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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1753

Amending the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 20 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Mr. BRADLEY (for himself and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

Amending the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY OF FINASTERIDE AND

4 FINASTERIDE TABLETS.

5 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar6 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

7 in numerical sequence the following new headings:
2

S 1753 IS

‘‘ 9902.31.12 N-(1,1-dimethylethyl-3-oxo-4-aza-5-alpha-androst-1-ene-17-beta-carboxamide (finasteride) (provided for in subheading

2933.79.50) ......................................................................................................................................................................... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/96 ’’;

and

‘‘ 9902.32.02 N-(1,1-dimethylethyl-3-oxo-4-aza-5-alpha-androst-1-ene-17-beta-carboxamide tablets (finasteride tablets) (provided for

in subheading 3004.90.60) ................................................................................................................................................. Free No change No change On or before

12/31/96 ’’.
3

S 1753 IS

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
**Exhibit 32**

PURSUANTTO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, the Corporate Trustee of Mesabi Trust, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of MesabiTrust on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2007 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations of MesabiTrust.
| /s/  Rodney Gaughan                      | December 5, 2007 |
|------------------------------------------|------------------|
| Rodney  Gaughan*                         |             |
| Vice  President                          |             |
| Deutsche Bank National Trust Company     |             |
| For Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas |             |

 

 

 

* There are no principal executive officers or principal financialofficers of the registrant.

 

----
No. 12-270.

#### Maye *v.*Haynes, Warden.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of Steuben County Support Collection Unit, on Behalf of Steuben County Department of Social Services/Violet K. Stevens, Respondent, v Robin G. Bartholomew, Appellant. In the Matter of Robin G. Bartholomew, Appellant, v Steuben County Support Collection Unit, on Behalf of Steuben County Department of Social Services/ Violet K. Stevens, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 908]

— Appeal from an order of Family Court, Steuben County (Furfure, J.), entered *1435December 2, 2002, which denied the objections of respondent-petitioner to the order of the Hearing Examiner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent-petitioner (respondent) appeals from an order denying his objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner. That order was entered on the consent of the parties and thus is not subject to the review of either Family Court or this Court *(see Matter of Oropallo v Tecler,*263 AD2d 716, 718 [1999]). The record does not support the contention of respondent that he was denied effective assistance of counsel *(see Batson v Batson,*277 AD2d 750, 752 [2000]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
BEHWANTS '< 

### PUBLIC TO KNOW" ·n 

### To the Editor:

· · w'

. · On March 12, 2015 Boston Executive Helicopters' (BEH) filed aPart 16Federal Complaint.

, against the Norwood AirJlort Management and Commission due to the Norwood Airport Commission's systematic

.and continuing violations of federal grant assurances. Federal grant · assurances (Federal Law) are imposed on airports that accept federal grant monies. The grant

assurances ensure that the airport

. is made available on equal terms to all users and that the airport does not discriminate againstone
user in favor of another. NorwoodAirport was the subject ofa similar federal complaint in 2008 in which they were found in violation oftheirfederal grant

assurances by the FAA. BEH has invested millions in the airport and is simply trying to use the public airport like everyone else. Over the last five years BEH has repeatedly tried to lease some of the available space to conduct operations and provide another fuel source for the aviation public. However, the Manager and Commission have worked together to deny BEH basic access in order to preserve the monopoly at the airport and deny the users thebenefitofcompetition. In addition, the Commission has submitted incomplete applications for federal funds and has leased airport land for non-aviation use in violation offederal law

. BEH has tried overthe5-year period to work with the Manager and Commission to no avail. Meanwhile, the Norwood Airportloses hundreds ofthousands of taxpayer dollars yearly. The NorwoodAirport's accounting of monies spentlacks transparency. For insfa!1ce, the Norwood Airport Commission has refused to provide, in response to BEH's public records requests, any document detailing how much the Norwood Airport has spent

on legal

,fees .in thela&\

.few

.. months or years

. Indeed, BEH has made numerous public records requests and has been forced to f!.le litigation in State Superior Court in order to compel production of those documents

. The public has aright to know how public money is spent. The public has aright to know ifpublic money is misspent. The public has a right to expect that the Norwood Airport would be operated with the 

### aim ofbenefiting the Norwood community. Instead the Norwood Airport Commission stifles change an\! strives to maintain the monopolistic status quo

. Norwood citizens should ask themselves the following questions: Why is apolitical municipal body refusing to provide documents and spending hundreds of thousands of dollar in legal fees in order to evade producing documents that areclearly public documents? Why is a political municipal body spending millions of dollars in legal fees defending a monopoly rather than encouraging competition? Why would theNorwoodAirport Commission againjeopardize the Norwood Airport's federal grant funding? Perhapsit is a time for change at the Norwood Airport

. 

### ChristopherR. Donovan Norwood / 

## L 

# e+fev
No. 12-7985.

#### Page *v.*Warren, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Siebert Financial Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Muriel F. Siebert, in my capacity as Chairwoman and President of the
Company, hereby 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) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.          the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the
Report and the results of operations of the Company for the period covered by
the Report.

|                                                       |  |                       
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|/s/ Muriel F. Siebert                                  |  | Dated: August 14, 2008
|                                                       |  |                       
|Muriel F. Siebert                                      |  |                       
|Chairwoman and President (principal executive officer) |  |                       

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Siebert
Financial Corp. and will be retained by Siebert Financial Corp. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

19

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13373]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


Meeting of DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a 
closed session meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900, Tuesday, June 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research 
Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Eliot Cohen, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering 
(DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and 
managing an effective and economical research and development program 
in the area of electron devices.
    The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and 
development programs which the Military Departments propose to initiate 
with industry, universities or in their laboratories. The agenda for 
this meeting will include programs on Radiation Hardened Devices, 
Microwave Tubes, Displays and Lasers. The review will include details 
of classified defense programs throughout.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended, 
(5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that this 
Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be 
closed to the public.

    Dated: May 14, 1998.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 98-13373 Filed 5-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenith Agard, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Kenith Agard, Respondent.

[53 NYS3d 527]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered August 31, 2015, resentenc-ing defendant, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 12 years and 2 to 4 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the second felony offender adjudication and substituting a second violent felony offender adjudication, and otherwise affirmed.

Upon our remand for a new second violent felony offender adjudication and sentencing (127 AD3d 602 [1st Dept 2015]), the resentencing court determined that defendant’s predicate violent felony conviction, which was obtained in violation of *People v Catu*(4 NY3d 242 [2005]), could not be used to enhance defendant’s sentence, and it adjudicated him a second (nonviolent) felony offender on the basis of another predicate conviction, while reimposing defendant’s original sentence. However, as defendant concedes, the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeals in *People v Smith*(28 NY3d 191 [2016]) precludes retroactive application of *Catu*to invalidate a sentence enhancement. Accordingly, defendant’s original adjudication as a second violent felony offender was lawful.

As for defendant’s appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
#### Robert Lee DIXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4217

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2017

Appeal pursuant to Fla, R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christopher C. Sa-bella, Judge.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
The Board of Directors
ChemFirst Inc.:
 
     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-18691, 333-18693, 333-35221 and 333-69965) of our report
dated February 19, 1999 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of ChemFirst
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report
is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K
of ChemFirst Inc.
 
                                                /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
 
Jackson, Mississippi
March 25, 1999
Exhibit 32.1


             SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

I, A. Bruce O'Connor, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the
periodic report being filed herewith containing financial statements fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained
in said periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Middlesex Water Company for the period
covered by said periodic report.



                                                /s/ A. Bruce O'Connor
                                                -----------------------
                                                   A. Bruce O'Connor
                                                Chief Financial Officer


Date:   October 27, 2006




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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000066052
<NAME>                        American Midland Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U. S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         27,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,000
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          464,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       57,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     563,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,027,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
MP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0582

KIM NORQUAY, JR.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 60-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and

including December 23, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 14 2022

10/14/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0582
No. D-2705.

#### In re Discipline of Erickson.

Theresa Marie Erickson, of Poway, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
# L_2010045EN.01001601.xml

| 20.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 45/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 45/16

---

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

of 16 February 2010

concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (ninth EDF) for the financial year 2008

(2010/103/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) and amended by the Agreement signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2),

Having regard to the Internal Agreement (3) on the financing and administration of Community aid under the Financial Protocol to ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Internal Agreement’, setting up, amongst others, the ninth European Development Fund (ninth EDF), and in particular Article 32(3) thereof,

Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 27 March 2003 applicable to the ninth European Development Fund (4), and in particular Articles 96 to 103 thereof,

Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the ninth EDF as at 31 December 2008 and the Court of Auditors’ report concerning the financial year 2008 together with the Commission’s replies (5),

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 32(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the ninth EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 32(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the ninth EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.

| (2) | The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the ninth EDF during the financial year 2008 has been satisfactory, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the ninth EDF during the financial year 2008 has been satisfactory,

HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the ninth EDF for the financial year 2008.

Done at Brussels, 16 February 2010.

For the Council

The President

E. SALGADO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 287, 28.10.2005, p. 4.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 355.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 83, 1.4.2003, p. 1.

4

(5)  
  OJ C 269, 10.11.2009, p. 257.

5

---
# L_2010292EN.01003901.xml

| 10.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 292/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 292/39

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2010/677/CFSP

of 8 November 2010

repealing Common Position 98/409/CFSP concerning Sierra Leone

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 29 June 1998, the Council adopted Common Position 98/409/CFSP concerning Sierra Leone (1) in order to implement the measures imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution (hereinafter ‘UNSCR’) 1171(1998). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 29 June 1998, the Council adopted Common Position 98/409/CFSP concerning Sierra Leone (1) in order to implement the measures imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution (hereinafter ‘UNSCR’) 1171(1998).

| (2) | On 28 January 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/81/CFSP amending Common Position 98/409/CFSP (2) in order to implement the measures imposed by UNSCR 1793(2007) providing for an exemption to the measures imposed by paragraph 5 of UNSCR 1171(1998). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 28 January 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/81/CFSP amending Common Position 98/409/CFSP (2) in order to implement the measures imposed by UNSCR 1793(2007) providing for an exemption to the measures imposed by paragraph 5 of UNSCR 1171(1998).

| (3) | On 29 September 2010, the United Nations Security Council adopted UNSCR 1940(2010) repealing UNSCR 1171(1998). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 29 September 2010, the United Nations Security Council adopted UNSCR 1940(2010) repealing UNSCR 1171(1998).

| (4) | Common Position 98/409/CFSP should therefore be repealed, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Common Position 98/409/CFSP should therefore be repealed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Common Position 98/409/CFSP is hereby repealed.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 8 November 2010.

For the Council

The President

M. WATHELET

---

(1)  
  OJ L 187, 1.7.1998, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 54.

2

---