which internal revenue taxes were finally assessed, and it was held that internal revenue taxes should have been assessed at the appropriate rate upon 13,567 gallons, the quantity returned by the United States weigher and withdrawn from warehouse
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

34 36 38 40 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
No. 54294.

#### Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., and Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 144400-K and 144403-K (New York).

*448Opinion by

Colb, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
**CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Media Networks International,
Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark L. Baum, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002:
 
 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/
Mark L. Baum
 Mark L.
Baum
 President
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
 November
21, 2005
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Population and Labor Force Projections for the United States, 1960 to 1975

              																	Travis, Sophia C.					 and 	Garfinkle, Stuart H. 						*Population and Labor Force Projections for the United States, 1960 to 1975 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1242*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1959,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4533,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Exhibit 32.2

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 Amendment to the Quarterly Report of China BAK
        Battery, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period
        ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
        (the Report). I, Han Yongbin, Chief
        Financial 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
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                                                                                         |                                                                                                                        
| | The information contained in the Report fairly   presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of   operations of the Company.

|By: | /s/ Han   Yongbin       | 
|--- | ----------------------- | 
|    |                         | 
|    | Han Yongbin             | 
|    | Chief Financial Officer | 
|    | March 27, 2006          | 

---
No. 48774.

#### Protests 618046-G, etc., of Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and the cited cases, the following allowances were made by the court to compensate for the foreign substances on .the outside of certain cheese: (1) 21⁄2 percent for cheese similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269; (2) 1 percent for that similar to Reggiano cheese the subject of said C. D. 706; and (3) an allowance was also made for the weight of the paper or foil, or both, in which certain cheese was wrapped, following *Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp.*v. *United States*(T. D. 47955). Protests sustained to this extent.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0445 

_____________________________

FRAZIER HANNON J,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Coleman Lee Robinson, Judge.

August 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and M.K. THOMAS and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 10.2**

**Summary**

**Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount Entered Between Li Xiangqian and Agricultural Bank on March 23, 2006**

| **Main contents** |
|-------------------|
| •            | Contract   number: No. 81905200600000026 |
| •            | As   guarantor, Li Xiangqian undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities   for the Company’s indebtedness towards Agricultural Bank under Comprehensive   Agreementfrom   March 23rd, 2006 to March 17th, 2008 and maximum amount   secured is RMB 400 million. |
| •            | Secured   items include the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of   contract compensation and all the expenses incurred for Agricultural Bank to   realize its creditor’s right under Comprehensive Agreement ; |
| •            | Guaranty   period: |

|   | • | Two years   from the expiry date that the Company should fulfill its obligations in   accordance with Comprehensive Agreement ;                                                                                                                   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | • | For   acceptance of bank draft, issuance of L/C without or with reduced deposit and   bank guarantee, the term is two years from the date that the Creditor bears   the obligations of the Obligor.                                               |
|   | • | For   discounted commercial drafts, the term is two years from the expiry date of   the discounted commercial drafts;                                                                                                                             |
|   | • | If term of   Comprehensive Agreement    is extended, guaranty period shall be two years from the expiry date for the   Company to fulfill its obligations according to the extended agreement;                                                    |
|   | • | If due to   the provisions of relevant PRC law or regulations or any agreement reached   under Comprehensive Agreement ,   any loan becomes mature ahead of its term, guaranty period shall be two years   starting from the advance mature date. |

| **Headlines of the articles omitted:** |
|----------------------------------------|
| •                                 | Indebtedness   to be secured and maximum amount |
| •                                 | Scope of   guaranty |
| •                                 | Method of   guaranty |
| •                                 | Guaranty   period |
| •                                 | Commitment   of the Guarantor |
| •                                 | Breach of   Contract |
| •                                 | Dispute   settlement |
| •                                 | Miscellaneous |
| •                                 | Effectiveness |
| •                                 | Validity |
| •                                 | Attention |

----
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 28 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: SHERRY D. OAKS,

Debtor, SHERRY D. OAKS,

Appellant,
v. SALLY J. ZEMAN, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellee. No. 97-1224 (D.C. No. 97-AP-692) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Debtor Sherry D. Oaks appeals pro se from the distr ict court’s order dismissing, for failure to comply with the court’s orders, her appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court. On April 4, 1997, the magistrate judge ordered Ms. Oaks to appear at a prebriefing conference on May 7, and stated in the order that failure to appear at the conference would be considered noncompliance wi th the order and could result in dismissal with prejudice. On April 18, the district court ordered her to show cause within ten days why the appeal should no t be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Ms. Oaks had not filed a designat ion of the record as required by Bankr. R. 8006. On May 5, she filed her respons e to the show cause order in which she indicated that she had been incapacitatedby “dispolia” since April 26, and that she had not received notice of the Rule 80 06 violation until May 2. She requested a ten-day extension in which to comply wi th Rule 8006. Ms. Oaks failed to appear at the May 7 prebriefing conferenc e as ordered; at least one of her creditors did appear. The magistrate judge rec ommended that because of her failure to appear as ordered, the appeal be dismiss ed with prejudice. On May 9,-3-

Ms. Oaks filed a “motion for request for mercy, und erstanding, and justice” in which she stated that she had not received any noti ce of the hearing scheduled for May 7, and only learned about it, on May 9, from a creditor’s attorney. On May 13, the district court adopted the recommendation o f the magistrate judge and dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the court’s orders. We review the district court’s dismissal for failur e to prosecute for abuse of discretion. SeeNielsen v. Price , 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994). We have fully considered Ms. Oaks arguments and conclude th at Ms. Oaks has not demonstrated that the district court abused its dis cretion in dismissing the appeal. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Th e mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge