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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2316 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2316

   To suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Brown GN Liquid Crude.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2005

 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Brown GN Liquid Crude.

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

SECTION 1. DIRESUL BROWN GN LIQUID CRUDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.08.03       Diresul Brown GN   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Liquid Crude (CAS                                                  31/2008
                         No. 110392-46-6)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3204.19.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2008039EN.01000601.xml

| 13.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4982 — Bouygues/Artemis/Serendipity)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 39/04)

On 5 February 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4982. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4982. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, John F. Cole, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Hytek Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 3, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such quarterly report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Hytek Microsystems, Inc.



By:

/s/ John F. ColeName:

John F. ColeTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

August 13, 2004




I, Philip S. Bushnell, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Hytek Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 3, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such quarterly report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Hytek Microsystems, Inc.



By:

/s/ Philip S. BushnellName:

Philip S. BushnellTitle:

Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryDate:

August 13, 2004
#### Capital One, N.A., as Successor by Merger to North Fork Bank, Respondent, v Waterfront Realty II, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[942 NYS2d 131]

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Waterfront Realty II, LLC, Waterfront Realty Co., Isack Rosenberg, and Abraham Rosenberg appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated March 11, 2011, which denied, without prejudice to renewal following the “submission” of certain issues to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York in a matter entitled *In re Isack Rosenberg,*case No. 09-46326, the plaintiffs renewed motion, among other things, for summary judgment on the complaint and to appoint a referee to compute the amount due to it, and their cross motion for leave to serve and file an amended answer.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the plaintiffs renewed motion, among other things, for summary judgment on the complaint and to appoint a referee to compute the amount due to it is dismissed, as the appellants are not aggrieved by that portion of the order *(see*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

*684Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to determine the merits of the appellants’ cross motion and, in effect, determining that prosecution of this matter should be stayed pending further proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York *(see Honkala v Lee E. Gibson Constr. Co., Inc.,*41 AD3d 655, 656 [2007]; *see also Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v Pneumo Abex Corp.,*36 AD3d 441 [2007]; *cf. Rosenbaum v Dane & Murphy,*189 AD2d 760, 761 [1993]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ cross motion without prejudice to renewal following the “submission” of certain issues to the bankruptcy court. Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.

Motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has been rendered academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 2, 2011, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is,

Ordered that the plaintiffs motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
[No. 37478-8-I.

Division One.

August 4, 1997.]

#### Elvin Long, *Respondent,*v. Bill Aubrey, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-2-02943-6, George A. Finkle, J., entered October 13, 1995. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Baker, C.J., concurred in by Grosse and Ellington, JJ.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 *Notice is hereby given*
                     that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for the institutions listed below, intends to terminate its receivership for said institutions. Notice of Intent To Terminate Receiverships
Fund
Receivership Name
City
State
Date of appointment of receiver10167
First Federal Bank of California
Los Angeles
CA
12/18/200910236
Midwest Bank And Trust Company
Elmwood Park
IL
05/14/2010
 The liquidation of the assets for each receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receiverships will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receiverships shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of any of the receiverships, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and be sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201. No comments concerning the termination of the above-mentioned receiverships will be considered which are not sent within this time frame. (Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1819) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dated at Washington, DC, on June 23, 2021. James P. Sheesley, Assistant Executive Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2021-13792 Filed 6-28-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

GREGORY KONRATH, 

 Plaintiff, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

vs. CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-627 WL 

WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY, and C/O HUGHES, 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Gregory Konrath, a pro se prisoner, filed this lawsuit seeking monetary damages from the 

defendants because they charged and punished him for a prison disciplinary violation. “A 

document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully 

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). However, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and 

dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

 In WCC 16-09-144, Konrath was found guilty of having violated State law and was 

sanctioned with the loss of 27 days earned credit time. DE 1-1 at 4 and DE 8 at 4. “[A] state 

prisoner’s claim for damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment in favor of 

the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, unless the 

prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been invalidated.” 

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643 (1997) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Edwards
2 

made clear that this rule applies to prison disciplinary proceedings where the inmate lost earned 

credit time because “habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the 

fact or duration of his confinement . . ..” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). Therefore 

Konrath may not proceed with these claims until after the underlying prison disciplinary 

proceeding is overturned. 

Though it is usually necessary “to give pro se litigants one opportunity to amend after 

dismissing a complaint[,] that’s unnecessary where, as here, it is certain from the face of the 

complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise unwarranted.” Carpenter v. PNC 

Bank, Nat. Ass’n, No. 633 Fed. Appx. 346, 348 (7th Cir. Feb. 3, 2016) (quotation marks omitted). 

See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013) and Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 

F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . 

the amendment would be futile.”). Here, Konrath has filed two supplements to his complaint 

showing that this prison disciplinary proceeding was affirmed on appeal as recently as October 20, 

2016. DE 8 at 2 and DE 11 at 2. 

For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

SO ORDERED. 

ENTERED: November 23, 2016 

 s/William C. Lee 

William C. Lee, Judge 

United States District Court
**Exhibit      31.1**

**COMMUNITY      BANKS, INC.**

**RULE      13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

** (Chief      Executive Officer)**

| Date   | November                9, 2007 |   | /s/                Eddie L. Dunklebarger |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                            |   | Eddie                L. Dunklebarger     |
|   |                            |   | Chairman                and President    |
|   |                            |   | (Chief                Executive Officer) |
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2112 

To designate the exclusive economic zone of the United States as the ‘‘Ronald 

Wilson Reagan Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2005 

Mr. ISSA (for himself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. HYDE, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, and Mr. POMBO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To designate the exclusive economic zone of the United 

States as the ‘‘Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THE RONALD WILSON 

4 REAGAN EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OF 

5 THE UNITED STATES. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The exclusive economic zone of 

7 the United States, as established by Presidential Procla8 mation Numbered 5030, dated March 10, 1983, is des-
2 

•HR 2112 IH 

1 ignated as the ‘‘Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive Eco2 nomic Zone of the United States’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the exclusive economic zone of the United States 

6 is deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Ronald Wilson Reagan 

7 Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States’’. 

Æ
#### WOEMPLE, Eespondent, v. FEENANDES, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 13, 1912.)

Action by Bertha Woemple, sometimes known as Bertha Smith, against Adaline Fernandes. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory: West Lafayette, IN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Outreach
                        Fact Sheets
                                    Videos
                                    Seminars
                                    Careers
                    Our Lab
                        Phosphorus Removal Structures
                                    CEAP St. Joseph River Watershed
                                    WEPP Model
                                    USLE Database
                                    RUSLE
                                    
                                    Conferences
                                    Scientist Almuni
                                    Local TalksSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area West Lafayette, Indiana National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory Docs





- National Soil Erosion Research Lab
- WEPP
- RUSLE

Mainheadline bar   NSERL Laboratory Entrance   National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory (NSERL) Midwest Area Purdue University   Purdue Agronomy Department Purdue Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department   Crop Production and Pest Control Control Research Unit Livestock Behavior Research Unit   Our Mission


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### NORTON, Respondent, v. ITHACA ST. RY. CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Ella Norton against the Ithaca Street Railway Company and another.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

KELLOGG, J., dissents.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,957

EX PARTE ALBERT VINCENT THOMAS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1145134-A IN THE 263rd DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual

assault of a child and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

affirmed his conviction. Thomas v. State, No. 14-08-01157-CR (Tex. App.–Houston [14 Dist.],

th

delivered February 18, 2010, no pet.). 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because counsel failed to advise him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. 

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit, along with attached exhibits, with the trial court. Based
2

on that affidavit and exhibits, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that

appellate counsel properly advised Applicant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary

review. However, this finding of fact and conclusion of law is not supported by the record in this

case. Counsel’s affidavit and exhibits reflect that she timely notified Applicant of the appellate

court’s decision in this case, promised him that she would file a petition for discretionary review on

his behalf, changed her mind about filing the petition, and then informed the Applicant that she

would not be filing a petition on his behalf approximately four months after mandate issued. The 1

record before this Court reflects that Applicant was not timely advised of his right to pursue a

petition for discretionary review on his own and he is entitled to relief. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d

25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 14-08-

01157-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 14-08-01157-CR from the 263rd District Court

of Harris County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30

days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. Ex parte Torres 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1997).

Delivered: January 30, 2013

Do not publish

 Counsel is correct that Applicant had no right to counsel on a petition for discretionary

1

review and that she had a duty to not file a frivolous petition. However, the error here is that

Applicant was deprived of his right to file a pro se petition due to counsel’s reneged promise and

her failure to timely inform Applicant of his right to pursue discretionary review on his own.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2285 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain bags for toys. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2005 

Ms. HARMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain bags 

for toys. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN BAGS FOR TOYS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.78 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

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

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

10 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ