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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2401 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2401

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain staple fibers of 
  viscose rayon, carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 certain staple fibers of 
  viscose rayon, carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN STAPLE FIBERS OF VISCOSE RAYON, CARDED, COMBED, OR 
              OTHERWISE PROCESSED FOR SPINNING.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.34 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain staple fibers of 
viscose rayon, carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' 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to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 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 31.1

302(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Cindy K. Swank, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of APD Antiquities, 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 and 15d-15) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:



a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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.



5.  The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)  all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b)  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: December 6, 2006

/s/ Cindy K. Swank



Cindy K. Swank, President

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
#### BAYLY, MARTIN & FAY, INC., a Colorado corporation, and Norman Sterling, Jr., individually, Petitioners, v. PETE’S SATIRE, INC., a Colorado corporation, d/b/a the Satire Lounge, Pete Contos, an individual, and Commercial Union Insurance Company, a Massachusetts corporation, Respondents.

No. 85SC164.

Supreme Court of Colorado.

Oct. 21, 1985.

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

Whether, in a case based on negligent failure of an insurance agent to obtain coverage, the “insured” or the agent has the burden of proving that insurancé was available to cover the specific risk to which the “insured” is exposed in an underlying lawsuit.

DENIED AS TO ALL OTHER ISSUES.
#### Eugene BAKER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 88-KO-2549.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Baker, Eugene; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR88-0889; Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, No. 87-25060.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Profire Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the *"Report"*), I, Brenton W. Hatch, 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 |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date:  | November 18, 2009 |   | By:    | /s/ Brenton W. Hatch    |   |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |              |   |   | Brenton W. Hatch        |   |
|   |              |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|        |                   |        |        |                         |        |  |
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 23, 2012.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:

1. *Cooper Investments, Inc.,* Farmington, Missouri; to become a bank holding company by retaining at least 25 percent of the voting shares of First State Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly control First State Community Bank, both in Farmington, Missouri.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 26, 2012.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2012-7570 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Alexandre Borisovski, Plaintiff-Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Otis Noboa, Defendants-Appellants.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony Cannataro, J.), entered July 6, 2017, which denied their CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss the complaint.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Anthony Cannataro, J.), entered July 6, 2017, reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.</p><p>Accepting plaintiff's allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, as we must on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (<i>see Leon v Martinez</i>, 84 NY2d 83, 87—88 [1994]), plaintiff failed to state a cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, arising from an MTA police officer's order directing him to leave a certain Staten Island train station. Plaintiff failed to make sufficiently specific allegations of fact indicating that he was deprived of his constitutional rights (<i>see Alfaro Motors, Inc. v Ward</i>, 814 F2d 883, 887 [2nd Cir 1987]), and failed to adequately allege that the act that allegedly deprived him of his rights was the result of an official municipal policy or custom (<i>see Monell v New York City Dept. of Social Servs.</i>, 436 US 658, 690-691 [1978]; <i>Thompson v City of New York</i>, __ AD3d __, 2018 NY Slip Op 02267 [1st Dept 2018]). Plaintiff's broad and conclusory statements are insufficient to state a section 1983 claim (<i>see Pang Hung Leung v City of New York</i>, 216 AD2d 10, 11 [1995]). Similarly, plaintiff's allegations of wrongful training and hiring are conclusory (<a href="../2017/2017_06898.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Thomas v City of New York</i>, 154 AD3d 417</a>, 418 [2017]).</p><p>Plaintiff's State common-law claims for wrongful ejection and arbitrary refusal to carry him as a passenger should also have been dismissed. No allegations are made that plaintiff was prevented from boarding any train (<i>see Barney v Oyster Bay &amp; Huntington Steamboat Co., </i>67 NY 301, 302 [1876]; <i>compare Borisovski v City of New York</i>, 41 Misc 3d 126[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51649[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013] [arbitrary refusal to carry plaintiff as a passenger on its ferry]) or that he was wrongfully ejected from a train (<i>see Gillespie v Brooklyn Hgts. R.R. Co.</i>, 178 NY 347 [1904]; <i>Hamilton v Third Ave. R.R. Co.</i>, 53 NY 25 [1873]). Indeed, plaintiff conceded at his General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that he "didn't intend to use the train."</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: April 23, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,492
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               559,065
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (454,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (454,573)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (454,573)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (18.71)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (18.71)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
** **

** **

 

 

 

 

** EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Steven D. Hunt, certify that: 

     1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC; 

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

     4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

     b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

     c)disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

     a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

     b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting. 

|                   |   |                                    |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| By:                    |   | /s/ Steven D. Hunt                      |
|  

 

  |   |                                    |
|                   |   | Steven D. Hunt*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: July 11, 2008
#### E. Lamar McMATH, Husband, Appellant, v. Floannel Fuqua McMATH, Wife, Appellee.

No. BQ-63.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 16, 1988.

William H. Maness, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Lacy Mahon, Jr., of Lacy Mahon, Jr. and Mark H. Mahon, P.A., Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.

SHIVERS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, in which the appellant/husband raises four issues: (1) that the trial court abused its discretion in the division of marital assets; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of permanent periodic alimony; (3) that improper comments and questions made by the wife’s attorney during the final hearing influenced the trial court; and (4) that the trial court erred in requiring the husband to maintain a life insurance policy naming the wife as beneficiary.

We find the first two issues to be without merit, as the division of marital assets and the award of alimony do not constitute an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). The third issue is likewise without merit, as the record does not indicate that wife’s attorney’s questions and comments, even if we were to find them improper, had any effect on the trial court’s division of assets or determination of alimony-

*1028We affirm the fourth issue on the basis of our court’s recent decision in *Fiveash v. Fiveash,*523 So.2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). As we did in *Fiveash,*we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

> Does § 61.08(3) Florida Statutes (1985) authorize a trial court to require an alimony paying spouse to maintain a life insurance policy securing said alimony award, such that upon the death of the paying spouse the receiving spouse is *only*entitled to receive from the insurance the sum total of any existing alimony arrearages?

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, J., and BOWER, N. RUSSELL, Associate Judge, concur.
ZUCKERT SCOUTT 6- RASENBERGER, L.L.P. 

ATT ::>. l'l 1:.\ q ~ L \ 

JOHN E. GILLICK 

888 Seventeenth Street, Nw, Washington, DC 20006-3309 

Telephone [202] 298-8660 Fax [202] 342-0683 

wwwzsrlawcom 

Robert Finamore 

Acting Chief, Foreign Air Carrier 

Licensing Division 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

February 1, 2012 

DIRECT DIAL (202)973-7939 

jcgillick,(/>zsrlaw .com 

Re: Application of Polskie Linie Lotnicze S.A. (Docket OST -2012- ) 

Dear Mr. Finamore: 

On January 30, 2012, Polskie Linie Lotnicze S.A. ("LOT") filed an Application for an 

Exemption and Amended Foreign Air Carrier Permit in the above referenced docket. 

We have completed polling and no carrier has objected to the grant of LOT's application. 

We respectfully request that the Department proceed to grant the requested authority as soon as 

possible. 

Sincerely, 

John E. Gillick 

Counsel for Polskie Linie Lotnicze S.A. 

CC to: Service List
#### Gary Wayne THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-407.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 10, 1988.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, David P. Gauldin, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Ro-yall P. Terry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for. appellee.

NIMMONS, Judge.

We affirm except that the trial court’s imposition of the count four sentence consecutively to counts two and three is reversed. *Rease v. State,*493 So.2d 454 (Fla.1986). On remand the trial court shall either: (1) amend the count four sentence so as to run such sentence concurrently with counts two and three, or (2) reimpose the count four sentence consecutively, as before, to counts two and three. However if the second alternative is chosen, the trial court shall be required to set forth in writing reasons for departure inasmuch as such a sentence would be regarded as an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines under the rationale of *Rease.*Further, if the second alternative is chosen, the presence of the defendant before the trial court shall be required unless such presence is appropriately waived by the defendant. If the first alternative is selected, the defendant’s presence before the trial court shall not be required.

AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SMITH, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_Quick_Start_Guide_v1.4_en.zip
#### STOEHNER SERVICE SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, etc., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 87-1768, 87-2949.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1988.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 13, 1988.

Jesse C. Jones and John L. Chalif of Bailey, Dawes & Hunt, Miami, for appellant.

John R. Hargrove of Tew, Jorden & Schulte, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We sua sponte consolidate these actions and reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment against appellant on its claims for fraud and intentional interference with a contract. We believe factual issues exist as to appellee Bell South’s responsibility for its manager’s and other employees’ interference in a contract between appellant and Southern Bell. Similarly, we believe a fact issue exists as to Southern Bell’s responsibility for fraud in entering into the contract with the appellant knowing that the agent delegated to supervise the contract intended to prevent the appellant from successfully performing the contract.

LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents in part with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting in part.

I agree that a fact issue exists in the intentional interference action, but I would affirm the trial court’s judgment on the fraud action.