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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2195 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2195

     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on absorbent resin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on absorbent resin.

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

SECTION 1. ABSORBENT RESIN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.11 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to absorbent resin) is amended 
by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jeannette Lopez, Appellant-Respondent, v John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, Defendant, and Ana *788Lopez, Also Known as Ann Lopez, Interpleaded Respondent-Appellant. (And Two Other Titles.)

In consolidated actions to recover the proceeds of three life insurance policies, (1) the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered December 6, 1989, which denied her motion for summary judgment to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by the defendant John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company and granted that branch of the interpleaded defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment which was to recover the proceeds of that policy, and (2) the interpleaded defendant cross-appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and her brief, from so much of the same order as failed to render a determination on that branch of her cross motion for summary judgment which was to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from *(see, Lopez v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*170 AD2d 583); and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeal from so much of the order as failed to render a determination on that branch of the inter-pleaded defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment which was to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is dismissed, as that branch of the cross motion remains pending and undecided *(see, Katz v Katz,*68 AD2d 536); and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent-appellant is awarded one bill of costs. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Robert Earl JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-85-371.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 20, 1987.

As Corrected Dec. 31,1987.

T. Hurley Jordan, Public Defender, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Tomilou Gentry Liddell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, Robert Earl Johnson, was tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County for the crime of Escape from a Penal Institution in Case No. CRF-83-5073 and was sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment, and he appeals.

Briefly stated the facts are that on October 6, 1983, appellant ran out of an office at the Department of Corrections Community Center in Oklahoma City and got into a car which sped away. Appellant was apprehended in Tulsa on February 15, 1984.

In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to give an instruction on duress. We first observe that appellant failed to object to the instructions and did not submit requested instructions; consequently, this assignment was waived. *Maghe v. State,*620 P.2d 433 (Okl.Cr.1980). Moreover, this Court has held that a defendant is not entitled to an instruction on duress or involuntary escape unless he is in imminent and immediate danger at the time of the escape and returns to custody at the first opportunity. *Nichols v. State,*564 P.2d 667, 669 (Okl.Cr.1977). In the instant case, appellant made no attempt to return himself to lawful custody, but was apprehended four (4) months after his escape in another city. Thus, we find no error.

The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J., and PARKS, J., concur.
Jeffrey M. Harper 

FAA Office of Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Avenue Southwest 

Renton, Washington 98057 

T (425) 227-2161 

F (425) 227-1007 

RECEIV 

JUL 2 7 2015 

HEARING '--"-·'''--"' 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060081 

DMS No. FAA-2012-0904 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(a), Complainant hereby submits Notice ofhis 

intent to appeal the Initial Decision of Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin, 

served July 16,2015. 

Respectfully submitted this 22"d day of.Tuly, 2015. 

/:j; 

l(M. Harper 

'FAA Attorney 

)-' ,1!} ~------~-~~ 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served via facsimile, 

electronic mail and Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

F (202) 366-7536 

E Richard.goodwin@dot.gov 

Todd Emerson, Esq. 

Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84790 

F ( 435) 634-3505 

E temerson@skywest.com 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served via facsimile, and 

Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

F (202) 267-1293 

Dated this 22nd day of July, 2015. 

Notice of Appeal 

In the Matter of SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 

I

. /' . . " - { .) .. ,·t __ ., /:- .· ' 0 

{ ~ "1 /( / If />,_ .t ){\..J/ _,;:( _··kL.rr-t _ Dana Stephenson ···· i 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

(425) 227-2007 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060081, DMS No. FAA-2012-0904 

Page 2 of 2 

Jeffrey M. Harper, FAA Attorney 

T (425) 227-2161 

F (425) 227-1007
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1911 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1911

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixture used in ceramic 
                               arc tubes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixture used in ceramic 
                               arc tubes.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURE USED IN CERAMIC ARC TUBES.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.71 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to mixture used in ceramic arc 
tubes) is amended by striking the date in the effective period column 
and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**DYNAMIC HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC. -**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 

Pharma Labs Rx,Inc., a Florida corporation 

 

Herbal Health Products, Inc., a Floridacorporation 

 

Dynamic Life Products, Inc., a Florida corporation 

 

Online Meds Rx, Inc., a Florida corporation, and its subsidiary, 

Dynamic Financial Consultants, LLC, a Florida limited liability company 

 

Bryan Capital Limited Partnership, a Nevada limited partnership 

 

Pharma Labs Rx, Inc., a Nevada corporation
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2100-2101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-532]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, 
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 15c1-5, SEC File No. 270-422, OMB Control No. 3235-0471.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the previously 
approved collection of information provided for in Rule 15c1-5 (17 CFR 
240.15c1-5) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et 
seq.).
    Rule 15c1-5 states that any broker-dealer controlled by, 
controlling, or under common control with the issuer of a security that 
the broker-dealer is trying to sell to or buy from a customer must give 
the customer written notification disclosing the control relationship 
at or before completion of the transaction. The Commission estimates 
that 241 respondents collect information annually under Rule 15c1-5 and 
that each respondent would spend approximately 10 hours per year 
collecting this information (2,410 hours in aggregate). There is no 
retention period requirement under Rule 15c1-5. This Rule does not 
involve the collection of confidential information.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No 
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a 
collection of information

[[Page 2101]]

subject to the PRA that does display a valid Office of Management (OMB) 
control number.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be 
viewed at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be 
directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information 
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to [email protected]. Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this 
notice.

    Dated: January 9, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-532 Filed 1-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 LEGACY BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Rule 13a  14(a) / 15d-14(a)
 I, Stephen M. Conley, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Legacy Bancorp, 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 officers 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 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; andc)
    
    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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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 (or persons
performing the equivalent function):
 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 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 control over
financial reporting.
 Date: August 11, 2006
    
    /s/ Stephen M. ConleyStephen M. ConleyChief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and
Treasurer
#### Donald Raymond BARRETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-83-6.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 5, 1984.

*60Johnie O’Neal, Asst. Public Defender, Tulsa, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Alan B. Foster, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

The appellant, Donald Raymond Barrett, was convicted in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CRF-81-3504, of Burglary in the Second Degree, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, was sentenced to twenty (20) years’ imprisonment, and he appeals.

On Sunday, October 4, 1981, a suspect, positively identified in court as the appellant, broke and entered into Henshall’s Auto Parts store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Police officers, who were dispatched to the scene when the store’s burglary alarm was tripped, observed the appellant inside the building. A metal bar not belonging to Henshall’s was found just inside the broken window that the appellant had used to gain entry. The manager of the store, Patrick Harrelson, was called to the store when the alarm sounded. He and a co-worker unlocked the front door and allowed a police officer to enter the building. A short while later, the appellant was found hiding on top of a bathroom inside the store and was apprehended.

In his only assignment of error, the appellant contends that his mere presence inside of the building, notwithstanding the State’s evidence establishing his breaking and entering, is insufficient to prove any “intent to steal,” a necessary element of the crime charged. We do not agree. This Court has held in *Robson v. State,*611 P.2d 1135 (Okl.Cr.1980), that all elements of the crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, the method used to gain entry and the fact the incident occurred on a Sunday when the store was not open to the public constitute strong circumstantial evidence against the appellant that he did break and enter with the intent to steal. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

CORNISH and BRETT, JJ., concur.
<Page>
                                                                    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 Report on Form 10-K of Investors Financial Services Corp.
(the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin J. Sheehan, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ Kevin J. Sheehan
------------------------------
Kevin J. Sheehan
Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer

February 20, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Investors Financial Services Corp. and will be retained by Investors
Financial Services Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.



In connection with the Report on Form 10-K of Investors Financial Services Corp.
(the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, John N. Spinney, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ John N. Spinney, Jr.
------------------------------
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

February 20, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Investors Financial Services Corp. and will be retained by Investors
Financial Services Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2058 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. 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.

    (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       Knit garments of    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          stretch fabric                                                     31/2011.......
                          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 (provided
                          for in subheading
                          6110.30.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8207** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CALVIN JOHNSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dist rict of Virginia , at Richmond
. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. ( 3:93

- cr - 0007

- RLW

- 6 )

Submitted : February 25, 2010 Decided: March 5, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un publi shed per curiam opinion
. Calvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Johnson appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion in which he challenged a prior order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Uni ted States v. Johnson , No. 3:93

- cr - 0007

- RLW

- 6 (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 2009) . 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.

A FFIRMED