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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3870 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3870

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
    511 West 165th Street in New York, New York, as the ``Normandia 
                    Maldonado Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NORMANDIA MALDONADO POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 511 West 165th Street in New York, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Normandia Maldonado Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Normandia 
Maldonado Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Eric MAINS, petitioner, v. CITIBANK, N.A., et al.

No. 17-89

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Shomara M. AUSTIN, petitioner, v. JACKSONVILLE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

No. 17-7951.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
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 Unilens Vision Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I 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: January 12, 2011     
|                           
|/s/ Leonard F. Barker      
|Leonard F. Barker          
|Principal Financial Officer
Robert M. GRAFTON, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7773.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

*2652Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Shawn Temia STRAIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8855.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Jose RAMOS-PEREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8165.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1319 CA 14-01042**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ALBERTA MACIEJEWSKI AND HENRY MACIEJEWSKI, AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF SELENA MACIEJEWSKI, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF 14 YEARS, CLAIMANTS-RESPONDENTS,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NORTH COLLINS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

HURWITZ & FINE, P.C., BUFFALO, CONGDON, FLAHERTY, O’CALLAGHAN, REID, DONLON, TRAVIS & FISHLINGER, UNIONDALE (CHRISTINE GASSER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

FARRELL & FARRELL, HAMBURG (KENNETH J. FARRELL OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAIMANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (James H. Dillon, J.), entered February 24, 2014. The order granted the application of claimants for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting claimants’ application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). “[C]laimant[s] made a persuasive showing that [respondent] . . . acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim . . . [and respondent has] made no particularized or persuasive showing that the delay caused [it] substantial prejudice” ( Matter of Hall v MadisonOneida County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs ., 66 AD3d 1434, 1435 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, inasmuch as “actual notice was had and there is no compelling showing of prejudice to respondent[],” claimants’ failure to offer a reasonable excuse for the delay is not fatal to their application ( Matter of Drozdzal v Rensselaer City Sch. Dist ., 277 AD2d 645, 646; see Hall , 66 AD3d at 1435).

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, et al., petitioners, v. Lamya BREWSTER.

No. 17-776.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Travis MINER, petitioner, v. YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS OIL & GAS, INC., et al.

No. 16-1501.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado denied.
Firkon JAMES, petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6908.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
#### GEO. J. HAENN, Inc., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 8762.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued Feb. 12, 1945.

Decided Feb. 14, 1945.

Edward J. Mingey, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

Harry Baum, of Washington, D. C. (Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, and Robert N. Anderson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.

Before PARKER and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges, and BARD, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

 The only question involved in the case is whether certain expenditures should be allowed as deductions from income of taxpayer, on the ground that they constituted ordinary and necessary business expenses within the meaning of sec. 23(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 23(a). The question is one of fact (Com’r v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467, 47S, 64 S.Ct. 249) ; and the finding of the Tax Court finds ample support in the evidence. The decision appealed from will accordingly be affirmed. Dobson v. Com’r, 320 U.S. 489, 64 S.Ct. 239.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11684]

# ACTION:

Determination.

# SUMMARY:

The State Department is publishing a determination signed September 2, 2021 by the Secretary of State regarding the provision of military assistance to Ukraine.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Below is the “Determination Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to Provide Assistance to Ukraine.”
      ( print page 22614)    

Stanley L. Brown,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-08111 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
Ali YAZDCHI, petitioner, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

No. 17-8235.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Felicia NICHOLS, petitioner, v. Clide MAYS, et al.

No. 17-7560.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
# L_2005339EN.01001401.xml

| 22.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 339/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 339/14

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 114/2005

of 30 September 2005

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 97/2005 of 8 July 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 97/2005 of 8 July 2005 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2004/115/EC of 15 December 2004 amending Council Directive 90/642/EEC as regards the maximum levels for certain pesticide residues fixed therein (2), as corrected by OJ L 5, 7.1.2005, p. 26 and OJ L 72, 18.3.2005, p. 50, is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2004/115/EC of 15 December 2004 amending Council Directive 90/642/EEC as regards the maximum levels for certain pesticide residues fixed therein (2), as corrected by OJ L 5, 7.1.2005, p. 26 and OJ L 72, 18.3.2005, p. 50, is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 54 (Council Directive 90/642/EEC) of Chapter XII of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32004 L 0115: Commission Directive 2004/115/EC of 15 December 2004 (OJ L 374, 22.12.2004, p. 64), as corrected by OJ L 5, 7.1.2005, p. 26 and OJ L 72, 18.3.2005, p. 50.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32004 L 0115: Commission Directive 2004/115/EC of 15 December 2004 (OJ L 374, 22.12.2004, p. 64), as corrected by OJ L 5, 7.1.2005, p. 26 and OJ L 72, 18.3.2005, p. 50.’

Article 2

The text of Directive 2004/115/EC, as corrected by OJ L 5, 7.1.2005, p. 26 and OJ L 72, 18.3.2005, p. 50, in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 October 2005, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

HSH Prinz Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 306, 24.11.2005, p. 24.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 374, 22.12.2004, p. 64.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Lorenzo Robinson EVANS, petitioner, v. Ashbel T. WALL, II, Director, Rhode Island Department of Corrections.

No. 17-8335.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
# L_2004234EN.01000901.xml

| 3.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 234/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 234/9

---

Information relating to the entry into force of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the Mutual Recognition of Certificates of Conformity for Marine Equipment

The Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the Mutual Recognition of Certificates of Conformity for Marine Equipment, which the Council decided to conclude on 21 April 2004
   (1), enters into force on 1 July 2004, the procedures provided for in Article 21 of the Agreement having been completed on 27 February 2004.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 150, 30.4.2004, p. 42.

1

OJ L 185, 24.5.2004, p. 18.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-7287 DONIHUE CARR, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-16-N, CA-95-1217-2) Submitted: October 7, 1997 Decided: November 17, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Donihue Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Donihue Carr appeals from the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). Carr contends that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense should be v acated in light of Bailey v. United States , #6D 6D6D# U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), for insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction under the "use" prong and for an erroneous jury instruction. We affirm. The government properly conceded that under Bailey , Carr did not "use" the firearm. Id. at 508 (holding that use requires active employment of the firearm). Our review of the record discloses, however,that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Carr "carried" the firearm at issue, as carry is defined by this court in United States v. Mitchell , 104 F.3d 649, 653 (4th Cir. 1997). See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (providing standard). Further, although the district court did not address specifically Carr's jury instruction claim, we find that applying the rationale of United States v. Hudgins , 120 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 1997), it is clear that thejury found on sufficient evidence that Carr engaged in conduct constituting carrying of a firearm during and in relation to the drug trafficking offense. We therefore find that neither of these claims warrants reversal of the district court's order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Carr's § 2255 motion. 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 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2057

___________

John Sam Aslakson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 4, 1997

 Filed: March 7, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Sam Aslakson pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess

marijuana with intent to distribute, and using and carrying a

firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1). The section 924(c) conviction was based on a .25

caliber handgun hidden in Aslakson's boot during a drug sale. On

direct appeal, Aslakson argued only for a downward departure; we

affirmed his sentence. See United States v. Aslakson, 982 F.2d 283

(8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1041 (1993).

Aslakson later filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, arguing that his

section 924(c) conviction was invalid under Bailey v. United
 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for 1

the District of Minnesota.

-2-

States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995). The district court denied relief, 1

and Aslakson appeals.

Upon a de novo review of the record, we conclude Aslakson is

not entitled to relief. See United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571,

576 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 224

(1995). Aslakson waived and defaulted his Bailey claim by pleading

guilty and appealing only his sentence. See Bousley v. Brooks, 97

F.3d 284, 287 (8th Cir. 1996). Moreover, his claim is without

merit because he clearly carried a firearm during a drug offense.

See Bailey, 116 S. Ct. at 507 (firearm carried when offender keeps

gun hidden in clothing throughout drug transaction); United States

v. White, 81 F.3d 80, 83 (8th Cir. 1996) ("carry" means to bear

firearm on or about one's person).

Accordingly, we affirm. Aslakson's motion for release is

denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30198 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTONIO VAZQUEZ-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:04-CR-20030-1

-------------------- Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Antonio Vazquez-Gutierrez appeals from his bench-verdict conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. He argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to prove his knowing participation in the conspiracy. Vazquez-Gutierrez specifically refutes several of the bases the district court relied upon when issuing the guilty verdict. After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and deferring to all reasonable inferences drawnNo. 06-30198 -2- by the trial court, the district court’s finding of guilt is supported by substantial evidence. See United States v. Turner , 319 F.3d 716, 720-21 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Ray HILDERBRAND, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5284.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          396829
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2177000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2653008
<PP&E>                                           68787
<DEPRECIATION>                                   16838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3307829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2317519
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       3852825
<OTHER-SE>                                      231207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3307829
<SALES>                                         214811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                214811
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   356135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                115768
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (136859)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (136859)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (136859)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)


</TABLE>
Alejandro CASILLAS PRIETO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8886.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.