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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2656 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on ion exchange resin powder 

comprising a copolymer of methacrylic acid crosslinked with 

divinylbenzene, in the potassium ionic form. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2012 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on ion exchange 

resin powder comprising a copolymer of methacrylic acid 

crosslinked with divinylbenzene, in the potassium ionic 

form. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ION EXCHANGE RESIN POWDER COMPRISING A 

4 COPOLYMER OF METHACRYLIC ACID 

5 CROSSLINKED WITH DIVINYLBENZENE, IN 

6 THE POTASSIUM IONIC FORM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.11.79 of the Har8 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2656 IS

1 ion exchange resin powder comprising a copolymer of 

2 methacrylic acid crosslinked with divinylbenzene, in the 

3 potassium ionic form) is amended by striking the date in 

4 the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

6 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

7 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

8 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrone WASHINGTON

No. 2018-KK-0206

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The district court's ruling that granted defendant's motion to suppress her statement is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. The officer's decision to forego the prophylactic protections of *Miranda v. Arizona* , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), to quickly ascertain the degree of immediate risk of a potential accelerant-fueled house fire was objectively reasonable. Therefore, the district court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress. *See**New York v. Quarles* , 467 U.S. 649, 657, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 2632, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984) ("We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.").

**REVERSED AND REMANDED**
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2598 

To suspend temporarily the duty on dichloroacetyl chloride. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. CARPER (for himself and Mr. COONS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on dichloroacetyl chloride. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DICHLOROACETYL CHLORIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2,2-dichloroacetyl chloride 

(CAS No. 79–36–7) (provided for in subheading 

2915.40.50) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2598 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40314

Conference Calendar

 

CARDELL FRANKLIN BURTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENT RAMSEY; C. MCKNIGHT; SHARON L.

YORK; P. WALTON; MARK TOMBLIN; BONNY 

SELLERS, 

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-cv-1054

- - - - - - - - - -

December 11, 1996

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cardell Franklin Burton (#221804) appeals the dismissal of

his civil rights action as frivolous. Burton contends: (1) that

the district court erred in adopting the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation without providing him with an

opportunity to file objections; (2) that he should have been

given an opportunity to amend his complaint; and (3) that the
No. 96-40314

-2-

district court failed to rule on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

motion. We have carefully reviewed the brief and the record and

find that the appeal is frivolous. Because the appeal is

frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

We caution Burton that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Burton is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 31.1

     I, Anthony M. Marlon, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of Sierra Health Services, Inc. certify that:

     1.	     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sierra Health Services, Inc.;

     2.	     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3.	     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4.	     The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

	          a)	     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

	          b)	     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

	          c)	     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

	          a)	     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

	          b)	     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  October 25, 2004	

  
By: /s/ Anthony M. Marlon, M.D.
EXHIBIT 13



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 Pharmaxis Ltd (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan D. Robertson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 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 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: December 20, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    ALAN D. ROBERTSON
|                        |  |  |  | Alan D. Robertson       
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer 



---

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 Pharmaxis Ltd (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David M. McGarvey, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 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 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: December 20, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    DAVID M. MCGARVEY
|                        |  |  |  | David M. McGarvey       
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 11(b)

                           BROOKTROUT TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                (In thousands, except per share data, unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Six Months Ended
                                                                  June 30,
                                                            1997          1996
                                                           -------       -------
<S>                                                        <C>           <C>
Primary Income Per Share:
Weighted average number of common and
  common equivalent shares outstanding
    Common Stock ...................................        10,693         9,509
    Common equivalent shares
      resulting from options .......................           633           949
                                                           -------       -------
          Total ....................................        11,326        10,458
                                                           =======       =======
Net income .........................................       $    85       $ 1,860
                                                           =======       =======
Net income per common share ........................       $  0.01       $  0.18
                                                           =======       =======
Fully Diluted Income Per Share:
Weighted average number of common and
  common equivalent shares outstanding
    Common stock ...................................        10,693         9,509
    Common equivalent shares
      resulting from options .......................           564         1,011
                                                           -------       -------
          Total ....................................        11,257        10,520
                                                           =======       =======
Net income .........................................       $    85       $ 1,860
                                                           =======       =======
Net income per common share ........................       $  0.01       $  0.18
                                                           =======       =======
</TABLE>
Exhibit 99-b

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Newhall Land and Farming Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002, I, Stuart R. Mork, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Newhall Management Corporation, (Principal Financial Officer), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



|Date: November 12, 2002 |  | THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY
(a California Limited Partnership)
Registrant
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |                                                                                   
|                        |  | By Newhall Management Limited Partnership,
Managing General Partner               
|                        |  |                                                                                   
|                        |  | By Newhall Management Corporation,
Managing General Partner                       
|                        |  |                                                                                   
|                        |  |                                                                                   

---
STATE EX REL. Johnel MATTHEWS v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0424

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
# Official Journal L 167/2023

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 167 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6630 June 2023 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 167

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6630 June 2023

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1315 of 23 June 2023 amending Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty and Regulation (EU) 2022/2473 declaring certain categories of aid to undertakings active in the production, processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1315 of 23 June 2023 amending Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty and Regulation (EU) 2022/2473 declaring certain categories of aid to undertakings active in the production, processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
AFS-13-366-E

June 14, 2013

 Exemption No. 10799

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0412

Mr. Edward Berger

Parent of Benjamin Berger

2 Forest Hills Boulevard

Rensselaer, NY 12144

Dear Mr. Berger:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received May 7, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Benjamin Berger for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Benjamin to exceed 

the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured 

by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United 

States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Benjamin.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using 

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security 

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the 
2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by 

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Benjamin Berger an exemption from § 121.311(b). In 

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Benjamin is

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary 

to allow him to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Benjamin’s

parents or a caregiver accompanying him. Benjamin Berger may only occupy a passenger seat 

with no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Benjamin’s parent or caregiver must carry 

a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 

48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards 

Service

Enclosure
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer


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 Axion International Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
James Kerstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
Company.





/s/ James KersteinJames
      KersteinChief
      Executive Officer


February
22, 2010