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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2350 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2350

     To suspend temporarily the duty on diethylaminoethyl-dextran.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2012

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on diethylaminoethyl-dextran.

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

SECTION 1. DIETHYLAMINOETHYL-DEXTRAN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Diethylaminoethyl-  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        dextran (CAS No.                                                   31/2015.......
                        9015-73-0)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3914.00.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00373

- CR

Michael Wayne Montgomery

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 97th District Court

o f Mont ague County (2012

- 0052M

- CR )

July 10, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Lee Gabriel

___

________________ Justice Lee Gabriel
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

# Disposition Services director provides end of year message and safety brief to workforce

DLA Disposition Services

                BATTLE CREEK, Mich.   –              
Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon provided a virtual safety briefing in conjunction with Safety and Occupational Health Manager Bill Cohoe.

Prior to the briefing, Cannon addressed the workforce, recapping the year’s successes and recognizing them for their unwavering commitment to the Warfighter and our customers.

He concluded the presentation by encouraging everyone to be safe, stay healthy and return refreshed for a fruitful 2022.  

07:06VIDEO  | 07:06 |Disposition Services Director's Holiday Message 2021

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA DSDLA DS HQSafety DSLeadership DSPeople and Culture DS
Exhibit 32


                            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 Cyberads, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (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.


Date: August 16, 2004            CYBERADS, INC.

                                 By: /s/ WALTER TATUM
                                 --------------------------
                                 Walter Tatum, President,
                                 Chief Financial Officer
#### Absalom Cornelius, plaintiff in error, *vs.*William M’Ilvaine, defendant in error.

*Error to Henry.*

Where a defendant stands hy and assents to the change of the name of the plaintiff in a suit before a justice of the peace, and the parties subsequently go to trial upon the merits, it is a waive of the irregularity of the proceedings, and the defendant is estopped from setting the judgment aside on a certiorari.

The errors complained of are set forth in the opinion of the court.

Teas & Williams, for plaintiff in error.

Per Cuiiiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

This case came into the District Court by a writ of certiorari, to a justice of the peace. The transcript sent up, in obedience to said writ, is regular in all respects. An affidavit of the defendant below being filed, setting forth that on the trial below, Bond & Martin were the plaintiffs. A rule was taken upon the justice, to shew cause why he should not amend the transcript in this particular. To this rule, the justice replied in substance, that it is true the original summons was issued in the name of Bond & Marlin ; that the notes were assigned by Bond & Martin, to M’livaine before the suit was brought; that on the return day of the summons, the agent of said M’llvaine, moved to have said' M’llvaine’s name substituted, and that the trial proceed. The defendant made no objection; the alteration was made and the defendant went fully into trial. The justice further stated, that he considered the substitution above mentioned, an amicable arrangement.

The counsel for the defendant below, then moved the court to dismiss the suit, for irregularities set forth in the motion. The court overruled the motion, which constitutes in substance the only error alleged in the case.

So far as regards mere formal irregularities, the superior csurts should look with an indulgent eye upon proceedings before justices of the peace. The substitution of the name of M’llvaine for that of Bond & Martin, was in the first instance a substantial error, unless done by consent, but it was waived, even if erroneous, hy the subsequent act of Cornelius. After the substitution, he went into a full trial on the merits. The subject *319matter of the action remained the same, and whether the actual plaintiffs were Bond & Martin or M’llvane, could make no substantial difference with him. He could therefore have sustained no essential injury from the substitution. Not having made objection thereto at the proper time, he is estopped from doing so now.

Judgment affirmed.

Note.—In the cases of George Prior vs. Wm. M’llvaine, and Wesley Prior vs. Wm. M'llvaine, the samo points were raised, and decided as in the preceeding case.

Reporter.
No. 95-728.

#### Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. *v.*Hilton Davis Chemical Co.,

*ante,*p. 17. In this case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-106-AD

Costs:

Labor per airplane (1 work hour(s) x $85/hour) $ 340

Parts per airplane $ + 0

Cost per airplane $ 340

Number of U.S.-registered airplanes 

x

 0

Total fleet cost $0

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Exhibit 10.3 Form of First Amendment to Restricted Stock Award for Employees


                             ONEIDA FINANCIAL CORP.
                       2006 RECOGNITION AND RETENTION PLAN
                  FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT
                                   (Employees)

         WHEREAS, on April 25th 2006, Oneida Financial Corp. (the "Company")
granted an award (the "Award") for a total of shares of Company common stock to
(the "Recipient"), subject in all respects to the terms and provisions of the
Oneida Financial Corp. 2006 Recognition and Retention Plan (the "Plan"), which
has been approved by the board of directors of The Oneida Savings Bank (the
"Bank") and the stockholders of the Company; and

         WHEREAS, the Plan provides that a committee consisting of at least two
non-employee directors of the Board (or the full Board) (the "Committee") may
amend any outstanding award made under the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Committee and the Recipient have agreed to amend the
Restricted Stock Agreement which evidences the Award (the "Agreement") to change
the definition of "Normal Retirement Age" that shall apply to the Award;

         NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

         1. Paragraph B is amended in its entirety to read as follows, effective
as of the original date of the Award:

                  B. (1) The shares of common stock awarded hereunder shall bear
         a legend restricting the transferability of such common stock
         (hereinafter referred to as the "Restricted Stock"). The Restricted
         Stock awarded to the Recipient shall not be sold, assigned,
         transferred, pledged, or otherwise encumbered by the Recipient, except
         as hereinafter provided, until such Restricted Stock has vested (the
         "Restricted Period").

                  (2) Restricted Stock shall vest in equal installments over a
         five (5) year period, with the first installment vesting on December
         31, 2006 and succeeding installments vesting on each anniversary
         thereof through December 31, 2010.

                  (3) Notwithstanding the definition of "Normal Retirement" set
         forth in the Plan, for purposes of this Award, "Normal Retirement"
         means the Recipient's termination of employment on or after the date
         that the Recipient attains age 65 and has completed at least 5 years of
         service.

         2. All remaining provisions of the Restricted Stock Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.

<page>



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee and the Recipient have executed this
First Amendment to the Restricted Stock Agreement, effective as of the original
date of the Award.


                                    ONEIDA FINANCIAL CORP.


---------------------               By:
Date                                    -----------------------------------

---------------------               ---------------------------------------
Date                                Recipient
No. 46494.

#### Protests 784533-G, etc., of Kwan On Chong (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
No. 6150.

#### WOODVILLE & WOODVILLE vs. D. A. HEGARTY.

Syllabus.

In fixing the value of an attorney’s services, those renderel out of Court are to be taken into consideration quite as much as those rendered in open Court.

*336Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 102,742. Hon. P. D. King, Judge.

Dinkelspiel, Hart & Davey, for plaintiff and appellee.

Dart, Kernan & Dart, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Defendant married outside of .the State and afterwards removed here with his wife. When they had resided here ¡about a year the wife sought and obtained a judgment of separation from bed and board. Plaintiffs, who represented her as counsel in that suit,- now sue defendant for their fee.

By the terms of Art. C. C. 2401, a community or partnership of acquets and gains arose between the parties from the time they came into the State to live; in other words, those were the property relations between the parties, established by law in default of agreement regulating their conjugal relátions in that respect. (C. 0., 2325).

And by the terms of Arts. C. C., 155 and 123 the separation from bed and board carried with it a dissolution of those relations.

Now as we read the case of Benedict v. Holmes, 104 La., 528, especially on rehearing, the fee of an attorney who successfully conducts on behalf of the wife a suit for separation from bed and board and. dissolution of the community, constitute an obligation of the community and as such are chargeable against the' husband like any other debt of the community.

Defendant is therefore liable for plaintiff’s fee.

*337Opinion and decree, June 26th, 1914.

Rehearing refused, July 17th, 1914.

Writ denied, October 9th, 1914.

As to the amount of this fee, a jury allowed $366.45, which added to $162.90 already received from the wife makes a total fee of $529.35 for plaintiff’s services.

We do not think the allowance excessive.

On the face of the papers there was a mere judgment by default, without a settlement of the community. In point of fact it was an amicable adjustment of the marital relations between the parties, which one of them had determined to bring to an end.

Numerous conferences were had between counsel, chiefly at the instance of defendant, and attempts made .to effect a reconciliation between the parties, or if that failed, then to reach an adjitstment of their difference with the least possible friction.

As every lawyer knows, proceedings had in Court represent but a small fraction of the time and labor involved in handling such matters, and services of this kind are to he taken into consideration in fixing an attorney’s fees, quite as much as mere routine services rendered in open Court.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19735]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. ER96-2525-001, ER96-2585-001]


Plum Street Energy Marketing, Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power 
Corporation; Notice of Filing

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 21, 1996 and December 20, 1996, Plum 
Street Energy Marketing, Inc. and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 
tendered for filing amendments in the above-referenced dockets.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before August 1, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19735 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2005 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2005

To authorize the Secretary of State to issue up to 10,500 E-3 visas per 
                        year to Irish nationals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 15, 2011

 Mr. Brown of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr. Kirk) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of State to issue up to 10,500 E-3 visas per 
                        year to Irish nationals.

    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 ``Irish Immigration Recognition and 
Encouragement Act of 2011'' or the ``IRE Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) Immigration from the Republic of Ireland has been an 
        important part of the history, identity, and culture of the 
        United States.
            (2) Approximately 40,000,000 people in the United States 
        identify themselves as Irish-Americans.
            (3) The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Public Law 
        89-236) created significant barriers for legal Irish 
        immigration to the United States.
            (4) The Republic of Ireland continues to be an important 
        strategic ally and friend to the United States.

SEC. 3. E-VISA REFORM.

    (a) Definition.--Section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii)) is amended by inserting 
``, or solely to perform services as an employee who meets the 
requirements under section 203(c)(2) if the alien is a national of the 
Republic of Ireland,'' after ``Australia''.
    (b) Numerical Limitation.--Section 214(g)(11)(B) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11)(B)) is amended by inserting 
``for each of the nationalities identified under section 
101(a)(15)(E)(iii)'' before the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
No. 50776.

#### Protest 111500-K of Otto Roth & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 48539. In accordance^with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited, wherein the court followed Abstracts 40880 and 41794, it was held that the cheese in question is properly dutiable upon the basis of the net weight of the cheese as returned by the United States weigher, not including the weight of the strings, less 2J4 percent for inedible coverings. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Exhibit No. 32.1
----------------
Form 10-KSB
Boulder Acquisitions, Inc.
File No. 0-12536


          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  Boulder  Acquisitions,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Glenn
A.  Little,  Chief  Executive  and  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  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 the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: January 12, 2004                          By:      Glenn A. Little
      ----------------                             -----------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                             Chief Executive and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Boulder  Acquisitions,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Boulder
Acquisitions,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### United States *v.*Chas. Woo Quong

No. 6185.

Pro forma invoices dated February 11, 1943, etc.

Entered at Calexico, Calif., February 11, 1943, etc.

Entry No. 1033-A, etc.

(Decided June 26, 1945)

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Specior,*special attorney) for tb'e plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon an oral stipulation entered into by and between the respective parties, agreeing, in substance, that the proper value for the merchandise under consideration should be *13%*cents per pound, léss 68.2 cents per 100 pounds for nondutiable charges.

Accordingly, I bold the proper value for the involved merchandise to be 13K cents per pound, less 68.2 cents per 100 pounds for non-dutiable charges.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.