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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 268

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 1995

Referred to the Committee on Resources

AN ACT

To authorize the collection of fees for expenses for triploid

grass carp certification inspections, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. COLLECTION OF FEES FOR TRIPLOID GRASS

4 CARP CERTIFICATION INSPECTIONS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior, act6 ing through the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service

7 (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Director’’), may charge

8 reasonable fees for expenses to the Federal Government

9 for triploid grass carp certification inspections requested

10 by a person who owns or operates an aquaculture facility.

11 (b) AVAILABILITY.—All fees collected under sub12 section (a) shall be available to the Director until ex13 pended, without further appropriations.
2

S 268 RFH

1 (c) USE.—The Director shall use all fees collected

2 under subsection (a) to carry out the activities referred

3 to in subsection (a).

Passed the Senate April 26 (legislative day, April

24), 1995.

Attest: SHEILA P. BURKE,

Secretary.
#### Robert Lee KERNELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29007.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 5, 1957.

Chas. H. Dean, Plainview, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful transportation of whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, twenty days in jail and a fine of $300.

Our able State’s Attorney confesses error herein, and we agree.

The State introduced in evidence the order calling the prohibition election and the order canvassing the results of such election, and nothing further, even though the appellant called the court’s attention to the fact that the dry status of the county had not been proven.

Langston v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 35, 171 S.W.2d 371, is here controlling. Therein, we said:

> “The record is silent as to whether there ever had been any publication of the proclamation declaring the result of the election. Under the authorities, there seems to be no doubt that the evidence is insufficient to show the commission of an offense. See Ellis v. State, 59 Tex.Cr.R. 626, [at page] 629, on motion for rehearing, 130 S.W. 170, 171; Craig v. State, [145 Tex.Cr.R. 186] 167 S.W.2d 523. This court has held many times that proof must be made, not only of the election and the result thereof, but it must be followed by a proclamation of the result of the election duly published or posted in the manner and form and for the length of time required by law. Until that is done, the law does not become effective. See Ellis v. State, supra; also Jackson v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 157 S.W. 1196; Walker v. State, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 536, 163 S.W. 71, 72; Watson v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 632, 122 S.W.2d 311; Baldridge v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 590, 106 S.W.2d 700; Gallagher v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 133, 151 S.W.2d 819; Craig v. State, supra.”

Upon another trial, appellant’s requested charge on circumstantial evidence should be given.

Because the evidence is insufficient to prove that the area was dry, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             Date: September 17, 2008/s/ Theodore AbajianTheodore AbajianExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO**

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

**(18U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the accompanyingquarterly report of Whittier Energy Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ended September 30, 2005, (the “Report”), I, Bryce W.Rhodes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to myknowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  November 14, 2005 | */s/ Bryce W. Rhodes*    | * * |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------|----------|
|                          | Bryce  W. Rhodes         |
|                          | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
From: Tara Fitzgerald

To: Park, Iain J

Cc: Robert Green; Daniel Tibuni; Timoleon Mouzakis; Diane Cook

Subject: Re: FW: Revision to T1000 Exemption request

Date: 01/24/2014 11:59 AM

Iain,

Please clarify your response to first question from the 12/31/2013 letter.

Please clarify your response for why the exemption is needed by providing data to

show why the Trent 1000 Package C configuration does not meet 33.27

requirements while previous Trent 1000 models met the requirement.

Please clarify what testing Rolls-Royce has done on Trent 1000 Package C

configuration engines to support your terminal speed estimates. 

Please clarify your response to which models require the exemption by providing the

terminal speeds and margins for each model.

Tara Fitzgerald

Federal Aviation Administration

Engine & Propeller Directorate Rulemaking and Policy, ANE-111

12 New England Executive Park

Burlington, MA 01803

781-238-7130

▼ "Park, Iain J" ---01/23/2014 10:21:58 AM---Tara Bob has just reported the same

thing. Please try this version - I sent it to myself and it appe

From: "Park, Iain J" <Iain.Park@Rolls-Royce.com>

 ANE-111, Rulemaking and Policy

To: Tara Fitzgerald/ANE/FAA@FAA, 

Cc: "Park, Iain J" <Iain.Park@Rolls-Royce.com>

Date: 01/23/2014 10:21 AM

Subject: FW: Revision to T1000 Exemption request

Tara

Bob has just reported the same thing. Please try this version – I sent it to myself

and it appeared to be OK.

Please tell me if it works as I need to worry about the version I have posted on the

regulation.gov site

_____________________________________________

From: Park, Iain J 
Sent: 23 January 2014 15:17

To: Robert.Green@faa.gov

Subject: Revision to T1000 Exemption request

Please try this version – if it works could you tell me and I will forward it to Tara

Please find attached, a revised petition providing the additional information in

support of the petition presented in our letter to the FAA dated December 9,

2013. This submission specifically responds to a letter we received from the FAA,

Aircraft and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, dated December

31, 2013.

Iain J Park

Airworthiness Specialist

Rolls-royce plc

Tel: +44 (0) 1332249292

Mob: +44 (0) 7968906666 

e-mail: iain.park@rolls-royce.com

The data contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may contain confidential

information. If you have received it in error you should notify the sender

immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from your system and contact

+44 (0) 1332 242424 (the Rolls-Royce IT Security Director) if you need

assistance. Please do not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to

any other person.

An e-mail response to this address may be subject to interception or

monitoring for operational reasons or for lawful business practices.
(c) 2013 Rolls-Royce plc

Registered office: 65 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6AT Company

number: 1003142. Registered in England. [attachment "HP shaft overspeed -

petition.pdf" deleted by Tara Fitzgerald/ANE/FAA]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 596 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 596

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow deductions for 
       advertising and promotional expenses for tobacco products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 22 (legislative day, March 16), 1995

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow deductions for 
       advertising and promotional expenses for tobacco products.

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

SECTION 1. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS FOR ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONAL 
              EXPENSES RELATING TO TOBACCO PRODUCT USE.

    (a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle A 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items not deductible) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 280I. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR TOBACCO ADVERTISING AND 
              PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES.

    No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for expenses 
relating to advertising or promoting cigars, cigarettes, smokeless 
tobacco, pipe tobacco, or any similar tobacco product. For purposes of 
this section, any term used in this section which is also used in 
section 5702 shall have the same meaning given such term by section 
5702.''
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such part IX 
is amended by adding after the item relating to section 280H the 
following new item:

                                  ``Sec. 280I. Disallowance of 
                                        deduction for tobacco 
                                        advertising and promotion 
                                        expenses.''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1995.
                                 <all>
```
#### Georgie Dickens HERBORT and Husband, Walter Herbort, Appellants, v. Louis C. WEINHEIMER, Jr., Appellee.

No. 13106.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 19, 1956.

Jackson & Jackson, Crystal City, for appellants.

Frank D. Masters, San Antonio, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order sustaining the plea of privilege of appellee, Louis C. Weinheimer, Jr., to be sued in Bexar County, where he resides. The suit involves the custody of a minor child. On January 31, 1956, appellant, now Mrs. *674Walter Herbort, filed suit against appellee alleging that she was a resident of Dimmit County; that appellee was a resident of Bexar County; that she and appellee were the parents of the minor, Gladen Robert Weinheimer; that they had been divorced by decree of the District Court of Bexar County, and that the custody of the child had been awarded to appellee. She sought a decree changing the custody of the child and an order requiring appellee to pay child support money to her based upon the proposed change of custody.

Her petition on its face made out a case for Bexar County venue on both the custody and support features of the petition. Yeagle v. Bull, Tex.Civ.App., 235 S.W.2d 226. The trial court deemed appellant’s controverting affidavit insufficient as a matter of law and accordingly sustained the plea of privilege.

Exception 29a of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ.Stats., relied upon by appellant, is not applicable to the case. This section must be used in connection with some other exception to the venue article and can not be invoked upon the theory that the child was a resident of Dimmit County. Pioneer Building & Loan Association v. Gray, 132 Tex. 509, 125 S.W.2d 284; Rudco Oil & Gas Co. v. Ogden, Tex.Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 586; Clark, Venue in Civil Actions, 175, § 2. Furthermore, if it be considered that the child was with the appellant and physically present in Dimmit County, this circumstance would not control the venue issue. Fox v. Fox. Tex.Civ.App., 281 S.W.2d 122.

In her brief the appellant contends that the trial court rendered a summary judgment and in effect sustained a demurrer to her controverting affidavit. As above stated, the venue facts were established by the allegations of appellant’s petition. The hearing of evidence was consequently unnecessary. We find no request to amend the controverting affidavit in the transcript, and it is not shown by the brief that an amendment would or could aid the appellant’s case. The contention that appel-lee by filing a pleading designated as a supplemental answer waived his plea of privilege is not well taken. This answer was in effect a reply to the controverting affidavit and a re-assertion rather than a waiver of the plea of privilege.

The order appealed from is affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 616

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide parity between the United

States and certain free trade agreement countries with respect to the

exemption for personal and household effects purchased abroad by returning residents, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 24 (legislative day, MARCH 23), 1995

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

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide parity between

the United States and certain free trade agreement countries with respect to the exemption for personal and

household effects purchased abroad by returning residents, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. DUTY-FREE TREATMENT FOR PERSONAL AND

4 HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 321(b) of the Tariff Act

6 of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1321(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘The
2

•S 616 IS

1 Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) The Secretary’’, and by

2 adding at the end the following new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of

4 law, in the case of returning residents and non5 residents arriving in the United States from a coun6 try—

7 ‘‘(A) that is contiguous to the United

8 States, and

9 ‘‘(B) with respect to which the United

10 States has a free trade agreement,

11 the amount of the exemption provided pursuant to

12 this section shall not exceed an amount equal to the

13 exemption for personal and household effects ac14 quired in the United States provided by such coun15 try to residents returning to (or nonresidents arriv16 ing in) such country.’’.

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

18 this section shall apply to goods described in section

19 321(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, that are entered or

20 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after

21 the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment

22 of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                   5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR NOONEY INCOME FUND LTD.,  L.P. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                              0000725266
<NAME>                                             NOONEY INCOME FUND LTD., L.P.

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                 865,287
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          115,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       990,845
<PP&E>                                              10,393,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                       4,731,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       6,713,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  293,145
<BONDS>                                              1,197,000
<COMMON>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                           5,103,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         6,713,495
<SALES>                                              1,772,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     1,795,659
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1,485,091
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     117,437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        193,131
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                           193,131
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            10.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50228 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ELOY JULIAN CARDENAS BACA, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ Consolidated with 01-50229

___________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE OBED ESPARZA-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant,

____________________ Consolidated with No. 01-50237

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
VICTOR SANCHEZ-MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. EP-00-CR-1891-ALL-H, 00-CR-1497-ALL & 00-CR-607-ALL

-------------------- December 12, 2001No. 01-50228 c/w Nos. 01-50229 & 01-50237

-2-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Elroy Julian Cardenas Baca, Jose Obed Esparza-Gonzalez, and Victor Sanchez-Munoz all argue that they are entitled to be resentenced because the district court failed to verify that their counsel had read and discussed their presentence reports (PSRs) with them prior to sentencing in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(A). We agree that the district court failed to comply with Rule 32(c)(3)(A) in each of the appellants’ cases. However, because the appellants did not raise the issue of noncompliance in the district court, the court will correct the error only if it was plain and affected the appellants’ substantial rights. See United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez , 268 F.3d 272, 274 (5th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). The appellants failed to object to the Rule 32(c)(3)(A) violation in the district court. The appellants have not asserted that they did not review or discuss their PSRs with their defense counsel, but rely upon their respective records’ failure to indicate that they had reviewed and discussed the PSR with counsel. Thus, the appellants have not asserted that they were prejudiced by the court’s Rule 32(c)(3)(A) oversight.No. 01-50228 c/w Nos. 01-50229 & 01-50237

-3- Because the appellants have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating prejudice, i.e ., that their substantial rights were affected, they have not demonstrated plain error. See United States v. Vasquez , 216 F.3d at 456, 459 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 972 (2000). The appellants’ convictions and sentences
are 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 **

|         |                                   |                              |
|--------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|    |                              |                         |
|         |                                   | */s/              Robert Russell* |
|         | *Robert              Russell*          |
|         | *Chief              Executive Officer* |

|                                        |                                                        |                                 |
|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                                   |                                                   |                            |
|                                        |                                                   | */s/              Marcia Pearlstein* |
|                                        | *Marcia              Pearlstein*                            |
|                                        | *Interim              Chief              Financial Officer* |
| *Dated:                July 7 , 2006*  |                                                        |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7086

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FELIX ORIAKHI,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 97-7087

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FELIX ORIAKHI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.

(CR-90-72-K, CA-97-656-K)
2

Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 17, 1997

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Felix Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se. Katharine Jacobs Armentrout, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and denying his motion for stay (No. 97-

7087), and denying his motion for evidentiary hearing (No. 97-

7086). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Oriakhi, Nos. CR-90-72-K; CA97-656-K (D. Md. May 20, June 12 & July 23, 1997). We reject Appellant's contention raised on appeal regarding the competence of the

district court judge as wholly conclusory. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
| Name      of Entity             | State      of Organization |
|---------------------------------|----------------------------|
| Merisel      Americas, Inc.     | Delaware                   |
| Merisel      Properties, Inc.   | Delaware                   |
| Color      Edge LLC             | Delaware                   |
| Color      Edge Visual LLC      | Delaware                   |
| Comp      24 LLC                | Delaware                   |
| Crush      Creative LLC         | Delaware                   |
| Dennis      Curtin Studios, LLC | Delaware                   |
| MADP,      LLC                  | Delaware                   |
| Advertising      Props, Inc.    | Georgia                    |
| Fuel      Digital, LLC          | Delaware                   |