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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2124 

To modify and extend the temporary suspension of duty on 9, 10- 

Anthracenedione. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To modify and extend the temporary suspension of duty 

on 9, 10-Anthracenedione. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 9, 10-ANTHRACENEDIONE. 

4 (a) EXTENSION.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.05 of the 

6 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

7 (relating to 9, 10-Anthracenedione) is amended by 

8 striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made 

10 by paragraph (1) applies to goods entered, or withVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:12 Oct 31, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2124.IS S2124

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2124 IS

1 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this 

3 Act. 

4 (b) MODIFICATION OF ARTICLE DESCRIPTION; RET5 ROACTIVE APPLICATION.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.05 of the 

7 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

8 (relating to 9, 10-anthracenedione) is amended by 

9 striking the article description and inserting the fol10 lowing: ‘‘Mixtures of 2-tert-amyl 9, 10- 

11 anthraquinone (CAS No. 32588–54–8) and 2-iso12 amyl-9, 10-anthraquinone (CAS No. 68892–28–4) 

13 (provided for in subheading 2914.69.60) or in or14 ganic solution (provided for in subheading 

15 3824.90.28)’’. 

16 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

17 (A) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made 

18 by paragraph (1) applies to articles entered, or 

19 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on 

20 or after January 1, 2007. 

21 (B) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Not22 withstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 

23 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1504) or any other provision 

24 of law, upon proper request filed with U.S. Cus25 toms and Border Protection not later than the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2124 IS

1 date that is 90 days after the date of the enact2 ment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal from 

3 warehouse for consumption, of an article de4 scribed in subheading 9902.24.05 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

6 (as amended by paragraph (1)) that was 

7 made— 

8 (i) on or after January 1, 2007, and 

9 (ii) before the date that is 15 days 

10 after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

11 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though the 

12 amendment made by paragraph (1) applied to 

13 the entry or withdrawal. 

14 (C) PROPER REQUESTS.—For purposes of 

15 subparagraph (B), a proper request means a re16 quest for liquidation or reliquidation that con17 tains sufficient information to enable U.S. Cus18 toms and Border Protection— 

19 (i) to locate the entry; or 

20 (ii) to reconstruct the entry if the 

21 entry cannot be located. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Julius Salomon, as Assignee of Thomas J. Taylor; Belknap Hardware & Manufacturing Company, a Corporation, and Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Company, a Corporation, Appellants, v. Thomas J. Taylor, Appellee.

An appeal entered by those not parties to a suit in the names oí a party and themselves will be dismissed, there being no showing prior toi the appeal that those prosecuting the appeal were interested as privies or otherwise.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

*609
      *I/lddon é Smith,*for Appellants.

*Thos. L. Clarke,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

.Belknap Hardware Company and Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Company, sued out this appeal on July 30, 1904, in their own name and in the name of Julius Salomon, as Assignee of Thomas J. Taylor, from a decree of the date of February 9, 1904, purporting to have been made in a suit wherein the said Taylor was complainant and the said Salomon as Assignee and the Said corporations were defendants. The only decree in the record is one entered in a suit between the said Taylor and the said Salomon, as Assignee alone. There is nothing in the record prior in time to the entry of the appeal to show that the corporations were, or even offered to become parties to the suit, nor that they had any interest in the subject matter of the suit, as privies or otherwise: and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed at their cost.

All the Justices concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6245

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DWAYNE GRANT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-98-336-2-18, CA-99-3534-2-18) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Grant, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Dwayne Grant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Grant , Nos. CR-98-336-2-18; CA-99-3534-2-18 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED