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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2382 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2382

              To suspend temporarily the duty on Butralin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2005

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To suspend temporarily the duty on Butralin.

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

SECTION 1. BUTRALIN.

    (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:

``      9902.12.01      N-sec-butyl-4-tert- Free         Free             No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         butyl-2,6-                                                         31/2008
                         dinitroaniline
                         (CAS No. 33629-47-
                         9) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2921.43.90) and
                         any mixtures
                         containing such
                         compound
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3808.30.15)......

    (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to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 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 enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 38514-3-I.

Division One.

August 18, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Robert W. Brinks, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for What-com County, No. 94-1-00787-7, David A. Nichols, J., entered March 29, 1996. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### LUCAS, Appellant, v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INS. CO. et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 3, 1899.)

Action by Charles H. Lucas against the Westchester Fire Insurance Company and others.

No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
# L_2011343EN.01014901.xml

| 23.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 343/149 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 343/149

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2008/312/Euratom of 5 March 2008 establishing the standard document for the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel referred to in Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 107 of 17 April 2008
  )

On page 58, Annex, explanatory note 33(c):

for:

‘... and submit this section directly to the competent authority which issued the authorisation. ...’,

read:

‘... and submit this section directly to the competent authority of the Member State of destination. ...’.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 32


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Louis E. Prezeau, the Chief Executive Officer and President of City National
Bancshares Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
         September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: November 5, 2004

                                       /s/ Louis E. Prezeau
                                       --------------------------
                                       Louis E. Prezeau
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       and President

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Edward R. Wright, the Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of
City National Bancshares Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
         September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: November 5, 2004

                                        /s/ Edward R. Wright
                                        --------------------
                                        Edward R. Wright
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        and Senior Vice President

                                       17
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2239 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the recognition 

period for built-in gains for subchapter S corporations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2005 

Mr. RAMSTAD (for himself, Mr. HERGER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. 

ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. FOLEY, and Mr. CANTOR) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 

the recognition period for built-in gains for subchapter 

S corporations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCED RECOGNITION PERIOD FOR BUILT-IN 

4 GAINS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (7) of section 1374(d) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to defini7 tions and special rules) is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(7) RECOGNITION PERIOD.—The term ‘rec9 ognition period’ means the 7-year period beginning 
2 

•HR 2239 IH 

1 with the 1st day of the 1st taxable year for which 

2 the corporation was an S corporation. For purposes 

3 of applying this section to any amount includible in 

4 income by reason of distributions to shareholders 

5 pursuant to section 593(e), the preceding sentence 

6 shall be applied without regard to the duration of 

7 the recognition period in effect on the date of such 

8 distribution.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

10 (1) GENERAL RULE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to any recognition period in 

12 effect on or after the date of the enactment of this 

13 Act. 

14 (2) SPECIAL APPLICATION TO EXISTING PERI15 ODS EXCEEDING 7 YEARS.—Any recognition period 

16 in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

17 the length of which is greater than 7 years, shall end 

18 on such date. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 99.2



Certification of

Chief Financial Officer

of Wyndham International, Inc.



This
certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the period ended March 31, 2003 of Wyndham International, Inc.
(the Issuer).



I, Richard A. Smith, Chief Financial
Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) |  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 14,
2003.



/s/ Richard A.
Smith

Name: Richard A. Smith



Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 14th day of May 2003.



/s/ Camaleta M. Roseman

---

Name: Camaleta M. Roseman

Title: Notary Public



My commission expires: 05-24-04



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the
Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICEROR**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report, on Form 10-Q, of Sun Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”),for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Wilmer D. Leinbach, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Tomy knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of and for the periods covered by the Report.

 

 
|                                      | /s/ Wilmer  D. Leinbach                 |   |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                      | Exec. VP  & Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                      |
| Date:   November  14, 2002 |

 

----
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00526

- CV
Dempsie Clinton and Victoria Clinton v. Leobardo Araguz
On Appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2018

- DCL

- 03174

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, havi ng considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s , De mpsie C linton and Victoria Clinton. We further orde r this decision certified below for obs ervance. November 7, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ROBERT BARNES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-133 RM

) 

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Robert Barnes, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging a prison disciplinary sanction. Mr. Barnes was found guilty in Cause No. ISP16-01-0102 of security threat group (i.e., gang) activity. Among other sanctions, he lost 60

days of earned credit time. After Mr. Barnes filed this petition, the Indiana Department of

Correction (“IDOC”) vacated the sanctions and remanded the case for a new hearing.

Based on the IDOC’s action, the respondent moves to dismiss the petition as moot. As the

respondent points out, because the sanctions have been vacated and the case remanded for

a new hearing, there is at present nothing for this court to review. See Hadley v. Holmes,

341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner can challenge prison disciplinary determination

in habeas proceeding only when it resulted in a sanction that lengthened the duration of

his confinement). 

Mr. Barnes has filed two documents in opposition to the motion. He argues that the

petition shouldnt be dismissed because he already endured certain sanctions as a result of
the case. He appears to refer to having temporarily lost phone and commissary privileges

as a result of the guilty finding. This isn’t a basis for keeping his habeas petition alive.

These losses of privileges affect the “severity” rather than the “duration” of custody.

Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2001). As the court of appeals has

explained, “[m]ore restrictive custody must be challenged under § 1983, in the uncommon

circumstance when it can be challenged at all.” Id.

Mr. Barnes also appears to argue that prison officials shouldn’t be allowed to try him

again on the same charge. To the extent he is trying to raise a double jeopardy challenge,

his argument is unavailing, because double jeopardy principles don’t apply in the prison

disciplinary context. See Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly,

the court dismisses the petition. If Mr. Barnes is dissatisfied with the results of the new

hearing, he can file a new habeas petition after exhausting his administrative remedies.

For the reasons set forth above, the respondent’s motion (DE 5) is GRANTED, and

the petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: July 12 , 2016 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court
**EXHIBIT 32.2****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION of CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**The undersigned herby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and inconnection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, that:**•** the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and**•** the information contained in the report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the Company’s consolidated financial conditionand results of operations.The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of the report or as a separate disclosure document.         /s/ JoAnn N. McMinn   JoAnn N. McMinn, Chief Financial Officer
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Northern District of Indiana

Design Basics, LLC

1:16-cv-00175

Heller & Sons, Incorporated and Heller Development

Corporation

Heller Development Corporation

c/o Mark A. Heller, Registered Agent

10812 Coldwater Rd., Suite 1300

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46845-1267

John D. LaDue

Sean J. Quinn

LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC

205 W. Jefferson Blvd., Suite 200

South Bend, IN 46601

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00175-RLM-SLC document 1-2 filed 05/22/16 page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

1:16-cv-00175

0.00

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00175-RLM-SLC document 1-2 filed 05/22/16 page 2 of 2
#### Serge Silberman et al., Respondents, et al., Plaintiff, v Surrey Cadillac Limousine Service, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants Surrey Cadillac Limousine Service, Inc., and Louis Bianco appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), entered July 13, 1984, which granted plaintiffs Serge Silberman’s and Irene Silberman’s motion for summary judgment against appellants, ordered an assessment of damages, and severed the action against defendant Rena Hoffman.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The Silbermans’ claims are based upon injuries sustained when a vehicle in which plaintiff Serge Silberman was riding as a passenger, which was owned by appellant Surrey Cadillac Limousine Service, Inc., and was operated by appellant Louis Bianco, ran into the rear end of the vehicle in front. The only explanation provided by appellants for the accident is that the vehicle in front had stopped suddenly and without warning. Based on these facts, Special Term granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment. Appellants contend that this was error, arguing that their explanation sufficed to create a triable issue of fact as to whether Bianco acted negligently *(compare, Andre v Pomeroy,*35 NY2d 361*with Ugarriza v Schmieder,*46 NY2d 471). We disagree.

Bianco was under a duty to maintain a safe distance between the two vehicles *(see,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]) and his failure to do so, in the absence of an adequate, nonnegligent explanation, constituted negligence as a matter of law *(see, Opalek v Oshrain,*33 AD2d 521). Nor is the right of an innocent passenger to summary judgment in any way restricted by questions of comparative negligence which may exist as between *834appellants and the driver of the vehicle in front *(see, Kiernan v Edwards,*97 AD2d 750). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
[No. 21468-7-II.

Division Two.

September 26, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Charles W.A. Livengood, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 96-8-00614-1, James E.F.X. Warme, J., entered December 17, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Morgan and Seinfeld, JJ.
Presidential Documents

32629 

Federal Register 

Vol. 86, No. 117 

Tuesday, June 22, 2021 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of June 8, 2021 

Delegation of Authority Under Section 1217(c) of Public Law 

116–283 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, 

United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State, in coordination 

with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense, 

the authority to submit to the Congress the reports required by section 

1217(c) of Public Law 116–283 on verification and compliance regarding 

the ‘‘Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan Between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state 

and is known as the Taliban and the United States of America.’’ 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, June 8, 2021 

[FR Doc. 2021–13207 

Filed 6–21–21; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_PREZDOC1BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
#### BAUER, Respondent, v. ST. JOHN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Louis Bauer against Gamaliel C. St. John. J. W. Hawes, for appellant. H. V. Rutherford, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
----

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY            ACT OF 2002 

The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer of China Agritech, Inc. This Certification is made pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompaniesthe Form 10-KSB of China Agritech, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31,2005. 

The undersigned certifies that such 10-KSB Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-KSB Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of China Agritech, Inc. as of December 31, 2005. 

This Certification is executed as of April 14, 2006. 

| *By: /s/ Yu Chang                              
 *Name: Yu Chang*Title: CEO, President and Secretary*(Principal Executive Officer)
 
 
 
 *By: /s/ Lijun Peng                             
 *Name: Lijun Peng*Title: Chief Financial Officer and Controller*(Principal Financial Officer)
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to China Agritech, Inc. and will be retained by China Agritech, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.******** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Roger HARGRAVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.G. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; States Attorney’s Office; County Attorney’s Office, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-6401.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

Roger Hargrave, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger Hargrave appeals the district court’s order construing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action as a mandamus petition and denying relief and the court’s order denying his subsequent motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Hargrave v. Prince George’s Cnty. Circuit Court,*No. 1:11-cv-00223-BEL (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2011 & Feb. 24, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*