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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1942 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1942

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic synthetic staple 
                                 fiber.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic synthetic staple 
                                 fiber.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC SYNTHETIC STAPLE FIBER.

    (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       Acrylic fiber tow   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          (polyacrylonitril                                                  31/2011.......
                          e tow) containing
                          by weight a
                          minimum of 92
                          percent
                          polyacrylonitrile
                          , not more than
                          .01 percent zinc
                          and from 2 to 8
                          percent water,
                          imported in the
                          form of 1 bundle
                          of crimped
                          product,
                          containing
                          214,000 filaments
                          (plus or minus 10
                          percent) and with
                          an average
                          filament decitex
                          of 4.0 to 5.6
                          decitex (plus or
                          minus 10
                          percent), and
                          length greater
                          than 2 meters
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          5501.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2006062EN.01002301.xml

| 3.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 62/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 62/23

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 378/2006

of 2 March 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 2093/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2093/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2093/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 24 February to 2 March 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 2093/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 March 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 March 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 335, 21.12.2005, p. 3.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1558/2005 (OJ L 249, 24.9.2005, p. 6).

3

---
# C_2007009EN.01000501.xml

| 13.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4264 — Cerberus/GMAC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 9/04)

On 19 October 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4264. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4264. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# L_2006148EN.01004201.xml

| 2.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 148/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 148/42

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 824/2006

of 1 June 2006

amending the rates of refunds applicable to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular Article 27(5)(a) and (15) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The rates of the refunds applicable from 19 May 2006 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 754/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The rates of the refunds applicable from 19 May 2006 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 754/2006 (2).

| (2) | It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 754/2006 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 754/2006 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The rates of refund fixed by Regulation (EC) No 754/2006 are hereby altered as shown in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 June 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 June 2006.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN

Vice-President

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 132, 19.5.2006, p. 15.

2

---

ANNEX

Rates of refunds applicable from 2 June 2006 to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty (1)

| CN code | Description | Rate of refund in EUR/100 kg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| In case of advance fixing of refunds | Other |
| 1701 99 10 | White sugar | 26,52 | 26,52 |

CN code

Description

Rate of refund in EUR/100 kg

In case of advance fixing of refunds

Other

1701 99 10

White sugar

26,52

26,52

---

(1)  The rates set out in this Annex are not applicable to exports to Bulgaria, with effect from 1 October 2004, to Romania with effect from 1 December 2005, and to the goods listed in Tables I and II to Protocol No 2 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 exported to the Swiss Confederation or to the Principality of Liechtenstein with effect from 1 February 2005.

---
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**SECTION      906 CERTIFICATION**

| (1)    | the                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005                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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations                of The                Amacore Group, Inc..    |

|   | /s/                Clark A.                Marcus         Clark                A. MarcusChief                Executive Officer |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before DEERWESTER , HACKEL, and KIRKBY Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
Micah D. WILLIAMS Airman Apprentice (E

- 2 ), U.S. Navy Appellant
No. 202200086

_________________________ Decided: 27 September 2022 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge : Donald R. Ostrom
Sentence adjudged 14 January 2022 by a general court

- martial convened at Naval Station Norfolk , Virginia, consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 180 days , and a bad

- conduct discharge. 1 For Appellant: Major Brian L. Farrell, USMC

1 Appellant was credited with 156 days of pre trial confinement credit.United States v. Williams , NMCCA No. 20 22 00 086 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________
PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are co rrect in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 2 T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

2 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
#### Elana G. Gunsburg, Respondent, v David Gunsburg, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered March 2, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff’s motion for enforcement relief pursuant to the terms of a judgment of divorce and the underlying stipulation of settlement between the parties, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The parties are Orthodox Jews. When defendant failed to abide by the terms of a Get, plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce. A stipulation was reached settling the action, which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce. The stipulation also provided that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce provisions of the agreements.

Plaintiff thereafter moved by order to show cause pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244, for arrears in child support and reimbursement for certain medical and educational expenses. Defendant cross-moved to dismiss, alleging lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted plaintiff’s application, and denied the cross-motion. We now affirm.

Enforcement proceedings pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244 do not constitute a new action, but are treated as the continuation of the underlying divorce proceeding *(Haskell v Haskell,*6 NY2d 79). Thus, service may be made upon the law firm which represented the defendant in the prior proceeding *(Puorto v Puorto,*120 AD2d 845). We note, in this regard, that continued post-judgment representation is evidenced by numerous letters and telephone calls between defendant’s and plaintiff’s counsel, almost up to the time of the commencement of this proceeding. As the judgment stated that the court retained jurisdiction of the matter for enforcing provisions of the stipulation and award, the court also had subject matter jurisdiction.

Nor was defendant entitled to a hearing. Domestic Relations *233Law § 244 provides for an expedited procedure to resolve support issues, and a hearing is only required in certain limited instances *(see, Rogers v Rogers,*151 AD2d 738). Defendant failed to come forward with evidentiary facts sufficient to raise any triable issue of fact *(Gelb v Bucknell Press,*69 AD2d 829). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
**Exhibit      32.1**

|                             |                                                             | SHINE                MEDIA ACQUISITION CORP. |
|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                             |                                                             |                                         |
|                             |                                                             |                                         |
| Date:                May 5, 2008 | By:                                                    | /s/                David Y. Chen             |
|                             | David                Y. Chen                                     |
|                             | Chief                Executive Officer                           |
|                             |                                                             |
|                             | /S/                Hock S. Ong                                   |
|                             | Hock                S. OngChief                Financial Officer |

----
EXHIBIT 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, George E. Mileusnic, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Caribou Coffee Company, Inc.2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.August 10, 2007              /s/ George E. Mileusnic   George E. Mileusnic   Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 21****Subsidiaries of CheckFree Corporation**         **Name** **Jurisdiction of Organization**    CheckFree Services Corporation Delaware    Bastogne, Inc. Nevada    CheckFree Investment Corporation Nevada    CheckFree i-Solutions, Inc. Delaware    CheckFree i-Solutions Corp. Ontario, Canada    CheckFree i-Solutions Limited United Kingdom    CheckFree Software & Services (UK), Ltd. United Kingdom    Heliograph, Ltd. United Kingdom    Heliograph Inc. Delaware    Accurate Software Limited United Kingdom    Accurate Software Inc. Georgia    Accurate Software S.A. Luxembourg    Accurate Software (Australia) PTY Limited Australia    American Payment Holdco, Inc. Delaware    CheckFreePay Corporation Connecticut    CheckFreePay Corporation of California California    CheckFreePay Corporation of New York Delaware    CheckFree PhonePay Services, Inc. New York
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Michael J. Coles, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.August 10, 2007              /s/ Michael J. Coles   Michael J. Coles   Chief Executive Officer