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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5412 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5412

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-
             dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propenyl]morpholine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2008

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-
             dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propenyl]morpholine.

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

SECTION 1. 4-[3-(4-CHLOROPHENYL)-3-(3,4-DIMETHOXYPHENYL)-1-OXO-2-
              PROPENYL]MORPHOLINE.

    (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        4-[3-(4-           Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          chlorophenyl)-3-                                                   31/2011.......
                          (3,4-
                          dimethoxyphenyl)-
                          1-oxo-2-
                          propenyl]morpholi
                          ne (CAS No.
                          110488-70-5)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2934.99.12)......

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to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 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

- 242 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 3

- 2050

___________ IN RE: NICHOLAS QUEEN ,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States D istrict Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:98

- cv - 02074 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 16, 2013 Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and SHWARTZ , Circuit Judges

(Opin ion filed: June 13, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Nicholas Queen has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking that this Court enter an order directing the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsyl vania to rule on Queen’s pending motion for relief from judgment filed on March 11, 2013. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005)

. “A p etitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must have no other adequate2

means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996 ). A district court ha s discretion in managing the cases on its docket

. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d
8 10, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). When a matter is discretionary, it cannot typically be said that a litigant’s right is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35

- 36 (1980) . Nonetheless, we have held that a writ of mandamus may be warranted where undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Madden, 102 F.3d
at 79

. Queen has not demons trated undue delay in this case. Queen’s motion was filed on March 11, 2013 , and Queen’s petition for a writ of mandamus was filed on April 16, 2013. Queen’s motion has been ripe for adjudication for a very short period of time, one that clearly does not rise to the level of undue delay and does not warrant our intervention

. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the petition will be denied.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5582 

To authorize appropriations for the National Historical Publications and 

Records Commission through fiscal year 2014. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2008 

Mr. CLAY (for himself and Mr. LARSON of Connecticut) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To authorize appropriations for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission through fiscal year 

2014. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

4 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2014 FOR NATIONAL 

5 HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS 

6 COMMISSION. 

7 Section 2504(f)(1) of title 44, United States Code, 

8 is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (R), by striking ‘‘and’’; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5582 IH

1 (2) in subparagraph (S), by striking the period 

2 and inserting a semicolon; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end of the following new 

4 subparagraph: 

5 ‘‘(T) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010, 

6 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
STATE v. REID

No. COA04-389

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed October 19, 2004

Certification Date November 8, 2004

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. SMITH.

No. COA05-233.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
STATE v. SULLIVAN.

No. COA05-532.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from Durham (02CRS49147, 02CRS49149, 02CRS49150, 03CRS1782).

Case without published opinion. No error.
EXHIBIT 32

 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Geoffrey Alison, is the Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer of Castle & Morgan Holdings, Inc. (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company
of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
30, 2005 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

  a.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
        78o(d)) and

  b.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.



       /S/ Geoffrey Alison
       ---------------------
       Geoffrey Alison, Chief Executive Officer
       and Principal Financial Officer

       Date:  November 10, 2005


       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 Exchange Commission or its staff upon
       request.
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 Annual Report
of TS&B Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report),the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2.    The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

| |  | TS&B Holdings, Inc.BY: /s/ James E. Jenkins
James E. Jenkins, Presidentand Chief Executive OfficerOctober 12, 2004
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00109-CR

Chelsea Podowski, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY,

NO. C-1-CR-14-205047,

THE HONORABLE NANCY WRIGHT HOHENGARTEN, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief was originally due April 16, 2015. After three motions requesting

an extension of time to file the brief were granted by this Court, the brief was due July 17, 2015. 

Appellant has now filed a fourth motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief.

Appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time to file the brief is granted. 

Appellant’s counsel, James Gill, is ordered to tender a brief in this cause no later than

August 17, 2015. No further extensions will be granted. Failure to file the brief by that date will

result in counsel being called before this Court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt

for violating this order, and the appeal being abated and remanded to the trial court for a hearing

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8. See Tex. R. App. Proc. 38.8(b)(2), (3).
It is so ordered on this the 23rd day of July, 2015.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Do Not Publish

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2407

ALLEN J. CUBBAGE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Successor by Merger, Wachovia Bank, 

National Association (“Wells Fargo”),

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, 

District Judge. (5:11-cv-00046-MFU)

Submitted: September 28, 2012 Decided: November 5, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., BROWNSTONE, P.A., Winter Park, Florida, 

for Appellant. Mary Catherine Zinsner, S. Mohsin Reza, TROUTMAN 

SANDERS, LLP, McLean, Virginia; Michael E. Lacy, Nicholas R. 

Klaiber, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Allen J. Cubbage appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss his First Amended 

Complaint in his civil action for the reasons stated on the 

record in open court on November 22, 2011. On appeal Cubbage 

raises two issues: (1) whether the district court erred by 

dismissing his defamation claim; and (2) whether the district 

court should have afforded him an opportunity to amend his First 

Amended Complaint before striking it from the docket. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm.

Regarding the defamation issue, we find the claim 

lacks merit for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Cubbage v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 5:11-cv-00046-MFU (W.D. Va. 

Nov. 23, 2011). Regarding Cubbage’s second issue, that the 

district court should not have dismissed his First Amended 

Complaint when an amendment may have cured the alleged defects 

therein, we note that Cubbage failed to file a proper motion 

seeking to amend his complaint. See Cozzarelli v. Inspire 

Pharms. Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 630-31 (4th Cir. 2008) (observing 

that we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion 

by declining to grant a motion to amend that was never properly 

filed). Thus, this claim also lacks merit. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
H. R. 5489 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6892 Main 

Street in Gloucester, Virginia, as the ‘‘Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CONGRESSWOMAN JO ANN S. DAVIS POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 6892 Main Street in Gloucester, Virginia, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# Supreme Court of Kentucky

20 1 8

- SC

- 000 290

- DG

SEAN M. MAGUIRE APPELLANT

ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. CASE NO. 2015

- CA

- 000379

- MR

HOPKINS CIRCUIT COURT NO. 05

- CI

- 00835

JAMES WILLIAM CROOK APPELLEE

ORDER AFFIRMING

The vote of t he six members of this Court participating in the determination of this appeal being equally divided, pursuant to SCR 1.020, the opinion of the Court of Appeals hereby stands affirmed.
Keller, Lambert , and Wright, JJ., would affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Minton, C.J., Hughes , and VanMeter, JJ., would reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals on other grounds

. Nickell , J., not sitting.

ENTERED: August 20 , 20 20

.

_______________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE MINTON
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5451 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5451

 To reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2008

  Ms. Bordallo (for herself, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Saxton, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. 
  Faleomavaega, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Farr, Mrs. Capps, 
Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Allen, Mr. Fortuno, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, 
Mr. Pallone, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) introduced the following bill; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 
2008''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 318 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 
1464) is amended by striking ``sec. 318.'' And all that follows through 
subsection (a) and inserting the following:
    ``Sec. 318. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary, to remain available until expended--
            ``(1) for grants under sections 306, 306a, and 309--
                    ``(A) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                    ``(B) $82,500,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
                    ``(C) $90,750,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
            ``(2) for grants under section 315--
                    ``(A) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                    ``(B) $19,800,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
                    ``(C) $21,780,000 for fiscal year 2011.''.

SEC. 3. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT FUND.

    Section 308(b)(2)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 
U.S.C. 1456a(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``1997, 1998, and 1999'' 
and inserting ``2009, 2010, and 2011''.

SEC. 4. COASTAL ZONE ENHANCEMENT GRANTS.

    Section 309(f) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 
U.S.C. 1456b(f)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``1991'' and inserting ``2009''; and
            (2) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$11,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned officer of Empire Resources, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report), as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or filed for any purpose whatsoever.



|Date: | April 2, 2007 |  | By: | /s/ Sandra Kahn         | 
|----- | ------------- |  | --- | ----------------------- | 
|      |               |  |     | Sandra Kahn,            | 
|      |               |  |     | Chief Financial Officer | 

---
STATE v. WALKER.

No. COA05-1100.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Davidson, (01CR6744).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                 NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

         Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), provides that if any part of a registration statement at the
time such part becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact
or an omission to state a material fact required to be stated therein or
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a
security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at
the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may
sue, among others, every accountant who has consented to be named as having
prepared or certified any part of the registration statement, or as having
prepared or certified any report or valuation which is used in connection with
the registration statement, with respect to the statement in such registration
statement, report or valuation which purports to have been prepared or certified
by the accountant.

         This Annual Report on Form 10-K is incorporated by reference into
Registration Statement File Nos. 333-34121, 333-35533 and 333-70317 on Form S-8
(collectively, the "Registration Statements") of Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Kos"). On March 6, 2002, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors decided
to no longer engage Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") as Kos' independent
accountants. See Kos' Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 12, 2002 for more
information. After reasonable efforts, Kos has been unable to obtain Andersen's
written consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration
Statements of its audit reports with respect to Kos' financial statements as of
and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000.

         Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits
Kos to file this Form 10-K without a written consent from Andersen. However, as
a result, with respect to transactions in Kos securities pursuant to the
Registration Statements that occur subsequent to the date this Annual Report on
Form 10-K is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Andersen will
not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue
statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by
Andersen or any omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein.
Accordingly, you would be unable to assert a claim against Andersen under
Section 11(a) of the Securities Act because it has not consented to the
incorporation by reference of its previously issued reports into the
Registration Statements.
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR v. Weekley HOMES.

No. 271P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 6, 2005.

Thomas A. Farr, Phillip J. Strach, Bernhard Mueller, Cary, Robert E. Rader, Jr., Dallas, TX, for Weekley Homes.

J. Michael Carpenter, for National Asso. Home Bldrs. et al.

J. Nicholas Ellis, Rocky Mount, Julie W. Hampton, Raleigh, for NC Assoc. of Defense Attorneys.

Phillip M. VanHoy, Charlotte, for NC Citizens for Business, et al.

Richard M. Lewis, Raleigh, for Capital Associated Ind., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of June 2005 by Respondent to Amend Motion to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of June 2005."