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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 757

To amend title 10, United States Code, to terminate the Civilian Marksmanship Program; to rescind funding for the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice; and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 4 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. SIMON, and Mr. LEVIN)

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to terminate the

Civilian Marksmanship Program; to rescind funding for

the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice;

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE CIVILIAN MARKSMAN4 SHIP PROGRAM.

5 Chapter 410 of title 10, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking out sections 4307, 4308, 4310,

8 4311, 4312, and 4313;
2

•S 757 IS

1 (2) in section 4309—

2 (A) in subsection (a), by striking out ‘‘and

3 by persons capable of bearing arms’’ and insert4 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘law enforcement agencies’’;

5 and

6 (B) in subsection (b), by striking out ‘‘ci7 vilians’’ each place it appears in paragraphs (1)

8 and (3) and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘law en9 forcement agencies’’; and

10 (3) in the table of sections at the beginning of

11 chapter 410 of such title, by striking out the items

12 relating to sections 4307, 4308, 4310, 4311, 4312,

13 and 4313.

14 SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR NATIONAL BOARD FOR

15 THE PROMOTION OF RIFLE PRACTICE.

16 The unobligated balance of the funds appropriated by

17 title II of Public Law 103–335 under the heading ‘‘NA18 TIONAL BOARD FOR THE PROMOTION OF RIFLE PRAC19 TICE, ARMY’’ is rescinded.

20 SEC. 3. FISCAL YEAR 1996 FUNDING NOT AUTHORIZED FOR

21 THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR THE PROMOTION

22 OF RIFLE PRACTICE.

23 Funds are not authorized to be appropriated for the

24 National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice.

Æ
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John H. Eaton, Respondent, against Webster Motors of Glens Falls, Inc., et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

Argued October 7, 1943;

decided November 18, 1943.

*700
      *Joseph F. Donovan*for appellants.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein,*Attorney-General *{Roy Wiedersum*and *Orrin G. Judd*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Lehman, Ch. J., Lottghran and Thacher, JJ., dissent on authority of *Matter of Tafft*v. *Stafford,*266 N. Y. 555.
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of President and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350)



The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Authority.



/s/    WILLIAM J.
VELARDOWilliam J. VelardoPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 16, 2004




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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
 
 (1)
    
    The Funds Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Fund.
 /s/ Ashmead Pringle

Ashmead PringleChief Executive OfficerDate: March 15, 2010
#### Herbert Carl HEINTZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-72620

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed June 26, 2017

Robert H. Stevenson, Esquire, Attorney, Robert H. Stevenson, Esq., Seattle, WA,

Marion E.M. Erickson, Attorney, Michael J. Haungs, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. .

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Herbert Carl Heintz appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment permitting the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to collect’ unpaid trust fund recovery penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 on taxes withheld from employees’ paychecks. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo, *Sollberger v. Comm’r,*691 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

The Tax Court properly sustained the collection action because Heintz failed to raise any permissible issues or defenses at the collection due process (“CDP”) hearing, and the Tax Court properly concluded that Heintz could not challenge the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability at the CDP hearing because Heintz had a prior opportunity to dispute that liability and did not exercise it. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2) (listing issues that may be considered at the CDP hearing); § 6330(c)(2)(B) (taxpayer may raise at the CDP hearing challenges to the existence *570or amount of the underlying tax liability only if he or she did not receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability); § 6330(d) (the Tax Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the issues properly raised at the CDP hearing); *see also Boynton v. United States,*566 F.2d 50, 53 (9th Cir. 1977) (imposition of penalties under § 6672 does not require a notice of deficiency).

We reject as without merit Heintz’s contentions that the IRS lacked a reasonable basis to deny him an extension of time to appeal the underlying liability, and that precluding Heintz from challenging his liability for the trust fund recovery penalties at the CDP hearing violated his due process rights.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Mona CHU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1664

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 11, 2017

Decided: October 12, 2017

Mona Chu, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

*756Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mona Chu appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Chu v. Patent & Trademark Office,*No. 1:15-cv-01375-CMH-MSN (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 25, 2016 & entered Apr. 26, 2016). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
EXHIBIT 32.1

   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 8 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 Euro Group of Companies, Inc.
(formerly ICT Technologies, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief
Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

(1)  The Report of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
     13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act; 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/  Vasilios Koutsobinas
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Vasilios Koutsobinas
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


May 15, 2008
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 826

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel PRIME TIME, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 18 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Mr. THURMOND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

PRIME TIME, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

4 Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

5 Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of

6 June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App.

7 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United States Code,

8 the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of
2

•S 826 IS

1 documentation with appropriate endorsement for employ2 ment in the coastwise trade for the vessel PRIME TIME,

3 United States official number 660944.

Æ
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00635

- CR

SONNY GUERRA III

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson County , Texas Trial Cause No. 18

- 5

- 10081

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 18, 2019
EXHIBIT
32






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 Trist Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Eric Stoppenhagen
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the
      Company.






Date:  March
9,
2009


/s/ ERIC
STOPPENHAGEN


Eric
Stoppenhagen


Interim
President and Corporate Secretary


and Chief
Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is made as
of the 25th day of August, 1998 by and between Walter Stepan of 215 Old River
Road, Lincoln, Rhode Island 02865 ("Employee") and Bacou USA, Inc., a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware (the "Company").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         Whereas, Employee and the Company are parties to that certain
Employment Agreement dated as of the 1st day of January, 1996, as amended by
that certain First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated October 24, 1997
(together the "Agreement"); and

         Whereas, the parties wish to amend the Agreement regarding its term.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein
contained, Employee and the Company hereby agree to amend the Agreement from and
after the date hereof as follows:

         1.       Section 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as 
follows:

                  5.       TERM: The term of employment of the Employee pursuant
         to this Agreement shall commence as of January 1, 1996 and terminate on
         December 31, 1999. This Agreement automatically will be extended for a
         single twelve month term ending December 31, 2000 unless either party
         notifies the other by June 30, 1999 of his/its election not to renew,
         in which case this Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 1999. The
         parties agree that, prior to June 30, 1999, they will negotiate an
         amendment and extension of this Agreement, with the Employee serving in
         a different capacity, at a different salary level and subject to a
         different bonus structure effective January 1, 2000. In any event, the
         Company agrees that it will cause the Employee to be nominated to serve
         as a Director of the Company at its annual meetings of stockholders in
         the years 2001 through 2005.

         In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employee and the Company have duly executed
this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.




BACOU USA, INC.                                 EMPLOYEE


By: /s/ Philippe Bacou                          /s/ Walter Stepan
    ------------------------------              -------------------------
    Philippe Bacou, Chairman                    Walter Stepan
#### Joel David JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55742

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*851Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Joel David Joseph, Pro Se

Kenneth K. Lee, Jenner *&*Block LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Kelly Morrison, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC, Dean N. Panos, Esquire, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Inc.

Jacob Harper, Attorney, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jeffrey W. Kramer, Esquire, Attorney, Arvin Tseng, TroyGould PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Ralphs Grocery Company, Natures Best Distribution, LLC, Sun Ridge Farms, Inc.

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Joseph’s request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims arising out his purchase of cashew products without country of origin markings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp.,*718 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Joseph’s claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) because Joseph failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he relied on the absence of a country of origin marking on defendants’ cashew products in making his purchases. *See*Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 (standing under the UCL requires plaintiffs injury to occur “as a result of’ defendant’s misconduct); Kwi*kset Corp. v. Super. Ct.,*51 Cal.4th 310, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 246 P.3d 877, 885-88 (2011) (to establish standing to bring a UCL claim, a plaintiff must allege economic injury and reliance on defendant’s alleged misrepresentation).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 87

To amend the Foreign Trade Zones Act to permit the deferral of payment

of duty on certain production equipment.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Foreign Trade Zones Act to permit the

deferral of payment of duty on certain production equipment.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFERRAL OF DUTY ON CERTAIN PRODUCTION

4 EQUIPMENT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 of the Act of June 18,

6 1934 (commonly known as the Foreign Trade Zones Act,

7 19 U.S.C. 81c) is amended by adding at the end thereof

8 the following new subsection:

9 ‘‘(e) PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT.—
2

•S 87 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

2 provision of law, if all applicable customs laws are

3 complied with (except as otherwise provided in this

4 subsection), merchandise which is entered into a for5 eign trade zone for use within such zone as produc6 tion equipment or as parts for such equipment, shall

7 not be subject to duty until such merchandise is

8 completely assembled, installed, tested, and used in

9 the production for which it was entered. The duty

10 imposed on such merchandise shall be at the same

11 rate as would have been imposed (but for the provi12 sions of this subsection) on such merchandise had

13 duty been imposed on such merchandise at the time

14 of entry into the customs territory of the United

15 States.

16 ‘‘(2) FOREIGN TRADE ZONE.—For purposes of

17 this subsection, the term ‘foreign trade zone’ in18 cludes a subzone as defined in section 146.1(b)(17)

19 of chapter 19, Code of Federal Regulations.’’.

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

21 this section shall apply with respect to merchandise en22 tered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption,

23 after the date that is 15 days after the date of the enact24 ment of this Act.

Æ
# EUR-Lex - 32002R2086 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R2086

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/2002 of 25 November 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products **

*
Official Journal L 321 , 26/11/2002 P. 0008 - 0008 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/2002

of 25 November 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2585/2001(2), and in particular Articles 53 and 80 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002(3) provides for a period to elapse between its entry into force and the date from which it is to apply, namely 1 January 2003, to allow the operators and authorities concerned a smooth transition from the previous rules, included in several Council and Commission Regulations on the designation and presentation of wine and the new detailed rules implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.

(2) In order to allow the Member States more time to bring their national legislation up to date, following many discussions between the various authorities concerned and between those authorities and the trade, and so that economic operators are not inconvenienced by measures entering into force on 1 January 2003, i.e. in the middle of the current wine year, and in order to provide certain third countries with the necessary information on the new Regulation, the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 should be postponed until the beginning of the next wine year.

(3) Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 should be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 is hereby amended as follows:

(a) In the first subparagraph of Article 47(2), "31 December 2002" is replaced by "31 July 2003".

(b) In the second paragraph of Article 49, "1 January 2003" is replaced by "1 August 2003".

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 November 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 345, 29.12.2001, p. 10.

(3) OJ L 118, 4.5.2002, p. 1.
Exhibit
      32





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





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, I, Dan Finch, Chief Executive Officer of Advanced
      ID Corporation (the “Company"), hereby certify, that to the best
      of
      my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
      quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
      August 21, 2006





/s/Dan
      Finch


Dan
      Finch, Chief Executive Officer