alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Technology Resources, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William S. Lee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report 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: February 1, 2008   /S/ William S. Lee ---------------- William S. Lee Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 198 (Thursday, October 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60625-60628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26170]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 00-69]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 
604-6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 00-69 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

    Dated: October 5, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M

[[Page 60626]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12OC00.025

[[Page 60627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12OC00.026

[[Page 60628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12OC00.027

[FR Doc. 00-26170 Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-C
```
EXHIBIT 32.2


                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alternative Energy Sources, Inc..
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Stephen B. Jackson, performing similar functions to that of a principal
financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Stephen Jackson
----------------------------------------------
Name:  Stephen B. Jackson
Title: In his capacity as the acting Principal
Financial Officer
Date: March 13, 2006
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. W ALTER

M ITC HELL STEW

AR T, Jr., De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-30086

D.C . No. 1:12-c r-00086-DW M
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dona ld W . M olloy , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. W a lte r M i tc he ll Ste wart, Jr., a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s a

m e nde d judgm e nt re im

p o sing on re m and a

spe c ia l c ondition of supe rvise d re le a se tha

t prohibits him

from re siding in the

hom e or be ing in thec o m pa ny of any c hild unde r the a ge of 18, with the e xc e p tion of his own ch i ldre n, without the prior 

# FIL ED
DEC 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).writte n

a pprova l of the Unite d State s Probation Offic e . Ste wart c onte nds tha t the
c ondition is unre a sona

ble be c a use it unne c e ssa

rily inte rfe re s with his right to
a ssoc iate with his c hildre n and gra ndc hildre n a

nd de le gat e s too m

uc h a uthority to the p robation offic e r. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s im position of a

c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se for a b use of disc re tion. S

e e Unite d State

s v . W olf C hild, 699 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th C ir. 2012). In light of Ste wart’ s history

of se xua l m isc onduc t with unde ra ge fa m ily m e m be rs, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

im posing the
c ondition to dete r future m i sc onduc t a nd to prote c t the c om

m unity , inc luding Ste w art’ s gra

ndc hildre n . S

e e id. a t 1090. Furthe r, unde r the c irc um sta nc e s of this
c a se , the distric t

c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de le gating to the

probation offic e the im

ple m e ntation of this c ondition. Se e Unite d State s v . Blink insop , 606 F.3d 1110, 1121-22 (9th C ir. 2010). AFFIRM E D.

1 5
- 3 0 0 8 6 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

V.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

EMC CORPORATION, AND VMWARE, INC.,

Defendants.

Case Numbers:

6:20-cv-00473-ADA

6:20-cv-00475-ADA

6:20-cv-00476-ADA

6:20-cv-00477-ADA

6:20-cv-00480-ADA

6:20-cv-00481-ADA

6:20-cv-00482-ADA

6:20-cv-00485-ADA

6:20-cv-00486-ADA

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

V.

ZTE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case Numbers:

6:20-cv-00487-ADA

6:20-cv-00488-ADA

6:20-cv-00489-ADA

6:20-cv-00490-ADA

6:20-cv-00491-ADA

6:20-cv-00492-ADA

6:20-cv-00493-ADA

6:20-cv-00494-ADA

6:20-cv-00495-ADA

6:20-cv-00496-ADA

6:20-cv-00497-ADA

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

V.

GOOGLE, LLC,

Defendant.

Case Numbers:

6:20-cv-00572-ADA

6:20-cv-00579-ADA

6:20-cv-00580-ADA

6:20-cv-00584-ADA

6:20-cv-00585-ADA

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 168-1 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 3
WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

V.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case Numbers:

6:20-cv-00725-ADA

6:20-cv-00726-ADA

6:20-cv-00728-ADA

6:20-cv-00730-ADA

6:20-cv-00783-ADA

GOOGLE, LLC,

Petitioner,

V.

TERRIER SSC, LLC,

Respondent.

Case Number:

6:21-cv-01269-ADA

GOOGLE, LLC,

Petitioner,

V.

BP FUNDING TRUST,

Respondent.

Case Number:

6:21-cv-01270-ADA

GOOGLE, LLC,

Petitioner,

V.

AQUA LICENSING, LLC,

Respondent.

Case Number:

6:21-cv-01309-ADA

DECLARATION OF CASEY J. MCCRACKEN 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 168-1 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 3
1

I, Casey J. McCracken declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney permitted to practice law before this Court pro hac vice and am 

licensed to practice law in the state of California. I am an associate with the law firm of Gibson, 

Dunn & Crutcher LLP and counsel of record for Defendants Dell Technologies, Inc., Dell Inc., 

and EMC Corporation in the above-captioned matters. I submit this declaration in support of the 

Joinder of the Dell Defendants in Google’s Motion to Compel Responses to Subpoena from 

BasePoint. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated below, and, if called as a witness, could 

and would testify to them under oath.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the subpoena served to 

BasePoint dated August 20, 2021. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an email from 

BasePoint’s counsel to Dell’s counsel, dated October 8, 2021. 

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter from 

BasePoint’s counsel to Dell’s counsel, dated November 11, 2021.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

true and correct and that this declaration was executed in Irvine, California on March 14, 2022.

Casey J. McCracken

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 168-1 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 3
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 00-1331EA

_____________

Jimmy Lee Butler, *

*

Appellant, *

* On Appeal from the United 

v. * States District Court 

* for the Eastern District 

Smith, Captain, Pulaski County Jail; * of Arkansas.

Cummings, Miss, Pulaski County Jail; *

Ann Ardria, Miss, Finance Office, * [Not To Be Published]

Pulaski County Jail; Randy Johnson, *

Sheriff, Pulaski County Jail, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: March 2, 2000

 Filed: March 13, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry

W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Federal inmate Jimmy Lee Butler appeals from the District Court&s

1

 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against three

Pulaski County, Arkansas jail officials and an employee in the jail’s financing office,

complaining that he was wrongly charged for meals while he was housed at the jail.

Having carefully reviewed the record, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th

Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we conclude dismissal was proper because Butler has an

adequate post-deprivation remedy in state court. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,

530-37 (1984) (when state actor deprives individual of personal property, individual

does not have § 1983 claim if state law provides adequate post-deprivation remedy);

Ark. R. Crim. P. 15.2 & 15.5 (1999) (providing that motion for return of seized items

can be filed or other civil remedies can be pursued); McQuillan v. Mercedes-Benz

Credit Corp., 961 S.W.2d 729, 732 (Ark. 1998) (“Conversion is a common-law tort

action for the wrongful possession or disposition of another’s property.”).

As to Butler's complaint that the Magistrate Judge lacked authority to “decide”

this case, we note that the Magistrate Judge and the District Court Judge followed the

procedures outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) in handling the case. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7739
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONATHAN WAYNE HADDEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CR-98-156) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: April 17, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donathan Wayne Hadden, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Donathan Wayne Hadden seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion in part and denying his motion for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims a ddressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); seeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the [motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hadden has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### TOWN OF LAKE JUNE v. CITY OF DALLAS et al.

No. 14515.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

Jan. 11, 1952.

*256Shirley W. Peters, Dallas, for appellant.

H. P. Kucera, City Atty. and H. Louis Nichols, Asst. City Atty., of Dallas, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding was originally filed by appellant against the City of Dallas and the members of its Council to restrain the City of Dallas from attempting to exercise any jurisdiction over the territory formerly located within the limits of the Town of Lake June, Texas, and further restrain the City of Dallas from annexing such territory to the City of Dallas. The trial court, after hearing, sustained appellee’s plea in abatement and dismissed the entire proceeding. From such order appellants have duly perfected this appeal and have superseded the judgment.

Appellant has now filed a motion for an injunction pendente lite to restrain appel-lees from proceeding to annex to the City of Dallas territory embraced within the Town of Lake June, Texas.

Appellees have answered asserting that the Town of Lake June, Texas, was abolished by an election held May 9, 1950 wherein the vote was 168 for “No Corporation” and 64 “Corporation”; and also by proper proceedings thereafter based upon said election by proper order of the County Judge. That thereafter a contest of such election was filed in one of the District Courts of Dallas County, styled Franklin v. Wilson, Jr., District Attorney, which contest resulted in a judgment denying contestants the relief prayed for and declaring the corporate existence of the Town of Lake June, Texas, terminated by such election. Such judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals at Eastland, 242 S.W.2d 820. Appellees further allege that on December 5, 1951 our Supreme Court overruled a motion by appellants in the Eastland Court of Civil Appeals proceeding for permission to file an application and petition for a writ of mandamus to require the Chief Justice of the East-land Court of Civil Appeals to certify the material questions of law passed upon by said Court of Civil Appeals involved and passed upon by such court in affirming the trial court’s judgment therein; and has also in a separate paragraph moved this Court to dismiss this entire proceeding because all questions involved are now moot.

Such sworn answer and motion to dismiss have not been answered or controverted by appellant, and we find such facts therein stated to be true.

Under such record we hold that all questions involved in this appeal have become moot and that appellant has no further legal capacity to maintain this action or appeal.

The application for injunction is therefore denied and all matters involved herein having become moot, the entire proceeding is dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC,

 Plaintiff 

-vZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), 

INC., ZTE (TX), INC. 

 Defendant 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

6-20-cv-00487 

6-20-cv-00488 

6-20-cv-00489 

6-20-cv-00490 

6-20-cv-00491 

6-20-cv-00492 

6-20-cv-00493 

6-20-cv-00494 

6-20-cv-00495 

6-20-cv-00496 

6-20-cv-00497 

ORDER APPOINTING TECHNICAL ADVISOR 

The Court hereby appoints Dr. Joshua J. Yi to serve as the Technical Advisor for the Court 

in this case. Dr. Yi’s contact information is as follows: 

Dr. Joshua J. Yi 

13492 Research Blvd; Ste. 120 – #445 

Austin, TX 78750-2254 

josh@joshuayipatentlaw.com 

Dr. Yi will assist the Court with technical issues related to the claim construction process 

and advise the Court regarding preliminary and final claim constructions. Because a technical 

advisor serves essentially as a law clerk to the Court and will be familiar with the claim 

construction issues in this case, Dr. Yi may also assist the Court in drafting a claim construction 

order. 

The parties are instructed to mail a paper copy of the claim construction briefs and a USB 

drive with any exhibits and/or technology tutorials to the above address no later than at least 10 

days before the claim construction hearing. 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/01/21 Page 1 of 2
Finally, depending on the needs of the case, Dr. Yi may also assist the Court with motions 

for summary judgment, Daubert motions, at trial, and with post-trial motions. 

SIGNED this 1st day of April, 2021. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/01/21 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Newcastle Investment Corp. (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Brian C. Sigman, as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Brian C. Sigman

Brian C. Sigman

Chief Financial Officer

March 3, 2011

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

End of Filing
```

[Federal Register: May 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 103)]
[Notices]               
[Page 30003-30004]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28my10-57]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DOD-2010-OS-0069]

 
Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a system of records.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Intelligence Agency proposes to delete a system of 
records notice in its existing inventory of records systems subject to 
the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
June 28, 2010 unless comments are received which result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by dock number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    * Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense 
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
of make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, 
including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Theresa Lowery at (202) 231-1193.

[[Page 30004]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Intelligence Agency systems of 
records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 
amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available 
from the DIA Privacy Act Coordinator, Records Management Section, 200 
MacDill Blvd, Washington DC 20340.
    The Agency proposes to delete a system of records notice in its 
inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 
U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the 
purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), 
as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system 
report.

    Dated: May 25, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
Deletions
LDIA 05-0001

SYSTEM NAME:
    Human Resources Management System (HRMS) (August 19, 2009; 74 FR 
41874).

REASON:
    The records collected and maintained in this system are covered 
under OPM/GOVT-1, General Personnel Records (June 19, 2006; 71 FR 
35342) and OPM/GOVT-5, Recruiting, Examining, and Placement Records 
(June 19, 2006; 71 FR 35351).

[FR Doc. 2010-12961 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5623 

To suspend temporarily the duty on parts of gearing, gear boxes, and other 

speed changers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on parts of gearing, gear 

boxes, and other speed changers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PARTS OF GEARING, GEAR BOXES, AND OTHER 

4 SPEED CHANGERS. 

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 Parts of gearing, gear 

boxes, and other speed 

changers (provided for in 

subheading 8483.90.50) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5623 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