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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5082 

To suspend temporarily the duty on ion-exchange resin and adsorbent. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on ion-exchange resin and 

adsorbent. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ION-EXCHANGE RESIN AND ADSORBENT. 

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 Ion-exchange resin and adsorbent, (CAS No. 69011– 

20–74) (provided for in 

subheading 3914.00.60) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5082 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2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 280 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 280 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 280 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 280 Filed 07/07/23 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 280 Filed 07/07/23 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 280 Filed 07/07/23 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 280 Filed 07/07/23 Page 7 of 7
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5285 

To extend the suspension of duty on o-Anisidine. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on o-Anisidine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. O-ANISIDINE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.41 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 o-Anisidine) is amended by striking the date in the effec7 tive period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

9 this section applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

Action brought on 28 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-422/05)

(2006/C 48/26)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon and Mikko Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Decree specifies certain types of aircraft which cannot operate in Belgian airports between 11 pm and 6 am. As it is based on the by-pass ratio, the Royal Decree takes a different approach to that of Directive 2002/30/EC, which is based on a certification procedure. This approach corresponds to that taken in Regulation (EC) No 925/1999, which was repealed by Directive 2002/30/EC.

According to Article 16 of Directive 2002/30/EC, which entered into force on 28 March 2002, the Member States were required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 28 September 2003 at the latest. The Royal Decree was adopted before the deadline for transposition of the Directive. The Commission cites the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which it follows from Articles 10 EC and 249 EC in conjunction with a directive itself that, during the period allowed for transposition, Member States must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive in question in question. By taking an approach involving operating restrictions aimed at the withdrawal of recertified civil subsonic jet aircrafts, which is completely different from that taken by the Directive, the Royal Decree seriously compromises the result prescribed by the Directive.

----

(1)OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 40.

----
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350) I, Floyd E. Wicks, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:  1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2004 of American States Water Company and of Southern
California Water Company (both referred to as the Registrant);2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4)
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
Registrant and have:  a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting.  5)
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of
Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants
internal controls over financial reporting. Dated:
May 10, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ FLOYD E. WICKSFloyd E. Wicks
Chief Executive Officer
|                                                                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                           
|View History:                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                               
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                               
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 23     | 9     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 7      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Case 6:20-cv-00453-ADA Document 2 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 1
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5317 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures containing n-butyl1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one and application adjuvants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Ms. SLAUGHTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures 

containing n-butyl-1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one and application adjuvants. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES CONTAINING N-BUTYL-1,2- 

4 BENZISOTHIAZOLIN-3-ONE AND APPLICATION 

5 ADJUVANTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.57 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 mixtures containing n-butyl-1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one 

9 and application adjuvants) is amended by striking the date 

10 in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5317 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
A091 (Rev. 12/03) Criminal Complaint AUSA f' 

I L E D 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

PR 34)op 

CLERK. U.S. OISYRICT COURT 

Western District Of Texas Del Rio Division WESTERN DRICT OF TEXAS BY__________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL COMPLAINT DEPUTY CLERK 

vs. 

Edgar CEDILLO CaseNumber: JQb. (9.0)rY-O I 

I, the undersigned complainant state that the following is true and correct to the best of my 

knowledge and belief. On or about 

the 

April 28, 2020 in 

Western District Of Texas 

Maverick County, in 

defendant(s), 

conspire with other unnamed co-conspirators, to transport, or move or attempt to transport or move, certain persons, Jenifer 

Alexandra Ochoa-Castro, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that that such persons were aliens illegally present in the 

United States, a felony, 

in violation of Title 

I further state that I am a(n) 

United States Code, Section(s) 1 324(a)( I )(A)(v)(I) 

Border Patrol Agent and that this complaint is based on the 

following facts: 

On April 28, 2020, Defendant CEDILLO, Edgar was arrested by Border Patrol agents near Eagle Pass, TX, in the Western 

District of Texas, for conspiring to transport nine illegal aliens into the United States. CEDILLO self-admitted he conspired with 

other unnamed co-conspirators to transport the nine illegal aliens further into the United States. CEDILLO self-admitted he was 

to be paid $100 USD per person, all of which he knew were illegal aliens, as well as knowing that it is illegal to transport illegal 

aliens. Material Witness, OCHOA-CASTRO, Jenifer, admitted she conspired with other unnamed subjects to be smuggled 

further into the United States for an unknown dollar amount. The Material Witness, positively identified the tractor trailer in a 

photo lineup as the vehicle that was used to transport her, in her attempt to illegally enter the United States. 

Continued on the attached sheet and made a part of this complaint: 

Sworn to before me and signed in my presence, 

April 30,2020 at 

Dat 

Name of Judge Title of Judge 

DYes jNo 

SignofpIaint 

Case 2:20-mj-01205-VRG Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Partners 

ElderTrust Operating Limited Partnership: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-90756-03, 333-101598-03, 333-107942-05 and 333-119261-27) and Form S-4 (No. 333-131342-56) of our report dated April 28, 2004, except asto notes 5 and 17, which are as of April 6, 2006, with respect to the consolidated statements of income, partners’ capital and cash flows of ElderTrust Operating Limited Partnership and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003,which report appears in the 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of ElderTrust Operating Limited Partnership. 

/s/ KPMG LLP

McLean, Virginia 

April 6, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.27


                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INVESTMENT AGREEMENT

     Reference is made to that certain Investment Agreement (the Investment
Agreement") dated as of March 20, 2001 by and between Gold & Appel Transfer,
S.A. ("G&A"), located at Omar Hodge Building, Wickhams Cay, Road Town, Tortula,
British Virgin Islands, and Capsule Communications, Inc. ("Capsule"), located at
Ste. 275, 2 Greenwood Square, 3331 Street Road, Bensalem, PA 19020. This
Amendment No. 1 to Investment Agreement (the "Amendment") is made as of July 17,
2001 by and between G&A and Capsule.

     Capsule seeks to enter into a merger agreement with Covista Communications,
Inc., a New Jersey corporation. In connection with such proposed merger
agreement, and as a precaution in order to avoid the applicability of the New
Jersey Shareholders Protection Act, the undersigned hereby agree as follows:

     In consideration of the mutual agreement set forth herein, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound,
and in order to assist Capsule to induce Covista Communications, Inc. to enter
into the proposed merger agreement, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1.   Section 2 of the Investment Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

     "This loan shall be due and payable on or before August 17, 2001."

2.   Section 3 of the Investment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety.

3.   This Amendment may be executed by facsimile and in more than one
     counterpart, each one of which shall be deemed an original, and both of
     which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the
date first set forth above.

Capsule Communications, Inc.                         Gold & Appel Transfer, S.A.

By: /s/ David Hurwitz                                By: /s/ Walt Anderson
  ------------------------------------------           ------------------------
         David Hurwitz, President and CEO                    Walt Anderson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION

EMILIO JUAN SANCHEZ

vs.

MIDLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT

§

§

§

§

§

§

NO: MO:20-CV-00127-DC 

FINAL JUDGMENT

On this day the Court entered an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s case for want of 

prosecution. The Court now enters its Final Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 58.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. §1983 Civil Rights 

Complaint is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

Additionally, IT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is ORDERED that all other pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT, with 

parties to bear their own costs.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 10th day of August, 2020.

DAVID COUNTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00127-DC-RCG Document 12 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 1
#### Michael J. Suydam, Respondent-Appellant, v Ann E. Suydam, Appellant-Respondent.

Weiss, J.

Cross appeals (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Beisner, J.), entered June 6, 1989 in Dutchess County, which, *753
      *inter alia,*partially granted plaintiffs motion for certain pendente lite relief, and (2) from two orders of said court, entered September 14, 1989 and September 19, 1989 in Dutchess County, which, upon reargument, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s cross motion directing plaintiff to maintain defendant’s automobile insurance.

In this divorce action, plaintiff moved by order to show cause for a pendente lite order which would supersede an earlier order of Family Court providing extensive relief to defendant. Essentially, plaintiff sought a downward modification of child support and maintenance payments, in addition to relief from his required payments for automobile insurance, mortgage, utilities and taxes, as well as relief from the prior order granting defendant occupancy of the business premises owned by plaintiff. Defendant countered by cross-moving for an order increasing child support and maintenance, an award of temporary counsel fees and enforcement of the requirements imposed upon plaintiff in the Family Court order. Supreme Court awarded defendant weekly maintenance of $300, weekly child support of $300 and directed plaintiff to continue all insurance coverage. Supreme Court denied counsel fees to defendant, and continued the order of protection and the stipulated child custody-visitation arrangements with minor modifications. Both parties appeal challenging different portions of the court’s orders.

We have consistently held that modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances *(see, Goldberger v Goldberger,*159 AD2d 923), such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or justice otherwise requires *(see, Onorato v Onorato,*131 AD2d 650). Here, the parties’ actual reasonable expenses, standard of living, and actual and potential earnings, which could either support the existing determination or justify a major modification, present sharply contested factual issues militating against our intervention *(see, Goldberger v Goldberger, supra; Holmes v Holmes,*151 AD2d 911, 912; *Chyrywaty v Chyrywaty,*102 AD2d 1009). In such circumstances, we have consistently held that a prompt trial is the preferred method to resolve issues of fact and alleged inequities *(see, Schelling v Schelling,*145 AD2d 856, 857; *Bernstein v Bernstein,*143 AD2d 168, 169; *Chyrywaty v Chyrywaty, supra).*Finally, in the event that either party demonstrates upon trial that there has been a misrepresentation of facts or presents relevant newly discovered facts, the modification of maintenance or child support may be in*754creased nunc pro tunc to the date of application *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]).

Orders affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.