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

[111th Congress Public Law 135]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 3494]]

Public Law 111-135
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 3900 Darrow Road in Stow, Ohio, as the ``Corporal Joseph A. Tomci Post 
       Office Building''. <<NOTE: Jan. 29, 2010 -  [H.R. 3788]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CORPORAL JOSEPH A. TOMCI POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3900 Darrow Road in Stow, Ohio, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Corporal Joseph A. Tomci Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
Joseph A. Tomci Post Office Building''.

    Approved January 29, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3788:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Nov. 5, 6, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 21, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
No. 56748.

protests 178900-K, etc. (New York).

#### Adorence Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# C_2014439EN.01000502.xml

| 8.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 439/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Elena Petru v Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu, Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate

(Case C-268/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 22(2), second subparagraph - Health insurance - Hospital treatment provided in another Member State - Prior authorisation refused - Lack of medication and basic medical supplies and infrastructure))

(2014/C 439/07)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elena Petru

Applicant:

Defendants: Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu, Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation necessary under Article 22(1)(c)(i) of that regulation cannot be refused where it is because of a lack of medication and basic medical supplies and infrastructure that the hospital care concerned cannot be provided in good time in the insured person’s Member State of residence. The question whether that is impossible must be determined by reference to all the hospital establishments in that Member State that are capable of providing the treatment in question and by reference to the period within which the treatment could be obtained in good time.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---
March 27, 1958

Reap. Dec. 9112.

#### *Jefferson Amusement Company*v. *United States.*

ORDER

Johnson, Judge:

When this case was called for trial, counsel for the Government moved to dismiss the appeal for reappraisement on the ground that it was prematurely filed because there never had been an appraisement of the merchandise.

Two entries are involved herein, one dated August 26, 1955, and the other dated August 30, 1955. On each of the accompanying invoices, there appears in red ink the following:

Sortilege appraised at 578 Pr. Pc. each, net pkd. Balance of items at invoice unit values, net, packed, less proportionate amount charged for consular invoice.

Clinton A. Johnson

Appraiser

On each “Summary of Examination and Appraisement,” there appears, in the column headed “Appeaised,” the notation “Adv.,” indicating an advance in value. Neither is dated nor signed by the appraiser. However, on May 28, 1957, notices were sent by the collector to the importer, stating that the merchandise had been appraised in accordance with law and that the appraised value exceeded the entered value. On June 18, 1957, counsel for the importer wrote to the collector, appealing any determination that the appraised value exceeded the entered value. On June 20, 1957, the collector replied, enclosing the proper form for filing an appeal for reappraisement and stating that it must be filed by June 27, 1957. Said form was duly filed on June 24, 1957.

It is evident, therefore, that the appraiser did appraise the merchandise and did make reports to the collector, even though he neglected to sign the summary sheets. On the basis of the reports, the collector mailed notices of appraisement to the importer, pursuant to section 501 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Subsequently, *771he advised importer’s counsel on the proper method of appealing for a reappraisement.

Since there has been an appraisement of the merchandise involved herein, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, and the case is set down for hearing on the next Houston docket.

It is so ordered.
Docket No. FAA~:LOIO-/2'1>0

Regulatory Evaluation

;;<O/O~-IvM-;).70-AD

Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the \;alues in ,he fahfe below, you mliSI ensure I!le totals update accordingly. If

{hey do 1101.click (or Tab) illio ami/hen oul of tIlt! changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

Action orooeIlcr, aooliance)

(e.g., Inspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost

replacement) (include cost (labor + U.S. for u.s. Fleet

access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered

and close-un) our) Products

Inspection 1.0 ,

"

$0 ,

683 ,

.

.

..

. .

.

. " .,' "

. '. ..

;' ~ ,

, ...

.

,

The known number of oro ducts in comoliance:

Total Costs of co molia nee for U.S. fleet: $58,055

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

Special considerations far Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in (he Estimated CoSfS fable

that WQ.l' assumed or mighl nOI be obvious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs): Te cost shown is

cost per inspection cycle.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? ,._

YEs'D NOIZJ

+Explanation:
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YEs'D NO[81

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

either a Yes or No answer. _

YESD NO[81

Explanation:

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'D NO [81

*Explanation:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JAVIER M ONTES-R

U IZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50398

D.C . No. 3:07-c r-01164-LAB -1 Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , Sa n Die go ORDER

B e fore : GOULD a

nd R A W LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a n d LEM ELLE, Distric t Judge . * The m andate issue d on De c e m be r 13, 2013, is here by

re c a lle d . The unoppose d re que st for public a tion is gra nte d, a nd the M e m orandum Disposition file d on Nove m be r 20, 2013, is withdra

wn. The withdra

wn m e m o randum d i sposition is re p la c e d a nd supe rse de d by

the a tta c h e d opinion. 

# FIL ED MAR 21 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* The Honora

ble Iva n L.R . Le m e l le , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Louisia n a , sitting by de signa

tion.
No. 45360.

#### Protests 43784-K, etc., of A. Makris & Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284 and T. D. 49302) the protests were sustained.
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION


I, Kathy Christopher, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of USIP.Com, Inc.;


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 statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such 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 quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;


4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:


a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;


b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;


5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):


a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and


6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: May 12, 2005



                              /s/ Kathy Christopher
                          Kathy Christopher, Controller
Before the First Division,

June 12, 1951

No. 55645.

#### E. Lembeck & Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 168777-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that •the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

August 10, 1938

No. 39186.

#### Protest 839726-G/86281 of Grant Art Galleries (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The only disputed question of fact is whether the articles of furniture in question, consisting of tables and figures, were produced prior to the year 1830. Two witnesses expressed directly opposite opinions as to the age of the articles. It was found that the weight of the evidence supports the claim made for free entry under paragraph 1811 and the protest was sustained. *United States*v. *Ackermann*(21 C. C. P. A. 329, T. D. 46852) distinguished.
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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Daylight saving time: Spring forward this Sunday

Daylight saving time returns this Sunday at 2 a.m. when most Americans set their clocks forward at 3 a.m. Most people regard the change as a time when they lose one hour of sleep, but the practice extends evening daylight so days – particularly summer days – last longer. 

Daylight saving time begins the second Sunday in March and ends the first Sunday in November, when clocks are adjusted one hour back to standard time. 

The United States adopted daylight saving time when the Uniform Time Act of 1966 standardized time zones and daylight saving practices across the United States. 

The act allowed states to pass laws exempting themselves. The only states that don’t observe daylight saving time are Hawaii and most of Arizona. It’s also not observed by these U.S. territories: American Somoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Daylight Saving Timetime changespring forward
#### David C. WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-4040.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 29, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 26, 1998.

*218Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale and Gary Caldwell, Assistant Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

David C. Walker appeals a post-sentencing order declaring him to be a sexual predator pursuant to section 775.21, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). We affirm.

Walker was charged in October of 1996, with two counts of lewd assault and one count of sexual battery on a person less than twelve years of age, all crimes allegedly taking place between July 19,1996, and September 9, 1996. Shortly thereafter the state filed its notice of intent to have Walker declared a sexual predator. Walker subsequently pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced to eight years incarceration followed by ten years probation.

Several months after Walker was sentenced the state filed a second notice of its intent to have Walker declared a sexual predator. In opposition to the motion, Walker argued that because he was not declared a sexual predator at the time of sentencing, the 1996 amendment to section 775.21 allowed the state attorney to bring the issue to the court’s attention only if Walker was improperly registered as a sexual predator by the Department of Corrections, the Department of Law Enforcement, or another law enforcement agency. The trial court granted the state’s motion and this appeal followed.

We affirm the order designating Walker a sexual predator, rejecting Walker’s contention section 775.21 is penal in nature and must be construed in favor of the defendant. The sexual predator designation “is neither a sentence nor a punishment but simply a status resulting from the conviction of certain crimes.” *Fletcher v. State,*699 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Section 775.21(4)(b)2, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), like section 775.21(4)(a)2, allows trial courts to designate offenders who committed their current offenses between October 1, 1995, and October 1, 1996, as sexual predators after they have been sentenced for the current offense. *See Collie v. State,*710 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Therefore, the order on appeal is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19939]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5865-2]


Meeting of the Local Government Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The theme of the next meeting of the Local Government Advisory 
Committee is organization, structure and future activities of the LGAC. 
The committee will also continue work on outstanding business and vote 
on the final report of the Tools for Local Decision-Makers 
Subcommittee. The committee will hear presentations on the new EPA 
Region 3 Small Communities Tool Kit available on the WEB, and on the 
new EPA Clean Air Standards. The Roles and Responsibilities and the 
Tools for Local Decision-Makers Subcommittees will meet in subcommittee 
sessions, to continue their ongoing projects, but most of the time will 
be spent in full committee meetings.
    From 3:00-3:15 p.m. on the 14th, the Committee will hear comments 
from the public. Each individual or organization wishing to address the 
Committee will be allowed three minutes. Please contact the Designated 
Federal Officer (DFO) at the number listed below to schedule agenda 
time. Time will be allotted on a first come, first serve basis.
    This is an open meeting and all interested persons are invited to 
attend. Meeting minutes will be available after the meeting and can be 
obtained by written request from the DFO. Members of the public are 
requested to call the DFO at the number listed below if planning to 
attend so that arrangements can be made to comfortably accommodate 
attendees as much as possible. However, seating will be on a first 
come, first serve basis.

DATES: The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 14th and 
conclude at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, August 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Wyndham Bristol Hotel 
located at 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC.
    Requests for Minutes and other information can be obtained by 
writing to 401 M Street, S.W. (1502), Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The DFO for this Committee is Denise 
Zabinski Ney. She is the point of contact for information concerning 
any Committee matters and can be reached by calling (202) 260-0419.

    Dated: July 21, 1997.
Denise Zabinski Ney,
Designated Federal Officer, Local Government Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 97-19939 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
No. 44388.

#### Protests 13769-G, etc., of Mallouk Bros., Inc. (New York).

*329Opinion by-

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40) and *United States*v. *Jabara*(22 id. 77, T. D. 47065) the Normandy and filet laces in question were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1541 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1541

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To revise the Federal charter for the Blue Star Mothers of America, 
  Inc. to reflect a change in eligibility requirements for membership.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP TERMS.

    Section 30504 of title 36, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by striking the text preceding subparagraph (A) 
                and inserting ``she is a mother (meaning a woman who 
                filled the role of birthmother, adoptive mother, step-
                mother, foster-mother, grandmother, or legal guardian) 
                of a person who--''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``in World War 
                II or the Korean hostilities''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or is a citizen of the 
        United States living outside the United States'' before the 
        period at the end.

            Passed the Senate November 18, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1541

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To revise the Federal charter for the Blue Star Mothers of America, 
  Inc. to reflect a change in eligibility requirements for membership.
```
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 Quarterly Report of FirstBingo.com (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Thomas M. Sheppard, Chief Executive 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 13th day of November, 2003.



| | /s/ Thomas Sheppard
Thomas M. Sheppard 
Chief Executive Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------













---