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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2397 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Trifloxystrobin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2005 

Mr. COSTA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

Trifloxystrobin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRIFLOXYSTROBIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.29.41 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Trifloxystrobin) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2003’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or with-
2 

•HR 2397 IH 

1 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 January 1, 2004. 

3 (2) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Notwith4 standing section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

5 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon 

6 proper request filed with U.S. Customs and Border 

7 Protection before the 90th day after the date of the 

8 enactment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal 

9 from warehouse for consumption, of any good— 

10 (A) that was made on or after January 1, 

11 2004, and before the date of the enactment of 

12 this Act, and 

13 (B) with respect to which there would have 

14 been no duty if the amendment made by sub15 section (a) applied to such entry or withdrawal, 

16 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if such amend17 ment applied to such entry or withdrawal. 

Æ
Exhibit 32.1



FLAGSTICK VENTURES, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350



The undersigned, Jeff Arthur Jones, in his capacities as Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, of Flagstick Ventures, Inc. do each hereby certify that the Form 10-KSB of Flagstick
Ventures, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2004 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 that the information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Flagstick Ventures, Inc.



This certification is given by the undersigned solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein.



Executed this 20thday of June, 2004.



/s/ Jeff Arthur JonesJeff Arthur JonesChief Executive Officer, Presidentand Principal Financial Officer
[No. 38807-0-I.

Division One.

August 11, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Alejandro Juarz-Quintero, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-1-00665-0, Ann Schindler, J., entered June 10, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Baker, C.J., concurred in by Kennedy and Becker, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 409 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 120
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 409

              To ban the sale of certain synthetic drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2011

    Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Franken, Mr. Blumenthal, 
 Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Casey, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Wyden, 
and Mr. Leahy) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                             July 28, 2011

                Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To ban the sale of certain synthetic drugs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Combating Dangerous Synthetic 
Stimulants Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.

    Schedule I of section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended in subsection (c) by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(18) 4-methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone).
            ``(19) 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV).''.
                                                       Calendar No. 120

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 409

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

              To ban the sale of certain synthetic drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 28, 2011

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Frank Brown, Respondent, *v.*The Twenty-third Street Railway Company, Appellant.

(Submitted April 16, 1890;

decided May 6, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of Eew York, entered upon an order made *668January Y, 1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial'.

*Leslie W. Russell*and *Welton Percy*for appellant.

*B. F. Einstein*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 27 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. ROBERT EARL WRICE,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-6035 (D.C. No. CR-95-132-M) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. The sole issue presented by this direct criminal ap peal is defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s factual finding thatdefendant discharged a gun with the intention of doing bodily harm to a federal off icer. 1 Defendant challenges the sentence he received following his conviction for f orcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering wi th a federal officer engaged in-2-

official duties. See 18 U.S.C. § 111. Specifically, he challenges the sentencing court’s application of the aggravated assault sente ncing guideline, USSG § 2A2.2, rather than the guideline for obstructing or impedi ng an officer, id. , § 2A2.4, to calculate defendant’s sentence. We review the district court’s factual findings onl y for clear error, and defer to the district court’s application of the gu idelines to those facts. United States v. Rue , 988 F.2d 94, 96 (10th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Burdex , 100 F.3d 882, 884 (10th Cir. 1996) (reviewing appli cation of sentencing guidelines to facts only for clear error). The sentencing court applied the aggravated assault guideline, after finding that de fendant discharged a gun while pointing it in the direction of a federal agent. S eeRue , 988 F.2d at 96 (noting application note 1 to § 2A2.2 defines aggravated as sault to include a felonious assault involving a dangerous weapon with the intent to do bodily harm). The record fully supports this finding and the correspo nding inference that defendant fired his weapon with the intent to do bodily harm to the federal officer. The district court’s application of § 2A2.2, therefore, was not error. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero-3- Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              87
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      495
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,885
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,620
<PP&E>                                           1,246
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,111
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        300
<COMMON>                                        19,015
<OTHER-SE>                                     (15,558)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,866
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,456
<CGS>                                            1,716
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  77
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    101
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                101
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       101
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
#### Hugo Koch, Appellant, v Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Greater New York, Respondent.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York (Bruce Wright, J.), entered on or about February 16, 1984, which dismissed the petition against respondent Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Greater New York with prejudice, is unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of deleting the words “with prejudice” and replacing them with the words “without prejudice”, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner seeks a permanent injunction against respondent Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Greater New York, in order to prevent respondent from barring him, and other similarly situated males, from participation in the annual “Women on the Move” road races sponsored by it. Respondent moved to dismiss. Special Term granted the motion with prejudice. We disagree.

Special Term correctly decided that the respondent was an improper party to this proceeding. However, we find that Special Term erred when, without converting the proceeding to a plenary action (CPLR103), it decided this proceeding on the merits, *655and dismissed it with prejudice. Based upon the facts before us, we dismiss the proceeding without prejudice, since petitioner is entitled to commence a plenary action. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Carro and Bloom, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: DISH NETWORK L.L.C. AND 

ECHOSPHERE L.L.C.,

 

 Relators.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00161-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

IN MANDAMUS

O R D E R

The Court has this day considered the Relators’ motion for emergency stay of all prearbitration discovery in cause number 2016DCV2745, styled Yvette Delgado v. DISH Network 

L.L.C. and Echosphere L.L.C., pending in the 243rd District Court of El Paso County, Texas, and 

concludes the motion should be GRANTED. It is, therefore, ORDERED that all pre-arbitration 

discovery and the trial court’s July 13, 2017 order denying Relators’ motion to quash the 

deposition of Katherine Leyba are stayed pending disposition of this original proceeding or 

further order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26

th day of July, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
---

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

I, Douglas D.G. Birnie, the Chief Executive Officer of Ireland
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                     

| | By:    | /s/ Douglas D.G. Birnie               
| | ------ | --------------------------------------
| |        |                                       
| | Name:  | DOUGLAS D.G. BIRNIE                   
| |        |                                       
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer, President and
| |        | Secretary                             
| |        |                                       
| | Date:  | March 30, 2011                        
| |        |                                       

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1716 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1716

 To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit any operator of 
  an automated teller machine that displays any paid advertising from 
  imposing any fee on a consumer for the use of that machine, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2005

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit any operator of 
  an automated teller machine that displays any paid advertising from 
  imposing any fee on a consumer for the use of that machine, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Money (ATM) Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USER FEES FOR AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINES THAT 
              CARRY PAID ADVERTISING .

    The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) is 
amended--
            (2) by redesignating sections 918, 919, 920, and 921 as 
        sections 919, 920, 921, and 922, respectively; and
            (3) by inserting after section 917 the following new 
        section:

``SEC. 918. FEES.

    ``(a) In General.--If an automated teller machine or other cash 
dispensing machine at which a consumer may initiate an electronic fund 
transfer displays any advertising on the screen of such machine, 
whether in the form of a banner or a trailer or in any other format, 
for which the operator of such machine has received any payment or 
other financial benefit, no fee may be imposed on the consumer with 
respect to such transaction by the operator of such machine, whether or 
not the consumer maintains an account with the operator.
    ``(b) Exception for Direct Advertising by the Operator and Public 
Service Announcements.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect 
to--
            ``(1) advertising relating to products or services provided 
        by the operator of an automated teller machine or cash 
        dispensing machine referred to in such subsection or by any 
        affiliate of such operator; or
            ``(2) any public service announcement.''.
                                 <all>
```
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Appellant,

v.

JOSHUA A. COTTRELL and LAUREN M. SMITH,

Appellees. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

C ASE NO. 1D14

- 4222

____________________________/

Opinion filed April 15, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings, James H. Peterson, III, Judge.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorne y General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The Department of Revenue correctly asserts that the Final Administrative

Support Modification Order entered by the Administrative Law Judge was in error

because the subject

- matter jurisdiction of Division of Administrative Hearing s was

not properly invoked under section 409.2563, Florida Statutes (2014). See Dep’t

of Revenue v. Dove

, 152 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). The order on appeal isvacated, and the case is remand ed to the Division of Administrative Hearings with

instructions to enter an order directing the Department of Revenue to begin

modification proceedings under section 409.2563.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CLARK, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Williams, Appellant.

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Solomon Katz, J.), rendered on January 9, 1984, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Fein, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7017

WILLIAM EDWARD BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-1174-R)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Edward Brown, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal from the district court's order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994),

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Brown v. Angelone,

No. CA-95-1174-R (W.D. Va. May 29, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
# L_2008285EN.01002101.xml

| 29.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 285/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/21

---

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2008/822/CFSP

of 27 October 2008

concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 30 October 2007, the Council adopted Common Position 2007/705/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (1), which provided for an extension of the validity of their national permits for entry into, and stay in, the territory of the Member States referred to in Common Position 2002/400/CFSP (2) for a further period of 12 months. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 30 October 2007, the Council adopted Common Position 2007/705/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (1), which provided for an extension of the validity of their national permits for entry into, and stay in, the territory of the Member States referred to in Common Position 2002/400/CFSP (2) for a further period of 12 months.

| (2) | On the basis of an evaluation of the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP, the Council considers it appropriate that the validity of those permits be extended for a further period of 12 months, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of an evaluation of the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP, the Council considers it appropriate that the validity of those permits be extended for a further period of 12 months,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

The Member States referred to in Article 2 of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP shall extend the validity of the national permits for entry and stay granted pursuant to Article 3 of that Common Position for a further period of 12 months.

Article 2

The Council shall evaluate the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP within six months of the adoption of this Common Position.

Article 3

This Common Position shall take effect from the day of its adoption.

Article 4

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 27 October 2008.

For the Council

The President

M. BARNIER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 285, 31.10.2007, p. 54.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 138, 28.5.2002, p. 33.

2

---