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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4455 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4455

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain bags for toys.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2012

 Mr. Higgins introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain bags for toys.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN BAGS FOR TOYS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.78 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain bags for toys) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``8.9%'' in the column 1 general rate of 
        duty column and inserting ``Free''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 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goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 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>
```
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51359 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v.
GILBERTO MADRILES-GUZMAN, also known as Gilberto M Guzman Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-355-1
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gilberto Madriles-Guzman appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possesswith intent todistribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Madriles-Guzman argues that his retained attorney performed ineffectively at trial and at sentencing and that the district court plainly erred during voir dire by commenting on the quantity of drugs involved in the offense. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-51359

2 A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising a claim of ineffective assistance ofcounsel. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-04 (2003). We decline to address the claims of ineffective counsel raised in this case because there has been no opportunity to develop the record as to the merits of the claims. See U nited States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 335-36 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005). The district court’s comments during voir dire
were not plainly erroneous. See United Statesv. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 572-73 (5th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED.
|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                            
|                                                                                                         
|Texas - RRC District 9 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                         
|Texas - RRC District 9 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1      | 0      | 1      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Appendix A 

APPENDIX A: PROPOSED UNIT-LEVEL OZONE SEASON NOX ALLOWANCE 

ALLOCATIONS TO EXISTING UNITS IN SIX STATES

Table A-1, Transport Rule SNPR Allocations to Existing 

Units in Six States, presents the proposed unit-level 

allocations based on the existing-unit portion of each state’s 

ozone season NOx emission budget to covered existing units in 

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. Table 

I.B-1 (The existing-unit portion of a state’s ozone season NOx

budget, specified previously in Tables I.C-1 and I.C-2, is 

calculated as 100% less the percentage allocation set-aside for 

new units in that state, specified previously in Table I.E-1.) 

The definition of a “covered existing unit” is given in section 

VII.D.1 of the preamble to the final Transport Rule. The 

methodology used for allocating allowances to covered existing 

units in each state is also specified in section VII.D.1 of the 

preamble to the final Transport Rule. The supporting data EPA 

used in applying the final Transport Rule existing unit 

allocation methodology to eligible units in each of the named 

states in this SNPR is publicly available as a downloadable 

Excel spreadsheet on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport, 

as are the proposed unit-level allocations in Table A-1 which 

follows.
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|New Mexico Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|New Mexico Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Adjustments (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 8      | -9     | -1     | 4      | 5      | -3     | 0      | 15     | 9      | 13    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 51     | -35    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### BUSH et al. v. SMITH et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 22, 1954.

Eldred E. Adams, Louisa, for appellants.

C. F. See, Jr., Louisa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment declaring that appellees have a 10 foot right of way through the lands of appellants. Since appellants admit that appellees have a right to this passway, no issue is presented on this appeal for us to determine. The exact location of the passway which has been laid out by commissioners appointed by the court has not •been passed upon or . confirmed by any Judgment, and the question of location cannot be raised on this'appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0607 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SETH ANDREW KELLER
- KEITH,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 1 2 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 3 2023

05/03/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0607
|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)             
|View History: Annual                                       
|View History: Annual                                       
|View History:                                              
|                                                           
|Texas--RRC District 6 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                           
|                                                           
|Texas--RRC District 6 Shale Production (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      | 3      | 28    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 219    | 382    | 486    | 409    | 270    | 238    | 339    | 333    | 515    | 895   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,046  | 1,358  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
1 The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, Unites States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3140

___________ Kenneth Ford Wishon, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Arkansas. Mark Rupp, Sheriff Newton * County, Arkansas; County * [UNPUBLISHED] Commissioners, Newton County, * Arkansas; Jane Doe; John Doe, * 1 through 10, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 3, 2001 Filed: July 11, 2001

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. KennethFord Wishon appeals from the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After de novo review, see Dulany v.-2-

Carnahan , 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 ( 8thCir. 1997), we conclude that the district court’s judgment was correct and should be affirmed. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
SEALE AND BEERS, CPAs


PCAOB & CPAB REGISTERED AUDITORS


www.sealebeers.com

















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











We consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10K of Georgia International Mining Corp., of our report dated April 14, 2010 on our audit of the financial statements of Georgia International Mining Corp. as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2009, and 2008 and since inception on January 19, 2005 through December 31, 2009, and the reference to us under the caption “Experts.”




















/s/Seale and Beers, CPAs





Seale and Beers, CPAs


Las Vegas, Nevada


April 14, 2010


















































Seale and Beers, CPAs PCAOB & CPAB Registered Auditors


50 S. Jones Blvd Suite 202 Las Vegas, NV 89107 Phone: (888)727-8251 Fax: (888)782-2351
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4572 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Dinotefuran. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Dinotefuran. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DINOTEFURAN. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 [2-Methyl-1-nitro-3-(tetrahydrofuran-3-ylmethyl) 

guanidine (Dinotefuran) 

(CAS No. 165252–70–0) 

(provided for in subheading 2932.19.50) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4572 IH

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 of Lode-Star Mining Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A2 for the period
ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark
Walmesley, President, Principal Executive Officer, Treasurer,
Principal Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





Dated this 10th
day of January,
2017








/s/ Mark WalmesleyMark Walmesley
President, Principal Executive Officer, Treasurer, Principal
Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer
SHURON ANTWAUNE

HESTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-4829

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 26, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Kevin Blazs, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Busharis, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 99.1





PVH Corp. Declares Quarterly Cash Dividend








N EW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)— February 7, 2024 -- PVH Corp. [NYSE:PVH], announced the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of PVH Corp. declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.0375 per share payable on March 27, 2024 to stockholders of record on March 6, 2024.








About PVH Corp.





PVH is one of the world's largest fashion companies, connecting with consumers in over 40 countries. Our global iconic brands include Calvin Klein and TOMMY HILFIGER . Our 140-year history is built on the strength of our brands, our team, and our commitment to drive fashion forward for good. That's the Power of Us. That's the Power of PVH.





Follow us on Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and LinkedIn .








Contact:


Mark D. Fischer


Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary


(212) 381-3509
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|New Mexico--West Shale Proved Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|New Mexico--West Shale Proved Reserves Revision Increases (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 15     | 1      | 28     | 1      | 22     | 16     | W      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### C. C. CREACH et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 24153.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1948.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1949.

No appearance for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

This case is governed by the opinion in Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App. 216 S.W.2d 206.

For the reasons there' assigned, the appeal is dismissed.

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.