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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 64 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 64

 To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow duty drawback 
     for grape juice concentrates, regardless of color or variety.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

   Mr. Kerry introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow duty drawback 
     for grape juice concentrates, regardless of color or variety.

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

SECTION 1. SUBSTITUTION OF GRAPE JUICE CONCENTRATES.

    (a) In General.--Section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1313) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(x) Grape Juice Concentrates.--Any grape juice concentrate of 
degrees brix 68-70 shall be considered as `of the same kind and 
quality' for purposes of subsection (b) of this section, regardless of 
color, variety, or any other characteristic.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any 
drawback claim filed on or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2135

___________ Robert Savage, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Missouri. * James Anthony Gammon, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 14, 2001 Filed: February 20, 2001

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. RobertSavage, convicted and sentenced in state court for the rape of a ten-yearoldgirl, appeals from the order of the District Court denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitionfor a writ of habeas corpus. The District Court 1 rejected all thirteen of the claims raised in Savage's petition, and granted a certificate of appealability with respect to three of them: (1) that the prosecutor failed to disclose evidence favorable to the-2-

defense; (2) that Savage's conviction was obtained using inadmissible hearsay testimony of Lisa Gray, Angela Gray, and Dr. Janet McGhee; and (3) that Savage received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Having reviewed the case and considered all of Savage's arguments for reversal, we are satisfied that the District Court was correct in its rulings as to all three of these claims. No error of fact or law appears, and an opinion by this Court would add nothing of value to the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the District Court. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court, the order of that court is AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### R. S. HUNTER et al. v. J. L. SCOTT, Adm’r of CORNELIA HUNTER et al.

*Contract*— -Insurance

In an application for insurance, the ‘‘wife and her children” of the • applicant were designated as the beneficiaries, but in the policy issuing thereon the wife *and her personal representatives and assigns*were named as the beneficiaries : the policy was received and acted on by the insurer and insured without objection : *Held,*that the policy constituted the contract *oí*the parties.

Civil action, heard upon caso agreed at Fall Term, 1890, of Alamance Superior Court, MacRcte,presiding.

The action was brought by the children of Cornelia Blunter, deceased, against her administrator, and others claiming as assignees, to recover the amount collected by the administrator on a policy of insurance issued by the Valley Mutual Life Association of Virginia.

Judgment was given for defendants, and plaintiffs appealed.

The other material facts are stated in the opinion.

*Mr. J. A. Long,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. J.*IF. *Graham*and *Junius Parker,*for defendant.

*214Clark, J.:

The application for insurance specified as the proposed beneficiaries the wife of the applicant “for herself and children.” The policy as issued designated the wife and “her personal representatives and assigns” as the beneficiaries. The policy was received by the insured without objection, was acted upon by both parties, and the premiums regularly paid thereon.

The only question presented is whether the beneficiaries of the policy are those named in the policy itself, or those named in the application.

If A writes a letter to B making an itemized proposal, and B replies accepting the proposal, but in reciting the items varies one of them, it is clear that as to such item the two minds are not agreed, and there is no completed Contract. But if A receives B’s reply as the contract, accepts it, acts on it, and pays money in pursuance of its terms, the application as modified by the reply will constitute the contract between the parties. Construing the two papers together, the item in the application, not accepted in the reply, was not agreed on, while the modification of it in the reply, accepted without objection by the applicant and acted upon by both parties, was assented to and became as much an integral part of the contract as if stated in the original proposal. This is so plain that no citation of authority is necessary. It is not alleged in the complaint, nor stated among the *“*facts agreed,” that by mistake, accident or inadvertence, the policy does not correctly state the contract between the parties, and even-if this had been alleged the correction could not be made to the prejudice of *bona fide*assignees for value without notice.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 4.1(b)
                                Kraft Foods Inc.

                             Terms of Notes Schedule
                               (material details)

         The Company issued four (4) 4 5/8% Notes with an aggregate principal
amount of $1,250,000,000, five (5) 5 5/8% Notes with an aggregate principal
amount of $2,000,000,000 and two (2) 6 1/2% Notes with an aggregate principal
amount of $750,000,000. One of the Notes is filed as Exhibit 4.1(a) hereto.

         The material details of the Notes are set forth below:

<TABLE>
<S>             <C>                        <C>                   <C>                 <C>                  <C>


  Quantity                                                                                             Common
  of Notes             Tranche               Principal Amount          ISIN              CUSIP         Code No.
  --------             -------               ----------------          ----              -----         --------

      4        4 5/8% Notes due 2006        1.  $  400,000,000     US50075NAA28        50075N AA 2       13845263
                                            2.     400,000,000
                                            3.     400,000,000
                                            4.      50,000,000
                                                ---------------
                                       Total:   $1,250,000,000

      5        5 5/8% Notes due 2011        1.  $  400,000,000     US50075NAB01        50075N AB 0       13845298
                                            2.     400,000,000
                                            3.     400,000,000
                                            4.     400,000,000
                                            5.     400,000,000
                                                --------------
                                       Total:   $2,000,000,000

      2        6 1/2% Notes due 2031        1.  $  400,000,000     US50075NAC83        50075N AC 8       13845310
                                            2.     350,000,000
                                                ----------------
                                       Total:   $  750,000,000


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilkins Ramirez, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilkins Ramirez, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 891]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), rendered June 28, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 51⁄2 to 11 years, and convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of violation of probation, and revoking his prior sentences of probation and resentencing him to terms of 1 to 3 and 2 to 6 years, to run concurrently with each other and with the sentence imposed upon the convictions after trial, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). In this observation sale case, the totality of defendant’s conduct established that he sold drugs to an apprehended purchaser.

Defendant’s claim that court should have given a circumstantial evidence charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the evidence did not require such a charge *(see People v Roldan,*88 NY2d 826 [1996]; *People v Daddona,*81 NY2d 990, 992 [1993]).

The apparent tactical decision by defendant to forgo a CPL *103440.10 motion leaves us with a record that establishes defendant overall received effective assistance of counsel (see *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see *also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

Defendant’s claim that his June 2001 plea to violation of probation was involuntary is unpreserved *(People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it. Furthermore, the court properly exercised its discretion in resentencing defendant to terms of imprisonment.

On this appeal from a resentence following a revocation of probation, defendant’s attacks on one of the underlying judgments upon which the court had originally sentenced him to probation are not properly before this Court (CPL 450.30 [1], [3]; *People v McMillan,*228 AD2d 166 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 1070 [1996]). These arguments are without merit in any event. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
#### M. V. NORWOOD v. C. *G.*O’NEAL.

*Distributive Share-*— -Wrongful *Payment by*Administrator— *Action for Money Had and Received.’*

Whore money was paid by an administrator to one supposed to he entitled as a distributee “in full of his distributive share” and on his promise to refund “should any lawful claim come against the estate,” no cause of action accrued to those who were rightly entitled, and the money can only be recovered by the administrator to whom the promise was made.

Civil actioN, to recover money had and received to use of plaintiffs, heard before *Connor, J.,*at February Term, 1892, of Wake Superior Court, on appeal from the Court of a Justice of the Peace. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court. From the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs defendant appealed.

*Mr. Geo. H. Snow,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. W. JSr. Jones,*for defendant (appellant).

B urw ell, J.:

It appears from the case on appeal that the administrator of one Elizabeth Perry paid to the defendant a certain sum of money, on December, 27, 1867, thinking that he was entitled to receive it as a distributee of that estate. His wife, a daughter of Elizabeth Perry, had died before the death of her mother, and the plaintiffs are his children.

When the defendant received this money he gave the administrator a receipt for the same “in full of his interest in said estate,” in which he stipulated that “should any lawful claim come against said estate,” he would “refund his proportionate part of said lawful claim.” ■ The promise of the defendant was to the administrator of Elizabeth *128Perry, and no one but him or his successor can enforce that promise. The money was not received by defendant under any agreement, express or implied, that he would hold it for the plaintiffs. On the contrary, it was received expressly for his own use. And, whatever may be the rights of the plaintiffs against the administrator who has failed to pay to them the money they may be entitled to from their grandmother’s estate, it seems very clear that they have no cause of action against the defendant, and his Honor should have charged the jury, as requested, that upon the evidence and the admissions the plaintiffs could not recover. Error.
No. 62—2176.

#### John D. Caton v. Andrew Bloom.

This was an action on the case brought by appellee against appellant, to recover for the loss of a hand, through the alleged negligence of appellant in failing to provide and keep in repair suitable machinery for operating a stone-crushing drop hammer, which appellee was tending while in appellant’s service as a laborer. There was a judgment and verdict for the plaintiff in the court below, for §4,000, and the defendants brought the case here by appeal. The evidence tended to show that appellee's hand was caught and crushed under the falling hammer while he was operating the same in the exercise of ordinary care, and that the injury was the result of a defect in the machinery which worked the hammer. Whether appellant used reasonable care and diligence in providing and maintaining machinery that was safe, was a question of fact falling peculiarly within the province of the jury to determine; and this was the principal subject of controversy at the trial. The evidence was conflicting. The jury who saw and heard the witnesses must be presumed to be better able to judge as to the weight of the evidence than this court can be, and their finding should not be disturbed unless it is against the clear preponderance of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

Judge below, ¡Rollin S.i Williamson.

Attorneys, for appellant, Mr. Chas.E. Towne

for appellee, Mr. William Hoynes and Mr. John Gibbons.

Opinion filed Jan. 6, 1886.

Opinion Per Curiam.
EXHIBIT 32(a)

      Chief Executive Officer Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Provident Community  Bancshares,
Inc. (the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  September 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  I, Dwight V.
Neese, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by 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 Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

                                          /s/ Dwight V. Neese
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Dwight V. Neese
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  November 8, 2007
       ----------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF OCTOBER 24, 1999 AND APRIL 25, 1999
(UNAUDITED) AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWENTY-
SIX WEEKS ENDED OCTOBER 24, 1999 AND OCTOBER 25, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000926295
<NAME> BOSTON RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-24-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                       1,916,345
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    230,223
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,256,112
<PP&E>                                       7,290,925
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,839,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,925,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,439,315
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,352
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,250,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,925,479
<SALES>                                      6,726,645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,732,111
<CGS>                                        1,380,426
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,636,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             176,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,548
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,548
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 833 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 833

   To make technical corrections to the Health Professions Education 
     Partnerships Act of 1998 with respect to the Health Education 
                        Assistance Loan Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 20, 1999

 Mr. Frist (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Bingaman) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To make technical corrections to the Health Professions Education 
     Partnerships Act of 1998 with respect to the Health Education 
                        Assistance Loan Program.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE HEALTH EDUCATION ASSISTANCE 
              LOAN PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 707(a) of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 292f(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``determined,'' and all 
        that follows through the period and inserting ``determined.'';
            (2) by striking paragraph (2); and
            (3) by striking ``(a) Conditions'' and all that follows 
        through ``(1) In general.--Upon'' and inserting the following:
    ``(a) Conditions for Payment to Beneficiary.--Upon''.
    (b) Definition.--Section 707(e) of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 292f(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) 
shall apply with respect to loans submitted to the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services for payment on or after May 1, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1998
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY>   U.S. 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,207
<SECURITIES>                                    15,667
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,840
<ALLOWANCES>                                       287
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,999
<PP&E>                                           3,477
<DEPRECIATION>                                     971
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,455
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,791
<SALES>                                         24,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,776
<CGS>                                            7,021
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (101)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   130
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  55
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (865)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       111
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (976)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (976)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)
        

</TABLE>