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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5305 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers preserved by vinegar 

or acetic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers preserved 

by vinegar or acetic acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN CAPERS. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Capers, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic 

acid, in containers holding 

3.4 kg or less (provided for in 

subheading 2001.90.20) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5305 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
STATE v. NOUAIM

No. COA05-591

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Wake (03CRS80277).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5227 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5227

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3,5-Triazine, 2,4,6-tris(2-
                            propenyloxyl)-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2008

  Mr. Bonner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3,5-Triazine, 2,4,6-tris(2-
                            propenyloxyl)-.

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

SECTION 1. 1,3,5-TRIAZINE, 2,4,6-TRIS(2-PROPENYLOXYL)-.

    (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:

``      9902.01.00        1,3,5-Triazine,    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          2,4,6-tris(2-                                                      31/2011.......
                          propenyloxyl)-
                          (CAS No. 101-37-
                          1) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          2933.69.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2016249EN.01002001.xml

| 16.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 249/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 249/20

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1662

of 12 September 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Sicilia (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Sicilia’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Sicilia’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Sicilia’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Sicilia’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Sicilia’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 September 2016.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 186, 25.5.2016, p. 15.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
STATE v. Timothy BLACKWELL.

No. 490PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 6, 2005.

Patricia A. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*529Marilyn G. Ozer, Chapel Hill, Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Timothy Earl Blackwell.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of September 2005 by Attorney General to Stay Issuance of Mandate:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of September 2005."
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350)
Accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
MarketAxess Holdings Inc. for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2010
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ RICHARD M. MCVEYRichard M. McVeyChief Executive Officer  This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, nor shall it be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Dianne CATER and Lynne O'Connor v. Catherine BARKER (now McKeon).

No. 546A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 617 S.E.2d 113 (2005), affirming an order granting summary judgment to plaintiffs entered 18 March 2004 by Judge Zoro J. Guice, Jr. in Superior Court, Macon County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 February 2006 without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(d) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Ronald Stephen Patterson, P.A., by Ronald Stephen Patterson, Robbinsville, for plaintiff-appellees.

Creighton W. Sossomon, Highlands, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. DAVIS.

No. COA05-442.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Certification Date February 6, 2006.

Appeal from Rowan (03CRS58491).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Marc L. Reisch, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Visant Holding Corp. and VisantCorporation;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of each registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Each registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for each such registrant and we have:

 

a)              Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to such registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during thisperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated theeffectiveness of such registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in thisreport any change in such registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter hat hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, suchregistrants’ internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Each registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of such registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect such registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in such registrants’ internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date: May 16, 2006 | /s/ Marc L. Reisch         |
|--------------------|----------------------------|
|               | Marc L. Reisch             |
| * *           | *President  and*           |
| * *           | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ZHONGPIN INC. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Feng Wang, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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) 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.





Date:     May 9, 2011
By:
/s/ Feng WangFeng WangChief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Ex. 32.2
NATIONWIDE MUT. INS. CO. v. GASKILL.

No. COA05-538.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from New Hanover (03CVS1299)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, 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) 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci

|
|
|
|

Jerry Pascucci
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
President and Director

Date:May 15, 2008

---
##### 



EXHIBIT (31.1)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a/15d OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. (registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    (omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238);(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: November  8, 2006
    /s/ Elmer DotyElmer DotyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Ignacy Bolanowski, Respondent, v Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 560]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defen*341dant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), dated November 26, 2002, which denied its motion for leave to amend its answer to assert two additional affirmative defenses.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the proposed amended answer, in the form annexed to the defendant’s moving papers, is deemed served upon the plaintiff upon service of a copy of this decision and order.

The Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer asserting two additional affirmative defenses. Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]) where, as here, the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and will not prejudice or surprise the opposing party *(see Consolidated Payroll Servs. v Berk,*18 AD3d 415 [2005]; *Santori v Met Life,*11 AD3d 597 [2004]; *Ortega v Bisogno & Meyerson,*2 AD3d 607 [2003]; *Ogilvie v McDonald’s Corp.,*294 AD2d 550 [2002]). Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Krausman and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Erika JACOBS, Petitioner v. ATLANTA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 19-5525

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES LEONARD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 35 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of July, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.2


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan, the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, the 1997 Non-U.S. Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1997 Director
Option Plan of International Manufacturing Services, Inc. of our report dated
April 25, 1996 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of International Manufacturing Services, Inc. included in its Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 1998.

ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
July 29, 1998
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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 June 2, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________________________

No. 02-41318

_____________________________________
VAUGHN STEPHEN AYRES, JR. Plaintiff - Appellee

v. CITY OF BEAUMONT; MICHAEL B. BERTRAND Defendants - Appellants

__________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Texas

(1:00-CV-560)

__________________________________________________

Before DAVIS, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * There was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have found in favor of Vaughn Stephen Ayres, Jr. (“Ayres”)on any of his claims. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s judgment in favor of Ayres and render judgment in favor of the City of Beaumont (“City”) and Michael Bertrand (“Bertrand”).-2-

Ayres failed to make out a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Bertrand and the City for violating his constitutional right to a name-clearing hearing following his suspension from the BeaumontFire Department. To make out a claim for denial of a nameclearing hearing under § 1983, an employee must prove:

that he was discharged, that defamatory charges were made against him in connection with the discharge, that the charges were false, that no meaningful public hearing was conducted pre-discharge, that the charges were made public, that he requested a hearing in which to clear his name, and that request was denied. Rosenstein v. City of Dallas , 876 F.2d 392, 395-96 (5 th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted. Ayres was not discharged from his position with the Fire Department; therefore, there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have found in favor of Ayres on this claim. “A city performing a governmental function is immune from suit on the torts of its officers, agent and employees” except as waived by the Texas Tort Claims Act. Dallas v. Moreau , 718 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1986, writ ref’d). Ayres sued Bertrand for defamation in his official capacity, so both Bertrand and the City enjoy immunity. Brandon V. Hall , 469 U.S. 464 (1985) (A suit against an individual in his official capacity is a suit against the city.). Ayres had no cause of action for breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Ayres claimed breach of contract, but did-3-

not follow the union’s grievance procedures. An employee may be allowed to sue an employer directly for breach of contract, but only in cases where “the employee can prove that the union as bargaining agent breached its duty of fair representation in its handling of the employee’s grievance.” Vaca v. Sipes , 386 U.S. 171, 186 (1967). Ayres did not prove that the union breached its duty of fair representation with regard to his contract claims, so he is foreclosed from suing Bertrand and the City.

REVERSED and RENDERED.
Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II (the"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the periodending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Director ofCitigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.Citigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief Financial Officer andDirector

Date: August 15,2005

----