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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1584

To prohibit the distribution or receipt of restricted explosives without a

Federal permit, and to require applications for such permits to include

a photograph and the fingerprints of the applicant.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 27, 1999

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

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit the distribution or receipt of restricted explosives

without a Federal permit, and to require applications

for such permits to include a photograph and the fingerprints of the applicant.

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 ‘‘Restricted Explosives

5 Control Act of 1999’’.
2

HR 1584 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTION OR RE2 CEIPT OF RESTRICTED EXPLOSIVES WITH3 OUT A FEDERAL PERMIT.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 842 of title 18, United

5 States Code, is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (a)(3)—

7 (A) in subparagraph (A)—

8 (i) by inserting ‘‘that are not re9 stricted explosives’’ after ‘‘explosive mate10 rials’’ the 2nd place such term appears;

11 and

12 (ii) by striking ‘‘or’’ after the semi13 colon;

14 (B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as

15 subparagraph (C) and inserting after subpara16 graph (A) the following:

17 ‘‘(B) to distribute restricted explosives to

18 any person other than a licensee or permitee;

19 or’’; and

20 (C) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesig21 nated), by inserting ‘‘that are not restricted ex22 plosives’’ after ‘‘explosive materials’’; and

23 (2) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ‘‘if the ex24 plosive materials are not restricted explosives,’’ be25 fore ‘‘a resident’’.
3

HR 1584 IH

1 (b) RESTRICTED EXPLOSIVES DEFINED.—Section

2 841 of such title is amended by adding at the end the

3 following:

4 ‘‘(r) ‘Restricted explosives’ means high explosives,

5 blasting agents, detonators, and more than 50 pounds of

6 black powder.’’.

7 SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT THAT APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL

8 EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT INCLUDE A

9 PHOTOGRAPH AND SET OF FINGERPRINTS

10 OF THE APPLICANT.

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 843(a) of title 18, United

12 States Code, is amended in the 1st sentence by inserting

13 ‘‘shall include the applicant’s photograph and set of fin14 gerprints, which shall be taken and transmitted to the Sec15 retary by the chief law enforcement officer of the appli16 cant’s place of residence, and’’ before ‘‘shall be’’.

17 (b) CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DE18 FINED.—Section 841 of such title, as amended by section

19 2(b) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the

20 following:

21 ‘‘(s) ‘Chief law enforcement officer’ means the chief

22 of police, the sheriff, or an equivalent officer or the des23 ignee of any such individual.’’.
4

HR 1584 IH

1 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to con3 duct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Paras JHOKKE, petitioner, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-1268.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of ImagineNet Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending  October 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, William H. Ragsdale,
Chief  Financial  Officer (or the equivalent  thereof) of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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.



/s/ William H. Ragsdale
-------------------------
William H. Ragsdale
Chief Financial Officer (or the equivalent thereof)
January 14, 2003
# Official Journal C 110A/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.110.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 110A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5329 April 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.110.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 110A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5329 April 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2010/C 110A/01 | Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/178-179/10 | 1 |
| 2010/C 110A/02 | Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/180-181-182/10 | 11 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2010/C 110A/01

Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/178-179/10

1

2010/C 110A/02

Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/180-181-182/10

11

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | (FR) |
| --- | --- |
| 9 | |
| 19 | (FR) |
| 23 | (DE/ES/PT) |
| 28 | |
| 48 | |
| 53 | |
| 56 | |
| 57 | |
| 60 | |
| 61 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 62 | |
| 64 | |
| 66 | (BG/RO) |
| 67 | (ES) |
| 70 | (PT) |
| 73 | (FI) |
| 74 | (SV) |
| 91 | |
| 95 | |
| 104 | |
| 110 | |

5

(FR)

9

19

(FR)

23

(DE/ES/PT)

28

48

53

56

57

60

61

(DE/EN/FR)

62

64

66

(BG/RO)

67

(ES)

70

(PT)

73

(FI)

74

(SV)

91

95

104

110

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Andre WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Steven JOHNSON, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

No. 18M142.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1359 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1359

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse to be 
  constructed at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngstown, Ohio, as the 
``Frank J. Battisti and Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and United 
                          States Courthouse''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1359

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse to be 
  constructed at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngstown, Ohio, as the 
``Frank J. Battisti and Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse to be constructed 
at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngstown, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Frank J. Battisti and Nathaniel R. Jones Federal 
Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Frank J. Battisti and Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 3, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
John COTTAM, petitioner, v. Douglas PELTON.

No. 18-1063.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Mark Allen DAVIS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-9570.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELVIRA BARTOLO-SEBASTIAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-70912

Agency No. A029-376-043

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 23, 2014** 

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Elvira Bartolo-Sebastian, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for

FILED

OCT 3 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant

the petition for review and remand.

In denying Bartolo-Sebastian’s withholding of removal claim, the agency

found Bartolo-Sebastian failed to establish a clear probability that her life or

freedom would be threatened on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and

BIA issued their decisions in this case they did not have the benefit of this court’s

decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc),

Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750

F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 

26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA

2014). Thus, we remand Bartolo-Sebastian’s withholding of removal claim to

determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,

16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach BartoloSebastian’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of her withholding of

removal claim at this time.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

2 11-70912
NO. 07-05-0178-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

MAY 31, 2005

______________________________

IN RE CHARLES WAYNE FARNSWORTH, RELATOR

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Charles Wayne Farnsworth, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks

a writ of mandamus against Jo Carter, in her capacity as District Clerk of Randall County.

Specifically, he requests that Carter be compelled to transmit numerous documents and

items to him for preparation of an application for writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07

of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. We deny the petition.

Appellant asserts that by letter dated April 10, 2005, he sought, among other things,

documents and evidentiary items from an undisclosed proceeding from Carter. His request

being unanswered, he contends he has no other adequate remedy at law and seeks a writ

of mandamus.
2

A court of appeals has the authority to issue writs of mandamus against a judge of

a district or county court in the court of appeals's district and all writs necessary to enforce

its jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). In order for a

district clerk to fall within our jurisdictional reach, it must be established that the issuance

of the writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Jose A. Coronado,

980 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Relator has not

demonstrated that the exercise of our mandamus authority against the Randall County

District Clerk is appropriate to enforce our jurisdiction Consequently, we have no authority

to issue a writ of mandamus against Jo Carter.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice
Exhibit 12

EQUISTAR CHEMICALS, LP

STATEMENT SETTING FORTH DETAIL FOR COMPUTATION OF

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|                                                             |  |                         |     |      |   |       |  |      |     |  |      |      |   |  |   |      |  
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------- | --- | ---- | - | ----- |  | ---- | --- |  | ---- | ---- | - |  | - | ---- | -
|                                                             |  | Year Ended December 31, |    
|Millions of dollars, except ratio data                       |  | 2006                    |     | 2005 |   | 2004  |  | 2003 |     |  | 2002 |     
|Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes |  | $                       | 614 |      | $ | 748   |  | $    | 276 |  | $    | (339 | ) |  | $ | (246 | )
|Fixed charges:                                               |  |                         |     |      |   |       |  |      |     |  |      |      |   |  |   |      |  
|Interest expense, gross                                      |  |                         | 217 |      |   | 227   |  |      | 227 |  |      | 215  |   |  |   | 205  |  
|Portion of rentals representative of interest                |  |                         | 35  |      |   | 34    |  |      | 31  |  |      | 35   |   |  |   | 42   |  
|                                                             |  |                         |     |      |   |       |  |      |     |  |      |      |   |  |   |      |  
|Total fixed charges before capitalized interest              |  |                         | 252 |      |   | 261   |  |      | 258 |  |      | 250  |   |  |   | 247  |  
|Capitalized interest                                         |  |                         |    |      |   |      |  |      |    |  |      |     |   |  |   |     |  
|Total fixed charges including capitalized interest           |  |                         | 252 |      |   | 261   |  |      | 258 |  |      | 250  |   |  |   | 247  |  
|                                                             |  |                         |     |      |   |       |  |      |     |  |      |      |   |  |   |      |  
|Earnings (losses)                                            |  | $                       | 866 |      | $ | 1,009 |  | $    | 534 |  | $    | (89  | ) |  | $ | 1    |  
|                                                             |  |                         |     |      |   |       |  |      |     |  |      |      |   |  |   |      |  
|Ratio of earnings (losses) to fixed charges (a)              |  |                         | 3.4 |      |   | 3.9   |  |      | 2.1 |  |      |     |   |  |   |     |  
|                                                             |  |                         |     |      |   |       |  |      |     |  |      |      |   |  |   |      |  



|(a) | In 2003 and 2002, earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges by $339 million and $246 million, respectively.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Howard LOOMAN, III, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7921.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES, petitioner, v. Maurice Lamont DAVIS and Andre Levon Glover.

No. 18-431.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and J. Joseph Mongaras, Esq., of Dallas, Texas, is appointed to serve as counsel for respondent Andre L. Glover.
Sean P. REILLY, petitioner, v. Guelsy M. HERRERA, et al.

No. 18-6239.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 4, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2
  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
  In connection with the Annual Report of BioPharm Asia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chun Rong Xiong, 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.
   Dated: March 29, 2011
/s/ Chun Rong XiongChun Rong Xiong Chief Financial Officer

(principal financial officer)
Francisco CUBERO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5149.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
ULTRATECH STEPPER INC., FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          55,516
<SECURITIES>                                    88,403
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,326
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,236
<INVENTORY>                                     27,766
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,174
<PP&E>                                          49,906
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,986
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                     205,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   236,972
<SALES>                                         72,076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,476
<CGS>                                           43,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,296
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    67
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,169)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,169)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,169)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30790 

Summary Calendar

__________________

BERNADINE CORMIER,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CV-949

- - - - - - - - - -

January 31, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant appeals from the denial of relief in her complaint

against the Commissioner of Social Security seeking payment of

benefits for the entire period of her husband's disability. We

have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation, and the district court's order, and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss for essentially the

reasons given by the district court. See Cormier v. Chater, No.

93-CV-949 (W.D. La. July 5, 1995). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/04/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      160,762
COMMITMENTS
  53,348   18,583   29,324   54,303   83,180  136,975  131,087   23,787   29,675

CHANGES FROM 09/27/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,170)
  -9,646    1,339    6,036    3,329   -6,399     -281      976    2,451    1,194

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    33.2     11.6     18.2     33.8     51.7     85.2     81.5     14.8     18.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      177)
      60       28       50       55       62      131      131
```

----

Updated October 7, 2011
Bernard MITCHELL, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-8490.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.