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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2103 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain static converters. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain static converters. 

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 STATIC CONVERTERS. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2103 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Static converters capable of 

converting up to 440 volts direct current to no less than 

12 volts direct current (provided for in subheading 

8504.40.95) certified by the 

importer for use in electrically powered vehicles of 

subheading 8703.90 in which 

an on board gasoline engine 

is used to run a generator 

that recharges the electric 

drive motor battery ............... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2011 of Majestic Oil & Gas, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Patrick MontalbanChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer





May 16, 2011




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Majestic Oil & Gas, Inc. and will be retained by Majestic Oil & Gas, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2399 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic 

acid, 4-amino-3,6-bis[[5-[[4-chloro-6-[methyl[2-(methylamino)–2- 

oxoethyl]amino]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-2-sulfophenyl]azo]-5-hydroxy-, 

lithium potassium sodium salt. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. HAGAN 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 2,7- 

Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3,6-bis[[5-[[4- 

chloro-6-[methyl[2-(methylamino)–2-oxoethyl]amino]- 

1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-2-sulfophenyl]azo]-5-hydroxy-, 

lithium potassium sodium salt. 

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 2399 IS

1 SECTION 1. 2,7-NAPHTHALENEDISULFONIC ACID, 4-AMINO2 3,6-BIS[[5-[[4-CHLORO-6-[METHYL[2- 

3 (METHYLAMINO)-2-OXOETHYL]AMINO]-1,3,5- 

4 TRIAZIN-2-YL]AMINO]-2-SULFOPHENYL]AZO]-5- 

5 HYDROXY-, LITHIUM POTASSIUM SODIUM 

6 SALT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.88 of the Har8 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

9 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3,6-bis[[5-[[4- 

10 chloro-6-[methyl[2-(methylamino)–2-oxoethyl]amino]- 

11 1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-2-sulfophenyl]azo]-5-hydroxy-, 

12 lithium potassium sodium salt) is amended by striking 

13 ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

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

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

17 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
GRANT COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

Foreign Trade Zone #203 

7810 Andrews St. N.E., Suite 200 

Moses Lake, WA, USA 98837-3204 

PHONE 509-762-5363 

FAX 509-762-2713 

E-MAIL info@portofnnoseslake.cotn 

WEB SITE wviw.portofmoseslak8.com 

March 30,2010 

Dennis DeVaney, Chief 

U. S, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

400 7'" Street, S.W„ Room 6401 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Air Service - Moses Lake, Washington 

("• > 

C> 

Dear Mr. DeVaney: 

As you know, the Port of Moses Lalce, owner and operator of the Grant Coimty International Airport, 

entered into an agreement with SkyWest Airlines to provide air service effective June 4, 2009. This 

agreement included a revenue guarantee through a Small Community Air Services Agreement. SkyWest 

Airlines provided daily flights from Moses Lake to Seattle. Over the past year, the Community has made 

every effort to support and market the air service. 

At this time, SkyWest Airlines and the Port of Moses Lake mutually agreed to not renew the contracts 

beyond June 8, 2010. The Community hereby acknowledges the request to terminate service and 

supports SkyWest ceasing service in less than 90 days, 

Sincerely, 

PORT OF MOSES LAKE 

Michael B. Conley, President 

Board of Commissioners 

Grant County Port District No. 10 

F:/mswoKl/ciaig/DOT SkyWest 3 2010 

Executive Managsr; CRAIG L. BALDWIN 

Tour Partner For Progress" 

Commissioners: MICHAEL B. CONLEY - DAVID "KENT" JONES - BRIAN R McGOWAN
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Hillie PRICE Jr.

No. 86-K-2213.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Price, Hillie Jr.; applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR-85-1169; Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 33761.

Prior report: La.App., 495 So.2d 389.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 11

                             VODAVI TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       Year ended December 31,
                                                                       -----------------------
                                                               1994             1995             1996
                                                               ----             ----             ----
<S>                                                       <C>               <C>               <C>          
Net income (loss)                                         $   1,053,093     $    457,808      $ (4,409,763)
Interest savings from assumed retirement of
  debt, net of tax                                                  --               --                --
                                                          -------------     ------------      -----------

Pro forma net income (loss)                               $   1,053,093     $    457,808      $ (4,409,763)
                                                          =============     ============      ============

Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding                                                 1,716,267        2,690,267         4,342,238
Additional shares assuming conversion of
  stock options and warrants                                    201,079           79,167               --
                                                          -------------     ------------      -----------
                                                              1,917,346        2,769,434         4,342,238
                                                          =============     ============      ============

Primary earnings (loss) per common share                  $        0.55     $       0.17      $      (1.02)
                                                          =============     ============      ============
</TABLE>
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James Anthony BARBER, Appellee.

Nos. 87-2971, 87-3007.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1988.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Yvette Rhodes Prescott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Thomas G. Murray, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Before BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse. The trial court failed to provide a contemporaneous written statement setting forth the reasons for the guidelines departure. *State v. Oden,*478 So.2d 51 (Fla.1985), *appeal after remand,*502 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); *State v. Williams,*515 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); *Ree v. State,*512 So.2d 1085 (Fla 4th DCA 1987); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll). The defendant should be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. *Williams.*

REVERSED.
#### James CARDAMAN, Appellant, v. SPORTATORIUM, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 4-86-1446.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 8, 1987.

*32Larry Klein and Julie Pressly of Klein & Beranek, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Chi-kovsky & Ben, Hollywood, for appellant.

G. William Bissett of Preddy, Kutner, Hardy, Rubinoff, Brown & Thompson, Miami, for appellees.

LETTS, Judge.

A night security guard, employed to protect the grounds and buildings of the Spor-tatorium, detected an unauthorized vehicle driving onto the premises. To further investigate, he entered the main building and climbed a renovation scaffolding for a better view. He fell and was injured. After a jury verdict in the guard’s favor, the trial judge granted the previously filed motion for a directed verdict in favor of the Spor-tatorium. The guard now appeals. We reverse.

The sole issue before us is whether, as a matter of law, the guard exceeded the scope of his invitation, when he climbed a scaffold in the dark. The law on this question is aptly stated in the case of *Ire Florida Income Partners, Ltd. v. Scott,*381 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), *cert. denied,*388 So.2d 1118 (Fla.1980), as follows:

> [A]n owner ... is liable for an injury sustained by a person, who entered the premises by invitation, ... only where the part of the premises on which the injury was sustained was covered by the invitation. If a person, though on the premises by invitation, goes to a place not covered by the invitation, the owner’s duty of care owed to that person as invitee ceases forthwith. The duty to keep the premises safe for invitees extends to all portions of the premises that are included in the invitation and that are necessary or convenient for the invitee to visit or use in the course of the business for which the invitation was extended.

We would agree that the security guard was foolhardy to climb a scaffolding in the dark. However, we are unprepared to rule, as a matter of law, that the foolhardy act, for which the jury found him comparatively negligent,1 was beyond the scope of his invitation. The Sporatorium contends that one reason for his seeking higher ground was to find a hiding place. Maybe so, but another uncontroverted reason was to better survey the intruders. His duties encompassed the security of the inside as well as the outside of the building and he most certainly was not engaged in some private misadventure of his own in a forbidden area. *See Mesan v. Spokane World Exposition,*18 Wash.App. 609, 570 P.2d 157 (1977), and *Anderson v. Walthal,*468 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

REVERSED AND REMANDED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.

DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.

1

. The Sportatorium's negligence consisted of its failure to comply with the building code by not erecting a three-foot guardrail on the platform atop the scaffold from which the security guard fell.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2136 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2136

                To suspend temporarily the duty on HPHP.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                To suspend temporarily the duty on HPHP.

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

SECTION 1. HPHP.

    (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       Hydroxypivalyl     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        hydroxypivalate                                                    31/2011.......
                        (CAS No. 1115-20-
                        4) (provided in
                        subheading
                        2918.19.90)......

    (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 enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-20423

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Christopher Jamal Alridge, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-681-1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Christopher Jamal Alridge appeals the 70-month, within-guidelines 

range sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to possession of a firearm as a 

felon. On appeal, he challenges the application of the sentence enhancement 

under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 28, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-20423 Document: 00515955542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2021
No. 20-20423

2

The district court did not clearly err by applying the enhancement, 

which adds four levels if a defendant “used or possessed any firearm or 

ammunition in connection with another felony.” § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); see 

United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010). Alridge’s 

assertion that “he scooped up the pistol” and that the fight ended moments 

later is consistent with the finding in the presentence report that Alridge took 

the firearm during the assault. Thus, a finding that Alridge assaulted the 

complainant “in the course of committing theft” is plausible in light of the 

record as a whole See Sorrells v. State, 343 S.W.3d 152, 155-56 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2011); Tex. Penal Code § 29.01(1). 

Additionally, we have held that Guideline § 2K2.1 does not expressly 

prohibit the application of both § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) because a firearm was 

stolen and § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing a firearm in connection 

with another felony offense and that the enhancements do not double count, 

impermissibly or otherwise, the same conduct. See United States v. Luna, 165 

F.3d 316, 323-24 (5th Cir. 1999); accord United States v. Jimenez-Elvirez, 862 

F.3d 527, 541 (5th Cir. 2017). A panel of this court may not overrule the 

decision of another panel absent an en banc or superseding Supreme Court 

decision. United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 & n.34 (5th Cir. 2002); 

see also Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986). 

Furthermore, we continue to reject the assertion that a firearm did not 

facilitate another felony offense when there was no separation of time or 

conduct between the theft of the firearm and the illegal possession of the 

firearm. See United States v. Perez, 585 F.3d 880, 886-87 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Alridge’s possession of the stolen firearm had the potential to facilitate the 

ongoing robbery. See § 2K2.1, comment. (n.14). 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-20423 Document: 00515955542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

513 

KA 14-00376 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD M. LEONARD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

EASTON THOMPSON KASPEREK SHIFFRIN LLP, ROCHESTER (BRIAN SHIFFRIN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ROBERT J. SHOEMAKER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of

the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of

the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), entered January 29,

2014. The order denied the motion of defendant seeking to vacate the

judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Same memorandum as in People v Leonard ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d

___ [June 19, 2015]).

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TARAH ELIZABETH CORDIER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 226 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

# AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Notice of Establishment of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) and Solicitation of Nominations for Membership; Correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Energy (DOE) published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 8, 2012, a notice of Establishment of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) and Solicitation of Nominations for Membership. The notice contained incorrect language. As a result, the language is being corrected in this notice.                    

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of March 8, 2012, in FR DOC. 2012-5661, on pages 14008-14009, please make the following corrections:                    

                        In the                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         heading, page 14009, second column, first paragraph, seventh line, please remove the language, “minorities, women”, and add in its place “the needs of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups”.                    

      ( print page 15746)    
Issued in Washington, DC on March 12, 2012.

LaTanya R. Butler,

Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-6415 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20999

 

ARMANDO QUINTERO RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE;

JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General;

DORIS MEISSNER, Commissioner of 

Immigration and Naturalization Service,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-1835)

 

April 13, 1999

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Armando Quintero Ramirez (Ramirez) brought

this action against the Immigration and Naturalization Service

(INS) challenging its denial of his application for Temporary

Residence as a Special Agricultural Worker. Ramirez is not subject
2

to any deportation or similar order. This suit is not brought as

a putative class action and there is no party plaintiff other than

Ramirez individually. The district court granted the INS’s motion

to dismiss and entered judgment dismissing the case for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Ramirez appeals.

After considering the record, briefs, and argument of counsel,

and being essentially in agreement with the reasons orally given by

the district court at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, we

conclude that the district court’s judgment is correct and it is

accordingly 

AFFIRMED.
EGU MACT RIA - Interagency comments on Ch 1 and 5
12/14/2011 05:05 PM

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Hi Bob, Attached are interagency comments on the redline versions of Chapter 1

and 5 of the RIA.

Regards,
Cortney

Chapter 5_HealthWelfareCobenefits_1209_I nteragencyCommentsu nderEO13563.docx

Chapter 1_IntroductionBackground_1209_Int eragencyCommentsunderEO13563.doc
EXHIBIT
23.1

CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Board of Directors
Verity Inc:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-113776, 333-99755, 333-91138, 333-68586, 333-68096, 333-60676, 333-51642,
333-89701, 333-66913, 333-44877, 333-43905, 333-36527, 333-26869, 333-24753 and
333-2600) on Form S-8 of Verity, Inc. of our report dated June 22, 2004, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Verity, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of May 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes
in stockholders equity, comprehensive income, and cash flows for the year
then ended and the related financial statement schedule, which report
appears in the May 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Verity Inc.

| | /s/ KPMG LLP
| | ------------

Mountain
View, California
August 11, 2004

99

---

---