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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 76 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                        August 1, 2014.
    Resolved, That the resolution from the House of Representatives 
(H.J. Res. 76) entitled ``Joint resolution making continuing 
appropriations for the National Nuclear Security Administration for 
fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the following

                              AMENDMENTS:

            Strike all after the first word, and insert:

 
 

    the following sum is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury 
not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2014, and for other purposes, namely:

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Procurement, Defense-wide

    For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', 
$225,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015, which shall 
be for the Secretary of Defense to provide to the Government of Israel 
for the procurement of the Iron Dome defense system to counter short-
range rocket threats:  Provided, That such funds shall be transferred 
immediately only through an exchange of letters to address emergent 
operations in support of Operation Protective Edge, notwithstanding 
section 3.1.3.2.1 of the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome Procurement Agreement:  
Provided further, That nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to 
apply to previously appropriated funds for the procurement of Iron 
Dome:  Provided further, That such amount is designated by the Congress 
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
    This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Resolution, 2014''.

            Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill making an emergency 
        supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year ending September 
        30, 2014, to provide funding to Israel for the Iron Dome 
        defense system to counter short-range rocket threats.''.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 76

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENTS
```
SALMON EXPRESS INC.

                      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 Salmon Express Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
And  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  Report), I, Pete Smith,
Principal  Executive  Officer  and Principal  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 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.


/s/ Pete Smith
---------------------------------------
Pete Smith
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer

October 7, 2004

A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
Provided  to  Salmon  Express Inc., and will be retained by Salmon Express Inc.
And  furnished  to  the  Securities  and  Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Peggy A. CIANCHETTE, et al., Petitioners, v. Tucker J. CIANCHETTE, et al.

No. 19-412

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine denied.
----

Action brought on 5 August 2004 by Colgate-Palmolive Company against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

(Case T-322/04)

(2004/C 262/92)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 August 2004 by Colgate-Palmolive Company, established in New York (United States), represented by Enrique Armijo Chávarri and Antonio Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----
Henry POSADA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-499

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
#### Karl E. Wallach, Appellant, *v.*Monarch Life Insurance Company, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

August 7, 1969.

*370*Moses & Singer (Arnold A. Jaffe*and *Robert I. Edlits*of counsel), for appellant. *Casey, Lane & Mittendorf (William E. Kelly, Stuart D. Ludlum, Jr.,*and *Pamela B. Lane*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This major medical policy covered loss resulting from (1) sickness contracted or commencing while the policy was in force or (2) bodily injuries caused by an accident occurring while the policy was in force. It contained a clause limiting to $1,600 the maximum payable for any one continuous period of treatment of mental disease or deficiencies.

A “ sickness ”, of course, can have its origin in a weakness, defect or condition existing long before the issuance of the policy. A ‘ ‘ bodily injury ’ ’, however, must be caused by an accident, an objective event, occurring while the policy is in force.

In *Prince*v. *United States Life Ins. Co. in City of N. Y.*(42 Misc 2d 410, affd. 23 A D 2d 723, affd. 17 N Y 2d 742) it was held that psychiatric treatment resulting from a “bodily injury ’ ’ caused by an accident occurring while the policy was in force was not subject to the monetary limitation for treatment of mental disease or deficiencies but was a fully covered loss. Thus, the monetary limitation was deemed applicable to treatment of mental disease or deficiencies only when viewed as a mental disorder unconnected with bodily injury, that is, a “ sickness ”.

Here, even assuming that plaintiff can prove his theory that his son’s condition resulted from brain damage and brain injury at birth several years before the issuance of this policy, there could be no recovery on the ground of ‘ ‘ bodily injury ’ since the accident, under such assumed state of facts, did not occur while the policy was in force. Recovery could be had only by viewing his condition as a “ sickness ”. But, as a mental sickness, its treatment falls within the $1,600 monetary limitation and that is what defendant did pay.

The two-year incontestability clause merely serves to prevent such claim from being denied or reduced on the ground of preexistence of the condition, but it does not affect a limitation provision, otherwise applicable. Here the claim was not denied; and was reduced, not on the ground of pre-existence of the condition, but because of the limitation clause. Defendant did not contest the claim but paid it subject to the limitation provided *371for treatment of such condition. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

The orders should be affirmed, with $10 costs.

Concur — Gold, J. P., Hoestadter and Streit, JJ.

Orders affirmed, etc.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1154 

To amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the exemption for aggregation 

of emissions from oil and gas sources, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2013 

Mr. POLIS (for himself, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. HOLT, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. 

CAPUANO, Ms. CHU, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HONDA, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. KEATING, Mr. 

LANGEVIN, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mrs. 

LOWEY, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mr. MCDERMOTT, 

Ms. MENG, Mr. MORAN, Mr. NADLER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. PETERS of 

Michigan, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. POCAN, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. SLAUGHTER, 

Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. TONKO, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. FARR, Mr. 

VAN HOLLEN, and Ms. EDWARDS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the exemption 

for aggregation of emissions from oil and gas sources, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1154 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bringing Reductions 

3 to Energy’s Airborne Toxic Health Effects Act’’ or the 

4 ‘‘BREATHE Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXEMPTION FOR AGGREGATION OF 

6 EMISSIONS FROM OIL AND GAS SOURCES. 

7 Section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 7412(n)) is amended by striking paragraph (4). 

9 SEC. 3. HYDROGEN SULFIDE AS A HAZARDOUS AIR POL10 LUTANT. 

11 The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

12 Agency shall— 

13 (1) not later than 180 days after the date of 

14 enactment of this Act, issue a final rule adding hy15 drogen sulfide to the list of hazardous air pollutants 

16 under section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 

17 U.S.C. 7412(b)); and 

18 (2) not later than 365 days after a final rule 

19 under paragraph (1) is issued, revise the list under 

20 section 112(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(c)) to 

21 include categories and subcategories of major 

22 sources and area sources of hydrogen sulfide, includ23 ing oil and gas wells. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50275

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE GUADALUPE ESCARENO HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:09-CR-3374-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Jose Guadalupe Escareno Hernandez (Escareno Hernandez) pleaded guilty

to attempted unlawful reentry by an alien (count one) and to using an altered

permanent resident alien card to reenter the United States fraudulently (count

two). See 8 U.S.C. § 1326; 18 U.S.C. § 1546. The district court sentenced him

to a 30-month prison term on each count, to be served concurrently. The

sentences were within the guidelines range of 30 to 37 months of imprisonment.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 15, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-50275 Document: 00511382264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
No. 10-50275

Escareno Hernandez appeals, contending that the lack of a fast-track

disposition program in the Western District of Texas results in an unwarranted

disparity between his sentence and the sentences of those convicted in districts

having such programs and that the disparity makes his sentences unreasonable.

As he concedes, his argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v.

Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 562-63 (5th Cir. 2008), and he raises it only to

preserve it for further review. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-50275 Document: 00511382264 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-2397

_____________________________

GEORGE MCNALLY,

Appellant,

v.

DOVE INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Okaloosa County.

Jonathan V. Schlechter, Judge.

August 28, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges a final money judgment awarding 

damages on an outstanding judgment. After filing this appeal, 

Appellant notified the Court that pursuant to an Order of 

Discharge from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Northern District of Florida, the debt on the judgment appealed, 

as well as the underlying judgment, had been discharged. 

Appellee concedes that it is prohibited by the bankruptcy 

discharge from taking further action in seeking collection of the 

judgment or continuing litigation to that effect. While Appellee 

had recorded the judgment, making it a lien on real property under 

section 55.10(1), Florida Statutes, there is no real property that 
2

remains subject to the lien following the bankruptcy discharge. 

Appellee agrees that no further practical relief can be attained 

from this Court or the lower tribunal. 

We dismiss the appeal as moot. 

DISMISSED.

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

George McNally, pro se, Appellant.

Hugh B. Shafritz, Delray Beach, for Appellee.
Richard BAATZ, et al., Petitioners v. COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC

No. 19-502

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

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

San Antonio, Texas

May 10, 2021

No. 04-20-00486-CR

Jemadari Chinua WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B19-346

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State has filed a response to appellant's motion to compel service of the State's brief, 

stating the brief was mailed to appellant by regular United States mail on April 20, 2021. In 

addition, a copy of the brief was sent to appellant by Federal Express (Tracking No. 

807029006059) on May 10, 2021. We grant appellant's motion for extension of time to file a 

reply brief and order the brief filed by June 9, 2021.

It is so ORDERED on May 10, 2021.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2152

To suspend temporarily the duty on TEOF (triethyl orthoformate).

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1999

Mr. JENKINS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on TEOF (triethyl

orthoformate).

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:
2

•HR 2152 IH

‘‘ 9902.29.01 TEOF (triethyl

orthoformate),

used as raw material for custom

agricultural product) (CAS No.

000122–51–0)

(provided for in

subheading

2915.13.50) ....... Free Free No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7090

MAURICE BAILEY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (7:20-cv-00284-GEC-PMS)

Submitted: November 17, 2020 Decided: November 20, 2020

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Bailey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Bailey seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order directing Bailey to 

notify the court how he sought to proceed with his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory 

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Bailey seeks to appeal is neither a 

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
## **EXHIBIT 32.1**

## ** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS REQUIRED BY**

# **SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

# ** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscalperiod ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dana D. Messina, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

 

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/ Dana D. Messina                    |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                   |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive  Officer)         |

 

May 10, 2010

 

----
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Silver Star Energy Inc. - Exhibit 10.3







Exhibit 10.3


 LOAN AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is dated for reference
  this 31st day of December, 2003. 

 BETWEEN:

Silver Star Energy Inc., a body
  corporate duly incorporated Under the laws of the State of Nevada, and having
  an office at #800 11300 West Olympic Blvd Los Angeles, California 90064
 (Hereinafter called the “Company”)


 OF THE FIRST PART 

 AND:

Robert McIntosh, an individual with
  an office at #302 1505 West 2nd Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia,
  V6H 3Y4. 

 OF THE SECOND PART 


WHEREAS:



Robert McIntosh has advanced the Company loans totaling $445,000 US to meet the commitments of December 2003 for the Following:



For the North Franklin Prospect Agreement the following funds have been advanced as follows:


	2003	 	 	 
	Prospect Purchase:	$	85,000.00	 
	Land: Title & Lease	 	 	 
	Lease Administration	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Totals	$	85,000.00	 



For the Winter Pinchout South Sacramento Valley Exploration Program Agreement the following funds have been advanced as follows:


	2003	 	 
	Prospect Purchase:	$100,000.00	 
	Land: Title, Legal, Lease	$25,000.00	 
	Well Data	$10,000.00	 
	3-D Data	$175,000.00	 
	Seismic Reporting & Analysis	 	 
	Archer Management Fee	$10,000.00	 
	      Totals	$320,000.00	 
	 	 	 
	2003	 	 
	New Market Trends Inc.:	$40,000	 



Future media communication services to be provided to the Company. 











 It is agreed that the Company will make a best efforts attempt
  to repay the funds to Robert McIntosh on a timely basis. By advancing the funds
  to the Company Robert McIntosh makes no claims for interest, default or any
  restrictive covenants against the company. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed as of
  the day, month and year first above written. 

	   Silver Star Energy Inc.	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Per:	 /s/ David Naylor 	 
	 	Authorized Signature	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Robert McIntosh	 
	 	Robert McIntosh
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40540 Conference Calendar

I. STEPHAN BLOCH, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JOHN TOMBONE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:01-CV-213

-------------------- October 26, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * I. Stephan Bloch, federal prisoner # 66982-079, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his conviction and sentence, based on the determination that Bloch had not demonstrated that relief under28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate. Bloch argues that his dueprocess rights were violated by the district court’s failure to consider his claims on the merits and that his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was improperly dismissed as time-barred.No. 01-40540 -2- Bloch does not make any argument that the reasons for the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition were error, nor does he otherwise argue that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 relief was available to him because 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief was inadequate. By failing to brief any argument that the district court’s reasons for denying his petition were error, Bloch has waived the sole ground for appeal. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7013
In Re: LARRY DOTSON, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-6) Submitted: October 20, 2003 Decided: November 4, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Dotson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Larry Dotson has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with this court seeking to have this court direct the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and all associated motions. The district court disposed of Dotson’s action and the motions he filed by orders entered July 14, 2003 and September 22, 2003. Accordingly, although we grant Dotson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his motion to incorporate, and deny as moot his petition for mandamus relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Israel ARCE, Petitioner v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY

No. 18-9157

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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