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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 630 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow importation 

of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before the date 

the polar bear was determined to be a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2021 

Mr. YOUNG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 

allow importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport 

hunts in Canada before the date the polar bear was 

determined to be a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Polar Bear Conserva5 tion and Fairness Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 630 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR IMPORTATION OF POLAR BEAR TRO2 PHIES TAKEN IN SPORT HUNTS IN CANADA. 

3 Section 104(c)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protec4 tion Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1374(c)(5)(D)) is amended 

5 to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(D)(i) The Secretary of the Interior shall, ex7 peditiously after the expiration of the applicable 30- 

8 day period under subsection (d)(2), issue a permit 

9 for the importation of any polar bear part (other 

10 than an internal organ) from a polar bear taken in 

11 a sport hunt in Canada to any person— 

12 ‘‘(I) who submits, with the permit applica13 tion, proof that the polar bear was legally har14 vested by the person before February 18, 1997; 

15 or 

16 ‘‘(II) who has submitted, in support of a 

17 permit application submitted before May 15, 

18 2008, proof that the polar bear was legally har19 vested by the person before May 15, 2008, from 

20 a polar bear population from which a sport21 hunted trophy could be imported before that 

22 date in accordance with section 18.30(i) of title 

23 50, Code of Federal Regulations. 

24 ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall issue permits under 

25 clause (i)(I) without regard to subparagraphs (A) 

26 and (C)(ii) of this paragraph, subsection (d)(3), and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 630 IH

1 sections 101 and 102. Sections 101(a)(3)(B) and 

2 102(b)(3) shall not apply to the importation of any 

3 polar bear part authorized by a permit issued under 

4 clause (i)(I). This clause shall not apply to polar 

5 bear parts that were imported before June 12, 1997. 

6 ‘‘(iii) The Secretary shall issue permits under 

7 clause (i)(II) without regard to subparagraph (C)(ii) 

8 of this paragraph or subsection (d)(3). Sections 

9 101(a)(3)(B) and 102(b)(3) shall not apply to the 

10 importation of any polar bear part authorized by a 

11 permit issued under clause (i)(II). This clause shall 

12 not apply to polar bear parts that were imported be13 fore the date of enactment of the Polar Bear Con14 servation and Fairness Act.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

A. S. J., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D18-383 C. I., ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed November 21, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Susan St. John, Judge. Adrian S. Johnson, pro se. No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KELLY, SLEET, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
11-589-cv

Torres v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE

OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY

ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL

APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY

CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY

COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,

on the 19th day of December, two thousand eleven.

PRESENT:

PETER W. HALL,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

DENNY CHIN, 

Circuit Judges. 

__________________________________________

Wilfredo Torres,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v. 11-589-cv

Department of Homeland Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: WILFREDO TORRES, pro se, New York, New York.

FOR APPELLEES: AMY ANN BARCELO, Assistant United States Attorney, (Benjamin

H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for

Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of

New York, New York, New York.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York (Sullivan, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Wilfredo Torres, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment

granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying

facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We review de novo a district

court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

See Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of S. Afr., 300 F.3d 230, 235 (2d Cir. 2002). Dismissal

under Rule 12(b)(1) is proper “when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power

to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). 

We do not decide the government’s waiver argument and exercise our discretion to

consider Torres’s appeal on the merits. We affirm for substantially the same reasons as those

stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation. 

We have considered Torres’s additional arguments, including his arguments that the

district court improperly denied his request for appointment of counsel and that the magistrate

judge exhibited bias against him, and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

2
**EXHIBIT 31.1**PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATIONI, R. David Alexander, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Portrait Corporation of America, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’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 asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date:      April 27, 2006 By: /s/ R. David Alexander         R. David Alexander
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**P&FINDUSTRIES, INC.**

 

**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-Q of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Richard A. Horowitz, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, 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.

 

 
| /s/  Richard A. Horowitz    |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Richard A. Horowitz         |
| Principal Executive Officer |
|                        |
|                        |
| November 12, 2007           |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of BuckeyeGP Holdings L.P. (“BGH”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Keith E. St. Clair, Chief Financial Officer of MainLine Management LLC, the general partner ofBGH, hereby certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of BGH.

 

 
|                       |                                                |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                       | MAINLINE  MANAGEMENT LLC, as general partner of BGH |
|                       |                                                |
| Date:  March 16, 2009 | /s/ Keith E.  St.Clair                              |
|                       | Keith E.  St.Clair                                  |
| * *                   | *Chief  Financial Officer*                          |

 

----
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6439 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for life imprisonment 

for certain offenses involving Fentanyl, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2022 

Mr. BURCHETT (for himself, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. GUEST, and Mr. 

FITZPATRICK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, 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 to provide for life 

imprisonment for certain offenses involving Fentanyl, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Fentanyl Trafficker 

5 Elimination Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6439 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES IN2 VOLVING FENTANYL. 

3 (a) CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.—Section 

4 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 

5 841(b)(1)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (A), by repealing clause 

7 (vi); and 

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

9 ‘‘(F) In the case of a violation of sub10 section (a) of this section involving 400 grams 

11 or more of a mixture or substance containing a 

12 detectable amount of N-phenyl-N-[1–(2- 

13 phenylethyl)–4-piperidinyl] propanamide or 100 

14 grams or more of a mixture or substance con15 taining a detectable amount of any analogue of 

16 N-phenyl-N-[1–(2-phenylethyl)–4-piperidinyl] 

17 propanamide, such person shall be sentenced to 

18 imprisonment for life.’’. 

19 (b) CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IMPORT AND EXPORT

20 ACT.—Section 1010(b) of the Controlled Substances Im21 port and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)) is amended— 

22 (1) in paragraph (1), by repealing subpara23 graph (F); and 

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

25 ‘‘(8) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) 

26 involving 400 grams or more of a mixture or subVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:40 Jan 22, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6439.IH H6439

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6439 IH

1 stance containing a detectable amount of N-phenyl2 N-[1–(2-phenylethyl)–4-piperidinyl] propanamide or 

3 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance con4 taining a detectable amount of any analogue of N5 phenyl-N-[1–(2-phenylethyl)–4-piperidinyl] 

6 propanamide, such person shall be sentenced to im7 prisonment for life.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Dec . 17, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 9

- 1 1 5 4 9 N o n
- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 8

- 0 0 1 1 2

- C R

- 3

- R V

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

M A N U E L V A S Q U E Z

- O R T I Z , a

. k

. a

. A r n o l d o E s c a l a n t e , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e T J O F L A T , B A R K E T T a n d A N D E R S O N , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

P E R C U R I A M :

G w e n d o l y n S p i v e y , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r M a n u e l V a s q u e z - O r t i z i n t h i sd i r e c t c r i m i n a l a p p e a l h a s m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w f r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e

a p p e l l a n t , b e c a u s e , i n h e r o p i n i o n , t h e a p p e a l i s w i t h o u t m e r i t

. C o u n s e l h a s f i l e d a
b r i e f p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d

4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s

a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t

e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s

m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , a n d V a s q u e z - O r t i z ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e

a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Paul Franklin Cassell, Claimant-Appellant, v. 505 VICTOR STREET, EDEN, LEAKS-VILLE TOWNSHIP, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 307 Cherry Street, Eden, Leaksville Township, Rockingham County, North Carolina, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 753 Davis Street, Eden, Leaksville Township, Rockingham County, North Carolina, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 703 Osborne Street, Eden, Leaksville Township, Rockingham County, North Carolina, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 511 Victor Street, Eden, Leaksville Township, Rocking-ham County, North Carolina, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 182 South Beeson Road, Eden, Leaksville Township, Rocking-ham County, North Carolina, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 1.00 Acre located on South Beeson Road, Eden, Leaksville Township, Rockingham County, North Carolina, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 1 Acre More or Less located in Ridgeway Magisterial District, Henry County, Virginia, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 1.698 Acres located on Saturn Drive, Irisburg Magisterial District, Henry County, Virginia, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 4.89 Acres located in Ridge-way Magisterial District, Henry County, Virginia, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; two tracts containing 18.22 Acres and 14.65 Acres located in Ridgeway Magisterial District, Henry County, Virginia, with all appurtenances and improvements *145thereon; two tracts containing 102.54 Acres and .90 Acres located in Ridge-way Magisterial District, Henry County, Virginia, all known as 1051 Powell Road, with all appurtenances and improvements, Defendants.

No. 02-1978.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Paul Franklin Cassell, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Paul Franklin Cassell appeals the district court’s decree and judgment of forfeiture. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Cassell’s motion to supplement the record on appeal and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Cassell,*No. CA-00-419 (M.D.N.C. July 18, 2002). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Charlie Randall v. State.

No. 24555.

December 14, 1949.

*Edward L. Dunlap,*Victoria, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged with an aggravated assault, and upon his plea of guilt, he was assessed a fine of $500.00 and six months in jail.

He filed a motion for a new trial setting forth many matters as erroneous in such trial, some of which will not be herein discussed.

He does show that the date of this alleged offense was shown in the complaint as June 28, 1949, but it appears from the information that such date is set forth as July 28, 1949. It also appears that this trial was had on June 30, 1949, lacking two days of a month prior to the alleged date of the offense as shown in the information. Therefore, it would be an impossibility for the appellant to have been tried on June 30, 1949, for an offense committed 28 days thereafter, or on July 28, 1949. Such information also fails to allege that such offense was committed anterior to the date of the filing thereof. See Art. 414, subd. 6, C.C.P.; Cobb v. State, 139 Tex. Cr. R. 337, 139 S. W. (2d) 272; Hoot v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 316, 194 S. W. (2d) 97; Martini v. State, 151 Tex. Cr. R. 215, 205 S. W. (2d) 988.

A failure of the complaint and information to correspond *79may be considered in the absence of a bill of exception. See 4 Tex. Jur. p. 208, sec. 149.

Because of the failure in such correspondence, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6427 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 443
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6427

                          [Report No. 117-615]

   To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to modify the 
   boundary of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 2022

   Mr. Johnson of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

                           December 12, 2022

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
 [Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed 
                               in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on January 
                               19, 2022]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to modify the 
   boundary of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, 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 ``Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Boundary Modification Act''.

SEC. 2. RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

    Section 3(a)(1) of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act 
(Public Law 106-300; 114 Stat. 1055) is amended by striking ``map 
entitled `Red River National Wildlife Refuge--Selection Area', dated 
September 5, 2000'' and inserting ``map entitled `Red River National 
Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Boundary' and dated March 21, 2022''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 443

117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6427

                          [Report No. 117-615]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to modify the 
   boundary of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 12, 2022

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
```