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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2058 

To suspend temporarily the duty on knit garments of stretch fabric with 

textile or polymer-based electrodes knit into or attached to the fabric 

and that incorporate connectors designed to secure an electronic transmitter that transmits physiological information from the electrodes to 

a compatible monitor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on knit garments of stretch 

fabric with textile or polymer-based electrodes knit into 

or attached to the fabric and that incorporate connectors 

designed to secure an electronic transmitter that transmits physiological information from the electrodes to a 

compatible monitor. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2058 IS

1 SECTION 1. KNIT GARMENTS OF STRETCH FABRIC WITH 

2 TEXTILE OR POLYMER-BASED ELECTRODES 

3 KNIT INTO OR ATTACHED TO THE FABRIC 

4 AND THAT INCORPORATE CONNECTORS DE5 SIGNED TO SECURE AN ELECTRONIC TRANS6 MITTER THAT TRANSMITS PHYSIOLOGICAL 

7 INFORMATION FROM THE ELECTRODES TO A 

8 COMPATIBLE MONITOR. 

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

10 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

11 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

12 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Knit garments of stretch fabric with textile or polymerbased electrodes knit into or 

attached to the fabric and 

that incorporate connectors 

designed to secure an electronic transmitter that transmits physiological information from the electrodes to a 

compatible monitor (provided 

for in subheading 

6110.30.30) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

14 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 18

- 3158

___________

IN RE: DEAN C. PLASKETT,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to D.V.I. Civ. No. 3

- 17

- cv

- 00067)
District Judge: Ruth Miller

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21

October 11, 2018

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge , AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : December 6, 2018 )

_________

OPINION *

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Dean C. Plaskett seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District

Court to rule on a petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A writ of mandamus

may be warranted where a district court’s “undue delay is tant amount to a failure to

exercise jurisdiction.” See Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). On

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 do es not constitute binding precedent.2 November 6, 2018, a Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation

concerning Plaskett’s § 2241 petition, and Plaskett has since filed objections . Because

the case is now moving forward, we find no reason to grant the “drastic remedy” of

mandamus relief. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.

2005). We have full confidence that the District Court will rule on Plaske tt’s petition

within a reasonable time. Accordingly, we will deny Plaskett’s mandamus petition.
## Federal Aviation Administration


# Memorandum

Date: To:

From: May 12, 2016 FAA-2015-1621 P~ 7°r~~lemaking Project 

# ~~ffu{,~~Director, Office ofRulemaking Prepared by: Ralen Gao Subject: Office ofRulemaking, ARM-209 Ex Parte meeting with TCCA on the Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes (Part 23) rulemaking project

On May 12, 2016, a teleconference was held between representatives ofTransport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on the harmonization effort for the reorganization ofthe FAA's Title 14 ofthe United States Codes (14 CFR) Part 23 Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Attending the meeting were: FAA Lirio Liu Director, Office ofRulemaking Michael Cameron Ralen Gao Lowell Foster Katie Patrick TCCA Marie-Anne Dromaguet Phillipe Ngassam On May 3 -4, the FAA held a public meeting in Atlanta, GA, as an additional opportunity to receive public comments for the Part 23 NPRM. TCCA attended this meeting via teleconference, but did not have the opportunity to directly comment on the proceedings. This teleconference provided TCCA the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The FAA encouraged TCCA to submit its comments to the docket.TCCA discussed the following issues: (I) TCCA opined that creating a simple category would be beneficial because it would alleviate simple aircraft from meeting certain requirements. (2) TCCA suggested that some ofthe part 23 performance-based proposed requirements do not contain clear means for compliance, while others do not clearly indicate the safety objectives behind the requirements. (3) Because TCCA and other foreign authorities have the policy ofadopting the FAA part 23 regulations by reference, TCCA requests that the FAA remove specific mentions of

" the FAA" from the proposed regulatory text. (4) TCCA indicated it will submit the bulk ofits comments by May 13 , 2016.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2055 

To reduce temporarily the duty on thiamethoxam technical. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on thiamethoxam technical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. THIAMETHOXAM TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.11 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 thiamethoxam) is amended— 

7 (1) in the general rate of duty column, by strik8 ing ‘‘1.8%’’ and inserting ‘‘5.4%’’; and 

9 (2) in the effective period column, by striking 

10 ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2012’’. 

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

12 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2055 IS

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

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I, Sam Nastat, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Razor Resources Inc. for
the period ended October 31, 2010 (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 Razor Resources Inc.


Dated: December 17, 2010

  /s/Sam Nastat
 Sam Nastat
  President, Secretary and Director
  (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer
  and Principal Accounting Officer)
  Razor Resources Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,
or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to Razor Resources Inc. and will be retained
by Razor Resources Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 4, 2015

No. 04-14-00775-CR

Gilbert M. ZEPEDA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR5264

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on May 6, 2015. The appellant’s first 

motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to June 5, 

2015. On June 3, 2015, the appellant filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to 

file the brief until July 6, 2015, for a total extension of sixty days. The motion is GRANTED. 

THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME THAT THE APPELLANT WILL BE 

GRANTED. The Appellant’s brief must be filed by July 6, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 4th day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 99.1**

** **

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

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pacific Northwest Bancorp (the“Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick M. Fahey, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of my knowledge:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  March 21, 2003. |   |                                                     |
|-----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |   | /s/ Patrick  M. Fahey                                    |
|                              |   | Patrick M.  Fahey  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pacific Northwest Bancorp (the“Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Bette J. Floray, Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  March 21, 2003. |   |                                                                   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |   | /s/ Bette J.  Floray                                                   |
|                              |   | Bette J.  Floray  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-0821

LT Case No. 2016-CP-001578-A

_____________________________

HANA ALKOOR ODEH,

Appellant,

v.

MAHER MAHMOUD ODEH, AS 

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF 

THE ESTATE OF ADEL MAHER 

ODEH,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County.

Heidi Davis, Judge.

Kelly Feig, of The Law Office of Kelly D. Feig, P.A., Hallandale 

Beach, for Appellant.

Kelly C. Johnson, of KJ Law, P.A., Tavares, for Appellee.

September 26, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, HARRIS, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fred Brown, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered April 12, 1989, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglar’s tools, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that there was no probable cause to support his arrest and subsequent search, during which inculpatory evidence was discovered, is without merit. Probable cause to arrest exists if the facts and circumstances *630known to the arresting officer would lead a reasonable person possessing the same expertise as the arresting officer to conclude that it is more probable than not that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime *(see, People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417, 423; *People v Carrasquillo,*54 NY2d 248, 254). Here, the arresting police officer received a radio communication reporting a burglary in progress at 77 Groton Street. While driving to that location, he observed the defendant about three houses from that address. The officer recognized the defendant as a man he had arrested for a burglary only a few months earlier. When the defendant saw the police car, he quickened his pace. The officer made a U-turn, drove up behind the defendant, and called him over. He noticed colored glass and lead fragments in the defendant’s hair. He was also aware of other burglaries in the area where entry had been gained by breaking stained-glass windows. He asked the defendant to stand against the car and gave him a quick "safety frisk” for weapons; none were found. While this frisk was taking place, the police officer received a radio call from a fellow police officer which confirmed that the residence in question had been broken into and that entry had been gained by breaking a stained-glass window. The defendant was then placed under arrest and searched. Under all these circumstances, we find the arrest and search were supported by probable cause. Kooper, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

•. .•
. •: ;·;:; r, •.**~** •

# ~ 

# • I**)~ ~Bt:~~efi~** **::1;-~': -~,~.~~** 

## OFFICIA4~~1J,W**~~~~** (/) 

### STATE

### O~lfG~S --·--

### ~~ PENALTY-FOR- 

## :Su PRIVATE USE

## ~~ o...u..

RE: WR-67,418-02 

### MICHAEL JACQUES 

# ·-----sa· 59 L!Utfi 

### rpe # 

## H 55951

.. 000 F 'J[ 

### 1 

### 'c C I 04 

### r· 

### 3 U I Hlit 

### Ef I 

### fliT II 

### c ______ .,..,,...."'1"_

...

_, •**--.--~** 

# •• ..._¢POS): 

# II ,04--r**-"1~** /:}**~~** ::::::t:.:pg.:;;:g;;;= 

## z**~~~~** ::)**~** PHN£V BOWES 

### bi 1M 

## $ 

## 00.40 6 0004279596 APR01 2015

· MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 78 701



### llv0 

# v,...._D \) 

# 0 "\ \

i j 1 

# I l 

# j
#### John P. Glasz, Appellant, v Linda L. Glasz, Respondent.

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered August 21, 1990 in Schenectady County, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

On April 4, 1990 plaintiff moved to strike defendant’s an*938swer and for summary judgment for a conversion divorce based upon a separation agreement executed on December 9, 1988. The notice of motion provided that answering affidavits were required to be served seven days prior to the return date which was stated to be April 26, 1990 (CPLR 2214 [b]). Three days prior to the return date, defendant’s attorney communicated with the chambers of the assigned Justice to request an extension of time to file answering papers and was advised to contact his adversary for the latter’s consent to such extension and, failing such consent, to notify Supreme Court by letter of the adjournment request. Defendant’s attorney contacted the attorney for plaintiff, was denied the extension request and wrote to the court requesting an adjournment and assigning his reasons therefor.

Thereafter, on May 18, 1990, defendant cross-moved for leave to serve an amended answer and counterclaim to which she annexed a detailed affidavit in support of her motion and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s attorney rejected the cross motion as untimely and submitted an affidavit in which he requested Supreme Court to reject defendant’s cross motion as untimely. The court, without more, rendered a decision in which it designated the return date of the motion and cross motion as May 31, 1990, granted defendant’s motion to amend her answer, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and awarded costs to plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b). On this appeal plaintiff urges that Supreme Court erred, as a matter of law, in permitting defendant’s late filing of her cross motion and affidavit and further that it erred in not advising counsel on its ruling regarding the request for adjournment, since plaintiff was thereby foreclosed from addressing the cross motion on its merits. We reject both of these arguments.

The law is well settled that leave to amend should be freely granted unless it will result in prejudice *(Lermit Plastics Co. v Lauman & Co.,*40 AD2d 680). Likewise, we have held that there is ample authority under CPLR 2214 (c) to overlook late service of a notice or paper if the court determines that no prejudice will ensue *(Whiteford v Smith,*168 AD2d 885). With regard to the merits of the cross motion as well as the late filing, therefore, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to establish prejudice. Having failed to do so, Supreme Court was within its authority in accepting the late filing, determining the motion and cross motion and awarding costs to plaintiff as a result thereof. Finally, contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s acceptance of these costs, which were not condition*939ally imposed, does not effect a waiver of plaintiff’s right to appeal *(cf., Guillen v 652 Broadway Corp.,*168 AD2d 486).

Order affirmed, with costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16649-16650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06151]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Arkansas Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of 
the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene on 
Wednesday, April 10, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 
4:30 p.m. (CST). The meeting will convene at University of Little Rock 
William H. Bowen School of Law, 1201 McMath Avenue, Little Rock, AR 
72202. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and finalize a summary 
report titled ``Who is Guarding Civil Rights in Arkansas? * * * The 
Need for a Civil Rights Agency''.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by April 26, 2013. The 
address is U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 400 State Avenue, Suite 
908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Persons wishing to email their 
comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who 
desire additional information should contact Farella E. Robinson, 
Regional Director, Central Regional Office, at (913) 551-1400, (or for 
hearing impaired TDD 913-551-1414), or by email to frobinson@usccr.gov.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Central Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised

[[Page 16650]]

to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the 
Central Regional Office at the above email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, March 13, 2013.
David Mussatt,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2013-06151 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
**EXHIBIT 21.01**
**LIST      OF REGISTRANT'S SUBSIDIARIES**

|  Subsidiary                                               | Jursidiction              of Organization     | Ownership  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|------------|
|                                                           |                                          |       |
| Hartcourt              Capital Inc.                            | British              Virgin Island            | 100%       |
|                                                           |                                          |       |
| Hartcourt              China Inc.                              | British              Virgin Island            | 100%  |
|                                                           |                                          |       |
| Ai-Asia,              Inc.                                     | British              Virgin Island            | 100%  |
|                                                           |                                          |       |
| Shanghai              Huaqing Enterprise Development Co., Ltd. | People's              Republic of China       | 51%        |
|                                                           |                                          |       |
| Hartcourt              Hi-tech Investment (Shanghai) Inc.      | People's              Republic of China       | 100%       |
|                                                           |                                          |       |
| Ai-Asia              Information (Shanghai) Inc.               | People's              Republic of China       | 100%       |
|                                                           |                                          |       |
| Shanghai              Jiumeng Information Technology Co., Ltd. | People's              Republic of China       | 100%       |
|                                                           |                                          |       |
| Control              Tech Electronics (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.     | People’s              Republic of China | 90%        |