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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5178 

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to investigate and remove 

aliens providing false information about drug-related grounds of inadmissibility. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 8, 2023 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to investigate 

and remove aliens providing false information about 

drug-related grounds of inadmissibility. 

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 ‘‘Substance and Posses5 sion Abuse Restrictions for Entrance Act of 2023’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SPARE Act of 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5178 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO INVESTIGATE AND REMOVE 

2 ALIENS PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION 

3 ABOUT DRUG-RELATED GROUNDS OF INAD4 MISSIBILITY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after re6 ceiving credible information that an alien knowingly pro7 vided false information on an application for admission to 

8 the United States related to whether the alien was inad9 missible under paragraph (1)(A)(iv) or paragraph 

10 (2)(A)(i)(II) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Na11 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(A)(iv), (2)(A)(i)(II)), 

12 the Secretary of Homeland Security shall— 

13 (1) investigate such information; and 

14 (2) if the Secretary determines that at the time 

15 of the alien’s admission the alien was so inadmis16 sible, initiate removal proceedings under section 239 

17 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

18 1229). 

19 (b) PERMANENT BAR TO REENTRY.—Notwith20 standing any other provision of law, an alien who is re21 moved pursuant to subsection (a)(2) may not seek admis22 sion to the United States at any time after such removal. 

23 (c) WAIVERS SUBJECT TO FOIA.—A waiver under 

24 subsection (d)(3)(A) or subsection (h) of section 212 of 

25 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

26 1182(d)(3)(A), (h)) of the ground of inadmissibility under 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5178 IH

1 paragraph (1)(A)(iv) or paragraph (2)(A)(i)(II) of section 

2 212(a) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(A)(iv), 

3 (2)(A)(i)(II)) granted by the Secretary of Homeland Secu4 rity for an alien seeking admission to the United States 

5 shall be subject to section 552 of title 5, United States 

6 Code (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Freedom of Informa7 tion Act’’). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29881-29882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11696]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request; State Election of Qualified Health Insurance 
for Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC)

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this 
notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before July 6, 2021 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular

[[Page 29882]]

information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submissions may be 
obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b4b495a5b6f697e7a686e6962357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="306062717044425551434542491e575f46">[email protected]</span></a>, calling 
(202) 927-5331, or viewing the entire information collection request at 
www.reginfo.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    Title: State Election of Qualified Health Insurance for Health 
Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC).
    OMB Control Number: 1545-1875.
    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved 
collection.
    Description: Revenue Procedure 2004-12 informs states how to elect 
a health program to be qualified health insurance for purposes of the 
health coverage tax credit (HCTC) under section 35 of the Internal 
Revenue Code. The collection of information is voluntary. However, if a 
state does not make an election, eligible residents of the state may be 
impeded in their efforts to claim the HCTC.
    Form: None.
    Affected Public: State governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 51.
    Frequency of Response: Once.
    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 51.
    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 26.

(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    Dated: May 28, 2021.
Spencer W. Clark,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-11696 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6522

David C. Poole Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
#### JAMES MANN et al. v. H. J. KENNEDY, Trading as C. H. Fowler & Co.

(Filed 5 October, 1927.)

Appeal by defendant from *Grcmmer, J.,*at May Term, 1927, of Pamlico.

Civil action by one mortgagor and the representatives of another to recover of the mortgagee the excess for which the mortgaged premises, when sold under foreclosure, brought over and above the mortgage debt.

*795Upon tbe facts found by bis Honor, by consent sitting as both judge and jury, judgment was entered for tbe plaintiffs. Defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*F. G. Brinson for plaintiffs.*

*Z. V. Bawls and Ward & Ward for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

Out of a confused record one fact at least seems clear, to wit, tbat no reversible error bas been made to appear. Tbe rights of tbe parties are dependent upon tbe facts, wbicb bave been found against tbe defendant.

No error.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Leslie White, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Planet Technologies,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15e) 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 annual report is being prepared;

(b) N/A

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in the 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 annual report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter 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 officers 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 registrant's board of
directors:

(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: 3/31/05                                          s/ Leslie White
                                                       ----------------------
                                                       Leslie White
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19064-19065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9211]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

The Royal Bank of Canada; Acquisition of Company Engaged in 
Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The organization listed in this notice has applied under Sec.  
225.23(a)(2) or (f) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(2) or 
(f)) for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to acquire or control voting securities or assets of 
a company engaged in a nonbanking activity that is closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, such activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of [[Page 19065]] Governors. Interested persons may 
express their views in writing on the question whether consummation of 
the proposal can ``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the 
public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in 
efficiency, that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue 
concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts 
of interests, or unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing 
on this question must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a 
written presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, 
identifying specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, 
summarizing the evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and 
indicating how the party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of 
the proposal.
    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
April 28, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (William L. Rutledge, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045:
    1. The Royal Bank of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; to expand 
the geographic scope of its subsidiary, RBC Dominion Securities 
Corporation, New York, New York (Securities Corp.), to operate on a 
worldwide basis. Securities Corp., engages in securities-related 
activities, including securities brokerage actvities, as well as 
limited securities underwriting and dealing. All the activities have 
been previously approved for this entity by order. See, e.g. The Royal 
Bank of Canada, 77 Federal Reserve Bulletin 272 (1991).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 10, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-9211 Filed 4-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

July 02, 2010

Mr. Donald S. Glywasky

Galveston County Legal Dept.

County Courthouse, 5th Floor 

722 Moody

Galveston, TX 77550

Mr. Thomas W. McQuage

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 16894

Galveston, TX 77552-6894

Mr. Richard Hugh Branson

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 1534

League City, TX 77574

RE:Case Number:  09-0236

Court of Appeals Number:  01-08-00371-CV&01-08-00372-CV

Trial Court Number:  3318

Style:THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

K.E.W.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  (Justice Lehrmann not sitting)

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 09-0236Page 2**
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the Quarterly Report of W. S. INDUSTRIES, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Fraser Campbell, President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  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 results of operations of the Company.  Date: January 14, 2011  By: /s/ Fraser Campbell  -------------------------------  Fraser Campbell Chief Financial Officer
PUBLIC VERSION

Exhibit D

Value and Quantities of the Chinese-Origin Injection Molds

As each injection mold that ZANINI purchases is a unique purchase designed and developed for use in 

producing a specific and unique part for its customers, simply reviewing the value and quality of each 

individual mold with a unique identification number does not provide a sufficient picture of the economic 

value and impact of these imports on ZANINI. Molds of these kind are not typically ordered in bulk 

based on their use and purpose. Thus, below we have provided the value and quantity of all injection

molds purchased for the years 2015 - 2017 in Table 1 as requested in Question 10, and have also included

the value range of the individual molds.

The numbers provided in Table 1 offer a more complete representation of the value and quantity of 

imported injection molds as they relate to ZANINI's business.

Table 1

[BCI, see BC version]

Year Value Quantity 

2017 [BCI, see BC version] [BCI, see BC version]

2016 [BCI, see BC version] [BCI, see BC version]

2015 [BCI, see BC version] [BCI, see BC version]

[BCI, see BC version]
Bonanza Oil & Gas, Inc. - Exhibit 10.16 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Bonanza Oil & Gas, Inc. 
3417 Mercer, Suite E

Houston, Texas 77027 


May 13, 2010 

Eric Dale 

         
Re:           Bonanza Oil
& Gas, Inc. (the “Company”) 

Gentlemen: 

          The
Company hereby acknowledges that Eric Dale (“Lender”) loaned the Company
$200,000 on August 28, 2008 as evidenced by the Note attached hereto as Exhibit
A. As of the date hereof the principal and interest under the Note that remains
unpaid is $169,060. 

          The
Company and the Lender hereby agree that the Note shall be amended and restated
to incorporate the following provision: 


  
    
      The Payee shall have the right on a weekly basis to convert
        $5,000 of the outstanding and unpaid principal amount of this Note and
        interest at the Fixed Conversion Price (a “Conversion”).
        In no event shall the Payee be entitled to convert any portion of this
        Note in excess of 4.9% of the outstanding shares of common stock of the
        Company. For purposes of the proviso to the immediately preceding sentence,
        beneficial ownership shall be determined in accordance with Section 13(d)
        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Regulations 13D-G
        thereunder. The “Fixed Conversion Price” shall mean $0.0025.
      

    

  



          The
parties further acknowledge that the Lender is not an affiliate of the Company
and the Lender represents that it is not an affiliate of the Company. As a
result, the shares of common stock issued upon conversion of the Note (the
“Conversion Shares”) will be eligible to resold under Rule 144 as the Conversion
Shares holding period will tack to the initial date of issuance of the Note.
Accordingly, the Company, upon conversion of the Note and receipt of the
standard representation letters from the Lender, will direct the transfer agent
to issue the Conversion Shares without the standard “33 Act” restrictive legend.
The Company shall reserve a sufficient number of shares of common stock for the
purpose of enabling the Company to issue the Conversion Shares. This letter
agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts. We hereby request that
you execute this letter agreement below acknowledging and agreeing to the terms
set forth herein.

Sincerely, 

Bonanza Oil & Gas, Inc. 


By: /s/ William
Wiseman 
      William
Wiseman 
      Chief Executive Officer


AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED: 

/s/ Eric Dale 
Eric Dale
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Van Hull, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered March 24, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree (four counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal the defendant contends that the evidence established that he suffered from a serious mental illness and therefore was not criminally responsible for shooting five people at New York Technical College on August 12, 1986. We disagree. While the psychiatric testimony presented at trial *551indicated that the defendant suffers from a schizophrenic disorder, the People’s expert was of the opinion that he nevertheless had substantial capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of his conduct, and knew that his conduct was wrong at the time of the shootings *(see,*Penal Law §§40.15, 25.00). Generally, where conflicting expert testimony is presented, the question of sanity is primarily for the jury *(see, People v Enchautegui,*156 AD2d 461; *People v Briecke,*143 AD2d 1025). A jury has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert and where, as here, there is an absence of a serious flaw in the testimony of the People’s expert, no basis exists for disturbing the jury’s finding *(see, People v Ludwigsen,*159 AD2d 591; *People v Enchautegui, supra; People v Briecke, supra; People v Markowitz,*133 AD2d 379).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

N.W.M. AND E.M., MINORS, THROUGH 

THEIR PARENTS AND NATURAL 

GUARDIANS, J.M., N.M., AND J.A.M.,

Respondents

v.

PATRICE LANGENBACH AND DEFENDER 

ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 67 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioners are:

a. Whether quasi-judicial immunity applies to a guardian ad litem is an issue 

of first impression and implicates a matter of public importance that requires 

prompt and definitive resolution by this Court.

b. This Court’s exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction is necessary because 

the Superior Court egregiously departed from accepted judicial practices 

when it concluded that Pennsylvania’s intermediate courts are without 

authority to pass on questions involving policy considerations.