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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5064 

To extend the suspension of duty on 4-Hexylresorcinol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on 4-Hexylresorcinol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4-HEXYLRESORCINOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.29.07 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 4-Hexylresorcinol) is amended by striking the date in the 

7 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 28, 2018

NO. 03-18-00074-CV

Elijah Nelson, Appellant

v.

Toree Roy, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on November 1, 2017. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that Elijah Nelson has not prosecuted his appeal and did not 

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for 

want of prosecution. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of 

costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5151 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5151

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3-Dodecyl-1-(2,2,6,6-
           tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)-2,5-pyrrolid inedione.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3-Dodecyl-1-(2,2,6,6-
           tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)-2,5-pyrrolid inedione.

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

SECTION 1. 3-DODECYL-1-(2,2,6,6-TETRAMETHYL-4-PIPERIDINYL)-2,5-
              PYRROLIDINEDIONE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.04.12 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 3-Dodecyl-1-(2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)-2,5-pyrrolidinedione) is amended by striking 
the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Land O'Lakes Farmland Feed LLC (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Robert
DeGregorio, President 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; and

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



                                     By:  /s/ Robert DeGregorio
                                        -------------------------------
                                               Robert DeGregorio
                                               President
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 190 (Friday, September 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25029]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ID-070-1020-XQ]


Upper Snake River District Resource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Resource Advisory Council meeting locations and times.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C., the 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) council 
meeting of the Upper Snake River District Resource Advisory Council 
(RAC) will be held as indicated below. The primary agenda item for this 
meeting will be a field trip to the Pleasant View Allotment that will 
give RAC members a better understanding of the application of Standards 
for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management. Other 
agenda items may be added between publication of this notice and the 
meeting, or the agenda may change if weather dictates. All meetings are 
open to the public. Individuals who plan to attend and need further 
information about the meetings, or need special assistance such as sign 
language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should 
contact David Howell at the Upper Snake River District Office, 1405 
Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401, or telephone (208) 524-7559.
    Dates and Times: The next meeting will be held Friday, October 27, 
2000. The meeting will start at the BLM's Pocatello Field Office, 1111 
8th Avenue in Pocatello, Idaho, beginning at 9 a.m. The field trip to 
the Pleasant View Allotment will begin shortly after the meeting 
convenes public comments, if any, are presented. The meeting is 
scheduled to end at about 4 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Resource Advisory Council 
is to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a 
variety of planning and management issues associated with the 
management of the public lands.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Howell, Upper Snake River 
District, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401, (208) 524-7559.

    Dated: September 20, 2000.
James E. May,
Upper Snake River District Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-25029 Filed 9-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
|                                                                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                               
|View History:                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                   
|Louisiana - North Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                   
|Louisiana - North Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, 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                                                                                                                            | 279    | 134    | 247    | 241    | 284    | 141    | 190    | 1,259  | 1,157  | 51    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 564    | 5,009  | 176    | 1,127  | 4,229  | 420    | 3,392  | 2,971  | 1,089  | 7,083 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 936    | 13,300 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### CRAYTON v. STATE.

No. 27030.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1954.

*457No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Ewing Werlein, Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $750.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

JEROME CORSI, individually, and LARRY 

KLAYMAN, individually

Plaintiffs

VS.

INFOWARS, LLC, FREE SPEECH 

SYSTEMS, LLC, ALEX E. JONES, 

individually, DAVID JONES, individually,

and OWEN SHROYER, individually,

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Case No. 1:20-CV-00298-LY

ORDER SETTING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for an 

INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE by telephone on Friday, July 17, 2020 at 10:00 AM

CDT. The parties shall provide the court with their call-in telephone numbers on or before 

12:00 PM CDT, on Thursday, July 16, 2020. 

The parties’ proposed scheduling order is tentatively approved and the parties shall 

comply with the dates set forth in paragraphs 1 through 7 of such proposed order pending the 

initial pretrial conference. 

At the initial pretrial conference, the Court will schedule a final pretrial conference and 

set a trial month. 

SIGNED this 22nd day of June, 2020.

LEE YEAKEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 June 30, 2009
 (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Jeffrey P. GotschallJeffrey P. GotschallChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer/s/ Frank A. CappelloFrank A. CappelloVice President  Finance and
Chief Financial Officer   23
<PAGE>



















                                EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS









<PAGE>









                        Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our reports dated
February 15, 2001 with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and
schedules of PFL Life Insurance Company, included in Pre-Effective Amendment No.
1 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-63086) and related Prospectus
of Immediate Income Builder II.


                                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Des Moines, Iowa
September 7, 2001
#### Thomas S. Pauzar, Respondent, v Children’s Hospital of Buffalo, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this medical malpractice action, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering an open commission to take the testimony of Dr. Toyama, an out-of-State, nonparty witness *(see,*CPLR 3108; *see also, Stanzione v Consumer Bldrs.,*149 AD2d 682; *Wynkoop v County of Nassau,*139 AD2d 731; *Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp.,*103 AD2d 230). Nor did the court err in ordering that the expenses incurred in obtaining such testimony be shared equally among the participating parties *(see,*3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac If 3108.06). To the extent, however, that the order can be interpreted to grant plaintiffs motion seeking that Dr. Toyama’s fee of $205 per hour be assessed equally among all parties, it is in error. Such fees may not be assessed in excess of those authorized in CPLR 8001 *(see, Marcus v New York City Hous. Auth.,*80 AD2d 844; *see also, Matter of Board of Educ. v Ambach,*90 AD2d 227, 241-242, *affd*60 NY2d 758, *cert denied*465 US 1101). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J.—discovery.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 194 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25493]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 
1978, Public Law 95-541.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 29, 2000, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of permit 
applications received. Permits were issued on September 28, 2000 to the 
following applicants:

Wayne Z. Trivelpiece, Permit No. 2001-011;
John T. Lisle, Permit No. 2001-014;
Thomas W. Yelvington, Permit Nos. 2001-016 and 2001-021;
Jerry L. Mullins, Permit No. 2001-018.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-25493 Filed 10-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### COLLINS v. STATE

No. 25744.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 12, 1952.

No attorney, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*102DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Upon appellant’s plea of guilty to the unlawful sale of whisky in a 'dry area, his punishment was assessed at a fine of $200 and thirty days in jail.

A motion for new trial was filed, alleging, among other things, that the appellant was ignorant of court procedure and of his right to counsel and a trial by jury, and that he did not understand the nature or extent of his plea of guilty.

The order overruling the motion for new trial recites that evidence was heard upon the hearing of the motion for new trial. Such evidence has not been brought before us; the presumption prevails that it authorized the trial court’s ruling.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

     The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and on his own behalf for purposes of the WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES
CORP. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-MS4, as follows:

     1. I am the duly appointed, qualified and acting President of the Company.

     2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

     3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Company.

     4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

     5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 15, 2004.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Michael L. Parker
                         Michael L. Parker,
                         President and Director
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COLUMBUS ALLEN, Jr.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

CHEUNG, DDS,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15283

D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00930-AWI-JLT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2017** 

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Columbus Allen, Jr., a former pretrial detainee, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

constitutionally inadequate dental care during his pretrial detention. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391

FILED

JAN 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the

record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.

2008). We affirm. 

Although the district court failed to address explicitly Allen’s Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(d) request for additional discovery, the denial of the request was not error

because Allen failed to show that the discovery he requested would have precluded

summary judgment. See Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2002)

(explaining that a plaintiff must show that the discovery sought would have

precluded summary judgment); Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.

1998) (standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s motions for

appointment of counsel because Allen failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting

forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

Denial of Allen’s request regarding the deposition notice was not an abuse

of discretion because Allen failed to show any harm from the failure to disclose the

recording method. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court’s discovery

rulings “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of

2 15-15283
discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant”

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Contrary to Allen’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion

in declining to strike Cheung’s evidence on the ground that it was untimely

disclosed.

We reject as meritless Allen’s contentions of denial of equal protection and

due process, and bias.

Allen’s requests for counsel, filed on July 13, 2015 and set forth in his

opening brief, are denied. 

AFFIRMED. 

3 15-15283