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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 209 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 209

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and extend the 
     credit for alternative motor vehicles, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 12, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and extend the 
     credit for alternative motor vehicles, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE MOTOR VEHICLE 
              CREDIT.

    (a) Extension.--Subsection (j) of section 30B of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to termination) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``December 31, 2010'' each place it appears 
        in paragraphs (2) and (4) and inserting ``December 31, 2012'', 
        and
            (2) by striking ``December 31, 2009'' in paragraph (3) and 
        inserting ``December 31, 2012''.
    (b) Modification of Credit Amount.--Paragraph (2) of section 30B(c) 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credit amount) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``$2,400'' in the table contained in 
        subparagraph (A)(i) and inserting ``$2,700'', and
            (2) by striking ``$1,000'' in the table contained in 
        subparagraph (B) and inserting ``$1,300''.
    (c) Termination of Limitation on Number of Vehicles Eligible for 
Credit.--Section 30B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
striking subsection (f).
    (d) Limitation on Adjusted Gross Income of Individuals Claiming 
Credit.--Section 30B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended 
by subsection (c), is amended by inserting after subsection (e) the 
following new subsection:
    ``(f) Limitation Based on Adjusted Gross Income.--In the case of an 
individual, no credit shall be allowed under this section for the 
taxable year if the taxpayer's adjusted gross income for the preceding 
taxable year exceeds $100,000 ($200,000 in the case of a joint 
return).''.
    (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to vehicles placed in service after December 31, 2008, in taxable 
years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
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 endingJanuary 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Bing Wong, 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/ Bing Wong                                    

Bing Wong, 

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 14, 2007
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 Annual Report of MangoSoft, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Selig Zises, Interim
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted by 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/ Selig
      ZisesInterim
      Chief Executive OfficerAugust
      13, 2009




This
certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to
the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
#### LA FORTUNE Substituted for Jones & McKnight, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.S. IRISH LARCH, her engines, etc., et al., Defendants. IRISH SHIPPING, LTD., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHR. SALVESEN & CO., LTD., et al., Third-Party Defendants.

No. 42, Docket 74-1345.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 24, 1974.

Decided Oct. 9, 1974.

Donovan, Donovan, Maloof & Walsh, New York City, Charles C. Goodenough, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellant.

Healy & Baillie, New York City, Jack A. Greenbaum, New York City, of counsel, for defendant-appellee Irish Shipping, Ltd.

Before LUMBARD, FEINBERG and OAKES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant La Fortune, subrogated underwriter of a shipper, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles M. Metzner, J., dismissing after an admiralty trial La Fortune’s claim against defendant shipowner, Irish Shipping, Ltd., for cargo damage to coils of bright basic wire. In an unreported memorandum opinion, the judge based his decision upon two clauses in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The first provides that the carrier shall not be responsible for damage to goods “if the nature or value thereof has been knowingly and fraudulently misstated by the shipper in the bill of lading.” 46 U.S.C. § 1304(5). The second clause similarly relieves the carrier of liability if the damage results from “Insufficiency of packing.” 46 U.S.C. § 1304(2) (n).

Appellant attacks the district court’s findings applying these exceptions. As to the former, the goods were inaccurately described in the bill of lading, thus reducing the freight, rate from $35-$40 a .ton to approximately $15 a ton. That document by its terms contained the “Shipper’s Description of the Goods,” and there was testimony from which the judge could conclude that it is customary for the shipper or his agent to prepare the bill of lading. In addition, while the judge did not use the word “fraudulent,” it is clear in context that his finding that “the shipper knowingly misstated the nature and value of the shipment,” amounted to a finding of “knowingly and fraudulently misstated.” As to the second exception, at least one witness examined pictures of the original binding and testified that it was inadequate while the opposing evidence offered by plaintiff was inconclusive at best. In sum, none of the judge’s key findings was clearly erroneous.

Judgment affirmed.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1633 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the 

Secretary of State, to establish a program to issue Asia-Pacific Economic 

Cooperation Business Travel Cards, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 6, 2009 

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to establish a program 

to issue Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business 

Travel Cards, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Asia-Pacific Economic 

5 Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2009’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1633 IS

1 SEC. 2. ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION BUSINESS 

2 TRAVEL CARDS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1, 2010, 

4 the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with 

5 the Secretary of State, shall establish a program called 

6 the ‘‘APEC Business Travel Program’’ to issue Asia-Pa7 cific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards 

8 (ABTC) to eligible United States citizen business leaders 

9 and senior United States Government officials actively en10 gaged in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) busi11 ness. 

12 (b) INTEGRATION WITH EXISTING TRAVEL PRO13 GRAMS.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall inte14 grate application procedures for and issuance of ABTC 

15 with other appropriate international registered traveler 

16 programs of the Department of Homeland Security, such 

17 as Global Entry, NEXUS, and SENTRI. 

18 (c) COOPERATION WITH PRIVATE ENTITIES.—In 

19 carrying out this section, the Secretary of Homeland Secu20 rity shall work in conjunction with appropriate private sec21 tor entities to ensure that applicants for ABTC satisfy 

22 ABTC requirements. The Secretary of Homeland Security 

23 may utilize such entities to enroll and issue ABTC to 

24 qualified applicants. 

25 (d) FEE.— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1633 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Homeland 

2 Security may impose a fee for the issuance of 

3 ABTC, and may modify such fee from time to time 

4 as the Secretary determines appropriate. 

5 (2) LIMITATION.—The Secretary of Homeland 

6 Security shall ensure that the total amount of any 

7 fees imposed under paragraph (1) in any fiscal year 

8 does not exceed the costs associated with carrying 

9 out this section in such fiscal year. 

10 (3) CREDITING TO APPROPRIATE ACCOUNT.— 

11 Fees collected under paragraph (1) shall be credited 

12 to the appropriate account of the Department of 

13 Homeland Security and are authorized to remain 

14 available until expended. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
p.1 

OAR Box 1112 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

44) ll-C-6 

Docket Number: 

A-83-22 

Printed 4/16/2008 9:12:07 AM Sheet 44 of 97 
P.2 

f *% % UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A ' <? J ~ *- "l~ 

| XS&7 3 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY 

V^rtl4» / RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK -r-, - , 

'"tppoi"0 NORTH CAROLINA 27711 I / " C - Q 

February 29, 198U 

Mr. Leanard Bruckman 

Director, Air Compliance 

Connecticut Dept, of Environmental Protection 

State Office Building 

165 Capitol Avenue, Room 136 

Hartoford, CT 06115 

RE: Your request (No. MM82-333) for approval of a modification of the 

Federal Reference Method for Ambient Lead 

Dear Mr. Bruckman: 

We thank you for submitting additional information pertinent to your 

request for approval referenced above, as we requested in our letter of 

February 25, 1983 and phone conversation with Mr. Joseph Magyar on February 

20, 198U. 

Based on our review of the new information and the information previously submitted, we hereby approve your modified reference method, as described 

in your request, under Section 2.8 of Appendix C of Uo CFR Part 58 (Modifications of Methods by Users). Accordingly, the modified method is acceptable 

for use by the State of Connecticut for measurement of ambient lead concentrations. 

Basically, the modification replaces the specified high-volume air 

sampler with a similar, low volume sampler that operates with a sample flow 

rate approximately 1/lOth that of the high-volume sampler. The low volume 

sampler (identified as "lo-vol") is operated continuously for a period of 

one month to yield monthly integrated ambient lead samples, which are 

analyzed conventionally. 

The data quality assessment requirements specified in Appendix A of UO 

CFR Part 58 will, of course, apply to the modified method and should be 

applicable without modification. 

Sincerely, 

•^Larrv^J'. Purdue 

Chief, Methods Standardization Branch 

Quality Assurance Division (MD-77) 

Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory 

cc: Stan Sleva, OAQPS 

Warren Oldaker, QA Coordinator
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-40372 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jorge Villarreal-Gonzalez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:21-CR-2289-1 

______________________________ 

Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge VillarrealGonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Villarreal-Gonzalez has not filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

December 28, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-40372 Document: 00516591668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022
No. 22-40372 

2 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 22-40372 Document: 00516591668 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2022
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 American Basketball Assocaition, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2007 (the “Report”),
      I, Joseph F. Newman, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the
                Company.








/s/ Joseph
              F.
              NewmanJoseph
                F. Newman
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              August
                14, 2007


A
      signed
      original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
#### Global Cosmetics International Ltd., Appellant, v Chemical Bank, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for failure to give timely notice of the loss of a deposited check, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), entered February 2, 1990, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

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

Upon a review of the record, it is evident that material issues of fact exist, including, but not limited to, whether the defendant notified the plaintiff of the loss of the check within a "reasonable time” as required by UCC 4-202 (1) (e) *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]; *cf., Whitehall Packing Co. v First Natl. City Bank,*55 AD2d 675). We also note the need for the plaintiff to more conclusively demonstrate a causal link between the defendant’s alleged failure to give timely notice of the check’s loss and the plaintiff’s inability to collect on the instrument due to the maker’s subsequent bankruptcy. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
State of California

California Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Addendum to the Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including 

Summary of Comments and Agency Response, for Small Off-Road Engine and 

Tier 4 Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Regulations and Test Procedures; 

and Amendments to the Exhaust Emission Certification Test Fuel for Off-Road 

Spark-Ignition Engines, Equipment and Vehicles

Public Hearing Date: December 16, 2011

Agenda Item No.: 11-10-4

I. Background

On October 26, 2012, the Air Resources Board (ARB) submitted a Final 

Regulation Order, amending sections 2403, 2404, 2407, 2412, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 

2425.1, 2426, 2427, 2433, 2447, 2783, 2784, title 13, California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), to California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for review, OAL Regulatory 

Action No. 2012-1026-02S. 

II. Reporting Requirements

In accordance with Government Code sections 11346.3(d), the Executive Officer 

has found that the reporting requirements of the regulation which apply to businesses 

are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State of California.

III. Clarification

For clarification purposes the document incorporated by reference entitled 

“California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2015 and Subsequent 

Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles” was incorrectly 

cited in the Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text, on page 11, and in the 

attached proposed modified text in Appendix III, sections 2783 (d)(3) and 2784(c)(3). 

The correct title is “California 2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model 

Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger 

Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles,” as adopted March 22, 2012."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Sierra, Also Known as Luis Coto, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Mazur, J.), rendered June 20, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and sentencing him as a persistent violent felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of from 15 years to life for the burglary count, to run concurrently with *384two one year prison terms on the remaining counts, unanimously affirmed.

After an alarm sounded on the second floor of 2406 Walton Avenue, a witness carrying groceries to his fourth floor apartment observed defendant and an accomplice descending the stairway from the second floor. On his third trip to his apartment, the witness saw the same men depart the stairwell on the second floor. A police officer arrived and observed the suspects, who were later identified by the witness, leaving a second floor apartment with stolen goods. The officer chased them to the roof where they attempted to flee by use of the fire escapes. Defendant testified that he was never in the apartment, but was shooting up with drugs on the roof when the police arrived.

Defendant contends that the court erred in failing to charge the jury on identification and alibi. These claims have not been preserved as a matter of law, and we decline to reach them (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hall,*168 AD2d 283). In any case, reversal would not be warranted since the court instructed the jury that the People had the burden of proving each of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and in doing so, specifically referred to the defendant *(see, People v Carr,*165 AD2d 741).

Furthermore, the sentencing minutes do not bear out defendant’s claim that the court imposed an excessive sentence because of defendant’s refusal to plead guilty to a pending, unrelated charge. Defendant’s past lenient sentences have failed to deter him from criminal activity. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

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
iShares® Silver Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Geoffrey D. Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of BlackRock Asset Management International Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust, 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.

Date: May 7, 2010



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Geoffrey D. Flynn                                                 
|Geoffrey D. Flynn *
Chief Financial Officer (Principal
financial officer)





|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Flynn is signing in his capacity as an officer of BlackRock Asset Management International Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------