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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2003 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2003

 To clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration 
  of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention 
 without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of 
               the United States and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 15, 2011

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lee, Mr. Udall of Colorado, 
Mr. Kirk, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Paul, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Nelson 
  of Florida, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Franken, and 
Mrs. McCaskill) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration 
  of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention 
 without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of 
               the United States and for other purposes.

    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 ``Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS AND LAWFUL 
              PERMANENT RESIDENTS.

    Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
    ``(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of 
war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without 
charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United 
States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress 
expressly authorizes such detention.
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military 
force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, 
on, or after the date of the enactment of the Due Process Guarantee Act 
of 2011.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 46484.

#### Protests 981431-G, etc., of Cathay Crafts Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the fluorspar articles in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Cathay Crafts Corp.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 87, C. D. 434) the Qlaim at 40 percent under paragraph 214 was sustained.
Case No. 6,644.

#### GOVE v. The BOLD RUNNER.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

1859.

Maeitime Liens — Materials and Labor — Swoen. Statement of Demand.

Laws Mass. 1855, c. 231, in providing for liens on vessels and ships, in favor of mechanics and material men, requires (section 2) the filing of a sworn statement of the demand claimed. field, that the certificate must contain the Christian as well as the surname of the lien claimant.

[Cited in 2 Pars. Shipp. & Adm., to the point stated above. Nowhere more fully reported; opinion not now accessible.]
#### In the Matter of Colonial Penn Insurance Company, Respondent, v Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

[614 NYS2d 243]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated September 4, 1991, which is in favor of Allstate Insurance Company and against Colonial Penn Insurance Company in the principal sum of $50,000, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), entered September 21, 1992, which vacated the award.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105 (b), the parties, both insurance companies, submitted to mandatory arbitration their dispute regarding which one is responsible for first-party benefits to Adolfo Ruiz. Since the arbitrator’s award in favor of Allstate Insurance Company is not supported by any evidence or by any other basis in reason appearing in the record, the Supreme Court correctly vacated the award *(see, Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. v Catherwood,*26 NY2d 493; *Matter of Nyack Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co.,*139 AD2d 515; *see also, Matter of 20th Century Ins. Co. [Lumberman’s Mut. Cas. Co.],*80 AD2d 288). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
No. 96-6028.

#### Azhocar *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


EX-21.1     Subsidiaries of Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp.


<PAGE>


                                 EXHIBIT 21.1

             SUBSIDIARIES OF ELECTRONICS BOUTIQUE HOLDINGS CORP.

1.    Electronics Boutique Investment Corp., a Delaware corporation
2.    Electronics Boutique of America Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
3.    Elbo, Inc., a Delaware corporation
4.    Electronics Boutique Canada, Inc., an Ontario corporation
5.    E.B. International, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
6.    Electronics Boutique Korea, Inc., a South Korea corporation
7.    Electronics Boutique Australia Pty Ltd., an Australia corporation
8.    EB Finance Inc., a Delaware corporation
9.    EB Catalog Company, Inc., a Nevada corporation
10.   EBWorld.com, Inc., a Nevada corporation
#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6913.

Entry No. 700335.

Invoice dated London, England; May 27, 1942.

Certified June 4, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 6, 1942.

(Decided February 24, 1947)

*Marlow & Hines*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### European Typefounders, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 5994.

Invoices dated Offenbach, Germany, March 12, 1938; Frankfort; Germany, February 28, 1938.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 1, 1938.

Entry No. 835833.

(Decided April 7, 1944)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

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

> It is hereby agreed by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that all of the merchandise covered by the above-numbered reappraisement consists of type imported from Germany and appraised in United States dollars on the basis of the United States value thereof; that the issues of fact and questions of law involved are in all material respects similar to the issues of fact and questions of law involved in the case of *United States*v. *Heemsoth-Kerner Corp. (Bauer Type Foundry, Inc.)*decided by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in C. A. D. 252, reported in advance sheets of August 26, 1943, wherein the appellate court held that the cost of production was the proper basis of appraisement.

> It is further stipulated that the entered value in Reap. No. 131105-A, represents the cost of production of all of the merchandise covered by said reappraisement as that cost is defined in see. 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

> It is further stipulated that the record in said C. A. D. 252, may be admitted in evidence herein and that the reappraisement be submitted upon the record and this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the entered values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc., (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Alan L. Wells, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                                                 
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Alan L. Wells                                                               
|                       |  |  |  | Alan L. Wells Chairman, President and CEO
Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc.
No. 48876.

#### Protest 39724-K of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 47099 the protest was sustained.
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 Annual Report of ATC Healthcare, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending February 28, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Reiben, Senior
Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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, as
                  amended; and

                  (2) The information in the Report fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

/S/ ANDREW REIBEN
-----------------
Andrew Reiben
Senior Vice President -- Finance,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

_________, 2005

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 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.


















                                       53
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    DIRECT RESPONSE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Direct Response Financial Services,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
T. Randolph Catanese, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Direct Response Financial Services, Inc. and will be retained by
Direct Response Financial Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Dated: June 16, 2006

                                                  /s/ T. Randolph Catanese
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name: T. Randolph Catanese
                                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20108]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. H-200-C]


Review of the Ethylene Oxide Standard

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department 
of Labor.

ACTION: Extension of time for filing public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
conducting a review of the Ethylene Oxide standard in order to 
determine, consistent with Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning 
and Review and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, whether 
this standard should be maintained without change, rescinded, or 
modified in order to make it more effective or less burdensome in 
achieving its objectives, to bring it into better alignment with the 
objectives of Executive Order 12866, or to make it more consistent with 
the objectives of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to achieve regulatory 
goals while imposing as few burdens as possible on small employers.
    OSHA published a Federal Register notice on May 27, 1997 requesting 
public comments concerning OSHA's review of the Ethylene Oxide standard 
(29 CFR 1910.1047) and announcing a public meeting on June 30, 1997 (62 
FR 28649, May 27, 1997). In the Federal Register notice announcing the 
public meeting, OSHA stated that it would accept written comments 
through August 1, 1997. In response to requests from persons commenting 
at the public meeting held on June 30, 1997, OSHA has granted a one 
week extension of the time period to file written comments.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted through August 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the Docket Officer, 
Docket H-200-C, OSHA Docket Office, Room N2625, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, Telephone (202) 219-7894.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Dorris, Office of Regulatory 
Analysis, Directorate of Policy, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, Room N3627, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20210, Telephone (202) 219-4690, extension 134, Fax (202) 219-4383.

    Authority: This document was prepared under the direction of 
Gregory R. Watchman, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 25th day of July, 1997.
Gregory R. Watchman,
Acting Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20108 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
No. 43266.

#### Protest 969291-G of F. W. Woolworth Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the harmonicas in question are similar to those involved in Abstract 40586. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 1541 was therefore sustained.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In re State of Texas

No. 06-21-00127-CR

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition as moot.

RENDERED OCTOBER 20, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Raymond ROBERTS, Appellant, v. Diane W. ROBERTS, Appellee.

No. 97-3080.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 30, 1999.

Thomas F. Rosenblum, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Abraham I. Bateh of the Law Offices of Bateh & Clark, Jacksonville, and Michael J. Korn of Korn & Zehmer, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed except for the award of attorney’s fees, which is reversed. The case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of attorney’s fees. *See Guyton v.*
      *600
      *Leonard Dewey Wilkinson Action Welding Supply, Inc.,*707 So.2d 885, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); *Fowler v. First Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n of Defuniak Springs,*643 So.2d 30, 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), *rev. denied,*658 So.2d 990 (Fla.1995); *Ashourian v. Ashourian,*519 So.2d 35, 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

ALLEN, LAWRENCE, and BENTON, JJ„ CONCUR.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19850]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases 
Special Emphasis Panel meetings:


    Name of SEP: Molecular Dynamics of Iron Regulation & Function.
    Date: August 18-20, 1997.
    Time: 7:30 pm.
    Place: University Place Hotel and Conference Center, 850 W. 
Michigan Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202-2800.
    Contact Person: Lakshmanan Sankaran, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 6as-25F, 
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-6600, Phone: 
(301) 594-7799.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Name of SEP: Tools for Discovery of Anti-Osteoporotic Drugs.
    Date: August 26, 1997.
    Time: 2:00 pm.
    Place: Room 6as-25E, Natcher Building, NIH (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Sharee Pepper, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 6as-25E, 
National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-6600, Phone: 
(301) 594-7798.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    These meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.847-849, 
Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases; Digestive Diseases and 
Nutrition; and Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, 
National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: July 22, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-19850 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1320

CECELIA D. WALTON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv
- 00054

- MR

- DLH )

Submitted : July 26, 2018 Decided: July 30, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Cecelia D. Walton , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Cecelia D. Walton appeals the distr ict court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination complaint . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Walton v. N.C. Dep’t of Commerce , No. 1:17

- cv
- 00054

- MR

- D LH (W.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2018)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2014409EN.01001801.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-491/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2004/114/EC - Articles 6, 7 and 12 - Conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies - Refusal to admit a person who meets the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/114 - Discretion enjoyed by the competent authorities))

2014/C 409/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State concerned is obliged to admit to its territory a third-country national who wishes to stay for more than three months in that territory for study purposes, where that national meets the conditions for admission exhaustively listed in Articles 6 and 7 of that directive and provided that that Member State does not invoke against that person one of the grounds expressly listed by the directive as justification for refusing a residence permit.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---