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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1577

To amend the Foreign Trade Zones Act to clarify that crude oil and derivatives thereof consumed in refining operations are not subject to duty

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 31, 1993

Mr. ORTIZ (for himself and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Foreign Trade Zones Act to clarify that crude

oil and derivatives thereof consumed in refining operations are not subject to duty under the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States.

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 FUEL NOT SUBJECT TO DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(d) of the Act of June

5 18, 1934 (commonly known as the Foreign Trade Zones

6 Act (19 U.S.C. 81c(d)) is amended—
2

•HR 1577 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘In regard’’ and inserting ‘‘(1)

2 CALCULATION OF RELATIVE VALUES.—In regard’’;

3 and

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new

5 paragraph:

6 ‘‘(2) FUEL CONSUMED IN REFINING OPERATIONS.—

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, crude oil and

8 derivatives thereof admitted into a foreign trade zone and

9 consumed in the refining process are not subject to duty.’’.

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

11 this section shall apply with respect to articles admitted

12 into a foreign trade zone after the date which is 60 days

13 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Saitta 

Gibbons 

iThr-N1 J. 1 I CACI 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

David M. Frostick 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP00-327-000 and RP00-326-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company; Notice of Technical Conferences

November 22, 2000.
    On June 15, 2000, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia 
Gas) and Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) submitted 
filings to comply with Order No. 637. Several parties have protested 
various aspects of Columbia Gas' filing and Columbia Gulf's filing.
    Take notice that a technical conference to discuss the various 
issues raised by Columbia Gulf's filing will commence on Wednesday, 
December 13, 2000, at 10:00 am.
    Also take notice that a technical conference to discuss the various 
issues raised by Columbia Gas's filing will commence on Thursday, 
December 14, 2000, at 9:00 am.
    The technical conferences will be held in a room to be designated 
at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Parties protesting aspects of 
Columbia Gas' filing and Columbia Gulf's filing should be prepared to 
discuss alternatives.
    All interested persons and Staff are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30354 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1661 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1661

  To make permanent the extended period of protections for members of 
  uniformed services relating to mortgages, mortgage foreclosure, and 
                   eviction, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2017

 Mr. Whitehouse (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Peters, Ms. Warren, and 
 Mr. Menendez) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To make permanent the extended period of protections for members of 
  uniformed services relating to mortgages, mortgage foreclosure, and 
                   eviction, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Foreclosure Relief and Extension for 
Servicemembers Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. MAKING PERMANENT EXTENDED PERIOD OF PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF 
              UNIFORMED SERVICES RELATING TO MORTGAGES, MORTGAGE 
              FORECLOSURE, AND EVICTION.

    Section 710(d) of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for 
Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-154; 50 U.S.C. 3953 
note) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (3).
                                 <all>
```
#### GRIFFITH v. STATE.

No. 21463.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 9, 1941.

For former opinion, see 148 S.W.2d 429.

J. E. Faulkner, of Henderson, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant insists that Bills of Exception Nos. 1 and 2 complaining of the introduction in evidence of the two letters which the District Attorney had written to appellant manifest reversible error even in the absence of a statement of facts.

The trial court qualified the bills to show that when the letters were admitted in evidence, he instructed the jury that the letters could not be considered as any evidence as to the truth of the matters therein stated but could only be considered on the issue of appellant’s knowledge of his wife’s condition, if that condition had been shown to be true.

In the absence of the facts proven, we are still unable to say that the receipt of the letters in evidence should bring about a reversal. Every matter mentioned in the letters may have been proven to be true beyond question. The case of Peterson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 70 S.W. 978, relied on by appellant, seems to be an aggravated case where the bills of exception, even in the absence of a statement of facts, showed proof of things with which the accused was entirely disconnected.

Believing the case to have been properly decided, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
#### In the Matter of T.-B. Children, Alleged to be Neglected. Rusul T.-B. et al., Appellants; Commissioner of Social Services, Respondent.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Judith Sheindlin, J.), entered on or about April 19, 1988, which, *inter alia,*placed the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed. The appeal from the fact-finding order of the same court entered on or about February 3, 1988 is unanimously dismissed as superseded by the order of April 19, 1988, without costs.

The Family Court properly denied respondents-appellants’ motion to disqualify the Assistant Corporation Counsel from prosecuting the petition on behalf of the Commissioner. Standing alone, the fact that the assistant had testified against respondents-appellants before a Grand Jury in connection with criminal charges brought against respondents-appellants did not compel disqualification. The assistant’s Grand Jury *397testimony was not with respect to matters of which she had personal knowledge and, consequently, it has not been demonstrated that the assistant would have been called as a trial witness in any criminal proceedings, necessitating disqualification. *(See generally, People v Paperno,*54 NY2d 294.)

Likewise, the court committed no abuse of discretion in admitting into evidence at the dispositional hearing photographs taken of one of the children at the hospital, reflecting injuries sustained at the hands of respondents-appellants. Notwithstanding that the photographs had become partially obliterated by ink (the result of the clerk’s stamp on each exhibit upon admission into evidence), a police officer provided competent foundation testimony that the photographs were a fair and accurate representation of the condition of the child at the time the photographs were taken. *(Gallo v Supermarkets Gen. Corp.,*112 AD2d 345, *lv denied*66 NY2d 605.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from Titanium
Metals Corporation's Consolidated Financial Statements for the nine months ended
September  30,  1999 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001011657
<NAME> Titanium Metals Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         6,792
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  98,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,230
<INVENTORY>                                    203,669
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               334,261
<PP&E>                                         427,846
<DEPRECIATION>                                 88,137
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 881,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,074
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          201,250
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       348,299
<OTHER-SE>                                     79,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   881,554
<SALES>                                        374,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               376,509
<CGS>                                          344,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  344,495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               36,653
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,035
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                386,183
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,674)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,358)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,358)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.44)



</TABLE>
## Eramet Marietta, Inc.

Furnace 12 Stack Test March 4,2013

Total Material Weight For the Period (2days) Material Ibs Anthracite 69800 BW Coke 142700 Dolomite 206360 F2 Sinter 677600 HC Slag 677600 Millscale 92400 Si Dross 107140 Si Ladle Metal 247340 SiMn Remelts 135520 U M K 338800

Total 2695260 Totallbs 1347630 Ibs/day 673.82 NT/day 28 NT/hour
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            2789
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              99
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  3768
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       2112
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                          79527
<ALLOWANCE>                                      (772)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   92073
<DEPOSITS>                                       81718
<SHORT-TERM>                                       500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1252
<LONG-TERM>                                        350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                        6275
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   92073
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   1811
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   72
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  1883
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 831
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1052
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    396
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         396
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       156
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.88
<LOANS-NON>                                        537
<LOANS-PAST>                                        49
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   728
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  772
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               585
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            187
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 31, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 31, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0543. WILLIS FRANKLIN ROBERSON v. SHAWN MARIE WATTS f/k/a SHAWN MARIE ROBERSON. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2012D1557
<PAGE>
         BOSTON FINANCIAL TAX CREDIT FUND PLUS, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


                                  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 Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund (the
"Fund") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer,
hereby certifies 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
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Partnership.


                                          /s/Jenny Netzer
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Jenny Netzer
                                          Principal Executive Officer and
                                          Principal Financial Officer
                                          Arch Street VIII, Inc., as
                                          Managing General Partner of
                                          Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund Plus,
                                          A Limited Partnership



                                          Date:  June 28, 2006


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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

KRISTOPHER OWEN DANIELS

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:14-cr-00105-FL-1; 7:19-cv-00015-

FL)

Submitted: May 19, 2023 Decided: May 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kristopher Owen Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6096 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kristopher Owen Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Daniels’

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When 

the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate 

both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 

140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Daniels has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Daniels’ motion for bail or release pending 

appeal, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6096 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
# AGENCY:

National Council on Disability (NCD).

# SUMMARY:

 This notice announces the establishment of NCD's Youth Advisory Committee.

# FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Mark S. Quigley, Public Affairs Specialist, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20004-1107; 202-272-2004 (voice), 202-272-2074 (TTY), 202-272-2022 (fax), mquigley@ncd.gov (e-mail).

## Agency Mission

The National Council on Disability is an independent federal agency composed of 15 members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Its overall purpose is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all people with disabilities, regardless of the nature of severity of the disability; and to empower people with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society.

## Youth Advisory Committee

The purpose of NCD's Youth Advisory Committee is to provide input into NCD activities consistent with the values and goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This committee is necessary to provide advice and recommendations to NCD on disability issues.

We are seeking a balanced, culturally diverse membership representing a variety of disabling conditions and from across the United States. One member will be chosen from each of the 10 federal regions.

Region I states include Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Region II states include New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Region III states include Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Region IV states include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Region V states include Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Region VI states include Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Region VII states include Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.

Region VIII states include Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Region IX states include Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, and Nevada.

Region X states include Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Signed in Washington, DC, on February 2, 2000.

Ethel D. Briggs,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 00-3073  Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-MA-M