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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2268 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain DVD readers and 

writers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN 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 certain DVD 

readers and writers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN DVD READERS AND WRITERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.36 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain DVD readers and writers) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2268 IS

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2284 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2284

   To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 4 Chloro Aniline.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 4 Chloro Aniline.

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

SECTION 1. 4 CHLORO ANILINE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.14 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 4 Chloro Aniline) is amended 
by striking the date in the effective column period 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to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 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>
```
#### PECORA et al. v. MODERN SANITARY DAIRIES OF PENNSYLVANIA, Inc.

No. 7099.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Dec. 4, 1939.

*314C. Brewster Rhoads, John F. Headly, and G. A. Wilderman, all of Philadelphia, Pa. (Montgomery & McCracken, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellants.

Frank S. Busser and Hayward H. Co-burn, both of Philadelphia, Pa. (Busser & Harding, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellee.

Before BIDDLE, JONES, and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This design patent case concerns a glass milk bottle. Such bottle is made in accord with the design shown in patent No. 98,609 for a milk bottle and here reproduced.

M. A. PECORA

Feb. 18, 1936. Des. 98,609

MILK BOTTLE

Filed Dec. 2, 1935

These “baby bottles” proved popular and the finding of the trial court is that “the plaintiffs’ bottle has been placed upon the market and approximately a million bottles had been sold at the time suit was brought.”

Thereafter defendant was granted design patent No. 108,074 for a “bottle” as here reproduced.

R. C. GENNARO ET AL.

Jan. 25, 1938. Des. 108,074

BOTTLE

Filed Oct. 16, 1937

Both parties market milk in the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, but notwithstanding this proximity of operation, no purchaser was called to show that he or she had mistaken defendant’s bottle for plaintiffs’. As to alleged similarity of the two bottles and the probability of confusion, the court held — and we agree therewith — as follows:

> “An inspection of the bottles themselves clearly indicates that the similarity is so slight as to render unnecessary any testimony on this point. The face on the Plaintiffs’ bottle is that of a very young child with full cheeks, which creates a circular outline, while the Defendant’s bottle contains a face of a mature person, quite unattractive, whose cheeks are thin and whose face presents an oval appearance. Combining this decided difference with the constantly exercised faculty of ordinary observers to distinguish between faces, it is evident that there is no danger of the Defendant’s bottle being passed off as the Plaintiffs’. There are, in addition, a number of differences in detail between the two designs. The Defendant’s bottle slopes downward sharply from the neck, while the Plaintiffs’ slopes outward from the neck to form the baby’s shoulders. There is a collar on the Defendant’s bottle just below the neck, which is part of the ‘cop’s uni*315form’, and there is none on the Plaintiffs’ bottle; there is a ridge just above the eyes of the face on the Defendant’s bottle, which represents the visor of the cap, while there is none on the Plaintiffs’ bottle; there are grooves on the top of the Defendant’s bottle, which do not appear on Plaintiffs’ bottle. It is unnecessary to enumerate further the differences between the two bottles, as it is clear that there is no infringement.”

The decree below sufficiently protects the defendant by holding it did not infringe. The court did not feel called on to decide the question of validity and this court follows that course. So regarding, the decree below dismissing the bill for non infringement is affirmed.
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 on Form 10-K of WNC California
Housing Tax Credits, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the year ended March 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner
of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
Date: August 12, 2009
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, William R. LaRue, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including any consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       /s/ William R. LaRue William R. LaRue
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0689 CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. FATON SADIKU,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 21 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 10 2020

11/10/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0689
#### STATE ex rel. David GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 89-KH-0831.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 26, 1989.

In re Green, David; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 20822-KH; Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 61159.

Denied. Prison records reflect that relator is being given credit for the federal sentence which is being served concurrently with his state sentence. When relator has satisfied his federal term, the federal detainer will be removed from his prison records.
1 COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CRYSTALL LYNN LOWE

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 255

- CR

Appeal from the

426 th D istrict Court

of Bell County, Texas

(TC# 75432 )

O R D E R

The Reporter’s Record in the above styled and numbered cause was due September 24,

2016 , but it has not been filed . The Court Reporter has notified the Court that Appellant has not

made a request for the preparation of the reporter’s record. On October 11, 2016

, Mr. Steven

Striegler, Appellant’s a ttorney, filed with this Court a Motion to Withdraw as Appellant’s

Appointed Counsel on Appeal a nd Request for Appointment of New Counsel.

Before this Court considers the motion, it is ORDERED that the trial court conduct a

hearing in order to determine if Appellant has retained new counsel or is entitled to the

appointment of counsel on appeal. The trial court is authorized to enter any necessary orders

,

including the appointment of new appellate counsel. In the event the trial court appoints new

counsel to represent Appellant, the court should instruct counsel to take all necessary steps to2

ensure that the reporter’s record is filed.

Further, the trial judge shall enter any necessary orders and/or findings and shall forward

them to the District Clerk of Bell County on or before November 1, 2016. The District Clerk

shall prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and/or orders and

forward the same to this Court on or before November 10, 2016. Further, the transcription of the

hearing shall be prepared, certified and filed with this Court on or before November 10, 2016.

The due date of the Reporter’s Record will be determined after the trial court’s

findings are filed with this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12 th day of October , 201 6

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes , JJ.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2277 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Allyl Pentaerythritol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Allyl 

Pentaerythritol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ALLYL PENTAERYTHRITOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.91 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Allyl Pentaerythritol) is amended by striking the date in 

7 the effective column period and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2277 IS

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Peggy HUFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-1751.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 14, 1989.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Patricia G. Lampert, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*1144LETTS, Judge.

During a prosecution for trafficking in cocaine, the defendant, who was claiming entrapment, sought to introduce testimony from a third party to the effect that that third party had likewise been approached in the same manner, in an unrelated drug transaction, by the same police informant. The trial judge denied the defendant's request, claiming that the third party’s testimony would not be relevant. We reverse.

The excluded testimony would have been relevant on the question of whether the police activity had as its end the interruption of a specific ongoing criminal activity and utilized a means reasonably tailored to apprehend those involved in the ongoing criminal activity. *Cruz v. State,*465 So.2d 516 (Fla.1985). It would be relevant on the issue of whether the informant caused the appellant to engage in the conduct by employing methods of persuasion which created a substantial risk that the crime would be committed by a person other than one who was ready to commit it. *See*§ 777.201, Fla.Stat. (1987). Furthermore, the testimony should also have been admitted because it was relevant to show a common scheme or plan by the informant to instigate drug activity. *See McCrae v. State,*395 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1980).

During closing argument, the prosecutor made it clear that, in his opinion, the defense was a fabrication. This is inappropriate. *See Rosso v. State,*505 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), *Waters v. State,*486 So.2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and *Trinca v. State,*446 So.2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Finally, it was error to admit testimony that the defendant carried a gun to work. Guns had nothing to do with the crime charged. *See Jackson v. State,*522 So.2d 802 (Fla.1988).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.
#### Conrad F. DOBLER v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY and New Orleans Saints Inc. and New Orleans Saints a Partnership Composed of John Mecom, Jr. and Others Qualified to be Doing Business in the State of Louisiana.

No. 87-C-1380.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Dobler, Conrad F.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-6731; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “B”, No. 81-16712.

Prior report: La.App., 508 So.2d 176.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2197 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2197

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on a certain ion exchange 
                                 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 a certain ion exchange 
                                 resin.

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

SECTION 1. A CERTAIN ION EXCHANGE RESIN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.33 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to a certain ion exchange 
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>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTIANS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENES OF SYSTEMS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERNCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          65,556
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               256,883
<PP&E>                                         130,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                (56,774)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 388,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,028,193
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,617,260
<COMMON>                                         12084
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,254,261)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   388,194
<SALES>                                      1,498,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,498,533
<CGS>                                          109,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,533,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               125,318
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             587,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,644,074)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (605,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,038,574
<DISCONTINUED>                                 988,400
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,050,174)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)


</TABLE>
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-63842, 333-66665 and 333-1718 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement
Nos. 333-40167, 333-23575 and 333-14097 on Form S-3 of APAC Customer
Services, Inc. of our report dated February 6, 2003, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of APAC Customer Services, Inc. as of and
for the year ended December 29, 2002 (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating a change in accounting
principle and to the application of procedures relating to certain
disclosures of financial statement amounts related to the 2001 and 2000
financial statements that were audited by other auditors who have ceased
operations and for which we have expressed no opinion or other form of
assurance other than with respect to such disclosures) appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of APAC Customer Services, Inc. for the year ended
December 29, 2002.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 17, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

      In connection with the Annual Report of Central Parking Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2004 (the "Report"), I,
Monroe J. Carell, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (b)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

                                           /s/ MONROE J. CARELL, JR.
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Monroe J. Carell, Jr.
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

      A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS
BEEN PROVIDED TO CENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CENTRAL
PARKING CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR
ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

      The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the
Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to
be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
such filing. This certification is executed as of December 17, 2004.