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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4975 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to controlled substance 

analogues. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2014 

Mr. THORNBERRY (for himself and Mr. SMITH of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to 

controlled substance analogues. 

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 ‘‘Synthetic Abuse and 

5 Labeling of Toxic Substances Act of 2014’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SALTS Act’’. 


tjames@gpo.gov on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4975 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES. 

2 Section 203 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

3 U.S.C. 813) is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘A controlled’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A controlled’’; and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(b) DETERMINATION.—In determining whether a 

8 controlled substance analogue was intended for human 

9 consumption under subsection (a), the following factors 

10 may be considered, along with any other relevant factors: 

11 ‘‘(1) The marketing, advertising, and labeling 

12 of the substance. 

13 ‘‘(2) The known efficacy or usefulness of the 

14 substance for the marketed, advertised or labeled 

15 purpose. 

16 ‘‘(3) The difference between the price at which 

17 the substance is sold and the price at which the sub18 stance it is purported to be or advertised as is nor19 mally sold. 

20 ‘‘(4) The diversion of the substance from legiti21 mate channels and the clandestine importation, man22 ufacture, or distribution of the substance. 

23 ‘‘(5) Whether the defendant knew or should 

24 have known the substance was intended to be con25 sumed by injection, inhalation, ingestion, or any 

26 other immediate means. 


tjames@gpo.gov on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4975 IH

1 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—For purposes of this section, evi2 dence that a substance was not marketed, advertised, or 

3 labeled for human consumption, by itself, shall not be suf4 ficient to establish that the substance was not intended 

5 for human consumption.’’. 

Æ 


tjames@gpo.gov on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Notice Recipients

District/Off: 0971−3 User: dchambers Date Created: 7/25/2019

Case: 19−30088 Form ID: TRANSC Total: 20

Recipients submitted to the Claims Agent (Prime Clerk):

aty Matthew Goren Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153

STEPHEN KAROTKIN, ESQ. RAY C. SCHROCK, P.C. JESSICA LIOU, ESQ. THEODORE E.

TSEKERIDES, ESQ. 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153

KEVIN J. ORSINI, ESQ. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019

PETER J. BENVENUTTI, ESQ. Keller & Benvenutti LLP 650 California Street, #1900 San

Francisco, CA 94108

GREGORY BRAY, ESQ. Milbank LLP 2029 Century Park East 33rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067

ANDREW LEBLANC, ESQ. Milbank LLP 1850 K Street NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006

DENNIS F. DUNNE, ESQ. Milbank LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001

MATTHEW A. FELDMAN, ESQ. BENJAMIN P MCCALLEN, ESQ. Willkie Farr & Gallagher

LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019

BRUCE BENNETT, ESQ. JAMES O. JOHNSTON, ESQ. Jones Day 555 South Flower

Street Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071

MICHAEL S. STAMER, ESQ. DAVID H. BOTTER, ESQ. ABID QURESHI, ESQ. Akin Gump

Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP One Bryant Park New York, NY 10036

ASHLEY VINSON CRAWFORD, ESQ. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 580 California Street

Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94104

RANDY MICHELSON, ESQ. Michelson Law Group 100 Pine Street Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA

94111

ALAN W. KORNBERG, ESQ. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 1285 Avenue of the

Americas New York, NY 10019

G. LARRY ENGEL, ESQ. Engel Law, PC 12116 Horseshoe Lane Nevada City, CA 95959

ANDREW I. SILFEN, ESQ. Arent Fox LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas 42nd Floor New York,

NY 10019

MICHAEL LAUTER, ESQ. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Four Embarcadero Center 17th

Floor San Francisco, CA 94111

AMY CATON, ESQ. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New

York, NY 10036

ROBERT A. JULIAN, ESQ. CECILY A. DUMAS, ESQ. Baker & Hostetler LLP 11601 Wilshire

Boulevard Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025

DARIO DE GHETALDI, ESQ. Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi & Riddle LLP 700 El Camino

Real Millbrae, CA 94030

MATTHEW L. HINKER, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036

TOTAL: 20

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3188-3 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 07:54:00 Page 1

of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**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 on Form 10-Qof New England Realty Associates Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold Brown, theTreasurer and a Director of the Partnership’s General Partner of thePartnership, and Ronald Brown, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedeach hereby certifies, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

|   |   | /s/ HAROLD BROWN                                                                                                                    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Harold Brown  Principal Financial Officer  (Treasurer and Director of  the Partnership’s General Partner,  NewReal, Inc.) |

 

August 7, 2009

 

This certificationaccompanies each Report pursuant to SS906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002and shall not, except to the extent required by Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Company for purposes of SS18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by SS 906 has been provided to the Company and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
No. 17,949.

#### Charles S. Parker *v.*John M. Henry.

(302 P. [2d] 947)

Decided October 15, 1956.

Rehearing denied November 13, 1956.

Messrs. Wormwood, O’Dell & Wolvington, for plaintiff in error.

*280Messrs. Grant,' Shafroth & Toll, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed without written opinion..
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph Flynn v. Theodore Roosevelt and Others.

Writ dismissed, with costs. No opinion.
#### A. B. MORRIS v. BOGUE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and L. B. WEST.

(Filed 28 September, 1927.)

1. Evidence — Pleadings—Amendments—Admissions.

In a civil action to recover for services rendered wjiere an amendment to tbe complaint bas been allowed and filed by tbe plaintiff, the allegations of tbe original complaint when contradictory to tbe plaintiff’s position upon the trial are competent evidence of admissions when relevant and having that effect.

2. Same — Attorney and Client — Principal and Agent.

Where the original complaint has been amended its allegations are competent as admissions of plaintiff, when falling within the rule, though the pleading has been signed only by the plaintiff’s attorney and not signed or verified by him, it being within the scope of the authorized acts of the attorneys and a part of the court records in the case.

*280Appeal by Bogue Development Corporation from *Cranmer, J.,*and a jury, at June Term, 1927, of Cartebet.

New trial.

*Q. R. Wheatley and J. F. Duncan for plaintiff.*

*E. H. Gorham and Cow per, Whitaker & Allen for defendant.*

ClabKsoN, J.

Tbis is a civil action brought by plaintiff against defendant to recover $1,000. Tbe amended complaint alleges “being tbe brokerage due tbe plaintiff for bis services, time and skill.”

For tbe purpose of impeacbment, tbe defendant offered in evidence tbe original, or first, complaint filed in tbe action. Tbis was objected to by plaintiff, and sustained by tbe court below. In tbis we tbink there was error.

In *Norcum v. Savage,*140 N. C., 472, it was decided: Where defendant bad been permitted to file an amended answer, tbe original answer containing admissions was admissible. *Adams v. Utley,*87 N. C., 356; *Guy v. Manuel,*89 N. C., 83; *Cummings v. Hoffman,*113 N. C., 267; *Gossler v. Wood,*120 N. C., 69; *Willis v. Tel. Co.,*150 N. C., 318; *White v. Hines,*182 N. C., 275; *Weston v. Typewriter Co.,*183 N. C., p. 1.

In *Guy v. Manuel,*89 N. C., at p. 84, quoting from *Adams v. Utley, supra,*it is said: “It was held that tbe evidence was competent, and that Tbe admissions of a party are always evidence against him, and tbe fact that they are contained in tbe pleadings filed in tbe cause does not affect its competency.” But tbe defendant’s 'counsel insist that that case is distinguishable from tbis, because there tbe answers were verified by tbe defendant, and in tbis, they are simply signed by counsel without verification. It is a distinction without a practical difference. For tbe admissions of attorneys in tbe conduct of an action are always admissible in evidence against their clients, especially when tbe admissions are of record.”

In *Ledford v. Power Co., ante,*at p. 102, it is said: “The pleading was competent, although in another case — a declaration of tbe party. 22 C. J., sec. 374(3); *Bloxham v. Timber Corp.,*172 N. C., 37; *Alsworth v. Richmond Cedar Works,*172 N. C., p. 17; *Pope v. Allis,*115 U. S., p. 353.”

For tbe reasons given, there must be a

New trial.
#### Cornelia Joslyn, Appellant, v. Ezra H. Graves, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs on the opinion of the referee.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09** 
**- 1952** 

MONICA SERWAAH ,
Petitioner ,

v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : June 15, 2010 Decided: June 2 5 , 2010

Before SHEDD and DAVIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition d ismiss ed in part and d eni ed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

Fatai A. Suleman, AMITY, KUM & SULEMAN, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ethan B. Kanter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey L. Menkin, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpub lished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Monica Serwaah, a native and citizen of Ghana, seeks
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision
denying relief from removal. We have reviewed the
administrative record and find that Serwaah’s procedural due
process claim, her challenge to the denial of voluntary
departure, and her claim that the time period calculation for
the relief sought was miscalculated were not properly exhausted
before the Board, and thus are not subject to review. See 8

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006). Next, we have consider ed Serwaah’s
challenge to the agency finding that she failed to qualify for

cancellation of removal and find her claims t o be without merit.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B) (2006)

.
Accordi ngly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials befo re the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

PETIT ION DISMISSE D IN PART AND DENI ED IN PART
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>

               INTERLINK COMPUTER SCIENCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE (1)
                      (in thousands, except per share data)

<CAPTION>
                                                                     Three months ended                   Nine  months ended
                                                              -------------------------------      -------------------------------
                                                              March 31, 1997   March 31, 1996      March 31, 1997   March 31, 1996
                                                              --------------   --------------      --------------   --------------
                                                                        (unaudited)                           (unaudited)
<S>                                                               <C>              <C>                 <C>               <C>  
Primary and fully diluted:
     Weighted average shares:
         Common......................................             7,177            2,445               6,219             2,445
         Preferred...................................                              1,230
     Common equivalent shares from stock options
         and warrants................................             1,154              661               1,129              -
     Common and common equivalent shares pursuant
         to Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83.........               -                680                 -                 680
                                                                 ------           ------              ------            ------

Shares used in per share calculation.................             8,331            5,016               7,348             3,125
                                                                 ======           ======              ======          ========

Net income (loss)....................................            $1,332             $384              $2,674          $(8,023)
                                                                 ======           ======              ======          ========

Net income (loss) per share..........................            $ 0.16           $ 0.08              $ 0.36          $ (2.57)
                                                                 ======           ======              ======          ========

<FN>

(1) There is no  difference  between  primary  and fully  diluted net income per
    share for all periods presented.
</FN>
</TABLE>
                                       29
1 The Honorable Mary Ann Cohen, Chief Judge, United States Tax Court. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3405

___________ Richard Lowell Rosenquist; Joan R. * Rosenquist, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Tax Court. * Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 5, 1999 Filed: April 5, 1999

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Richard Lowell Rosenquist and Joan R. Rosenquist, husband and wife, appeal from the tax court’s 1 dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their petition contesting the Commissioner’s deficiency determination. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ submissions, we conclude dismissal was proper for the reasons the Tax Cou rt stated and that an extended discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

Thegovernment requests that we assess sanctions against appellants for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protestor arguments. Because the arguments appellants advance for reversal are clearly lacking in merit and frivolous, we grant the government’s motionfor sanctions in the amount of $1,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1912, Fed. R. App. P. 38, UnitedStates v. Gerads , 999 F.2d 1255, 1256-57 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1193 (1994). A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6774
<ALLOWANCES>                                        63
<INVENTORY>                                       8298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 16402
<PP&E>                                           15411
<DEPRECIATION>                                   12321
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   22342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            12979
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             4348
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         16344
<OTHER-SE>                                       16869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     22342
<SALES>                                          11120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 11032
<CGS>                                             8684
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    10595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    86
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    437
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                437
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
#### Whiting G. Press v. Ridgway Refrigerator Manufacturing Company.

*Practice—Failure to File*Declaration.

This court reverses a judgment by default against the defendant, no declaration having been filed within the proper time.

[Opinion filed October 23, 1890.]

In error to the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard Prendergast, Judge, presiding.

Mr. William Law, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

Gary, J.

The plaintiff in error, defendant below, was summoned more than ten days before the October term, 1888, of the County Court. Ho declaration was filed until during the Hovember term. At the February term, 1889, the plaintiff in error not having appeared in the suit, judgment by default was entered against him.

This was error. Ho declaration having been filed ten days before the Hovember term, the right to pursue the defendant in that' action was gone, unless the defendant should waive the *270objection. Sec. 17, Practice Act; Pratt v. Grimes, 35 Ill. 164; Moody v. Thomas, 79 Ill. 274.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
#### Julia E. Blackman, Respondent, v. Eliza Wheeler, Appellant.

Default taken in this court on the fifteenth day of September. Opened without costs to either party.
<PAGE>

                EXHIBIT 11.1 - COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
                                                     Three Months Ended        Six Months Ended  
                                                        October 31,               October 31,    
                                                    --------------------      ------------------ 
                                                     1996         1995         1996        1995  
                                                    -------      -------      -------     ------ 
<S>                                                 <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>    
Primary:
   Earnings:
      Net income (loss)                             $  (456)     $   308      $(1,083)    $   71 

   Shares:
      Weighted average shares outstanding             5,036        5,036        5,036      5,038 

   Per share amounts:
      Net income (loss)                             $  (.09)     $   .04      $  (.22)    $  .01 
                                                    -------      -------      -------     ------ 
                                                    -------      -------      -------     ------ 

Fully diluted (A):
   Earnings:
      Net income (loss)                             $  (456)     $   308      $(1,083)    $   71 

   Shares:
      Weighted average shares outstanding             5,036        5,036        5,036      5,038 
      Net shares issuable on exercise of 
       certain stock options                             25           --           67          4 
                                                    -------      -------      -------     ------ 
      Weighted average shares outstanding,
          as adjusted                                 5,061        5,036        5,103      5,042 

   Per share amounts:
      Net income (loss)                             $  (.09)     $   .04      $  (.21)    $  .01 
                                                    -------      -------      -------     ------ 
                                                    -------      -------      -------     ------ 
</TABLE>

Note A:  This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K 
         item 601(b)(11) although it is contrary to paragraph 40 of APB Opinion 
         No. 15 because it produces an anti-dilutive result.
#### William H. McDonald, Appellant, v. The Supreme Sitting of the Order of the Iron Hall.

(See stipulation.)*

*

See *Moshier*v. *The Supreme Sitting of the Order of the Iron*Hall, (reported *ante,*page 394,)-[Rep.
#### In the Matter of the Application of David Lee Summerville, Sr., as Administrator, etc., of George A. Summerville, Deceased, Respondent, for an Order Directing Charles Vander Roest, an Attorney, Appellant, to Pay over Certain Moneys.

Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, without costs, on the authority of *Murray*v. *Waring Hat Manufacturing Co.*(143 App.Div. 514).

Jenks, P. J., Hirsehberg, Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ., concurred.