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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2383 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2383

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

  To redesignate the facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 
   19550 Kelso Road in Byron, California, as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones 
                            Pumping Plant''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF FACILITY.
    The facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 19550 Kelso 
Road in Byron, California, and known as the Tracy Pumping Plant, shall 
be known and designated as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones Pumping Plant''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones Pumping 
Plant''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
# C_2019280EN.01001802.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 9 April 2019 — Dexia Nederland BV v Z

(Case C-289/19)

(2019/C 280/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dexia Nederland BV

Respondent: Z

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the user of an unfair term relating to the payment of compensation in the event of a consumer’s non-compliance with his obligations, which has been declared void, claim the legal compensation provided for by way of supplementary law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the user of an unfair term relating to the payment of compensation in the event of a consumer’s non-compliance with his obligations, which has been declared void, claim the legal compensation provided for by way of supplementary law?

| 2. | For the purpose of answering that question, does it matter whether the compensation that can be claimed by the application of the statutory compensation scheme is equal to or lower or higher than the compensation under the term which has been declared void? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purpose of answering that question, does it matter whether the compensation that can be claimed by the application of the statutory compensation scheme is equal to or lower or higher than the compensation under the term which has been declared void?

---
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Charles D. Janice

*William M. Bloss,*in support of the petition.

*Carolyn K. Longstreth,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided December 19, 1989

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 212, is denied.
#### Beverly Karp, Appellant, v Harvey L. Karp, Respondent.

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Kenneth Shorter, J.), entered September 25, 1984, dismissing plaintiff’s second cause of action seeking a division of community property acquired by the parties while they were domiciliaries of the State of California and such other property as has been acquired in exchange therefor while they were domiciliaries of the State of New York, affirmed, without costs.

In affirming, we do not pass judgment on whether plaintiff’s interest in the community property in question survived the removal of the parties’ domicile from California to this State. It is sufficient for our purposes to note that under California law, distribution of community property between spouses may not be compelled during the life of the marriage. The rule originally judge-made *(Jacquemart v Jacquemart,*142 Cal App 2d 794, 299 P2d 281), is now embodied in statute (Cal Code of Civ Pro § 872.210). Plaintiff acquired no greater right to distribution upon the removal of the parties to this State than she had when the parties were domiciled in California. The appropriate time to determine the issue presented by plaintiff’s second cause of action will come into being if and when the marriage is dissolved or otherwise terminated. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Bloom and Kassal, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 99.5

                                  CERTIFICATION

                        Chase Manhattan Auto Owner Trust
                           Series 2002-A (the "Trust")

I, Keith W. Schuck, the chief financial officer of Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
National Association, the depositor of assets into the above-referenced Trust,
certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the
         Trust;

2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the sale
         and servicing agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in
         these reports;

4.       Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included
         in this annual report and required to be delivered to the trustee in
         accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, and
         except as disclosed in this annual report, the servicer has fulfilled
         its obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement; and

5.       This annual report discloses all significant deficiencies relating to
         the servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based
         upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
         conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
         Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
         sale and servicing agreement, that is included in this annual report.





Date:    March 28, 2003


/s/ Keith W. Schuck
------------------------------
Name:    Keith W. Schuck
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Company: Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association
EXHIBIT  32.1  &  32.2

      STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-QSB of Technology Connections,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  for  the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin
G.  Kyzer,  Chief  Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify  that:

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

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


/s/  Kevin  G.  Kyzer
---------------------
Kevin  G.  Kyzer
Director, President, Chief Executive Officer,
and  Chief  Financial Officer


April  20,  2004


This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  be  deemed  filed by the Company for purposes of
Section  18  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended.
**Exhibit
32.2**
 
 
 
 ****CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
**AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**
**SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002****
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Minera Andes Inc. (the “Corporation”),
on Form 10-QSB for the six month period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William
V. Schara, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, 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:
 
 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
      Corporation.
 
 MINERA
ANDES INC.
 
 Date: August 15,
2005   By: /s/
William V.
Schara
 William V. Schara
 Chief Financial Officer
Ex. 99.4

                    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

     In connection  with the annual  report of A/S  Steamship  Company Torm (the
"Company")  on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2002,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
the  undersigned  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 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.

     This  certification  is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,
and not for any other purpose.

June 30, 2003


/s/ Klaus Nyborg
----------------
Klaus Nyborg

Chief Financial Officer

03810.0001 #413894
# C_2019357EN.01000401.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/4

---

Appeal brought on 14 March 2019 by Petr Fryč against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2019 in Case T-513/18, Fryč v Commission

(Case C-230/19 P)

(2019/C 357/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Petr Fryč (represented by: Š. Oharková, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 5 September 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that this appeal is manifestly unfounded.

---
Exhibit 13.2


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of Torm A/S (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roland M. Andersen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.








Date: June 23, 2011








/s/ Roland M. Andersen


Roland M. Andersen


Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)





SK 03810 0001 1206789
#### Jan Krejbich, Respondent, v Schimenti Construction Company, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[942 NYS2d 538]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 12, 2011, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Flaintiff testified that while he was installing wooden siding to a shed, the A-frame ladder he was standing upon tipped over, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain injury. Plaintiffs version of events was corroborated by his coworker. Accordingly, a violation of section 240 (1) was established *(see Harrison v V.R.H. Constr. Corp.,*72 AD3d 547 [2010]; *Thompson v St. Charles Condominiums,*303 AD2d 152, 154 [2003], *lv dismissed*100 NY2d 556 [2003]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants failed to put forth any evidence of record that establishes that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Moreover, conflicting accounts as to the positioning of the ladder *after*the accident and the color of the ladder that plaintiff was using do not create an issue of fact as to proximate *669cause *(see e.g. Vergara v SS 133 W. 21, LLC,*21 AD3d 279, 280 [2005]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions, including that the height from which plaintiff fell was de minimis, and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Theophilus Y. Ojuola, Appellant, v New York State Division of Human Rights, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 893] —

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered November 1, 2011, which, to the extent appealable, denied petitioner’s motion to renew his article 78 petition challenging a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly denied the motion to renew, as petitioner submitted no new facts in support of his petition *(William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis,*182 AD2d 22, 27 [1992], *lv denied in part and dismissed in part*80 NY2d 1005 [1992]; *Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 568 [1979]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF  YOUNG  &  RUBICAM  AND  SUBSIDIARY
     COMPANIES  FOUND IN THE  COMPANY'S  FORM 10-Q AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS
     ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
     SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                   0001030048
<NAME>                  YOUNG & RUBICAM INC.
<MULTIPLIER>            1
<CURRENCY>              US DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                1
<CASH>                                                93,326,000
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        973,792,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (20,218,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1,259,917,000
<PP&E>                                               431,898,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (259,650,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     2,104,804,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,370,108,000
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                 702,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           288,869,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       2,104,804,000
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   1,226,686,000
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1,083,989,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     (70,835,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     9,224,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      204,308,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                          81,723,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  124,228,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                         124,228,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                               1.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               1.50



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 783 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 32
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 783

   To provide an extension of time for filing individual income tax 
         returns in the case of a Federal Government shutdown.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 8, 2011

 Mr. Thune introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

                             April 12, 2011

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide an extension of time for filing individual income tax 
         returns in the case of a Federal Government shutdown.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURNS 
              IN THE CASE OF A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

    (a) In General.--In the case of a Federal Government shutdown which 
begins after April 8, 2011 and before April 19, 2011, the filing 
deadline specified in section 6072(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 with respect to returns made on the basis of calendar year 2010 
shall be treated as being not earlier than the date which is 10 
calendar days after the end of such Federal Government shutdown. For 
purposes of the preceding sentence, the rules of section 7503 of such 
Code shall apply.
    (b) Federal Government Shutdown.--The term ``Federal Government 
shutdown'' means any period during which funds are not appropriated for 
the non-defense discretionary operations of the Federal Government by 
reason of the absence of an enacted Appropriations bill providing such 
funds.
                                                        Calendar No. 32

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 783

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To provide an extension of time for filing individual income tax 
         returns in the case of a Federal Government shutdown.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 12, 2011

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHO HAVE FILED AGREEMENTS TO BE APPROVED 

AS A DEPOSITORY OF TRUST ACCOUNTS AND TO PROVIDE DISHONORED CHECK REPORTS IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 221, Pa.R.D.E. 

New 

Name Change 

191 First Columbia Bank & Trust Company — Change to 191 Journey Bank 

Platinum Leader Change 

Correction 

Removal 

January 2024
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-40111

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

ROY DIXON; LEONARD WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-94-CR-9

September 5, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roy Dixon and Leonard Williams appeal from their jury

convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail

fraud, and money laundering, as well as for the underlying

substantive offenses of mail and wire fraud. We have reviewed each

issue that they have raised.
2

The district court did not err in calculating their offense

levels by referring to the money-laundering guideline, U.S.S.G. §

2S1.1, because of the related offenses of conviction, it carried

the highest offense level. See § 3D1.3(a). Dixon has not shown

that the district court abused its discretion by departing upward

in imposing his sentence given the court’s finding that there

existed aggravating circumstances not adequately taking into

account by the Sentencing Commission. See § 5K2.0, p.s. Because

Williams did not appeal the magistrate judge’s pretrial discovery

ruling to the district court, this court is without jurisdiction to

consider the issue in this appeal. See Colburn v. Bunge Towing,

Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989). Nor has Williams

established an “actual injury” as is required to support his

inadequate-access-to-the-courts assertion. See Lewis v. Casey, 116

S. Ct. 2174 (1996). The evidence was more than sufficient to

convict Williams, as it is not this Court’s duty to second-guess

the credibility of witnesses such as Ronnie Raggs. Finally,

because Williams had shown no error, his cumulative-error

contention is meritless. See Derden v. McNeel, 987 F.2d 1453, 1458

(5th Cir. 1992) (en banc), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 960 (1993).

AFFIRMED.