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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1612 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1612

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide the Department of Justice with additional tools to target 
              extraterritorial drug trafficking activity.

    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 ``Targeting Transnational Drug 
Trafficking Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE OR DISTRIBUTION FOR PURPOSES OF 
              UNLAWFUL IMPORTATIONS.

    Section 1009 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
U.S.C. 959) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
        (c) and (d), respectively; and
            (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``It shall'' and all 
        that follows and inserting the following: ``It shall be 
        unlawful for any person to manufacture or distribute a 
        controlled substance in schedule I or II or flunitrazepam or a 
        listed chemical intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause 
        to believe that such substance or chemical will be unlawfully 
        imported into the United States or into waters within a 
        distance of 12 miles of the coast of the United States.
    ``(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture or 
distribute a listed chemical--
            ``(1) intending or knowing that the listed chemical will be 
        used to manufacture a controlled substance; and
            ``(2) intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to 
        believe that the controlled substance will be unlawfully 
        imported into the United States.''.

            Passed the Senate December 15, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1612

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To provide the Department of Justice with additional tools to target 
              extraterritorial drug trafficking activity.
```
---

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

In connection with the annual report of Pacific Rim Mining
Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended April 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Steven Krause, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §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: July 27, 2011
    Steven KrauseSteven KrauseChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and will be retained by
Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

---
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Reginald WELLS, Respondent.

No. 91279.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 13, 1999.

*403Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and L. Michael Billmeier, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review *Wells v. State,*22 Fla. L. Weekly D2010, 731 So.2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in *Wallace v. State,*689 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), on the issue of whether an individual may be convicted of multiple counts of resisting arrest with violence based on the number of police officers resisted during the course of a single criminal incident. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We resolved this conflict in *Wallace v. State,*724 So.2d 1176 (Fla.1998), wherein we held that section 843.01, Florida Statutes (1993), which makes it unlawful for any person to resist with violence any officer in the execution of the officer’s legal duty, does not contemplate multiple convictions for each officer resisted during the course of a single criminal incident. *See id.*at 1181. In this regard, we stated: ‘While the defendant may have committed more than one offense in his altercation with the officers, including possibly multiple assaults or batteries, or both, on law enforcement officers as were separately charged here, we conclude that his [defendant’s] continuous resistence to the ongoing attempt to effect his arrest constitutes a single instance of obstruction under section 843.01.” *Id.*In so holding, we quashed the Fourth District’s decision in *Wallace*and approved the decision in *Pierce v. State,*681 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that only one conviction may stand where defendant resisted three officers during course of single episode or incident). 724 So.2d at 1181.

Here, the court below followed the reasoning in *Pierce*in vacating one of Wells’ convictions for resisting an officer with violence, the conduct for which was committed in connection with a single episode. *See Wells,*22 Fla. L. Weekly at D2010, 731 So.2d 680. In accordance with our decision in *Wallace,*therefore, we approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

HARDING, C.J., dissents with an opinion. .

WELLS, J., dissents.

HARDING, C.J.,

dissenting.

I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in *Wallace v. State,*724 So.2d 1176, 1181 (Fla.1998) (Harding, C.J., dissenting).
#### James McCutcheon & Co. (a Corporation) *v.*United States

No. 6516.

Entry No. 11369, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, November 4, 1941, etc.

Certified November 6, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 3, 1942, etc.

(Decided November 15, 1946)

*B. A. Leveil*for the plaintiff.

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

Tilson, Judge:

The appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation wherein counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the issues in said appeals are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record in said ease has been admitted in evidence in this case.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by said appeals are the values found by the appraiser, less any additions made by the importer on entry by reason of advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-15-00312-CV

____________________

LEROY DAVID SCHULTZ, Appellant

V.

CHRISTIE NICOLE SCHULTZ, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 418th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-08-08814 CV

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Leroy David Schultz filed a notice of appeal on August 4, 2015. He filed an 

affidavit of indigence on August 17, 2015. We notified the parties that an extension 

of time to file the affidavit of indigence was required, and gave the appellant until 

December 9, 2015, to file a motion for an extension of time to file an affidavit of 

indigence. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(c)(3). No response has been filed. The 

appellant failed to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or 
2

other action within a specified time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

 

Submitted on December 22, 2015

Opinion Delivered December 23, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 10869] 

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 1. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1696-DR), dated 05/01/2007. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides.                     

*Incident Period:*                         04/14/2007 through 04/18/2007.                     

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         05/10/2007.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/02/2007.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of West Virginia 05/01/2007, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster. 

*Primary Counties:*                     Barbour, Gilmer, Grant, Hardy, Lewis, Mcdowell, Pendleton, Pocahontas, Putnam, Upshur, Webster.                 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7-9579 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-KSB
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, FOR AMERICOM USA, INC., AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                                5,497
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       126,578
<ALLOWANCES>                                         38,829
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    103,584
<PP&E>                                              599,479
<DEPRECIATION>                                       62,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    4,458,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2,880,136
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              3,252
<OTHER-SE>                                       (1,158,893)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      4,458,559
<SALES>                                             143,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    150,343
<CGS>                                               121,873
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    (7,620,819)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (107,050)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    (21,679)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (97,448)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (7,699,399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (1,600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7,700,399)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (7,700,999)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.26


</TABLE>
34146.

#### PLESS v. LONDON et al.

Argued October 11, 1978

Decided January 4, 1979

Rehearing denied January 23, 1979.

*Larry Fowler, Charles Brown,*for appellant.

*Maylon K. London,*for appellees.

Nichols, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the denial of injunctive relief that was sought in an effort to stop a foreclosure proceeding. The trial court did not err in refusing the injunctive relief sought. The appellee’s motion to assess damages for a frivolous appeal is denied.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hall, J., who concurs in the judgment only, and Jordan, Hill and Marshall, JJ., who dissent.*
#### George Kovacs, Appellant, v Dr. Bloom and Dr. Costin Medical Associates, P. C., et al., Respondents.

[699 NYS2d 922]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated January 27, 1999, as denied his motion for a protective order and granted those branches of the defendants’ cross motion which were to compel the production of items one through six, and nine, in the defendants’ notice for discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is modified by adding thereto a provision directing that the production of the requested income tax returns be supervised by the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which shall redact therefrom all information which is unrelated to the plaintiff’s claim of a loss of income; as so modified, *358the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly ordered the production of the plaintiffs income tax returns since, under the circumstances of this case, those documents were relevant and necessary *(see, McCarthy v Klein,*238 AD2d 552; *Huntington Tobacco Co., Money Pension & Profit Sharing Fund v Fromer,*193 AD2d 718; *Muller v Sorensen,*138 AD2d 683). However, since the returns were filed jointly with the plaintiffs wife, who is not a party to this action, all information which is unrelated to the plaintiffs claim of a loss of income shall be redacted.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, A.W. Bergeron, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AES Red Oak, LLC (the “registrant”);

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

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c)              Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

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

a)              all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 11, 2004

 
|   | /s/  A.W. Bergeron       |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | A.W. Bergeron  President |
|        |                          |  |

 

 

----
Exhibit 31.1  PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Donald R. Mayer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. Date: November 8, 2007/s/ Donald R. Mayer
Donald R. Mayer
Principal Executive Officer