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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2375 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2375

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on a certain polymer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2000

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on a certain polymer.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended in heading 9902.39.07 
by striking ``On or before 12/31/2001'' and inserting ``On or before 
12/31/2004''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 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>
```
#### Erwin S. Plumb, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of William J. Young, a Bankrupt, Appellant, v. Lyell Avenue Lumber Company, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred, except Spring and Robson, JJ., who dissented.
Specimen Certificate of Registrant's Common Stock



 Exhibit 4.01 
 

 
  
 Exhibit 4.01

 EOA 
 ELECTRONIC ARTS TM 
 THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE IN SOUTH ST. PAUL, MN 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 CUSIP 285512 10 9 
 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 
 THIS CERTIFICATES 
 is the owner of 
 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK ($.01 PAR VALUE) OF 
 ELECTRONIC ARTS INC. 
 transferrable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney on surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the
Transfer Agent and Registrar. 
 WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly
authorized officers. 
 Dated 
 Secretary 
 ELECTRONIC ARTS INC. 
 INCORPORATED 
 SEPTEMBER 19, 1991 
 DELAWARE 
 Chairman 
 Countersigned and Registered: 
 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 
 By: 
 Transfer Agent and Registrar 
 Authorized Officer 







 

 
  
 EA 
 ELECTRONIC ARTSTM 
 The statement of the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions granted to or imposed upon the respective classes and series of shares authorized to be issued and upon the holders thereof, may be obtained upon request and
without charge from the Corporation at its principal executive offices. 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the
inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
 TEN COM – as tenants in common 
 TEN ENT – as tenants by the entireties 
 JT TEN – as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common 
 UNIF TRF MIN ACT- Custodian (until age ) 
 Cust 
 under Uniform Transfers 
 Minor 
 to
Minors Act 
 State 
 Additional abbreviations may also be used through not in the above list. 
 For value received,
hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
 PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE 
 Shares of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 
 Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

 Dated, 
 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. 
 Signature Guaranteed
* 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. 97-41567 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WILLIAM CLYDE LOWE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:97-CR-67-1

- - - - - - - - - - September 24, 1998 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A jury convicted William Clyde Lowe of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm by a felon. In this direct criminal appeal, Lowe argues that the district court should have suppressed evidence seized during a search of Lowe’s home because the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to supply probable cause for the search; that the evidence is insufficient to show that he possessed either the marijuana or the firearms; and that the district court clearly erred by enhancing his sentence on the ground that heNo. 97-41567 -2- used or possessed the firearms in connection with another offense. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we find no error in the district court’s denial of Lowe’s motion to suppress evidence. United States v. Inocencio , 40 F.3d 716, 721 (5th Cir. 1994). The evidence is sufficient to support Lowe’s convictions. See United States v. Ybarra , 70 F.3d 362, 365 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Pineda-Ortuno , 952 F.2d 98, 102 (5th Cir. 1992). The enhancement of Lowe’s sentence is not clearly

erroneous. United States v. Ramos , 71 F.3d 1150, 1157-58 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Condren , 18 F.3d 1190, 1194-1200 (5th Cir. 1994). AFFIRMED.
## j f{E:Tr.c+.%.m-mt,-\2-E> 7 -1- lots' 

### ^\M\S-Q\ ima /jto
LpJtcap- ^a&dLe^£s-GLuL-m -Jo 7^^—cuqava^J\jjl.miLfjLcJj jy/p-liT"••or' rhk



## IItfth DlSJfiC^rfo^rj- n-pSmYth Cn^+y f~f~7pL<iS en -ti\< Url-h T.s fnco^jofef-t'•'. "/Tx 7J))s-fr>crfr- Clerk Q'f Y—qj^ eg 5

7- 

### \r^pa^*<^~ doQumiA-f~ ~fh++- tY\iL$-f- joe tbJZJj^A±_A La Ih(\f\]<5 -f-or y®u/"j~~l/*.< - fttA 

### Akj^^c iL_J3y_St4. ^m/^_/lit/it |£8V& ML 072()15 ApP£Al&~ -^»Wca 'sfe-e«
Exhibit 32

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 report of Beverly National Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), we, Donat A. Fournier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael O. Gilles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Donat A. Fournier  
|    |  | Donat A. Fournier      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|    | 
|    |  | November 13, 2008      
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Michael O. Gilles  
|    |  | Michael O. Gilles      
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    | 
|    |  | November 13, 2008      

The foregoing certificate is furnished solely for purposes of complying with Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and for no other purpose whatsoever. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any of the Companys previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate the Companys future filings, including this Report on Form 10-Q, in whole or in part, this Certificate shall not be incorporated by reference into any such filings.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 95-40473 Summary Calendar

_____________________

SEAN L. PRICE, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,

versus SUZETTE DAYSON SHELMIRE, ET AL., Defendants, SUZETTE DAYSON SHELMIRE, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas USDA No. 6:94-CV-573

_________________________________________________________________ January 17, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Sean L. Price appea ls the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration, which the court construed as a motion for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). He argues that any applicable statutes of limitations pertaining to his claim that the defendants fraudulently obtained property from his mother and aunt in violation of their civil rights should be tolled. We have-2-

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for essentially the reasons given by the district court.
A F F I R M E D.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00086-CV

In the Interest of A.R.F., a child §

§

§

§

From the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323-96013J-12)

July 25, 2013

Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Sue Walker
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2179

To provide for the term of office of the first person appointed to the position

of Under Secretary for Nuclear Security of the Department of Energy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 2, 2000

Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. MURKOWSKI, and Mr. KYL)

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To provide for the term of office of the first person appointed

to the position of Under Secretary for Nuclear Security

of the Department of Energy.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERM OF OFFICE OF PERSON FIRST AP4 POINTED AS UNDER SECRETARY FOR NU5 CLEAR SECURITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

6 ENERGY.

7 (a) LENGTH OF TERM.—The term of office as Under

8 Secretary for Nuclear Security of the Department of En-
2

•S 2179 IS

1 ergy of the first person appointed to that position shall

2 be three years.

3 (b) EXCLUSIVE REASONS FOR REMOVAL.—The ex4 clusive reasons for removal from office as Under Secretary

5 for Nuclear Security of the person described in subsection

6 (a) shall be inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance

7 in office.

8 (c) POSITION DESCRIBED.—The position of Under

9 Secretary for Nuclear Security of the Department of En10 ergy referred to in this section is the position established

11 by subsection (c) of section 202 of the Department of En12 ergy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7132), as added by sec13 tion 3202 of the National Nuclear Security Administration

14 Act (title XXXII of Public Law 106–65; 113 Stat. 954)).

Æ
#### Gertrude Mowers, Respondent, v. The Town of Stratford, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 17

- 00051

- CR

B EN M EADWAY

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Criminal

Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1252112)

November 29 , 2018

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to show that the

total assessed court costs are $335.10, not the $435.10 assessed in the original

judgment . It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



                      Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-04351, 333-64681 and 333-64683) of NOVA 
Corporation of our report dated September 25, 1998, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of PMT Services, Inc., which appears in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of NOVA Corporation. We also consent to the application of such
report to the Financial Statement Schedule for the two years ended July 31, 1997
listed under Item 14(a) of this Form 10-K when such schedule is read in
conjunction with the financial statements referred to in our report. The audits
referred to in such report also included this schedule.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Nashville, Tennessee
March 30, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from 9/30/97
     Balance Sheets and  Consolidated  Statements of Operations and is qualified
     in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000742685
<NAME>                        The Chalone Wine Group Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           122
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,356
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                   30,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              37,121
<PP&E>                                        15,874
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,874
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       41,897
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   81,944
<SALES>                                         9,007
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                           5,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,838
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,340
<INCOME-TAX>                                      536
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      804
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.10
        


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 17

- 00334

- CV

Louis DORFMAN , K.I. Holdings, Ltd., Sam Myers, JMD Resources, Inc., Billy Cogdell Bowden, Barbara Stanfield, Stacey Dorman Kivowitz, Julia Dorfman, Mark Dorfman, Samuel

Grant Dorfman, Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Sam Y. Dorfman, Appellants (Cross

- Appellees)

v.

VICEROY PETROLEUM, L P , 1776 Energy Partners, LLC and Shirley Wiatrek, Appellees (Cross

- Appellants)

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas Trial Court No. 15

- 08

- 00185

- CVK Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is REINSTATED on the docket of the court, appellants’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. The costs of this appeal are taxed against appellants TMH Land Services, Inc., J.W. Cooper, Jr., Jonathan W. Floyd, Dor W. Brown, III, Michael D. Nirider, Gary an d Theresa Poenisch Family Limited Partnership, and Judith Myers.

SIGNED September 5, 2018.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7524

VINCENT BRADY ALLEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

L. L. SHOE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-98-456-3-MU)

Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 2, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Brady Allen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

October 14, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on October 19, 1999. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Brady Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Allen v. Shoe, No. CA-98-456-3-

MU (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 1999).* 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. We deny Allen’s motion to appoint counsel.

DISMISSED
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2215

To clarify the treatment of nonprofit entities as noncommercial educational

or public broadcast stations under the Communications Act of 1934.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 8, 2000

Mr. HUTCHINSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To clarify the treatment of nonprofit entities as noncommercial educational or public broadcast stations under the

Communications Act of 1934.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Noncommercial Broad5 casting Eligibility Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress makes the following findings:

8 (1) The Federal Communications Commission

9 has attempted to provide guidelines for educational
2

•S 2215 IS

1 religious programming for noncommercial edu2 cational television stations.

3 (2) Any action defining acceptable religious

4 educational speech violates the provisions of the first

5 amendment to the Constitution of the United States

6 regarding freedom of speech, free exercise of reli7 gion, and the establishment of religion.

8 (3) Broadcasters should be free to engage in

9 any type of religious speech without fear of adverse

10 governmental action.

11 (4) The Federal Communications Commission

12 should not engage in the regulation of religious

13 speech on noncommercial educational television sta14 tions.

15 (5) A nonprofit corporation should be eligible to

16 operate a noncommercial educational television or

17 radio station if a majority of the programming of

18 the station is substantially related to any tax exempt

19 purpose under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Rev20 enue Code of 1986.

21 SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF NONPROFIT EN22 TITIES AS NONCOMMERCIAL EDUCATION OR

23 PUBLIC BROADCAST STATIONS.

24 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal Communications

25 Commission shall treat a nonprofit private foundation,
3

•S 2215 IS

1 corporation, or association as a noncommercial edu2 cational broadcast station or public broadcast station for

3 purposes of section 397(6) of the Communications Act of

4 1934 (47 U.S.C. 397(6)) if the majority of the radio or

5 television programming broadcast, or proposed to be

6 broadcast, by such foundation, corporation, or association

7 is substantially related to a tax-exempt purpose under sec8 tion 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

9 (b) DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL RELATION.—

10 In determining under subsection (a) whether the radio or

11 television programming broadcast, or proposed to be

12 broadcast, by a foundation, corporation, or association is

13 substantially related to a tax-exempt purpose of the foun14 dation, corporation, or association, the Federal Commu15 nications Commission shall use the standards used for

16 such determination by the Internal Revenue Service under

17 subsections (a) and (c) of section 513 of the Internal Rev18 enue Code of 1986.

Æ
#### Fay I. Maxon, Respondent, v. A. Burstein, Appellant.

(No. 2.)

Order affirmed, without costs.

All concurred.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0002023 14-MAY-2014 08:00 AM
# po k 

### k Parraguirre Hardesty 347-48, 213 P.3d 476, 489-90 (2009). Tirado's prison term of 16-72 months falls within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, NRS 205.226(2), and the sentence imposed is not so unreasonably disproportionate to the gravity of the offense as to shock the conscience, see CuIverson v. State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220, 221-22 (1979); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion). Further, it is within the district court's discretion to impose consecutive sentences. See NRS 176.035(1). Notably, at the sentencing hearing, Tirado asked the district court to impose a consecutive sentence pursuant to negotiations; according to defense counsel, the plea deal also included Tirado's stipulation to the revocation of his probation in district court case no. CR12-1137 and the State's dismissal of an additional pending case. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing, and we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 2

2 The fast track statement fails to comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) because the footnotes are not "in the same size and typeface as the body of the brief," NRAP 32(a)(5). Counsel for Tirado is cautioned that the failure to comply with the briefing requirements in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2

### cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Hardy Law Group Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 

### 3