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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4436 

To extend the suspension of duty on Phosphoric acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Mr. CARNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on Phosphoric acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PHOSPHORIC ACID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.62 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 tris (2-ethylhexyl) ester (Phosphoric acid)) is amended by 

7 striking the date in the effective period column and insert8 ing ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4436 IH

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4535 

To suspend temporarily the duty on thermoplastic biodegradable polymer 

blend. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Mr. COURTNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on thermoplastic 

biodegradable polymer blend. 

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

3 SECTION 1. THERMOPLASTIC BIODEGRADABLE POLYMER 

4 BLEND. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4535 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Thermoplastic biodegradable 

polymer blend containing 

1,4-benzenedicarboxylic 

acid, dimethyl ester, polymer with 1,4-butanediol and 

hexanedioic acid (CAS No. 

55231–08–8) and/or 1,4- 

benzenedicarboxylic acid 

polymer with 1,4 butanediol 

and decanedioic acid (CAS 

No. 28205–74–5) and 

Starch (CAS No. 9005–25– 

8) and 1,4-dioxane-2,5- 

dione, 2,6-dimethyl-(3R, 

6R)-polymer with rel-(3R, 

6S)-3,6-dimethyl-1,4 

dioxane-2,5-dione and (3S, 

6S)-3,6-dimetyl-1,4-dioxane2,5-dione (CAS No. 9051– 

89–2) and 1,2,3- 

propanetriol (CAS No. 56– 

81–5) (provided for in subheading 3913.90.50) ........... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-20-00062-CR

DYLAN JOHN HART,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-25560

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dylan John Hart was convicted of sexual assault of a child younger than seventeen

and sentenced to 10 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE §22.011 (a)(2). Because Hart’s 

issue is not preserved, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In his sole issue on appeal, Hart contends the trial court erred in allowing the State 

to present evidence of Hart’s character during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial in 

violation of Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1),(2).1 Hart failed to object on this basis in the 

1 The testimony at issue centered around an incident where Hart brought a young man, not the victim in 

the underlying case, to a bar and a friend of Hart’s told Hart that the young man was in high school and 

warned Hart about “hanging out with a kid, especially in a bar.” 
Hart v. State Page 2

trial court. Rather, at trial, Hart objected to the testimony as being inherently prejudicial, 

a Rule 403 objection. TEX. R. EVID. 403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its 

probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: 

unfair prejudice....”). In his brief, although Hart mentions Rule 403, he concluded his 

argument by specifically maintaining that the testimony “concerning [Hart] and the 

young man in the bar went only to [Hart’s] character and did not ma[ke] more probable

that he committed the offense for which he was on trial[,]” a mixture of Rules 404(b) and 

401. TEX. R. EVID. 404(b); 401. 

Accordingly, Hart’s argument on appeal does not comport with the objection 

made at trial, and this issue is not preserved for our review. See Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 

687, 691-92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2009).

Hart’s sole issue is overruled and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed February 23, 2022

Do not publish 

[CR25]
|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                   
|                                                                                
|New Mexico--West Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                
|                                                                                
|New Mexico--West Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | NA     | NA     | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 10     | 29     | 23     | 10     | 21     | W      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 25     | 10     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------



                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Paragon Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leonard
S. Yurkovic, Acting CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and

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



                            /s/ Leonard S. Yurkovic
                            ---------------------------------------------------
                            Leonard S. Yurkovic
                            Acting Chief Executive Officer
                            May 14, 2008
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 115    | 4,291  | 6      | 258    | 1,495  | 5      | 2,105  | 2,931  | 1,009  | 7,031 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 224    | 12,803 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
Exhibit 3.1
                                                                     -----------




                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                                    ARTICLES
                                       OF
                            SI HANDLING SYSTEMS, INC.
                     (A Pennsylvania Registered Corporation)
                                   ...o0O0o...



1.   The name of the corporation is:
                            SI HANDLING SYSTEMS, INC.

2.   The address of its registered office in this Commonwealth is:
                                600 Kuebler Road
                 Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania 18040

3.   The corporation was incorporated under the Business
Corporation Law of 1933.

4.   The authorized capital stock of this corporation shall be twenty
million shares of common stock par value $1.00 per share.

5.   The shareholders of the corporation shall not have the right to
cumulate their votes for the election of directors.
#### DAVIS v. STATE.

No. 23240.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 5, 1945.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, *1946.*

A. C. Chrisman, of Cleburne, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of the offense of selling whisky in a dry area and his punishment assessed at $250 fine and thirty days in jail.

The record is before the Court without bills of exception or a statement of facts. The proceedings appear regular in every respect. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of I.T.S., aka B.G.H., a Child

Appellate case number: 01-13-00566-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-01859J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the above-referenced 

appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). 

Counsel, however, has not filed a motion to withdraw from representation.

If appointed counsel believes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must request permission 

to withdraw. See id.; see also In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2003, no pet.) (holding procedures set forth in Anders apply to appeal from termination of 

parental rights when counsel concludes that there are no arguable issues to assert on appeal). An 

Anders brief must accompany a motion to withdraw, neither the brief nor the motion may be 

filed on its own. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Accordingly, we order appellant’s appointed counsel, Donald M. Crane, to file with the 

Clerk of this Court within 10 days of the date of this order a motion to withdraw that complies 

with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5 and 9. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 9; Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 410, 412.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 15, 2013
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM: Amy Kopin

TO: The Docket

DATE: July 15, 2011

On June 8th, 2011 we held a conference call with the Eaton to discuss concerns raised by

Eaton regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing. Specifically, 

they have requested a delay of the application of HD OBD requirements for hybrid applications 

until 2020. Concerns were raised concerns during the comment period for the heavy-duty

greenhouse gas notice of proposed rulemaking that heavy-duty hybrid applications may not be 

able to meet the 2013 heavy-duty OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final 

Rulemaking.

1,2

 Attendees from the EPA and Eaton are shown in the table below.

Attendee Affiliation 

Cleophas Jackson EPA – Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division 

Anthony Neam EPA – Assessment and Standards Division 

Amy Kopin EPA – Assessment and Standards Division 

Ian McKenzie Eaton

 

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: 

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule 

Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway 

Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds,” published February 24, 2009. Available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-74-fr-8310.pdf

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Myron Lee, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), rendered June 21, 1988, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*355Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As the People made it clear from the outset that they did not intend to call a certain individual as a witness, they were not obligated to furnish the defense with his entire Grand Jury testimony or the transcript of a tape-recorded telephone conversation he had with the prosecutor *(see,*GPL 240.45 [1] [a]). The material claimed by the defendant to have been wrongfully withheld was not discoverable material, as it was not exculpatory and did not relate to the issue of the defendant’s guilt. Further, the defendant was amply apprised of this witness’s prior statements through other materials which had been provided by the prosecution *(see, People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543, 551).

No objection was taken to the prosecution’s summation, thereby leaving any issue of law with respect thereto unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951; *People v Turner,*141 AD2d 878; *People v Koleskor,*131 AD2d 879; *People v Simmons,*112 AD2d 173). While some of these remarks were better left unsaid, we do not find that reversal of the conviction in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction is warranted. The majority of the comments made during summation were responsive to that portion of the defense counsel’s summation which stressed the implausibility of the scenario set forth by the complainant *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Marks,*6 NY2d 67, *cert denied*362 US 912; *People v Martin,*112 AD2d 387).

We find that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Fiber, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
No. 89-565 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

MIKE MIGHT, Appellant,-vsERMINDO ZAVARELLI and AMVETS POST NO. 4, Petitioner and Respondents,


## - DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, --i r- 3 I.-,, =3 LIQUOR DIVISION and LEO MIGHT, -

### - 

# -.- 5-l 

# - Respondents and Respondents.

c-2 ;. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth ~udicia~~is<~ct, In and for the County of Missoula, 

### 5 The Honorable Douglas G. Harkin, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant(s): Timothy D. Geiszler; Geiszler & Newcomer, Missoula, Montana For Respondent(s): John C. Schulte, Missoula, Montana Eric Fehlig,Tax Counsel, Dept. of Revenue, Helena, Montana Leo Might, Pro Se, Missoula, Montana

Filed: Submitted on Briefs: Jan. 25, 1990 Decided: March 9,1990 { ClerkJustice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the Court.

MikeMight appeals thepartial summary judgmentgranted by the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County to petitioners/respondents Ermindo Zavarelli and Amvets Post No. 4, allowing the status of the premises located at 411 N. California, Missoula, Montana, to continue as a legal nonconforming use. This Court finds substantial evidence in the record which supports the District Court's judgment. Further,we accept theDistrict Court's determinationthat,an earlierdeclaratory judgment of theDistrict Court controlled, the lapse of time was beyond the control of petitioners, and there is no evidence of abandonmentto trigger the 90-day lapse provision of the zoning ordinance. Petitioners are not barred from applying for a new beverage license. Affirmed. Let remittitur issue forthwith. See Rules 34 and 35,M.R.App.P. Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shallbe published by its filing as apublic document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company.

Justice

## ' We Concur: /



### 7.q , Chief Justice 

### //

Justices 

## '
|                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                           
|View History:                                                                                  
|                                                                                               
|No chart available.                                                                            
|No chart available.                                                                            
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|Illinois Crude Oil + Lease Condensate New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023