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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5131 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain porcelain lampholder 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. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PORCELAIN LAMP-HOLDER 

4 HOUSINGS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.30 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 certain porcelain lamp-holder housings) is amended by 

8 striking ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5131 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-631

In Re: ISIAH JAMES, JR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isiah James, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Isiah James, Jr., filed this petition for a writ of mandamus

asking this court to relax 4th Cir. R. 22(d), governing motions for

authorization to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition, and to declare Rule 22(d) unconstitutional. The granting of

a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary

circumstances. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

A petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief

sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act

requested by petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy

available. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135,

138 (4th Cir. 1988). James has failed to make the requisite showing

for such extraordinary relief. Accordingly, although we grant James

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ

of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### SHAMBRY et ux. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF DALLAS.

No. A-3942.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 25, 1953.

*185McKool, McDaniel & Bader, Dallas, for petitioners.

Scurry, Scurry & Pace, Dallas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Only one point of error is presented in petitioners’ application for writ of error. It is: “The Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that petitioners were not entitled to interest on the sum of $3850, the amount deposited in the Court by Respondent.”

We approve the holding by the Court of Civil Appeals on the question of interest as presented in the point urged here.

But respondent, as appellant there, presented five other points wholly unrelated to the question of interest which were decided by the Court of Civil Appeals, but which are not presented here. Hence we have no jurisdiction as to them, and our order must be: Application refused, no reversible error.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1350



I, David H. Fleischman, Chief Financial Officer of TradeStation Group, Inc.,
hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of TradeStation Group, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TradeStation Group, Inc.



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.



|                 |  |                                                                 
|---------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|November 8, 2005 |  | /s/ David H. Fleischman                                         
|Date             |  | David H. Fleischman                                             
|                 |  | Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Finance
and Treasurer
'\ 

. 

SERVED: FEBRUARY 12, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

LEADING EDGE AVIATION, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0783 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

j ') ' _) 

On July 25, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a 

Complaint. On july 12,2012, Respondent Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. ("Respondent") had 

requested a hearing. On February 11, 2013, Respondent withdrew its Request for Hearing, citing 

settlement. 

. 14 CF.R. § 13.215 state~: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may 

withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

· consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint 

.. 

.. 

.. 

.. 

or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law .. 

judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice;" 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been read 

and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

.. 
2 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing be and is hereby granted; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin ... 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

.. 

.. 
\ 

t 3 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Cler~, AGC-430 . Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000

1 

Fred C. Begy, III, Respondent's Counsel 

Chuhak &Tecson, Attorneys at Law 

30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60606 

TEL: 312-855-5442 

FAX: 312-368-9422 

Carri A. Conlon, Respondent's Counsel 

Chuhak &Tecson, Attorneys at Law 

30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60606 

TEL: 312-855-4617 

FAX: 312-444-9027 

ONE COPY 

David M. Shayne, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2165 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 . 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant FAX: 202-366~7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0783 

(Civil Penalty Action)·. 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
COUNTY OF SONOMA 

HEPARTMEMT OF 

-aANSPORTATION 

DOCKET .OPER/VI'iONS 

ZOIOGCT - U A . '=i^23' 

BOARDOFSUPERVISORS >^^paS^^j ^ PAULLKEUEY 

575 ADMMSm*TION DRIVE, RM.KJOA W^MAi k ^^^^ \ SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT 

SANTA ROSA. CALIFORNIA 85403 ,. ^ 

pkel ta^i^sanotnS'cmintyjirB 

(707)565-2241 

FAX (707) 565^778 

August 23,2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary .of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Docket OST-2010-0124 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

I strongly support the (Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport application for a grant under the Small 

CUinnnunity Air Service Development Program. This grant, along with local funds, will provide for 

marketing and advertising to attract inbound passengers to Sonoma County on Horizon Air. 

Horizon Air provides nonstop air service to Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Portland, and Seattle. Traffic 

response fiom the local Sonoma County market has been excellent The inbound passenger numbers have 

not been as large as expected. Sonorm Ckjunty is weU-known as Ae "Wine Country," and local 

businesses in our area depend heavily on tourism spending to support oui economy. The Sonoma County 

Airport and its marketing partners have developed a program to attract inbound visitors to Sonoma 

County and increase the revenue for Horizon Air. 

The cost of marketing and advertising in Los Angeles, Portland, and Seattle is too bi|^ for the Sonoma 

County Airport and its marketing partners to do it by themselves. An award of a grant In the amount of 

SI30,000 being applied for would give the Airport and its partners the funding that is needed to do an 

effective job of promoting Sonoma County. It is estimated that the additional passengers arriving firom 

this program will generate over $11 million in visitor spending in the local conmumity. 

More passengers for Horizon Air can mean more fli^ds to existing markets and to new markets. This 

program, wifli the support of fimding from the Small Community Program, will definitely be a-win-win 

situation for local business, the tourism community, the airline, the airport, various vendors, and the 

traveling public. 

Your consideration and support of the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport's request for a grant is 

most appreciated.. 

Sjjwwely, 

PAULL.KELLEY 

Fourth District Supervisor 

PUC;bn25149 

Small Conimunily Air Service Development Program Page -3 

Charles M. Scluilz - Sonoma County Airport Proposal
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5143 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5143

 To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from making payments to the 
                      Brazilian Cotton Institute.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

Mr. Kind (for himself, Mr. Flake, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. DeFazio, and Mr. 
   Frank of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from making payments to the 
                      Brazilian Cotton Institute.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENTS TO BRAZILIAN COTTON INSTITUTE.

    The Secretary of Agriculture may not directly, or through the 
Commodity Credit Corporation, make payments to the Brazilian Cotton 
Institute.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1
                                  ------------



                                       13

<PAGE>

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWMBS, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2002-HYB1
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-HYB1


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (a
"Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16 of
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

         (i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
         preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer
         under the Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

         (ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master
         Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement
         throughout such year.




/s/ Joseph M. Candelario               Dated: March 27, 2003

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT
AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER


/s/ Mark Wong                          Dated: March 27, 2003

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT



                                       14
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5251 Introduced in House (IH)]

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-Hexanediol-dimethyl 
                          carbonate copolymer.

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

SECTION 1. 1,6-HEXANEDIOL-DIMETHYL CARBONATE COPOLYMER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        1,6-Hexanediol-     Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          dimethyl                                                          12/31/2015
                          carbonate
                          copolymer (CAS
                          No. 101325-00-2)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3907.99.01)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS ~

PricewaterhouseCoopers **LLP
214 N. Tryon Street

Suite 3600

Charlotte, NC 28202

Telephone (704) 344 7500 

Facsimile (704) 344 4100
**Report of Independent Accountants

 

 

 

To the Board of Directors andShareholder 

of Bank of America, N.A. 

We have examined management's assertion about compliance by BA Mortgage, LLC and the Mortgage division of Bank of America, N.A. (collectively, the "Company"), which together comprise and operating division of Bank of America, N.A., with the minimum servicing standards (the "Standards") identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers**("USAP") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, included in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit 1). Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the Standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the Standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the Standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned Standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 
***PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 7, 2003*******
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5273 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5273

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on pepperoncini, prepared or 
                         preserved by vinegar.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary reduction of duty on pepperoncini, prepared or 
                         preserved by vinegar.

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

SECTION 1. PEPPERONCINI, PREPARED OR PRESERVED BY VINEGAR.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.29 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to pepperoncini, prepared or 
preserved by vinegar) 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>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2014

p1020

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2014

148659(38)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148659

COA: 308765

Oakland CC: 2011-238177-FC

KENNETH RAY WRIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 27, 2014 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, without prejudice to the defendant seeking relief 

under MCR Subchapter 6.500 based on Burrage v United States, 571 US ___; 134 S Ct 

881; 187 L Ed 2d 715 (2014).
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-12280

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-03066-RWS

REGINA BATTLE, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(December 12, 2019)

Before ROSENBAUM, HULL, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-12280 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Regina Battle, a pro se claimant, appeals the district court’s order affirming 

the Commissioner’s denial of her application for supplemental security income. 

We review a Social Security case to determine whether the Commissioner’s 

decision is supported by substantial evidence, but we review de novo whether the 

correct legal standards were applied. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th 

Cir. 2005). We read “briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally . . . [but] issues not 

briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 

518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). “Issues raised in a perfunctory manner, without 

supporting arguments and citation to authorities, are generally deemed to be 

waived.” N.L.R.B. v. McClain of Ga. , Inc., 138 F.3d 1418, 1422 (11th Cir. 1998). 

“[T]his court will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district 

court.” Stewart v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 26 F.3d 115, 115 (11th Cir. 

1994). 

Here, Battle submitted a three-page brief listing three issues: (1) the district 

court failed to “recognize facts/statements” made by the administrative law judge

(“ALJ”); (2) the district court did not allow for a reasonable time to receive her 

objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation; and (3) “[t]he 

Commissioner failed to address facts in the case.” Battle’s argument section 

includes only a conclusory request that this Court “reconsider the past 

decision/dismissal” because she has not worked in ten years, and the Social Security 

Case: 19-12280 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Administration allegedly failed to follow the required five-step decision process. 

Battle also provides a conclusion section in which she argues that Nancy Berryhill, 

the acting Commissioner, “has a known reputation . . . to go to great lengths to deny 

SSI . . . benefits to the deserved and obviously disabled.” 

We must conclude that Battle abandoned her arguments on appeal because 

she failed to provide any legal authority, citations to the record, or substantive 

arguments in her brief. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-12280 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

GILBERT GONZALES, Individually 

and on Behalf of All Others Similarly 

Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

QUALITY RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL PAINTING, INC., and 

RICHARD ZARAZINSKI.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. 5:20-CV-0568-JKP

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff commenced this action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. See Orig. Compl. (ECF No. 1). The Court has under consideration the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Dismissal of Case 

with Prejudice (ECF No. 14). A review of the submitted motion and copy of the Settlement 

Agreement shows that the parties have a bona fide FLSA dispute over hours worked and compensation owed. In accordance with the Court’s review and consideration of the applicable law

and the matters presented in the motion, the Court GRANTS the joint motion, FINDS the existence of a bona fide FLSA dispute in this case, and APPROVES the parties’ settlement and their 

Settlement Agreement as a fair and reasonable resolution of the Parties’ bona fide disputes.

Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), the Court DISMISSES this action in 

its entirety with prejudice with respect to all claims by Plaintiff Gilbert Gonzales. Each party 

shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. With respect to putative class members, the Court 

DISMISSES this action without prejudice to pursuit of their claims in a different case. The SetCase 5:20-cv-00568-JKP Document 17 Filed 12/15/20 Page 1 of 2
2

tlement Agreement does not release or waive any rights of any putative member of the collective 

action, other than Plaintiff. 

To the extent Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) requires a separate final judgment, this order of dismissal constitutes the final judgment in this case and the Court directs the Clerk of Court to 

close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of December 2020.

JASON PULLIAM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00568-JKP Document 17 Filed 12/15/20 Page 2 of 2