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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2216 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2216

          To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical HPA.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 1999

  Ms. Kaptur introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical HPA.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.32.54      Hydroxypivalic      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/
                         acid (HPA)                                                         31/2003          ''.
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2918.19.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Herbert PRIDGEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5294.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Chad WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Applicants, v. INNOVATION LAW LAB, et al.

No. 19A960.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 11, 2020.

Application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the district court's April 8, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Sotomayor would deny the application.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7789

SCOTT ANTHONY BRADSHAW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-95-257-A)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Anthony Bradshaw, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Bradshaw v. United States, No. CA-95-257-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 5,

1995). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

ERIC ANTHONY WIMBUSH, a/k/a E from DC, a/k/a Sld Dft 

5:02CR37-11, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00037-RLV-11; 5:08-cv-00010-

RLV) 

Submitted: January 20, 2009 Decided: February 5, 2009 

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Eric Anthony Wimbush, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Theodore 

Martens, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Eric Anthony Wimbush seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wimbush 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 legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10850 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MAURICIO MORALES

- AGUILAR , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 18

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mauricio Morales

- Aguilar appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for transportation of illegal aliens and aiding and abetting. He argues that the district court erred in imposing a one - year term of supervised release to follow his 12

- month term of imprisonment because Morales

- Aguilar is a deportable alien. Additionally, Morales

- Aguilar contends

* 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 May 8, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10850 Document: 00512624129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2014No. 13

- 10850 that the district court failed to provide any fact

- specific reasons for the imposition of supervised release

. Morales

- Aguilar has completed his term of imprisonment, has been released from custody, and has been removed to Mexico. The appeal of his sentence is therefore moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum

- Alanis , 483 F.3d 381, 382

- 83 (5th C ir. 2007). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

2 Case: 13-10850 Document: 00512624129 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2014
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

I, Dana D. Messina, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

c) Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 6,  2004 |                           |
|--------------------|--------------------------------|
|               |                           |
|               | /s/ Dana D.  Messina           |   |
|               |                           |
|               | Dana D.  Messina               |
|               |                           |
|               | Director,  President and Chief |
|               | Executive  Officer             |

 

----
Lan DEYERLE, Petitioner, v. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES.

No. 18-9531

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Eastern District of Texas XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. 2:23-cv-00470 XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies 08/02/2024 /s/ Jonathan MA Jonathan Ma (CA SBN 312773)

Russ August & Kabat 

12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

jma@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

-JRG-RSP

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 52 Filed 08/02/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1126
October 18, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CITY OF GALVESTON, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00192-CV V.

GALVESTON MUNICIPAL POLICE ASSOCIATION, JIMMY DE LOS SANTOS,

AND ROBERT SANDERSON, Appellees

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, GALVESTON 

MUNICIPAL POLICE ASSOCIATION, JIMMY DE LOS SANTOS, AND ROBERT 

SANDERSON, signed February 3, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order the 

judgment of the court below REVERSED and RENDER judgment that the claims 

against appellant, CITY OF GALVESTON, be DISMISSED.

We order appellees, GALVESTON MUNICIPAL POLICE ASSOCIATION, 

JIMMY DE LOS SANTOS, AND ROBERT SANDERSON, jointly and severally, to pay 

all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for 

observance.
Michael Ramon OCHOA, Petitioner, v. Arthur LEVINE, et al.

No. 19-902.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Office denied.
Avery BLODGETT, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5111

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 02/12/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       87,960
COMMITMENTS
   6,432    5,166        0   75,926   80,342   82,358   85,508    5,602    2,452

CHANGES FROM 02/05/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        -48)
  -1,057      155        0    1,463     -132      406       23     -454      -71

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     7.3      5.9      0.0     86.3     91.3     93.6     97.2      6.4      2.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       72)
       9        5        0       36       35       45       40
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 02/12/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      180,791
COMMITMENTS
  42,584   22,691    1,263  122,509  153,460  166,356  177,414   14,435    3,377

CHANGES FROM 02/05/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -393)
     579      736        0     -769     -874     -190     -138     -203     -255

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    23.6     12.6      0.7     67.8     84.9     92.0     98.1      8.0      1.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      138)
      38       13        3       67       39      108       52
```

----

Updated February 15, 2013
EX-10.6



 EXHIBIT 10.6 
 ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM 
 The purpose of DCB Financial Corp’s
(“DCB’s”) annual incentive compensation program is to provide direct financial incentives in the form of an annual cash bonus and DCB shares to executives who achieve the DCB’s annual goals. For 2011, the Compensation Committee
recommended, and the Board of Directors selected, earnings per share, the efficiency ratio, credit quality, the net interest margin, and return on equity of DCB as the measurements of DCB’s performance, with a threshold goal set for each
performance measure for determining bonus opportunities for executive officers. DCB performance exceeding the threshold produces a ratable increase in the bonus amount based upon that particular performance measure. Individual goals are also
established for each executive officer; however, each executive officer’s bonus opportunity is determined by weighting individual and company goals. The amount distributed to each participant is based on his or her base salary and is weighted
to reflect each participant’s ability to affect the performance of DCB. Incentive compensation plans are analyzed to assure consistency with the Compensation Committee’s underlying compensation philosophy. The Board of Directors retains
the right, after receipt of recommendations by the Compensation Committee, to adjust goals and to determine the amount of payments to be made at the end of the year.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00021

- CV
Jose Manuel PELAYO , Appellant

v. Adriana C. PelayoAppellee Adriana C. PELAYO , Appellee From the County Court a t Law No

. 1, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013C VG000070 C1 Honorable Alvino (Ben) Morales, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 16, 2014
DIS MISSED Both appellant and appellee are pro se in this appeal. On April 2, 2014, the parties filed a joint letter with this court asking that certain portions of their divorce decree be changed or “affirmed,” and asking this court to grant their divorce on the terms mentioned in the letter and to

c hange appellee’s last name. We will treat this letter as a motion to dismiss based on the parties reaching an agreement regarding their divorce decree. We dismiss the appeal. However, rather than enter the divorce decree on the terms requested by the par ties, we instead remand this cause to the trial court to enter a decree pursuant04

- 14

- 00021

- CV
to the parties’ agreement. The parties should submit their letter

- agreement to the trial court for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM

- 2

-
Aaron Lee SMILEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19M19

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal granted.
Joseph O'SHAUGHNESSY, aka Joseph D. O'Shaughnessy, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7078.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

### **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS REQUIRED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis M. Hanson, Senior Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of myknowledge:

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

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
|              | /s/ Dennis M. Hanson                |   |
|--------------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|         |                                |
|         | Senior Executive Vice President and |
|         | Chief Financial Officer             |
|         | (Principal Financial Officer)       |
|         |                                |
|         |                                |
| May 10, 2007 |                                |

 

----
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/01/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      356,219
COMMITMENTS
  85,412  167,354   76,330  170,096   85,953  331,838  329,637   24,381   26,582

CHANGES FROM 09/24/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -12,013)
  -8,614   -8,206    6,181  -10,380   -9,772  -12,813  -11,797      800     -216

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    24.0     47.0     21.4     47.8     24.1     93.2     92.5      6.8      7.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      161)
      52       64       64       33       34      119      135
```

----

Updated October 25, 2013
Michelle MacDonald SHIMOTA, et vir, Petitioners, v. Bob WEGNER, et al.

No. 18-1524

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
ex4-15.htm





Exhibit 4.15


 



Summary of Agreement between Guilin Jun Tai Fu Construction and Development Co. Ltd. and Guilin City Yan Shan District Tuo Mu Township Wei Jia Du Village Committee to construct retaining wall for drainage ditch in the Guilin facility







Guilin Jun Tai Fu Construction and Development Co. Ltd. (“Guilin JTF”) entered into an agreement (“Agreement”) with the Guilin City Yan Shan District Tuo Mu Township Wei Jia Du Village Committee (“Village Committee”) for the construction of a retaining wall for drainage ditch at Guilin JTF’s Green Energy Smart Grid Plant, which is located within the Guilin Tie Shan Industrial Park.  Pursuant to the Agreement, the Village Committee shall be responsible for the supply of materials and construction of the retaining wall with drainage ditch.  The construction time is 66 days, commencing on November 16th, 2011 and concluding on January 20th, 2011.  The total contract price is RMB 1,099,560.  Guilin JTF shall pre pay the Village Committee RMB 100,000 upon signing of the Agreement.  Guilin JTF shall pay the Village Committee 70% of the contract price less RMB 100,000 upon completion of the foundation and body of the retaining wall.  Upon the completion, inspection, and acceptance of the constructed structure, Guilin JTF shall make payment to the Village Committee to bring the total amount paid to 95% of the contract price. Guilin JTF shall hold the remaining 5% as quality assurance payment for a period of one year. If no quality problems arise within one year of acceptance, Guilin JTF shall pay the remaining 5% of the contract price to the Village Committee.
Anthony J. LIVINGSTONE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5256

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied.