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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1915 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. ROBERTS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOTWEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Other footwear with uppers 

of rubber or plastic not over 

91 percent and with outer 

sole of leather or textile construction (provided for in 

subheading 6405.90.90) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1915 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04876

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

04876\04876_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 04876\04876_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04876\04876_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04876\04876_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04876\04876_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04876\04876_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04876\Certification Statement_04876.pdf Plant certification statement

x 04876\Plant ID 04876_011911.doc Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

04876\Supporting Documentation\04876_Final EPA Copy-Lake Shore-Part A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04876\Supporting Documentation\04876_Final EPA Copy-Lake Shore-Part A5-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04876\Supporting Documentation\04876_Final EPA Copy-Lake Shore-Part D3-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04876\04876_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04876\04876_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 3, 2016

No. 04-16-00588-CV

Rene SAENZ, Carlos Saenz and Mae Saenz,

Appellants

v.

Ramon SAENZ, Javier Saenz, and Alvaro Hinojosa,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-10-16006-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The District Clerk's notification of late clerk's record is hereby GRANTED. Time is 

extended to October 7, 2016.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1895 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1895

         To suspend temporarily the duty on p-Dodecyl aniline.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on p-Dodecyl aniline.

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

SECTION 1. P-DODECYL ANILINE.

    (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      Dodecyl aniline     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        (CAS No. 68411-48-                                                 31/2011.......
                        3) (provided for
                        in subheading
                        2921.42.65)......

    (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>
```
2000-2004 Baseline Conditions 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress Target 2064 Natural ConditionsAmm. Sulfate 4.3 3.4 0.8Amm. Nitrate 1.8 1.5 0.6OMC 13.5 11 4.6EC 2.5 2 0.4Soil 1 1 1CM 2.6 2.7 3Sea Salt 0 0 0Difference4.1 15.3Total 25.7 21.6 10.4Note: Actual Reduction NeededNumber in the bar graph comes from Visibility Modeling on HazePlanning (TSS)and equals 2000-2004 Baseline minus the 2018 URP Goal.The "Difference" Number in Columns C and D are the differencesbetween the total number in the baseline conditions and URG andNatural Conditions.This number is merely used in order to manipulate the reduction needed area in the chart so that it equals the same height as the baseline graph.303540

)Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and Teton Wilderness AreaYELL2 IMPROVE Site (New IMPROVE Algorithm)ReductionNeeded =1.3 dv05101520253035402000-2004 Baseline Conditions 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress 2064 Natural Conditions

Extinction (Mm

-1 )Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and Teton Wilderness AreaYELL2 IMPROVE Site (New IMPROVE Algorithm)Sea SaltCMSoilECOMCAmm. NitrateAmm. SulfateReductionNeeded =1.3 dvReduction Needed=5.4 dv05101520253035402000-2004 Baseline Conditions 2018 Uniform Rate of ProgressTarget2064 Natural Conditions

Extinction (Mm

-1 )Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and Teton Wilderness AreaYELL2 IMPROVE Site (New IMPROVE Algorithm)Sea SaltCMSoilECOMCAmm. NitrateAmm. SulfateReductionNeeded =1.3 dvReduction Needed=5.4 dvSite Year bCM|Base bCM|Inc bCM|NCII bEC|Base bEC|Inc bEC|NCII bNO3|Base bNO3|Inc bNO3|NCII bOMC|BaseYELL2 2000 2.58 2.48 1.77 13.48YELL2 2001 2.58 2.48 1.77 13.48YELL2 2002 2.58 2.48 1.77 13.48YELL2 2003 2.58 2.48 1.77 13.48YELL2 2004 2.58 2.58 2.48 2.48 1.77 1.77 13.48YELL2 20082.61 2.33 1.69YELL2 20132.64 2.15 1.59YELL2 20182.67 1.97 1.5YELL2 20232.71 1.79 1.4YELL220282.741.621.3YELL2 20332.78 1.44 1.21YELL2 20382.81 1.27 1.11YELL2 20432.84 1.11 1.02YELL2 20482.88 0.94 0.92YELL2 20532.91 0.78 0.83YELL2 20582.95 0.62 0.74YELL2 20642.99 2.99 0.43 0.43 0.63 0.63% change from baselinebOMC|Inc bOMC|NCII bSO4|Base bSO4|Inc bSO4|NCII bSoil|Base bSoil|Inc bSoil|NCII bSs|Base bSs|Inc bSs|NCIINO3Extinction|prp18aSO4Extinction|prp18aOMCExtinction|prp18aECExtinction|prp18aCMExtinction|prp18aSoilExtinction|prp18aSeaSaltExtinction|prp18a4.26 0.95 0.024.26 0.95 0.024.26 0.95 0.024.26 0.95 0.0213.48 4.26 4.26 0.95 0.95 0.02 0.0212.75 4 0.96 0.0211.87 3.67 0.96 0.0211.02 3.35 0.97 0.02 1.5 3.89 13.05 2.13 2.58 1.08 0.0210.21 3.04 0.97 0.029.422.740.980.038.67 2.44 0.98 0.037.95 2.15 0.99 0.037.25 1.87 0.99 0.036.58 1.6 1 0.035.94 1.33 1.01 0.035.32 1.06 1.01 0.034.61 4.61 0.76 0.76 1.02 1.02 0.03 0.03-15.25 -8.69 -3.19 -14.11 0 13.68 0
**Exhibit
      31.2**




**Certification**




**Pursuant
      to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Exchange Act**




I,
      Ron
      Chaimovski, certify that:




1.  I
      have
      reviewed this Form 10-Q of Argyle Security Acquisition Corporation;




2.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, this 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 report;




3.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
      in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
      results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
      periods presented in this report;




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




(a)  Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
      and
      procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within
      those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;




(b)  Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
      presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this
      report based on such evaluation; and




(c)  Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that
      has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




5.  The
      registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
      registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
      (or persons performing the equivalent function):




(a)  All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the 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
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting.




Date:  August
      14, 2007


/s/ Ron
              ChaimovskiName: 
Ron
              ChaimovskiTitle:  Co-Chief
              Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT
31.2




AULTRA
GOLD INC.




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302




I, Rauno
Perttu, Chief Financial Officer of Aultra Gold Inc., certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2008 of Aultra Gold 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 issuer as of,
and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;




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




(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the issuer including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared; and




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer's disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and




(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the issuer's most recent fiscal quarter
(the issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer's
internal control over financial reporting;




5. The
issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer's
auditors and the audit committee of the issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions);




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the issuer's internal controls over financial
reporting.




Date: November
      14, 2008
                By:
                /s/ Rauno
      PerttuRauno
      PerttuChief
      Financial Officer
292.3476
Exhibit 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 EAST WEST  Distributors,  Inc.. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I ,
Gerald N. Kern, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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.





By:  /s/  Gerald N. Kern
   --------------------------
   Gerald N. Kern
   Chief Financial Officer
   (as of 02/28/05)

January 31, 2006
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00281

- CV

Industrial Models, Inc.

v.

SNF, Inc. d/b/a Brand FX Body

Company §

§

§

§ From the 236th District Court

o f Tarrant County (236

- 264887

- 13 )

July 24, 2014

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston



### JUDGMENT

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

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgm ent of the

trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further

proceedings.

It is further ordered that appellee SNF, Inc. d/b/a Brand FX Body Company

shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SEC OND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

C hief Justice Terrie Livingston
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Seifert, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered April 21, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 4 to 8 years imprisonment.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the minimum term of the sentence imposed from 4 years to 2% years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree based on Penal Law 160.15 (3) ("[ujses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument”) and was sentenced as a first” felony offender to a term of imprisonment of four to eight years. Since, as the People concede, the defendant was not *656convicted of an armed felony offense *(see,*CPL 1.20 [41]), the minimum term of imprisonment should have been one-third of the maximum term, rather than one-half the maximum term *(see, People v Ulses,*132 AD2d 584; *People v Thorpe,*129 AD2d 822; Penal Law § 70.02 [4]). The maximum term of imprisonment of eight years imposed upon the defendant was proper. Accordingly, the minimum term of his sentence has been modified to the extent indicated.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be largely unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Charleston,*56 NY2d 886; *People v Young,*48 NY2d 995). To the extent that they are preserved, we find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# L_2006318DE.01004701.xml

| 17.11.2006 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 318/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2006

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 318/47

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 52/2006 des Rates vom 22. Dezember 2005 zur Festsetzung der Fangmöglichkeiten und begleitenden Fangbedingungen für bestimmte Fischbestände und Bestandsgruppen in der Ostsee (2006)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 16 vom 20. Januar 2006
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 16 vom 20. Januar 2006

Seite 197, Anhang III, Nummer 3.1 zweite Spalte in der Tabelle:

Statt:

„Untergebiete 25 bis 26, 28 südlich von 58°50′N“

muss es heißen:

„Untergebiete 25 bis 26, 28 südlich von 56°50′N“.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lenny Pearson, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered July 6, 1989, convicting defendant of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 Vi to 7 Vi years, unanimously affirmed.

During the questioning of a witness concerning a prior *284identification of the defendant *(see,*CPL 60.25), the Court instructed the witness to respond that complainant had identified the defendant, but to make no reference to identification of the co-defendant. The Court’s intervention was designed to safeguard the rights of the co-defendant while admitting probative evidence concerning the defendant. *(See, People v Yut Wai Tom,*53 NY2d 44, 56.)

Defendant’s complaint about the Court’s conversation with a juror about the possible length of the proceedings was not raised during the trial, and is therefore not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law. In any event, the Judge’s comments, which were general and speculative, were not prejudicial. *(People v Charleston,*56 NY2d 886, 887.) Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Ross and Asch, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1367

In Re: KEITH DOUGLAS ROBINSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(5:08-cv-00068-GCM)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: June 29, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Douglas Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Douglas Robinson petitions for a writ of 

mandamus seeking to challenge this court’s decision in 

Robinson v. Jackson, No. 08-7943 (4th Cir. Mar. 9, 2009) 

(unpublished). Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should 

be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United 

States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, 

mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a 

clear right to the relief sought and there are no adequate means 

to obtain that relief. In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th 

Cir. 2001). 

Because mandamus is not the proper remedy for 

challenging a prior decision of this court, we deny the 

petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED
#### Lauristine Finch et al., Respondents, v Incorporated Village of Freeport, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated October 17, 1989, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, with leave to renew upon the completion of disclosure.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff Lauristine Finch allegedly sustained serious physical injury when she fell from her bicycle on a street of the Incorporated Village of Freeport on July 12, 1988. The plaintiffs asserted that the accident was caused by the existence of a defect in the roadway at the subject location. The defendant’s claims examiner averred that the Village had not received prior written notice of any defective, dangerous or hazardous condition existing at the accident site. Photographs, submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, indicate that some patchwork was undertaken at the scene of the injured plaintiffs fall at some time prior to the accident.

Significantly, crucial discovery, such as an examination before trial of the defendant’s employees, has not been conducted in the instant case. The defendant’s motion was clearly premature inasmuch as the plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to conduct disclosure with respect to the defendant’s record-keeping practices, which is a matter firmly within the exclusive knowledge of the moving party *(see, Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co.,*103 AD2d 252, 262).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, without prejudice to renewal upon completion of disclosure. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
EPA Meeting with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

February 7, 2012

EPA Region 5 staff participated in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) UST 

program’s annual winter meeting. EPA Staff lead a discussion on the EPA’s proposed revisions 

of the UST regulations. He handed out the document “Comparison Of 1988 UST Regulations 

And Proposed UST Regulations” dated October 2011 which is on the EPA OUST website. 

Attendees:

EPA – Mark Restaino, EPA Region 5

MPCA’s UST Program - 

Attendee Name Office Location

Nate Blasing Duluth Region

Jeff Brandon Duluth Region

Stan Kalinoski Brainerd Region

Bryan Olson Detroit Lakes Region

Carey Mattison Marshall Region

Kerry Tullis Mankato Region

Zach Klaus Rochester Region

JoAnne Henry St. Paul

Ben Palmquist St. Paul

Jenalee Boise St. Paul

Derek Pemble St. Paul

Mike Rynders St. Paul

Shirley Smith St. Paul

Jake Mueller St. Paul

Robert Dullinger St. Paul

Michael Wilson

Employed by Hennepin 

County