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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5233 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur VP LS 2078/2. 

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 duty on Desmodur VP LS 2078/ 

2. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESMODUR VP LS 2078/2. 

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: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5233 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 N,N′,N′′-[(2,4,6-Trioxo1,3,5-triazine1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)- 

triyl)tris[methylene(3,5,5- 

trimethyl-3,1- 

cyclohexanediyl)]]tris[hexahydro-2-oxo1H-azepine-1-carboxamide] 

(CAS No. 68975–83–7), in 

organic solvent (Desmodur 

VP LS 2078/2) (provided 

for in subheading 

3911.90.90) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 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
#### REDDING v. STATE.

No. 23477.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 13, 1946.

Cunningham, Lipscomb *&*Cole, of Bon-ham, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in Fannin County, a dry area. The fine assessed was One Hundred Dollars.

The officers, under the authority of a search warrant, found in the appellant’s kitchen in his home twelve pints of intoxicating liquor. The state made this proof and rested upon the presumption that he had it for sale. Appellant testifying in his own behalf claimed it was for medicinal purposes. He presented a doctor who verified his claim to the extent of saying that he had asthma and that the doctor had prescribed a small quantity for him at such times as he would be suffering from asthma. This claim constituted appellant’s defense, which the jury rejected.

We have two bills of exception for consideration, one of which will be sustained. This bill brings to our attention the cross-examination of the accused, by the county attorney, relating to matters while appellant was under arrest. After he had testified on the trial of his case that he had the whisky for medicinal purposes he was examined, over objection, to show that when arrested he did not make that explanation to the officers arresting him. This form of examination has frequently been held to be improper. The accused has a right to keep silent when arrested, and the fact of such .silence may not be shown by the state, either in testimony or in argument, as a guilty circumstance. Weatherred v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 514, 89 S.W.2d 212.

In the instant case the examination did not relate to or rebut any statement made by accused, but presented the fact of his silence as a circumstance against him. This the state may not do. Taylor v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 340, 42 S.W.2d 426; Stokes v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. *377, 71*S.W.2d 882.

In the Weatherred case, supra, Judge Lattimore clearly distinguishes between such testimony when presented in rebuttal of evidence offered in defense and cases in which the state has taken the initiative and made proof for the purpose of using the silence of the accused as a weapon of attack upon him. The Taylor case, supra, is a very clear and exhaustive opinion on the subject in which it is said: “The staté *358cannot avail itself of appellant’s silence during the time he was under arrest as evidence of guilt, or as destructive of his explanation given on the trial.” The instant case is clearly controlled by the foregoing authorities.

For the reason stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26042]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-327-003]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Order No. 528 
Reconciliation Report

October 4, 2000.
    Take notice that on September 28, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing a reconciliation report 
that compares Order No. 528 (TOP) costs with amounts recovered through 
the TOP recovery surcharge.
    Texas Gas states that this reconciliation filing is being made in 
accordance with Section 29.3(c) as found in Texas Gas's FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, and in compliance with Commission 
Order dated July 20, 2000. Texas Gas states that it has over-recovered 
its TOP costs by $35,367, which will be refunded on October 19, 2000.
    Texas Gas states that copies of the reconciliation report are being 
mailed to Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers, interested state 
commissions, and all parties appearing on the official service list.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before October 12, 2000. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202-
208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26042 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Hillard, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rodger Hayes, J.), rendered February 10, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Testimony of the complainant and her companions established that after the defendant approached them from behind on the sidewalk, and proceeded to walk past, he was seen to be in possession of complainant’s wallet. A struggle ensued, *281during which defendant was observed tossing complainant’s wallet to the ground.

We find defendant’s argument that he was effectively denied his right to testify by the court’s *Sandoval*ruling to be without merit. Defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating how the prejudicial effect of the impeachment evidence permitted by the court outweighed the probative worth of such evidence on the issue of credibility. *(See, People v Stroman,*83 AD2d 370, 373.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      152
<ALLOWANCES>                                        11
<INVENTORY>                                         94
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,331
<PP&E>                                             388
<DEPRECIATION>                                     113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              279
<BONDS>                                              2
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         15
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,617
<SALES>                                            815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   815
<CGS>                                              375
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      375
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     2
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    195
<INCOME-TAX>                                        77
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                118
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       118
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.42
 
 
 
 th




---



##### 



/s/ Graham ShuttleworthMr Graham ShuttleworthFinancial Director




---



##### 



th
  Tongon Project Joint Venture
 NMC RR Joint Venture Agreement Deed of Amendment
   (a)
    
    RR will provide the NMC Funding on behalf of NMC which funding will accrue interest on
the amount outstanding by NMC at an annual interest rate equivalent to LIBOR plus 2 per
cent., provided that if RR elects to obtain third party funding for the project, then the
interest rate will be the actual interest rate obtained for the project, including all
related costs, plus 1 per cent.; and(b)
    
    the respective Participating Interests of the Parties shall be amended as follows:
   (c)
    
    50 per cent. of the income (after apportioning costs) produced by the Tongon Project
which is attributable to NMCs 6.66 per cent. Participating Interest, shall be applied in
the repayment to RR of the NMC Funding, including accrued interest, and NMC shall be
entitled to the remaining 50 per cent.; and(d)
    
    clause 4 of the Joint Venture Agreement shall be construed accordingly.




---



##### 



/s/ G.P. ShuttleworthFor and on behalf of Randgold Resources (Côte dIvoire) Limited
  /s/ Emmanuel OtiFor and on behalf of New Mining C.I.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 195 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25767]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Environmental Impact Statement: Butler County, OH

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an 
Environmental Impact Statement may be prepared for a proposed 
transportation project in Butler County, Ohio.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark L. Vonder Embse, Urban Programs 
Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 200 North High Street, Room 
328, Columbus, Ohio 43215, Telephone: (614) 280-6854.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Ohio 
Department of Transportation, will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) for a proposed improvement in the vicinity of Trenton, 
Ohio. The project termini are approximately US-127, north of the 
Village of Seven Mile, and the SR-63/SR-4 interchange. The study area 
is approximately 9 miles in length.
    The purpose and need of the project are to address travel demand 
and capacity, access and safety deficiencies. Alternatives under 
consideration include: (1) Taking no action; (2) Constructing a new 
highway on new location; (3) Upgrading existing facilities. FHWA, ODOT, 
and local agencies will be invited to participate in defining the 
alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS, and any significant social, 
economic, or environmental issues related to the alternatives.
    Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will 
be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and to 
private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are 
known to have interest in this proposal. A series of public meetings 
will be held in the project area. In addition, a public hearing will be 
held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the meetings 
and hearing. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency 
review and comment prior to the public hearing. Scoping activities will 
be conducted.
    To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed 
action are identified and addressed, comments and suggestions are 
invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning 
this proposed action should be sent to the FHWA at the address provided 
above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.)

    Issued on: September 26, 2000.
Mark L. Vonder Embse,
Urban Programs Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, 
Ohio.
[FR Doc. 00-25767 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-116565 and333-133166 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-135262 and 333-135263 on Form S-8 of ourreports dated March 7, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financialstatement schedule of America First Apartment Investors, Inc. and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form10-K of America First Apartment Investors, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.**DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP**Omaha, NebraskaMarch 7, 2007
----

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 In connection with the Annual Report of Wood Products, Inc.,  a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the year  ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  (the “Report”), I, Chris Harper, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant  to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that  to my knowledge:

      (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 result  of operations of the Company.

Date: August 15, 2005 

/s/ Chris Harper               Chris Harper, CEO 

----
Exhibit 31.2

                           ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

         I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust
Certificates, Motorola Debenture-Backed Series 2002-12 Trust (the "Trust"),
certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
         Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or
         servicing reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporation in
         respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report
         of the Trust;

     2.  Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as a
         whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
         annual report;

     3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
         provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee
         under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion in
         such distribution reports is included in such reports; and

     4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and
         based on my knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the
         Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.



Date: March 27, 2006


      /s/ DAVID J. KOLIBACHUK
-----------------------------------
David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President
#### John A. HAMILTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27167.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 15, 1954.

*700No at'torney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Upon trial before the court on a plea of not guilty, a jury being waived, appellant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, and was assessed a fine of $50 and 30 days in jail.

One of the bills of exception reflects that the trial judge ordered the jail term probated and that appellant complained of some of the conditions of the probation.

In view of our holding in Gilderbloom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 272 S.W.2d 106, and the absence of any provision for probation in the judgment, the complaint as to the conditions of the probation need not be further discussed.

The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not questioned.

It would serve no useful purpose to set out the evidence heard at the trial. Suffice it’to say that there was evidence offered by the state to support a finding by the court that appellant, while intoxicated, drove his automobile on the public streets from his home to a barber shop. Appellant himself testified that he took a big drink of whisky just prior to leaving his house, but claimed that because of his having built up a strong tolerance for liquor he could not feel it until after he got in the barber chair.

Bill of Exception No. 1 complains that the trial court prejudged the case before hearing the evidence and, in arriving at a decision and rendering judgment, took into consideration matters known to him personally, in no way connected with the case, and not in evidence.

We are pointed to no fact considered by or known to the judge which was improperly considered by him in rendering his judgment, and the bill does not show reversible error.

Bills No. 2 and 3 are bottomed upon the fact that the state’s original evidence related to his driving from his home to the barber shop at about 3 p. m. and the further fact that in rebuttal the state offered testimony to the effect that appellant was driving his automobile in an erratic manner on a highway a mile from town at about 1:30 or 2 o’clock p. m. the same day.

If we understand appellant’s contention in these bills it is that the trial judge considered two separate acts of driving while intoxicated in arriving at his verdict, while-only one was charged in the complaint andl information, and in the event of a subsequent indictment or complaint he would not be able to plead former jeopardy as to-either.

We do not follow appellant’s theory that two separate and distinct offenses were proved or that he is in danger of a subsequent prosecution for the offense for which he was here convicted.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### PERKINS v. STATE.

No. 26702.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 16, 1953.

No attorney *on*appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the unlawful possession of beer, wine and whis-ky for the purpose of sale in a dry area. She waived trial by jury and entered'her plea of guilty before the court, who found her guilty and assessed her punishment at a fine of $150 and 10 days in jail.

All proceedings appear to be regular as revealed by the record. In the absence of statement of facts or bills of exception, nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>    5
       
<S>                                                               <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                        
DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                             
SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                                  
9-MOS
<CASH>                                                                       
160,655
<SECURITIES>                                                                   
    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                              
1,722,364
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                   
    0
<INVENTORY>                                                                  
130,662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                           
2,013,681
<PP&E>                                                                     
5,297,742
<DEPRECIATION>                                                             
1,275,624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                            
17,464,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                      
2,576,255
<BONDS>                                                                    
2,767,991
<COMMON>                                                                   
5,966,839
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                          
    0
<PREFERRED>                                                                    
    0
<OTHER-SE>                                                                 
6,153,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                              
17,464,813
<SALES>                                                                        
    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                           
4,036,248
<CGS>                                                                          
    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                              
3,214,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                               
    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                               
    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                             
    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                              
751,044
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                   
    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                          
751,044
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                 
    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                
    0
<CHANGES>                                                                      
    0
<NET-INCOME>                                                                 
751,044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                                  
  .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                  
  .18
        

</TABLE>