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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2080 

To suspend temporarily the duty on hand blown glass vases. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. BOXER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on hand blown glass vases. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HAND BLOWN GLASS VASES. 

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 Hand blown (but not mechanically pressed) glass 

vases, valued at more than 

$3 but not more than $5 

each (provided for in subheading 7013.99.80) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2080 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2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 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 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Lara, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred Eggert, J.), rendered on March 14, 1989, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of four counts of burglary in the second degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years, respectively, to run concurrent with a previously imposed sentence, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Barbara A. Razzano, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 17, 1990, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, charged her with a recoverable overpayment of benefits, and imposed a forfeiture of effective days as a penalty in reduction of future benefits.

The conclusion that claimant was the sole officer and shareholder of an ongoing insurance brokerage business while she was receiving unemployment insurance benefits is amply supported by the record. Although on her application form claimant answered in the negative when asked whether she was engaged in a business that may bring in income, the evidence reveals that claimant had business cards and stationery printed, maintained a telephone for the business, and used a car purchased and insured in the corporation’s name. In addition, she co-brokered insurance for which she received commissions and, as required by law, opened two brokerage accounts in a bank. Therefore, the decision that claimant was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Muller [Levine],*50 AD2d 1005, *lv denied*40 NY2d 806; *see also, Matter of Witham [Roberts]*134 AD2d 752). The Board also properly determined that the overpayment in benefits was recoverable *(see, Matter of Barber [Roberts]*121 AD2d 767), and the facts support the further conclusion that claimant made willful false statements *(see, Matter of Petty [Roberts]*90 AD2d 604, 605).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1945 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Triticonazole. 

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 Triticonazole. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRITICONAZOLE. 

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 Triticonazole (CAS No. 

131983–72–7) (provided for 

in subheading 2933.99.22) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1945 IS

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Radford Simmons, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered July 8, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant, the trial court did not err in permitting the complainant to testify as to statements made by the defendant to her some time after the crime. "Statements made by a defendant to individuals who are not law enforcement personnel need not be disclosed prior *876to a trial *(see, People v Mirenda,*23 NY2d 439; *People v Rodriguez,*114 AD2d 525)” *(People v Hall,*133 AD2d 845, 846). Such statements are not discoverable by demand (CPL 240.20 [1] [a]), or by motion (CPL 240.40 [1]). Hence, there is no continuing duty to disclose such statements pursuant to CPL 240.60 if the prosecutor becomes aware of them during trial. However, as we held in *People v Hall (supra),*when, as here, the People, by voluntary disclosure and in response to the defendant’s demand for discovery indicated that they did not intend to offer any such statements, fair play requires prompt disclosure to the defendant of the People’s intent to offer the statements at the trial. In this case, the prosecutor informed the court and defense counsel during voir dire that she had just learned of the statements made by the defendant to the complainant. Such disclosure clearly complied with the fair play requirement of *People v Hall (supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). Brown, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
(1) NSR Permit Actions (1991 - September 14, 2012)

Year

Administrative 

Revisions

Technical 

Revisions

Significant 

Revisions

Initial Major NSR 

Permit Actions

Initial Minor NSR 

Permit Actions

1991 2 0 0 na na

1992 0 0 0 na na

1993 0 0 2 na na

1994 0 0 0 na na

1995 0 0 1 0 62

1996 0 0 2 0 73

1997 1 0 2 0 45

1998 7 1 0 0 56

1999 10 1 1 0 68

2000 6 3 2 0 63

2001 21 1 11 2 16

2002 89 20 45 1 41

2003 162 12 41 3 30

2004 243 21 29 0 44

2005 149 18 53 0 46

2006 183 30 44 0 34

2007 233 28 37 1 20

2008 94 21 22 0 29

2009 339 23 29 0 15

2010 216 14 52 0 9

2011 207 25 64 0 16

2012 96 16 52 0 6 (Jan-Aug)

(2) Total NAAQS Pollutant Increases Resulting from Technical Revisions (2009 - 2011)

Year

Technical 

Revisions CO Pb NOx VOC

2009 23 -117 0 -7.9 -9.7

2010 14 0 0 0 3.88

2011 25 6.7 0 3.2 -10.3

2012 (JanSept) 11 -3.9 0 0 9.3

(3) Increases in Permitted Emissions Authorized via 20.2.72.219(B)(1)(e) NMAC Technical Revision - (Up to 10% increase ba

Permit 

Action 

Date CO Pb NOx VOC PM10

There were no emission increases between 2009 - 2011 under 20.2.72(B)(1)(e) NMAC.

NOTE: These numbers include new permits (regular, streamlined).

They do NOT include modifications or GCP registrations.

The typical number of total permit actions/year is now about 160.

Data from Richard Goodyear

PM10 PM2.5 SO2

1.6 1.6 3.8

0 0 0

-62.76 -63 -3669.4

2.4 1 3

- (Up to 10% increase based on initial compliance testing)

PM2.5 SO2
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Roberto Herrara, Respondent.

Purported appeal by the People from a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), dated January 26, 1989, which directed that Queens County Indictment No. 7521/87 be dismissed.

Ordered that the appeal is held in abeyance, and unless the Supreme Court makes a written order on its decision dated January 26, 1989, within 10 days from the date of this decision and order, the People may commence a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel it to do so; in the event that the court refuses to make an order in accordance herewith, and the People fail to commence a proceeding within 30 days of the date hereof, then the respondent may move to dismiss the appeal.

Justice William D. Friedmann, sitting in the Supreme Court, issued a decision from the bench which he clearly intended to have the force of an order, and which the parties are treating as an order. However, Justice Friedmann refused to sign a written order for motives which are best known only to him. Since the present appeal must be dismissed unless a written order is issued *(see, e.g., People v Newton,*71 AD2d 1066), and since the appeal is clearly meritorious *(see, People v Moore,*158 AD2d 721; *People v Sullivan,*142 AD2d 695; *People v Cileli,*137 AD2d 829), and since Justice Friedmann’s duty to sign an order is unquestionable, the People may bring an appropriate CPLR article 78 proceeding in this court to compel Justice Friedmann to sign an order conforming to the terms of his decision dismissing the indictment *(see,*CPLR 7804 [b]; 506 [b] [1]; *see also, Matter of Grisi v Shainswit,*119 AD2d 418). Bracken, J. P., Fiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Triple Crown Media, Inc.;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, 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;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 quarterly 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; and
 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 the registrants board of directors:
 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;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
 Date:
    
    February 8, 2007Signed:
    
    /s/ MARK G. MEIKLEMark G. MeikleExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Progressive Resources, Inc., Sandoval Capital, Inc. and El Paso Sandy Transportation, LLC

,

Appellant s
,

v.

Luis Carlos Sandoval

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 121

- C V

Appeal from the

448 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2017DCV0741 )

O R D E R

The Court has this day considered the Appellants’ Motion for Emergency Stay of Sua

Sponte Mandatory Temporary Injunction and Trial Court Proceedings, and concludes the motion

should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part

. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Order

Relating to Temporary Injunction entered by the 448th District Court on May 9, 201 7 in cause

number 201 7 DCV 0741, styled Luis Carlos Sandoval v. Progressive Resources, Inc., Sandoval

Capital, Inc., and El Paso Sandy Transportation, LLC , is stayed pending disposition of this

appeal or further order of this Court. The Court notes that App ellee has filed a motion to compel

compliance with the temporary injunction and for sanctions in the trial court. The trial court is

further directed to stay any proceedings related to enforcement of the May 9, 2017 temporary

injunction order and for sanc tions related to that order. Appellants’ request to stay all other

proceedings in th e trial court is DENIED . Consequently, the parties may continue with

discovery and the case may proceed to trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24 th day of May , 201 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


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 accompanying quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Nuance
      Resources Corp. for the quarter ended August 31, 2007, I certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





|(1) | the
              quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Nuance Resources Corp. for the quarter
              ended August 31, 2007 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
              quarter ended August 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects,
              the financial condition and results of operations of Nuance Resources
              Corp. .
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:
            /s/
                James D. BunneyName:
            James
                D. BunneyTitle:
            Principal
                Executive Officer,
              Principal
                Financial Officer and DirectorDate:
            October
                5, 2007
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the report of Razor Resources Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endingOctober 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,Jordan Welsh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

/s/ Jordan Welsh 

Jordan Welsh, 

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: December 14, 2007
# L_2007018EN.01001101.xml

| 25.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 18/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 18/11

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 210 of 31 July 2006
  )

On page 93, in Annex II, second indent:

for:

| ‘— | Bosnia’, |
| --- | --- |

‘—

Bosnia’,

read:

| ‘— | Bosnia and Herzegovina’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

Bosnia and Herzegovina’.

---
10-Q Exhibit 32.1: Certifications 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 the iShares® S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (the Trust) and iShares® S&P GSCI
Commodity-Indexed Investing Pool LLC (the Investing Pool) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lee T. Kranefuss, Chief
Executive Officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust and Manager of the Investing Pool, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust and Investing
Pool.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2007           
|                             
|/s/ Lee T. Kranefuss         
|Lee T. Kranefuss *           
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and the Co-Registrant is a limited liability company and Mr. Kranefuss is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors
International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant and Manager of the Co-Registrant.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit
32.2

Certification of Periodic Financial
Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned,
Richard A. Wisot, the chief financial officer of Transpro, Inc. (the
"issuer"), does hereby certify that the
report on Form 10-K accompanying this certification (the
"report") fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the issuer.

/s/ Richard A. Wisot
 Richard A.
Wisot

Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer (chief financial officer) Transpro, Inc. March
24, 2004

---
#### Boguslaw LEONCZYNSKI, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF the INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH, Department of Employment Security, Defendants.

No. 20537.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Nov. 18, 1985.

Boguslaw Leonczynski, pro se.

K. Allan Zabel, Winston M. Faux, Salt Lake City, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

DURHAM, Justice:

This case is before the Court on a petition for review of an order of the Board of Review of the Industrial Commission. The Commission’s order reversed an award of benefits to petitioner Leonczynski and remanded for a new hearing on the merits. The Commission has moved to dismiss the petition as untimely. We grant the motion.

On January 31, 1985, the Commission mailed to petitioner a copy of the Board of Review’s decision to reverse and remand his case. The decision was mailed to the address on file with the Commission, and the record reflects that petitioner had previously received and responded to notices sent to that address. The decision sent to petitioner recites that it “will become final ten days after the date of mailing hereof, and any further appeal must be made directly with the Utah Supreme Court ... within ten days after this decision becomes final.” Those time limits are set forth in U.C.A., 1953, § 35-4-10(h), (i) (Supp.1985). Petitioner filed his petition for review on March 15, 1985.

Petitioner claims that he did not receive notification of the decision until March 5, although he offers no explanation for that fact. In any event, we are bound by the language of the statute providing that “[a]ny decision ... becomes final ten days after the date of ... mailing_” § 35-4-10(h). Petitioner has made no challenge to the validity of the statute.

This Court has not yet addressed the question, but we conclude that the *707timely filing of petitions of review, like that of notices of appeal from judicial orders, is jurisdictional. *See Midway Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission,*616 F.2d 346 (7th Cir.1980), and other federal cases cited therein. Consequently, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

HALL, C.J., and STEWART, HOWE and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Keewatin Windpower Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his 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: January 26, 2007


/s/ Chris Craddock
------------------------------------
Chris Craddock, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)