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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1773 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to exempt 

from duty residue of bulk cargo contained in instruments of international 

traffic previously exported from the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2015 

Mr. MARCHANT (for himself and Mr. KIND) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to exempt from duty residue of bulk cargo contained in instruments of international traffic previously 

exported from 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Residue Entries and 

5 Streamlining Trade Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1773 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM DUTY OF RESIDUE OF BULK 

2 CARGO CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENTS OF 

3 INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC PREVIOUSLY EX4 PORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—General Note 3(e) of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amend7 ed— 

8 (1) in subparagraph (v), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

9 the end; 

10 (2) in subparagraph (vi), by adding ‘‘and’’ at 

11 the end; 

12 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (vi) (as so 

13 amended) the following new subparagraph: 

14 ‘‘(vii) residue of bulk cargo contained in 

15 instruments of international traffic previously 

16 exported from the United States,’’; and 

17 (4) by adding at the end of the flush text fol18 lowing subparagraph (vii) (as so added) the fol19 lowing: ‘‘For purposes of subparagraph (vii) of this 

20 paragraph: The term ‘residue’ means material of 

21 bulk cargo that remains in an instrument of inter22 national traffic after the bulk cargo is removed, with 

23 a quantity, by weight or volume, not exceeding 7 

24 percent of the bulk cargo, and with no or de minimis 

25 value. The term ‘bulk cargo’ means cargo that is 

26 unpackaged and is in either solid, liquid, or gaseous 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1773 IH

1 form. The term ‘instruments of international traffic’ 

2 means containers or holders, capable of and suitable 

3 for repeated use, such as lift vans, cargo vans, ship4 ping tanks, skids, pallets, caul boards, and cores for 

5 textile fabrics, arriving (whether loaded or empty) in 

6 use or to be used in the shipment of merchandise in 

7 international traffic, and any additional articles or 

8 classes of articles that the Commissioner of U.S. 

9 Customs and Border Protection designates as in10 struments of international traffic.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 subsection (a) take effect on the date of the enactment 

13 of this Act and apply with respect to residue of bulk cargo 

14 contained in instruments of international traffic that are 

15 imported into the customs territory of the United States 

16 on or after such date of enactment and that previously 

17 have been exported from the United States. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# L_2009055EN.01004501.xml

| 27.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 55/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/45

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/2009 of 19 February 2009 fixing the maximum export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 49 of 20 February 2009
  )

On page 9, Article 1 should read as follows:

‘Article 1

For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 17 February 2009, the maximum amount of refund for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(c) and in Article 2 of that Regulation shall be EUR 21,98/100 kg.’.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED, PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Annual Report of Document Sciences Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Todd W. Schmidt, in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of 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:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                        
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2006 |  | /s/    TODD W.
SCHMIDT                 
|                      |  | Todd W. Schmidt Chief Financial Officer
# C_2009150EN.01000201.xml

| 2.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 150/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 150/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5487 — Voith/RWEI/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 150/03

On 15 May 2009, 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 German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5487. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5487. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### U.S. Bank National Association, Respondent, v APP International Finance Company, B.V., et al., Appellants. (And Another Action.)

Submitted November 13, 2006;

decided January 9, 2007

*831Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
# L_2009310EN.01002201.xml

| 25.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 310/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 310/22

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1131/2009

of 24 November 2009

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Moutarde de Bourgogne (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Moutarde de Bourgogne’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Moutarde de Bourgogne’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objections within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 were received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objections within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 were received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 November 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 72, 26.3.2009, p. 62.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 2.6.   Mustard paste

FRANCE

Moutarde de Bourgogne (PGI)

---
<PAGE>

 Exhibit 3.1.8
                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                             ARTHUR TREACHER'S, INC.

To the Secretary of State:

         Pursuant to the provisions of the Utah law, the undersigned corporation
hereby amends its Articles of Incorporation,  and for that purpose,  submits the
following statements:

(1)  The name of the corporation is Arthur Treacher's, Inc.

(2)  The text of each amendment adopted is:

                           "FIRST: The name of the corporation is Digital
                           Creative Development Corporation."

                           "FOURTH:  The total number of shares of capital stock
                           which the  corporation  shall have authority to issue
                           is  85,000,000  of which  75,000,000  shall be Common
                           Stock, par value $.01 per share, and 10,000,000 shall
                           be Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share."

(3) The First  amendment was duly adopted on May 1, 2000 by the  shareholders in
accordance with the provisions of Section 16-10a-704.

         (a) Of the 15,424,004 shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value,  entitled
         to vote on the amendment,  8,040,470 were  represented by a majority of
         the shareholders by written consent on May 1, 2000; and

         (b) The  following  number of shares of Common Stock have been voted in
         favor of and against the adoption of the resolution:

                            8,040,470 shares in Favor
                            0         shares against
                            0         abstain

(4) The Fourth  Amendment was duly adopted on May 1, 2000 by the shareholders in
accordance with the provisions of Section 16-10a-704.

         (a) Of the 15,424,004 shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value,  entitled
         to vote on the amendment,  8,040,470 were  represented by a majority of
         the shareholders by written consent on May 1, 2000; and


<PAGE>



         (b) The  following  number of shares of Common Stock have been voted in
         favor of and against the adoption of the resolution:

                            8,040,470 shares in Favor
                            0         shares against
                            0         abstain


The number of votes casted for each amendment was sufficient for the approval of
each amendment by a majority of the shareholders entitled to vote thereon.


                                             [Signature Page Follows]


<PAGE>



Dated:   July 27, 2000

                                               ARTHUR TREACHER'S INC

                                               By:      /s/ Bruce Galloway
                                                        Name: Bruce Galloway
                                                        Title: Chairman and CEO
#### ANTHONY v. VILLAGE OF GLENS FALLS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Action by Lulu Anthony, by guardian, against the village of Glens Falls.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs. All concur. See 38 N. Y. Supp. 536.
#### Patricia M. Hines, Respondent-Appellant, v Douglas W. Hines, Appellant-Respondent.

— Appeals unanimously dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: Prior to the trial of this matrimonial action, the parties entered into a stipulation by which defendant agreed to withdraw his answer to the complaint and to default in appearing, and plaintiff agreed to seek no maintenance and accépt $80 per week child support when she obtained the divorce. At trial, neither defendant nor his attorney appeared. The court heard proof from plaintiff and found the stipulated support unconscionable on its face and awarded $100 per week child support and $50 per week maintenance. Defendant appeals and plaintiff cross-appeals.

The appeal must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from a default judgment (CPLR 5511; *Baecher v Baecher,*95 AD2d 841, 842; *K & S Installations v Dart Mechanical Corp.,*80 AD2d 601; *Perlmutter v Perlmutter,*65 AD2d 601). Defendant’s remedy is to move to vacate the default judgment and, if the motion is denied, to appeal the order denying the motion *(Morse v Morse,*67 AD2d 750; *see,*Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 5511, p 106).

The cross appeal similarly must be dismissed. The court gave plaintiff more than she asked for, and thus she is not an "aggrieved party” within CPLR 5511 *(see, Tongue v Tongue,*61 NY2d 809).

Were we to reach the merits of the appeal, we would conclude that the court erred. Defendant had served an answer and participated in pretrial proceedings. His default was predicated on the stipulation rejected by the court. Under these circumstances, the court should have adjourned the case and permitted the parties to submit proof prior to awarding an amount different from that agreed to by the parties. (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — divorce.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
JEFFREY BELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

No. 3:15-CV-02176-SB 

OPINION AND ORDER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

MOSMAN,J., 

On December 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and 

Recommendation (F&R) [110], recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 

[100] should be DENIED and Plaintiffs Dispositive Motion [99] should be DENIED and this 

case proceed to trial. Defendant objected [116]. Plaintiff did not respond. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de nova determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 

Upon review, and after hearing oral argument on the Motion for Summary Judgment, I 

agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [110] as stated on the 

record. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [100] is DENIED and Plaintiffs Dispositive 

Motion [99] is also DENIED. This case will proceed to trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this Z6_ day of April, 2018. 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER
LA PLATA WEST M & I WATER DIVLatitude: 37.231Longitude: -107.928Elevation: 6908

LA PLATA WEST M & I WATER DIV

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sharkstooth Site Page...



Sharkstooth

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbus Basin Site Page...



Columbus Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mancos Site Page...



Mancos
ADDO - ADY CANALLatitude: 42.081Longitude: -121.845Elevation: None

ADDO - Ady Canal
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of mPhase Technologies,
Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Amendment No. 6 to Form 10K/A for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

> 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
> 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
> 2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
> material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
> Company.

/s/ Ronald A. DurandoRonald A. DurandoChief
Executive Officer

August 13, 2010

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6115

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES J’MORI JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cr-00198-WO-1; 1:16-cv00076-WO-JLW)

Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James J’Mori Jones, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James J’Mori Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for transcript at government 

expense, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# L_2010159EN.01002401.xml

| 25.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 159/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 159/24

---

Corrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009 — Amending Budget No 2

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 18 of 22 January 2010
  )

| 1. | On page 10, column ‘New amount’ of the table, ‘Title 2 — Total’ should read ‘505 200’ and ‘Grand total’ should read ‘8 117 200’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

On page 10, column ‘New amount’ of the table, ‘Title 2 — Total’ should read ‘505 200’ and ‘Grand total’ should read ‘8 117 200’;

| 2. | After the Expenditure table, the following table should be added: |
| --- | --- |

2.

After the Expenditure table, the following table should be added:

‘Establishment plan

| Function group and grade | 2008 | 2009 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Authorised | Authorised |
| Permanent | Temporary | Permanent | Temporary |
| AD 16 | — | — | — | — |
| AD 15 | — | 1 | — | 1 |
| AD 14 | — | — | — | — |
| AD 13 | — | — | — | — |
| AD 12 | — | 3 | — | 3 |
| AD 11 | — | — | — | — |
| AD 10 | — | 4 | — | 4 |
| AD 9 | — | 7 | — | 7 |
| AD 8 | — | 5 | — | 5 |
| AD 7 | — | 9 | — | 9 |
| AD 6 | — | — | — | — |
| AD 5 | — | — | — | — |
| Total grade AD | — | 29 | — | 29 |
| AST 11 | — | — | — | — |
| AST 10 | — | — | — | — |
| AST 9 | — | — | — | — |
| AST 8 | — | — | — | — |
| AST 7 | — | — | — | — |
| AST 6 | — | — | — | — |
| AST 5 | — | 7 | — | 7 |
| AST 4 | — | 1 | — | 1 |
| AST 3 | — | — | — | 2 |
| AST 2 | — | 5 | — | 3 |
| AST 1 | — | 2 | — | 2 |
| Total grade AST | — | 15 | — | 15 |
| Total staff | — | 44 | — | 44 ’ |

Function group and grade

2008

2009

Authorised

Authorised

Permanent

Temporary

Permanent

Temporary

AD 16

—

—

—

—

AD 15

—

1

—

1

AD 14

—

—

—

—

AD 13

—

—

—

—

AD 12

—

3

—

3

AD 11

—

—

—

—

AD 10

—

4

—

4

AD 9

—

7

—

7

AD 8

—

5

—

5

AD 7

—

9

—

9

AD 6

—

—

—

—

AD 5

—

—

—

—

Total grade AD

—

29

—

29

AST 11

—

—

—

—

AST 10

—

—

—

—

AST 9

—

—

—

—

AST 8

—

—

—

—

AST 7

—

—

—

—

AST 6

—

—

—

—

AST 5

—

7

—

7

AST 4

—

1

—

1

AST 3

—

—

—

2

AST 2

—

5

—

3

AST 1

—

2

—

2

Total grade AST

—

15

—

15

Total staff

—

44

—

44 ’

---