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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1754

Regarding the suspension of duty on diflunisal.

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

Regarding the suspension of duty on diflunisal.

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 ON DIFLUNISAL.

4 Heading 9902.30.23 of the Harmonized Tariff

5 Schedule of the United States is amended by striking out

6 ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/95’’.

7 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by section

9 1 applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

11 the date of the enactment of this Act.
2

S 1754 IS

1 (b) RETROACTIVE PROVISION.—Notwithstanding sec2 tion 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision

3 of law, upon proper request filed with the appropriate cus4 toms officer within 180 days after the 15th day after the

5 date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or withdrawal

6 from warehouse—

7 (1) that was made after December 31, 1992,

8 and before such 15th day; and

9 (2) with respect to which there would have been

10 no duty if the amendment made by section 1 applied

11 to such entry or withdrawal;

12 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such amend13 ment applied to such entry or withdrawal.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                   eRESEARCHTECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            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 eResearchTechnology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce
Johnson, Senior Vice President and Chief 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, to my knowledge, that:

        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15
        (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.


Dated:  March 11, 2005                                      Bruce Johnson
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Bruce Johnson,
                                                   Senior Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 99.2

                            MICROPAC INDUSTRIES, INC.

                             CERTICATION 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 Micropac  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 1, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick
Cefalu, CFO 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 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/ Patrick Cefalu
-----------------------------
Patrick Cefalu, CFO
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### In the Matter of Josephine G. and Another, Children Alleged to be Abused. New York City Department of Social Services, Respondent; Patsy G., Respondent; Glenn G., Sr., Appellant.

[630 NYS2d 348]

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Kings County (Schechter, J.), dated July 31, 1992, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated May 4, 1992, *inter alia,*found that he had sexually abused Josephine G. and Glenn G., Jr., placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for a period of six months, and denied him visitation with the children until further order of the court. The appeal brings up for review so much of the fact-finding order dated May 4, 1992, as found that the appellant had sexually abused his children.

Ordered that the dispositional order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination by the Family Court that the appellant father had sexually abused his children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; *Matter of Nicole V.,*71 NY2d 112, 117). The children’s out of court statements to several psychologists and social workers were sufficiently corroborated by, *inter alia,*the daughter’s use of dolls to reenact the sexual abuse incident *(see, Matter of Racielli C,*215 AD2d 477; *Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. v Edyth W.,*210 AD2d 328; *see also, Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Steven K.,*176 AD2d 326, 328). Additionally, the appellant failed to come forward with satisfactory evidence to rebut the petitioner’s case *(see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. v Elena*
      *657
      *A.,*194 AD2d 608). Therefore, where, as here, the hearing court was confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weight *(see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. v Elena A., supra,*at 609). On this record, we find no basis upon which to disturb the court’s resolution of this issue.

The expiration of the placement of the children with the petitioner and the return of the children to their mother’s custody has rendered the appellant’s remaining contentions with respect to the dispositional order academic. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report of MinesManagement, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| \s\ Glenn M. Dobbs                    |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Glenn M. Dobbs                        |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November 18, 2008                     |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Mines Management, Inc. and will be retained by MinesManagement, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Dennis R.Jolicoeur, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report of Natrol, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: March 31,2007

|        | /s/ DENNIS R. JOLICOEUR                         |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   | Dennis R.  Jolicoeur                            |
|   | *Chief  Financial Officer and Executive*        |
|   | *Vice  President (Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1721

To provide for the transfer of certain tuna fishing vessels documented in

the United States to foreign registry.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

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

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To provide for the transfer of certain tuna fishing vessels

documented in the United States to foreign registry.

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF REGISTRY FOR CERTAIN FISH4 ING VESSELS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The transfer of registry of a tuna

6 fishing vessel which is an agreement vessel documented

7 under the laws of the United States to foreign registry

8 shall not be treated, for purposes of the Merchant Marine

9 Act, 1936, or any other law of the United States, as—

10 (1) a disposition vessel, or
2

S 1721 IS

1 (2) a failure to meet any substantial obligation

2 under an agreement entered into between the owner

3 or operator of the vessel and the Secretary,

4 if the vessel continues to be owned, directly or indirectly,

5 by a United States person and to be operated in compli6 ance with section 307 of the Marine Mammal Protection

7 Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1417).

8 (b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

9 (1) any term defined in section 607(k) of the

10 Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C.

11 1177(k)) that is used in this section shall have the

12 meaning given that term in that section; and

13 (2) the term ‘‘United States person’’ has the

14 meaning given that term in section 7701(a)(30) of

15 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.

16 7701(a)(30)).

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to

18 any transfer of registry effected before January 1, 1996.

Æ
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 Millipore Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended June 28, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, Martin D. Madaus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Charles F. Wagner, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her 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/    MARTIN D. MADAUS*                  
|Martin D. Madaus                          
|President and Chief Executive Officer     
|                                          
|August 6, 2008                            
|                                          
|/S/    CHARLES F. WAGNER, JR.*            
|Charles F. Wagner, Jr.                    
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                          
|August 6, 2008                            



|* | - A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Millipore Corporation and will be retained by Millipore Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT
13.2





Certification
by the Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Highway Holdings Limited (the “Company”) on
Form 20-F for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Po Fong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section  1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, 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.







Dated:
June 29, 2010






/s/ Po
Fong


Po
Fong


Chief
Financial Officer
#### Sherman Originator, LLC, Appellant, v HSBC Taxpayer Financial Services Inc. et al., Respondents.

[49 NYS3d 892]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Oing, J.), both entered on or about May 2, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim for breach of a purchase agreement, and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to defendants’ liability on that claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this case involving a contract dispute between the originator (HSBC) of a certain portfolio of “refund anticipation loans” and the subsequent purchaser (Sherman) of a partial interest in that portfolio, based on the relevant contractual language, as informed by the clarifying extrinsic evidence *(see e.g. Federal Ins. Co. v Americas Ins. Co.,*258 AD2d 39, 43 [1st Dept 1999]), we affirm the lower court’s conclusion that HSBC’s unilateral decision not to enforce “cross-collection agreements” was not a *483termination that could reasonably be expected to adversely affect the collection of the overdue, in default, and charged-off refund anticipation loans that Sherman had purchased from defendants in a disproportionate manner as compared to collections on account of other refund anticipation loans originated by HSBC so as to require Sherman’s prior consent. This construction of the contract does not implicate the “longstanding principle of New York law that a construction of a contract that would give one party an unfair and unreasonable advantage over the other, or that would place one party at the mercy of the other, should, if at all possible, be avoided” *(ERC 16W Ltd. Partnership v Xanadu Mezz Holdings LLC,*95 AD3d 498, 503 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Moskow-itz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 12-706.

#### Carandang Librojo *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Linton ALVIN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN OF STATE PRISON OF SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, Respondent.

No. 11177.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

June 1, 1950.

Linton Alvin, in pro., per. •

Stephen J. Roth, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Solicitor General, Lansing, Mich., 'for respondent.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN and Mc-ALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The: above cause coming on to be heard upon the appeal of petitioner from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denying and dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and upon the examination of the transcript of the record, and upon consideration pf the brief of petitioner filed in said appeal, and the court being duly advised,

Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the order of the District Court dismissing and denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be and the same is hereby affirmed, in accordance with the reasons set forth in such order.
412 P.2d 103

#### In the Matter of the Application of Edward Wilford Chauncey For a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Edward Wilford CHAUNCEY, Petitioner, v. Frank A. EYMAN et al., Warden Arizona State Prison, Respondents.

No. 2 CA-HC 25.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

March 15, 1966.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1966.

Review Denied April 5, 1966.

Edward Wilford Chauneey, in pro. per.

Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Edward Wilford Chauneey, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Briefly, the facts'set forth in the petition indicate that the petitioner was sentenced in Washoe County District Court, one to fifteen years for burglary and while an escapee from the Nevada State Prison was convicted in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, of burglary, second degree. He was sentenced to the Arizona State Prison for a term of not less than six nor more than seven years, with the prior conviction alleged.

Petitioner mistakes the allegation of. the prior as double jeopardy.

The crime of burglary, second degree, provides for a maximum term of five years but A.R.S. § 13-1649 provides that imprisonment shall not exceed ten years where a prior is alleged There are two distinct and separate crimes, one in Nevada and one in Arizona. Double jeopardy is in no way involved. See Valdez v. State, 49 Ariz. 115, 65 P.2d 29 (1937).

It is, therefore, ordered that the petition is denied.
#### Rawley, Matter of, v Graham

2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1018 (Appeal No. 4)

denied
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-30437

Summary Calendar

____________________

FELIX ANTHONY PRICE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD L. STALDER, 

Secretary of Department of Public Safety

and Corrections, et al.,

Defendants,

RICHARD L. STALDER,

Secretary of Department of Public Safety

and Corrections; JOHN P. WHITLEY, Warden,

Louisiana State Penitentiary; ANDREW DUNN,

Major, at the Louisiana State Penitentiary;

M. MULKEY, Major, at the Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Defendants - Appellees.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(94-CV-27)

__________________________________________

July 24, 1996

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to our de novo review, and for essentially the

reasons stated by the magistrate judge, we hold that summary
- 2 -

judgment was properly awarded against pro se appellant Felix

Anthony Price (#91688), see Sandin v. Connor, 115 S. Ct. 2293

(1995); and that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion

in her rulings on several discovery matters and in refusing to

appoint counsel for Price.

AFFIRMED
### MANDATE



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00476

- CR

Emmanuel Von Allen Evans, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appealed from the 248th District Court
of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1339815). Opinion delivered by Justice Jamison. Justices Boyce and Donovan also participating.

TO THE 248TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on September 25 , 2014 , the cause upon appeal

to revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its
order in these words:

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the ju dgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said
Court in this beha lf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS , the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost , Chief Justice of our Fourteenth Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, March 27,
2015

.