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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5251 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on 1,6-Hexanediol-dimethyl carbonate 

copolymer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on 1,6-Hexanedioldimethyl carbonate copolymer. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1,6-HEXANEDIOL-DIMETHYL CARBONATE CO4 POLYMER. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 1,6-Hexanediol-dimethyl 

carbonate copolymer (CAS 

No. 101325–00–2) (provided for in subheading 

3907.99.01) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5251 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

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

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

 ****

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-215118 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 30, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2015.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

New York, New York

December 28, 2016
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5232 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4- 

Nonafluorobutanesulfonic acid, potassium salt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-Nonafluorobutanesulfonic acid, potassium salt. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-NONAFLUOROBUTANESULFONIC 

4 ACID, POTASSIUM SALT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.64 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-Nonafluorobutanesulfonic acid, potassium 

8 salt) is amended by striking the date in the effective period 

9 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5232 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Somsak Chivavibul,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
covered by this report on Form 10-K of SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2003-C (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2.
Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the
distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

[Signature Page Follows]



---

Date: March 30, 2016



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|/s/ Somsak Chivavibul                                                
|Somsak Chivavibul                                                    
|President and Chief Financial Officer
(Senior Securitization Officer)
|Navient Credit Funding, LLC
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10992 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CHRISTOPHER MARLIN , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:06

- CR

- 30

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Christopher Marlin, federal prisoner # 35544

- 177, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence

- reduction motion based on Amendment 78 2 to the Sentencing Guidelines ( lower ing § 2D1.1(c) drug

- quantity table ’s base offense levels )

. Liberally construing his pro se brief, Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993), h e contends the court erred by fail ing to : adequately explain its decision; allow him to respond to new inf ormation provided to the

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 16, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10992 Document: 00513506140 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2016No. 15

- 10992

2 court before his sentencing hearing (an Amendment 782 worksheet prepared by the probation officer and provided, inter alia , to Marlin) ; consider his post

sentencing conduct; and avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, thereby ful filling the goals of Amendment 782

. Section 3582(c)(2) g rants a court the discretion to modify a defendant’s sentence if he “has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Senten cing Com mission ”

. Once a reduction is authorized, the court determine s whether it is warranted based on consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and “ the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction ”

. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(i)

– (ii). It also “may consider” the defendant’s post

sent encing conduct. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(iii). Therefore, the court’s decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion; its interpretation of the guidelines , de novo ; and its fi ndings of fact, for clear err or. United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009)

. Marlin’s assertions are refuted by the record and foreclosed by precedent

. A district court is not required to explain its § 3582

- motion denial. See i d. at
672

– 73. Nonetheless , t he recor d shows the court expressly considered Marlin’s motion as a whole , th e § 3553(a) factors , and his post

- sentencing conduc t

. Additionally, the record demonstrates Marlin had the opportunity to respond
to the Amendment 782 worksheet before sentencing because the court ordered his being able to do so , and he addressed the worksheet in responding to the Government’s motion opposing his sentence reduction

. Finally , the assertion the denial of the sentence reduction creates unwarranted sentencing disparit ies is foreclosed. See United States v. Smith , 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED. Case: 15-10992 Document: 00513506140 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5131 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5131

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain porcelain lamp-
                            holder housings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

  Mr. Israel 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 porcelain lamp-
                            holder housings.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN PORCELAIN LAMP-HOLDER HOUSINGS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.30 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain porcelain lamp-
holder housings) is amended by striking ``12/31/2012'' and inserting 
``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### CLARK v. STATE.

No. 25590.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1951.

*219Dwight Whitwell, McKinney, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts and Porter K. Johnston, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is burglary of a private residence at night; the punishment, forty years.

The indictment was returned by the grand jury of Dallas County, and the case was tried on change of venue in Collin County.

In view of our disposition of the case, a discussion of the facts will not be necessary.

Bill of exception No. 4 reflects that Mr. MacNicoll, Assistant District Attorney of Dallas County, in his argument to the jury said:

> “Here is another thing, gentlemen. This fellow Clark over here, (Referring to Defendant) I wish to God that you knew him as Wade and I know him. You would know from the facts that this bird over here is capable of going into a home without rousing anybody and even carry out one of those television sets, just like he did do.

> “Perhaps aided by his lookout, by his woman, that he had lived with for five long years. That his own family don’t even know — rather, they say they don’t know that he has a baby by this woman who was with him on this night. Gentlemen, if you are going to listen to that tribe of Clarks, you will give this defendant here, who I consider, under the facts, one of the worst men in Texas, a life sentence.”

Appellant had not testified nor had he put his reputation in issue.

This argument is tantamount to unsworn testimony that the prosecutor knew appellant to be an accomplished burglar, thus injecting some new and harmful fact into the case, and constitutes such a flagrant violation of all the rules as to require a reversal hereof, even though the trial court recognized that such argument was improper and so instructed the jury in writing.

Judgment reversed and the cause remanded.
|                                                                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                              
|North Dakota Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                              
|                                                                                                              
|North Dakota 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                                                                                                                            | 1      | 0      | 0      | 2      | 0      | 20     | 0      | 1      | 2      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 24     | 2      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 4      | 0      | 0      | W      | 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
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-7071 September Term, 2022

1:21-cv-02683-UNA

Filed On: October 31, 2022

Mark K. Bowser, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

DC Department of Corrections, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Wilkins, and Pan, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 30, 2022,

be affirmed. This court may affirm the district court’s dismissal order “on any basis

supported by the record, even if different from the grounds the district court cited.” 

Parsi v. Daioleslam, 778 F.3d 116, 126 (D.C. Cir. 2015). By order filed November 8,

2021, the district court directed appellant to file within 30 days an amended complaint

correcting several deficiencies in his original complaint. Appellant attached to his notice

of appeal an amended complaint that he attempted to file, though he improperly mailed

the amended complaint directly to the district judge rather than to the district court clerk. 

See D.D.C. LCvR 5.1(a). Even if the district court had considered this amended

complaint prior to dismissing the case, however, the amended complaint still failed to

comply with the district court’s instruction to identify “the claims [appellant] intends to

bring, including what, if any rights have been violated, and under what specific legal

authority” those claims arise. 11/8/21 D. Ct. Order; see Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.

386, 394 (1989) (“The first inquiry in any § 1983 suit is to isolate the precise

constitutional violation with which [the defendant] is charged.”) (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). Consequently, because appellant’s

amended complaint does not articulate which of his constitutional rights are at issue in

this case, and how the defendants’ alleged conduct violated those rights, he has not
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-7071 September Term, 2022

shown that the district court’s dismissal of this case was an abuse of discretion. See

Peterson v. Archstone Cmties. LLC, 637 F.3d 416, 418 (D.C. Cir. 2011); see also

James V. Hurson Assocs., Inc. v. Glickman, 229 F.3d 277, 283 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“[A]

district court need not be made to reconsider an amended complaint that fails to state a

claim upon which relief could be granted, or that would otherwise fail as a matter of

law.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Page 2
#### HOWARD v. STATE.

No. 24757.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 10, 1950.

Rehearing *Denied June 7,*1950.

Anderson & Howard, and Hugh Anderson, Lubbock, for appellant.

Lloyd A. Wicks, Jr., County Attorney, Crosbyton, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a driving-while-intoxicated case; the punishment, a fine of $250 and ninety days in jail.

A highway patrolman arrested appellant for driving and operating his automobile in a dangerous and reckless manner upon a public highway. Upon effecting the arrest, the patrolman discovered that appellant was drunk, and carried him to jail. About three hours thereafter the sheriff of the county saw appellant in jail. He testified that at that time he was drunk.

Appellant denied that he was intoxicated.

The sole bill of exception appearing in the record complains of the receipt in evidence of the testimony of the sheriff.

The testimony was admissible as ■corroborating the State’s witness that the appellant was drunk when he arrested him. Mikeska v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 109, 182 S.W. 1127; Kirby v. State, 68 Tex.Cr.R. 63, 150 S.W. 455; Millican v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 115, 157 S.W.2d 357.

The time elapsing between the arrest and the sheriff’s seeing appellant was a question addressed to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

WOODLEY, Judge.

We remain convinced that no error is shown by appellant’s lone bill of exception.

The sheriff was properly permitted to testify that in his opinion appellant was drunk some three hours after his arrest. See Jones v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 102, 92 S.W.2d 246; King v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 496, 113 S.W.2d 181.

The surrounding circumstances as well as the time elapsed must be considered in passing upon the admissibility of testimony over the objection that it is too remote.

Appellant was in custody from the time of his arrest, and the circumstances are such as to exclude the belief that he had consumed intoxicants after the alleged offense.

*214Under such circumstances the fact that three hours had elapsed since the time of the alleged offense would not condemn the testimony as too remote. The weight of the evidence, was of course, for the jury.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Speizman Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 28,2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert S. Speizman, Chairman of the Boardand President (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, as of the date hereof, to my knowledge:

| 1.     |    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and                           |
|--------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |              |                                                                                                                                                     |
| 2.     |    | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

Dated:  November 18, 2002

|   |  

By: /s/ Robert S.Speizman                                       Robert S. Speizman           Chairman of the Board and President         (Principal ExecutiveOfficer) |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|