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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1879 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1879

          For the relief of Edwardo Reyes and Dianelita Reyes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 1999

  Mr. Porter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          For the relief of Edwardo Reyes and Dianelita Reyes.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR EDWARDO REYES AND DIANELITA 
              REYES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Edwardo Reyes and Dianelita 
Reyes shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Edwardo Reyes or Dianelita Reyes 
enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
subsection (c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and 
remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for 
adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Edwardo Reyes and Dianelita 
Reyes, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 
the country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Edwardo Reyes 
and Dianelita Reyes shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be 
accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
Jose J. GALIANY-CRUZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8373.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Michael Allen Seaton v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00722

- CR

Trial court case number: 1448336

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

The certification in this case is inconsistent with the record. According to t he clerk’s

recor d, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to a child

, pursuant to an agreement with the State that the sentence be capped at 50 years. In acc ordance with the agreement, the trial court
sentence d appellant to confinement for 50 years. A plea agreement that a sentence be “capped” constitutes a plea bargain

. S ee Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ; Shankle v. State , 119 S .W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (stating that sentence

- bargaining includes r ecommended “cap” on sentencing); Waters v. State , 124 S.W.3d 825, 826

– 27 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) ( stating that conviction based on agr eement that caps punishment is subject to restrictions on appeal in Rule 25.2(a)(2) ). The certification of appellant’s right to appeal indicates, however, that this is not a plea bargain case and that appellant has the right of appeal.

A certification i s “defective” if it is correct in form, but inaccurate when compared with the record. Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). U nless a certification that is consistent with the record and that shows that the appellant has the right to appeal has been made part of the record , we must dismiss the appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 613; Waters , 124 S.W.3d at 826

– 27 (holding that reviewing court lacked jurisdiction where defendant pled guilty with sentencing cap, ev e n though trial court certified defendant had right of appeal)

. The rules provide that a certification may be amended to correct a defect or omission. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.1; Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 614

– 15. Accordingly, we direct the trial court to prep are and file an amended certification of appellant’s right to appeal that is consistent with the record and complies with Rule 25.2(d), including that the certification be signed by the defendant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d ). We further direct the trial court to order the district c lerk to include the trial court’s certification in a supplemental clerk ’s record

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(c). The supplemental record shall be filed in this Court no later than 20 days from the date of this order

.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_

/s/ Rebeca Huddle  Acting individually

Date: February 25, 2016
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 09/20/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       43,140
COMMITMENTS
  11,333    1,275    5,968   13,562   24,921   30,863   32,164   12,277   10,976

CHANGES FROM 09/13/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -238)
    -834      173      453      846   -1,170      465     -545     -703      306

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    26.3      3.0     13.8     31.4     57.8     71.5     74.6     28.5     25.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       58)
      16        7       18       26       20       53       41
```

----

Updated September 23, 2011
# C_2013377EN.01000801.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams (Latvia) lodged on 21 October 2013 — SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-547/13)

2013/C 377/16

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must headings 9018 and 9019 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that the following devices: ‘UltraPulse Encore laser’ tips, ‘Light Sheer ST’, ‘IPL Quantum SR’ and its ‘HR upgd for IPL Quantum’ and ‘DL upgd for IPL Quantumsystem’ heads, ‘Ultrashape contour I’ treatment heads, the ‘IPL Quantum SR 560’ device, the ‘Ls-Duet’ device and its accessories, and the Lumenis M22 appliance, which are used in the practice of medicine, may be classified under those headings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must headings 9018 and 9019 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that the following devices: ‘UltraPulse Encore laser’ tips, ‘Light Sheer ST’, ‘IPL Quantum SR’ and its ‘HR upgd for IPL Quantum’ and ‘DL upgd for IPL Quantumsystem’ heads, ‘Ultrashape contour I’ treatment heads, the ‘IPL Quantum SR 560’ device, the ‘Ls-Duet’ device and its accessories, and the Lumenis M22 appliance, which are used in the practice of medicine, may be classified under those headings?

1

| 2. | If headings 9018 and 9019 should not be applicable, may those goods be classified under heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If headings 9018 and 9019 should not be applicable, may those goods be classified under heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature?

| 3. | If the reply is negative, what other heading provides the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature for the purposes of classification? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the reply is negative, what other heading provides the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature for the purposes of classification?

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 1, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Penn-America Group,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jon S. Saltzman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) |  | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 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/ Jon S. Saltzman Jon S. Saltzman
President and Chief Executive Officer

November 5, 2004

---
Edilberto MASO DIAZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9202.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
In Re Keith E. DOYLE, petitioner.

No. 18-7528.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Exhibit 13.1









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 Annual Report of CHINA HELI RESOURCE RENEWABLE INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 20−F for transition period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, FAN Di, Chief Executive Officer and Acting 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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated:  March 15, 2011








/s/            FAN Di


Name:     FAN Di


Title:       Chief Executive Officer


Acting Chief Financial Officer
Arion D. ANDREWS, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 18-9082.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County denied.
Maria Suyapa VELASQUEZ, et al., petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General.

No. 18-813.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000909724
<NAME>                        THE LEATHER FACTORY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                       1
<CURRENCY>                                                US DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                             JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                    1
<CASH>                                                       743,006
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              1,907,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  92,000
<INVENTORY>                                                7,323,505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          10,652,543
<PP&E>                                                     3,065,078
<DEPRECIATION>                                             1,980,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            16,799,961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      8,414,048
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                      23,648
<OTHER-SE>                                                 8,081,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              16,799,961
<SALES>                                                   12,052,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          12,052,950
<CGS>                                                      6,880,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              6,880,292
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           4,822,555
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           397,894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (33,410)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  52,073
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (84,483)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (85,483)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  (0.01)





</TABLE>
```
 
 
IN DELIVERY MONTH EUA - GREEN EXCHANGE                               Code-006GEC
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/13/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1000 EUA)                              OPEN INTEREST:       90,306
COMMITMENTS
     617    5,004   13,133   76,495   72,169   90,245   90,306       61        0

CHANGES FROM 12/06/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,155)
       2      713      -94    1,304      644    1,212    1,263      -57     -108

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     0.7      5.5     14.5     84.7     79.9     99.9    100.0      0.1      0.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       21)
       2        7        5        8       12       13       21
```

----

Updated December 16, 2011
In Re Miles KAUFMAN, petitioner.

No. 18-9057.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Darryl SCHNEIDER, petitioner, v. Robert WELKER.

No. 17-9268.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

*143Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.
Michael BALICE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9192.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                    Certificate of Chief Financial Officer of

                          EasyLink Services Corporation

     I, Michael A. Doyle, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
EasyLink Services Corporation (the "Company"), certify for the purposes of
section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that to my
knowledge:

          (i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ending
     December 31, 2006 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
     section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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


/s/ Michael A. Doyle
-------------------------------------
Thomas Murawski
Chief Executive Officer

March 27, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of chapter
63 of title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to EasyLink Services
Corporation and will be retained by EasyLink Services Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6259** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. GLEN ALAN SPICER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. James A. Beaty, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00299

- JAB

- 1; 1:12

- cv - 00565

- JAB

JEP )

Submitted : July 24, 2014 Decided: August 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON and KING , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Glen Alan Spicer, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for App ellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Glen Alan Spicer seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation s of the magistrate judge and dismissing in part and denying in part his Fed. R. C iv. P. 60(b ) motions to reopen the district court’s proceedings denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012) motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . A certific ate 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

reaso nable 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 o n 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 review ed the record and conclude that Spicer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 181

To repeal the authority of the President to suspend the effective date of

title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD)

Act of 1996.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1999

Mr. MCCOLLUM (for himself, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr.

BLUNT, and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To repeal the authority of the President to suspend the

effective date of title III of the Cuban Liberty and

Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996.

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 ‘‘LIBERTAD Enforce5 ment Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUSPENSION AUTHORITY.

7 (a) REPEAL.—Section 306 of the Cuban Liberty and

8 Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22
2

•HR 181 IH

1 U.S.C. 6085) and the item relating to that section in the

2 table of contents of that Act, are repealed.

3 (b) EFFECT ON PREVIOUS SUSPENSIONS.—The re4 peal made by subsection (a) shall not affect any suspen5 sion by the President, under subsection (b) of section 306

6 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity

7 (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, before the date of the enact8 ment of this Act.

9 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF TITLE III.

10 Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Soli11 darity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6081 and

12 following) and the amendments made by that title shall

13 take effect upon the expiration of any suspension by the

14 President, under subsection (b) of section 306 of the

15 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD)

16 Act of 1996, that is in effect on the date of the enactment

17 of this Act.

18 SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

19 Section 302(a) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic

20 Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6082(a))

21 is amended—

22 (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘after the

23 end of the 3-month period beginning on the effective

24 date of this title’’ and inserting ‘‘on or after the ef25 fective date of this title’’; and
3

•HR 181 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘, after the

2 end of the 3-month period described in paragraph

3 (1)’’.

Æ