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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2085 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2085

 To amend title 10, United States Code, regarding restrictions on the 
    use of Department of Defense funds and facilities for abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 2, 2011

  Ms. Slaughter (for herself, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Lee of California, Mrs. 
   Davis of California, Ms. DeGette, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. 
 Matsui, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Engel, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Nadler, 
Mr. Towns, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Rangel, Ms. 
Schakowsky, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Capps, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Moran, Ms. 
Fudge, Ms. Moore, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Holt, Mr. Rothman of 
   New Jersey, Mr. Olver, Mr. Pallone, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Ellison, Mr. 
 Quigley, Ms. Speier, Ms. Berkley, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Mr. Conyers, 
Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, and Mr. Hastings of Florida) introduced 
   the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, regarding restrictions on the 
    use of Department of Defense funds and facilities for abortions.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Access to Reproductive Care 
and Health for Military Women Act'' or the ``MARCH for Military Women 
Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDS FOR ABORTIONS IN CASES OF 
              RAPE AND INCEST.

    Section 1093(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``or in a case in 
which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest''.

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS POLICY REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF 
              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES.

    Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 
2, is further amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (b); and
            (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a) Restriction on Use 
        of Funds.--''.
                                 <all>
```
UserName: Password:

Access My Subscriptions | Register | Contact Us | Forgot? | Help

Search Platts

Advanced Search

Brazil to raise ethanol mix in gasoline to 25% from 20% May 1

Rio de Janeiro (Platts)--1Mar2013/1153 am EST/1653 GMT

The Brazilian government Friday announced a rise in the amount of ethanol mixed into gasoline sold at the pumps to 25% from 20% from May 1.

The announcement was published in the official Union Diary and, the government said, was taken "bearing in mind the necessity of guaranteeing the adequate supply of

fuel throughout Brazilian territory."

The government reduced the mix to 20% from 25% in 2011, and the new increase was hinted by Mines and Energy Minister Edison Lobao in January.

The announcement will benefit state-controlled oil major Petrobras. The company loses money importing gasoline at international prices to meet rising domestic demand,

which it then sells at lower prices set by the government. Petrobras announced refinery price increases of 6.6% for gasoline and 5.4% for diesel in January, but analysts

said the rise was not enough to offset the losses.

Sales of 'gasoline C', mixed with ethanol for sale at Brazilian pumps, rose from 35.491 million cubic meters in 2011 to 39.698 million cu m in 2012, the National Petroleum

Agency, ANP, said Thursday. Brazil's gasoline imports rose to 3.780 million cu m (998.570 million gallons) in 2012 from 2.186 million cu m in 2011, the ANP said.

--Dom Phillips, newsdesk@platts.com

--Edited by Jonathan Dart, jonathan_dart@platts.com

Similar stories appear in Biofuelscan See more information at http://www.platts.com/Products/biofuelscan

Brazil to raise ethanol mix in gasoline to 25% from 20% May 1 - Oil | Plat... http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/riodejaneiro/brazil-to-raise-ethano...

1 of 1 11/20/2013 3:02 PM
#### HARRIS v. STATE.

No. 23336.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 1, 1946.

*102W. E. Martin, of Abilene, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100 and thirty days’ confinement in jail.

Russell, an inspector of the Liquor Control Board and the purchaser named in the information, testified that he purchased from appellant a bottle of whisky, for which he paid him $10.00. He fixed the place and date of the sale as appellant’s home in Nolan County on the 9th of August, 1945.

Nolan County was shown to be a dry area within the meaning of the Liquor Control Act, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 —1 et seq.

Appellant did not testify.

His wife testified, upon direct examination, that she was at home the entire day of August 9, 1945; and that the witness did not come to their home that day and buy whisky; but that on the 11th day of August, 1945, the witness Russell came to their home in an intoxicated condition and gave her husband a drink of whisky out of a bottle which looked like the one which Russell identified as the one he purchased from appellant. She further testified that appellant was a carpenter by trade and a member in good standing of the carpenters’ union, and that he did not sell whisky.

Upon cross-examination, and over appellant’s objection she testified that:

(a) on August 11, 1945, two days after the commission of the offense here involved, officers searched appellant’s and her home but found nothing;

(b) twice before that, the sheriff had searched.their premises for whisky;

(c) she had heard that her husband had been suspicioned as a bootlegger; and

(d) upon being asked what her husband’s reputation was for being a bootlegger, she replied that she did not know.

Appellant neither testified nor placed his character or reputation in issue.

Under such circumstances, the State was precluded from attacking the character or reputation of the appellant, and his objection on such grounds should have been sustained. 42 Tex.Jur., p. 298, sec. 233; Walker v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 321, 174 S.W.2d 974; Maxwell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 78 S.W. 516; Hinton v. State, 65 Tex.Cr.R. 408, 144 S.W. 617; Harmon v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 426, 45 S.W.2d 583; Freeze v. State, 133 Tex. Cr.R. 595, 113 S.W.2d 539.

The penalty assessed being in excess of the minimum, we cannot say that the cross-examination was harmless.

For the error herein mentioned, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Adams, Kevin (OST)
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kerry Schuman <kerrys3@hawaii.rr.com> Monday, June 03, 2013 3:20 PM Devany, Dennis (OST); Adams, Kevin (OST) Richard Schuman Schuman Aviation Dear Mr. DeVany and Mr. Adams, ·····!,

..... ' .

1,,.,;

..} I am in full support ofSchumanAviation's bidto provide airplane service between Honolulu and Kamuela onthe Bid Island. I have beentraveling between Honolulu and the Kamuela area through either Hilo or Kailua Kona for over 30 years. To have a safe and dependable optionto fly directly into Kamuela would be a wonderful convenience. Richard Schuman and his staffdo a greatjob with the helicopter and airplane business that they have been involved with for many years. I am confident that Schuman Aviation will do a goodjob and the service between Honolulu and Kamuela will be a welcome addition for so many who will take advantage ofthe convenience. Aloha, Kerry Schuman kerrys3@hawaii.rr.com

1
#### SALINAS v. MOORE, Commissioner of Labor, et al.

No. 11685.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 19, 1947.

J. F. Carl and Joe V. Alamia, both of Edinburg, for appellant.

Price Daniel, Atty. Gen., Grover Sellers, Formerly Atty. Gen., George W. Barcus, Formerly Asst. Atty. Gen., and David Wuntch, Asst. Atty. Gen., all of Austin, for appellees.

MURRAY, Justice.

This suit was instituted by Armando Salinas in the 92d District Court of Hidal-go County, against Mrs. Maureen Moore, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Labor Commissioner of the State of Texas, Thad Hoot, Deputy Labor ■ Commissioner, and the agents, deputies, servants, inspectors or employees, or any one acting by or under the authority or direction of such Commissioner, seeking to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s trucks and from harassing, arresting and detaining plaintiff.

After a hearing before the court without a jury the trial court denied any and all relief prayed for, from which judgment Armando Salinas has prosecuted this appeal.

It appears from the evidence that appellant has a great number of relatives and friends who do agricultural work. Appellant owns three trucks in which he hauls these friends and relatives to and from fields. He also hauls the farm products which these laborers gather. When they pick cotton he weighs the cotton, hauls it to the gin and performs other services for these laborers, such as hauling water for them. For his services appellant receives the sum of fifty cents per hundred pounds of cotton picked by these laborers.

The Employment and Labor Agency Act, passed by the 48th Legislature in 1943 and found in the Acts of the Regular Session, pages 86 to 93, provides, among other things, that any person who desires to engage in the business of “employment or labor agent” must obtain a license to so act. Article 5221a — 4, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. Stats. And certain penalties are provided for failure to obtain such license. Article 1593a, § 16, Vernon’s Ann. Penal Code. Appellant contemplates that the employees of *69the Labor Commissioner may see fit to arrest him and charge him with acting as a “labor agent” without having first obtained a license to so act. He admits he has not obtained a license, but he denies that he is acting as a “labor agent.” He'does not want to be arrested or molested in any way by the Labor Commissioner or any of her agents or employees, and therefore asks that an injunction be. issued.

The trial court properly declined to issue the injunction. To have granted the injunction would have been to enjoin the enforcement of the criminal laws of this State, the exercise of a power which the trial court does not have. State v. Ferguson, 133 Tex. 60, 125 S.W.2d 272; Love v. Worsham, Tex.Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 598; Greiner-Kelly Drug Co. v. Truett, 97 Tex. 377, 79 S.W. 4.

Whether or not the operations which appellant is carrying on constitute the acting .as a labor agent would be a fact question to be determined, should he be prosecuted for operating a labor agency without having first obtained a license to do so.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7646

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FELIX ORIAKHI,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 00-7659

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FELIX ORIAKHI,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 00-7660

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
2

versus

FELIX ORIAKHI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR90-72-K, CA-00-2475-PJM, CA-00-2476-PJM)

Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 20, 2001

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

Circuit Judge.

Nos. 00-7646 and 00-7660 affirmed and No. 00-7659 dismissed by

unpublished per curiam opinion.

Felix Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Oriakhi’s notices of appeal are unclear as to the specific

orders he seeks to challenge. He is, however, bound by 4th Cir.

Local Rule 34(b), and this court will only review those issues

addressed in Oriakhi’s informal brief. Accordingly, we have

limited our review to those issues.

3

PER CURIAM:

Felix Oriakhi appeals from the district court's order collectively denying relief on three separate motions for reconsideration

filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b).* Our review of

the record discloses that these appeals are without merit.

Oriakhi's motions for reconsideration do not demonstrate that his

motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), and

Rule 12(b)(2), were improperly dismissed. Accordingly, we affirm,

as to Nos. 00-7646 and 00-7660, the district court’s orders on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Oriakhi, Nos.

CR-90-72-K; CA-00-2476-PJM (D. Md. Nov. 9, 2000). As to No. 00-

7659, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Oriakhi,

Nos. CR-90-72-K; CA-00-2475-PJM (D. Md. Sept. 7, 2000). 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.

Nos. 00-7646 and 00-7660 - AFFIRMED

No. 00-7659 - DISMISSED
| | Exhibit 15
| | ----------



December 15, 2003



Stockholders and Board of Directors

Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in

(i) Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-73803), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen
Corporation Employee Savings and Retirement Plan,

(ii) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-50841) and Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-59602), each of which relate to the
Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Associates Investment Plan for Residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

(iii) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-59101), which relates to the Voluntary Investment Plan of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation
(Crystal Brands Division),

(iv) Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-72959), Post Effective Amendment No. 6 to Registration
Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-64564), and Post Effective Amendment No. 13 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-47910), each of which relate
to the 1973 Employee's Stock Option Plan of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation,

(v) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-38698), Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-24057) and
Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-60793), each of which relate to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 1987 Stock Option Plan,

(vi) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-29765), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan

(vii) Registration Statement (Form S-4, No. 333-57203), which relates to the 9.5% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2008,

(viii) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-41068), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 2000 Stock Option Plan,

(ix) Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-105218), which relates to the issuance of stock of Phillips-Van Heusen to the selling
stockholders of Calvin Klein, Inc. and certain related companies,

(x) Registration Statement (Form S-4, No. 333-108329), which relates to the 8 1/8% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2013, and

(xi) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-109000), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 2003 Stock Option Plan

of our reports dated November 19, 2003, August 20, 2003 and May 21, 2003, relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial
statements of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation that are included in its Form 10-Q for the thirteen week periods ended November 2, 2003, August
3, 2003 and May 4, 2003.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, our reports are not a part of the registration statements or post-effective
amendments prepared or certified by accountants within the meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

| | ERNST & YOUNG LLP
| | -----------------

New York, New York
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 for the year ended December 31,
2009 (the “Report”) of Kandi Technologies, Corp. (the “Company”) as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Hu Xiaoming,
President and Chief Executive Officer and Zhu Xiaoying, Chief Financial Officer,
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) 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.





/s/
      Hu XiaomingHu
      XiaomingPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/
      Zhu XiaoyingZhu
      XiaoyingChief
      Financial Officer





March 31,
2010
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

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 Form 20-F annual report of Shamir Optical Industry Ltd. (the
Company) for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the annual report), each of the
undersigned officers 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, to the best of such
officers knowledge and belief, that:

1.    
          the annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 18, 2009

| |  | /s/ Eyal Hayardeny
Eyal HayardenyChief Executive Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | /s/ Yagen Moshe
 Yagen MosheChief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
Exhibit 32.2   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 Quarterly Report of Tranquility, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Dominick Pope, Chief Financial 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  November 14, 2007 /s/ Dominick Pope Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6643

ALFRED LEE MAULDIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA STANSBERRY, Warden

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:07-hc-02002)

Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 29, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred Lee Mauldin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alfred Lee Mauldin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition so he may

refile it as an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,

403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Mauldin v. Stansberry, No. 5:07-hc-02002

(E.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 2007). We modify the district court’s order,

however, to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. We

deny Mauldin’s motions to consolidate this appeal with No. 07-6199,

an unrelated appeal pending in this court. 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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1350

I,
David H. Fleischman, Chief Financial Officer of TradeStation Group, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TradeStation Group, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TradeStation Group, Inc.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



|            |  |                                                                
|----------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|May 5, 2011 |  | /s/ David H. Fleischman                                        
|Date        |  | David H. Fleischman                                            
|            |  | Chief Financial Officer,Vice President of Finance and Treasurer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1350

I, David H. Fleischman, Chief
Financial Officer of TradeStation Group, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TradeStation
Group, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TradeStation Group, Inc.

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



|               |  |                                                                 
|-------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|August 3, 2007 |  | /s/ David H. Fleischman                                         
|Date           |  | David H. Fleischman                                             
|               |  | Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Finance and Treasurer